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

[dkap]

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 :)

[dkap]

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 musician friend who took a long charter flight
once with only a few other folk on the plane...
turns out Wayne Shorter was one of them ..

He sat next to Wayne & discussed music the whole flight...
I can't remember the exact words but Wayne told him;

But it was something like this:

It doesn't matter at all what notes you play when the music moves from dominant to tonic..
That it's only about tension/resolve & specific scales really don't have anything to do with that ...

[rockinrob]

....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.


I didn't read through this entire thread yet but I wanted to pipe in here- maybe this will help. I've said this often- for me it's not about jazz theory but about jazz vocabulary. I'm very against the scale/chord approach for this reason. What I mean is no two ii-V-Is are alike, not in different tunes, not in the same tune, not even from chorus to chorus on the same tune. Each time you hit a chord or sequence it will be different from the previous time, even on the same tune- what the other guys are playing might be different, but also the line that you're coming off of will be different.

For me the interesting thing about harmony is how it can seem to change just by altering what's on top of it- take a chord like Cmin. Play it a couple times and you'll naturally put it in a context in your head (whether you're aware of it or not), most likely as a dorian sound or an aeolian sound. Now play a single note, like a B natural, pause and then play that Cmin chord again. That Cmin doesn't sound the same as it did a second ago, even though it's the same exact notes.

See, it's way more complicated than chord/scale. And while simplifying things is good (as in the Tag/Benson thing), the word "simplifing" really isn't the best description, as you're really making things more complicated. You just need to have the ears and vocabulary to do something with it.

My point is this is where your personal vocabulary comes into play- that's the "holy grail" of harmony, your own sense of it. And it's always changing. There's not one be-all-end-all to every situation, it's all about how you hear it and react to it at that moment. Part of the fun (and terror) is the fact that you don't know what voicing the piano player is going to play, or what note the bass player is going to land on, so you never know exactly what your line is going to sound like till it's played. It's trying to think too much about chord/scale relationships and taking yourself out of the moment that holds a lot of guys back, IMO.



I TOTALLY disagree. I know so many guys who wouldn't impress you incredibly over a backing track that are the best people to play with. Backing tracks don't mean shit to me.

Jamie


I can't play over backing tracks at all. It's the opposite of everything I'm good at and everything I enjoy about playing. And it's been my experience that guys that are good at them aren't good at playing with real people. Just like those guys that sound rock solid playing by themselves at the guitar shop but start playing along with them and they're lost.


Have a musician friend who took a long charter flight
once with only a few other folk on the plane...
turns out Wayne Shorter was one of them ..

He sat next to Wayne & discussed music the whole flight...
I can't remember the exact words but Wayne told him;

But it was something like this:

It doesn't matter at all what notes you play when the music moves from dominant to tonic..
That it's only about tension/resolve & specific scales really don't have anything to do with that ...

That's one thing that gets me when I read harmonic analysis of Wayne's solos- they'll say, "he's using this scale over this chord". But of course on the next chorus he's using a completely different scale in the same spot. He's not thinking about chord/scale at all, it's just about this sound over that sound. It may seem like the same thing, but it's not. As much of what he plays depends on the particualr voicing Herbie (or whoever) plays at the time as it does on the chord's actual function.

[gtrchris]

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.

AGREED!! I haven't seen many players who could swing at the break neck tempos Tal played at, (well maybe J Smith and J Raney), but not many. Also his harmonic palette was so evolved...what a musician! Monster is an understatement.

Farlow like Raney liked to extend phrases over the bar line in solos creating rhythmic displacements - their sophisticated rhythmic ideas could be misinterpreted as being out of time.....not so.

There's an old J. Aebersold record/book featuring J. Raney and his music. You can see some of these rhythmic ideas written out in the arrangements.

[dkap]

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!
What about lydian on the I chord? :D

[Lucidology]

What about lydian on the I chord? :D

Or melodic minor half step up from each chord .... :p
Ending the turn around with a Lydian #5 scale ...

(though this is actually done from time to time, I'm just teasing here ..:-)

[dkap]

Or melodic minor half step up from each chord .... :p
Ending with the turn around with a Lydian #5 scale ...

(though this is actually done from time to time, I'm just teasing here ..:-)
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/8403/630513313101lzzzzzzzoh0.gif

[Lucidology]

Originally Posted by dkaplowitz http://www.thegearpage.net/board/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=2843903#post2843903)
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/8403/630513313101lzzzzzzzoh0.gif


Dude Kaplowitz..

Damn how do you do it... that's like my favorite movie of all time...
When I saw this flick at a young age.. I so wanted to be that guy ...:)
I immediately bought the soundtrack (just love those soulful sounds ..)

Oh & I own this movie... usually share it with a female before a potentially intimate moment ..
Ya know.. the part when William Hurt is all ecstatic from tripping with DNA, & his wife is freaking out about it.
My favorite moment is when she shakingly looks upward stating that he "just made it with God"..

Works everytime ... :YinYang

[LR1400]

Have a musician friend who took a long charter flight
once with only a few other folk on the plane...
turns out Wayne Shorter was one of them ..

He sat next to Wayne & discussed music the whole flight...
I can't remember the exact words but Wayne told him;

But it was something like this:

It doesn't matter at all what notes you play when the music moves from dominant to tonic..
That it's only about tension/resolve & specific scales really don't have anything to do with that ...


Well if you can't get the picture from him then who can you get it from.

If Wayne in fact said that I am not surprised. Didn't Herbie say it as well? And Benson hears/follows that exact aspect as well, not explaining it through theory.

Cool. I can quit trying to remember all these damn scales since those three have virtually said/do the same thing. Yeah!

[Tag]

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

Hey...I ALWAYS think along these lines, its the only one there is. No matter HOW you learn it, it always comes down to you are in a tonic area, or a dominant area.

[Tag]

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.....


This is right, and why arpeggios and melodic lines are far more important than the actual notes. They accentuate the notes that need to stand out.


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.


Exactly

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?

Yep. Again, the arps are guidlines that keep the lines sounding tonic or dominant. they guide you into playing tastefully, and help outline the harmonic function of the time. (Tonic or dominant) Of course that 4th is the strongest dominant note. If you ever hear a dominant chord, and are not sure what to play...hit the 4th of the key and hang on it! benson is a total master of making changes by accentuating that note, and MAKES dominant areas and creates movement with it even over a vamp with no dom. area.

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.


Exactly!

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

feel free.

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.




Exactly!



I TOTALLY disagree. I know so many guys who wouldn't impress you incredibly over a backing track that are the best people to play with. Backing tracks don't mean shit to me.

Jamie

Then they simply are not good soloists, which is a HUGE part of jazz, and I would question if they are truly great jazz players.

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 ?

Yep. EXACTLY what all of the jazz players do, even if they do not realize they are doing it. You learn ONE line, and it will fit ANY of the chords in that family, and it sounds a bit different over each one, but still fits PERFECTLY.

Have a musician friend who took a long charter flight
once with only a few other folk on the plane...
turns out Wayne Shorter was one of them ..

He sat next to Wayne & discussed music the whole flight...
I can't remember the exact words but Wayne told him;

But it was something like this:

It doesn't matter at all what notes you play when the music moves from dominant to tonic..
That it's only about tension/resolve & specific scales really don't have anything to do with that ...


Thats the same exact appoach.



See, it's way more complicated than chord/scale. And while simplifying things is good (as in the Tag/Benson thing), the word "simplifing" really isn't the best description, as you're really making things more complicated.



I can't play over backing tracks at all. It's the opposite of everything I'm good at and everything I enjoy about playing. And it's been my experience that guys that are good at them aren't good at playing with real people. Just like those guys that sound rock solid playing by themselves at the guitar shop but start playing along with them and they're lost.




That's one thing that gets me when I read harmonic analysis of Wayne's solos- they'll say, "he's using this scale over this chord". But of course on the next chorus he's using a completely different scale in the same spot. He's not thinking about chord/scale at all, it's just about this sound over that sound. It may seem like the same thing, but it's not. As much of what he plays depends on the particualr voicing Herbie (or whoever) plays at the time as it does on the chord's actual function.


No. it is REALLY simplifying it, not making it mnore complicated. You are GREATLY reducing things, and losing NOTHING.

If you cant play over a baking track of a song, you sure as heck are not going to be able to do it live.

You need a large vocabulary of lines, then you mix it up. In the Dominant area, you also add in your whole tone sounds, diminished sounds, and altered sounds. Its ALL the same thing.

Or melodic minor half step up from each chord .... :p
Ending the turn around with a Lydian #5 scale ...

(though this is actually done from time to time, I'm just teasing here ..:-)


Those are dominant sounds that are used all the time. My entireoriginal post was speaking diatonically only. Like I said above, you then start adding in the few other dom sounds, and you have most covered. Then the fun REALLY begins by adding in alternate changes. Once you have it down, you can then play Dom to tonic ANYWHERE you please, and thats where the REAL hip sounds come from. Benson is the master at that, and why he sounds so much better to me than many fusion players. Over a static DOM 7 chord for instance, Sco and Aber will play the scales related to THAT chord many times. (for instance, over and A7 vamp, they will play A wholetone, A 1/2 whole dim, Bb and E melodic minor, and things like that. Benson will also play that, but when he goes out, it will usually be B Melodic minor, F melodic minor, E 1/2 whole dim, and E whoeltone. In other words, he is playing II-V- I INTO that A7, instead of ON TOP of that A7. FAR more melodic, and creates much more movement. he goes WAY past that though, with E7-G7-Bb7-Db7 B7-Emin Its endless.

[rockinrob]

No. it is REALLY simplifying it, not making it mnore complicated. You are GREATLY reducing things, and losing NOTHING.


I disagree- you're loosing a lot of subtley.

If you cant play over a baking track of a song, you sure as heck are not going to be able to do it live.



Well, I agree with this in a black and white way. But when I play with a group I don't play "over" them, I play with them. You play over a backing track, not with one. You can respond to it, but it can't respond to you. It's a big difference. The only way I can play well to a backing track is if I sort of turn off my ears. Someone can be good at both, but they're really two very different skills.

You need a large vocabulary of lines, then you mix it up. In the Dominant area, you also add in your whole tone sounds, diminished sounds, and altered sounds. Its ALL the same thing.


Again, it's not the same thing. If the accompaniest is treating a dom7 chord as a b9 and you're thinking +5 it will clash. They're different sounds. Can they be grouped under one context? Sure. Are they the same? No.

Anyway, don't get me wrong, I agree that you can reduce everything to these two basic ideas- tonic and dominant, or tension and resolution. But to me this isn't an alternate approach, it's just more of the same. You still need to be able to hear the different sounds within these two categories.

In that sense I think it's also better to think about later in your learning rather than earlier. I think it's a mistake to tell players this before they have the different sounds in their ears. Otherwise I agree with you.

[Tag]

Unless you're in Lydian.

Jamie

Nope...If its a I chord its Tonic. Just raise the 4th degree of I major. (I dont even think of that as anything other than another color to add to most any maj7 chord anyway.) If its a IV chord, its the same as II dorian. Dominant.

[Tag]

[QUOTE]I disagree- you're loosing a lot of subtley.


None. give me one example.




Well, I agree with this in a black and white way. But when I play with a group I don't play "over" them, I play with them. You play over a backing track, not with one. You can respond to it, but it can't respond to you. It's a big difference. The only way I can play well to a backing track is if I sort of turn off my ears. Someone can be good at both, but they're really two very different skills.

Name me ONE great soloist who can not play GREAT over a backing track. Take this board alone. Have ANYONE post a clip of them sounding GREAT soloing live over a tune, and then struggling with the same one on a backing track. (Unless they do it intentionally)

Again, it's not the same thing. If the accompaniest is treating a dom7 chord as a b9 and you're thinking +5 it will clash. They're different sounds. Can they be grouped under one context? Sure. Are they the same? No.

Umm... a sharp 5 and b9 go together PERFECTLY. I have a feeling you have not transcribed a lot of jazz. A whole tone scale can be played PERFECTLY over a diminshed chord some times, and vice versa. You can play a perfect 5th over a min7b5 chord and it will sound PERFECT. You can play a melodic minor scale (which has a natural 7) over a min 7 chord,(flat7) and its done ALL the time in jazz. There is SPACE between things. Notes do NOT have to line up perfectly. That is the entire thing. why scales mislead you. It makes you think the notes have to line up with the chords. they DONT. It is a STARTING point. How do you think it works when the rhythm player is playing A-7/D7/Gmaj7, and the soloist plays C-7/F7/E-7#5 one time through??? the next he plays Eb-7/Ab7/E-??the next he plays F#-7b5/B7/B-7???? It ALL works perfectly. benson makes thos subs ALL the time. look at them, they are all just dominant to tonic, and very few of the notes line up, but they sound PERFECT.

Anyway, don't get me wrong, I agree that you can reduce everything to these two basic ideas- tonic and dominant, or tension and resolution. But to me this isn't an alternate approach, it's just more of the same. You still need to be able to hear the different sounds within these two categories.

Not really, they are all really the same sound, just mixing the notes differently. No matter how you mix them, they WORK and you will sound TASTEFUL for the most part. You will not be hitting any "bad" or "wrong" notes. Its why you have to learn LINES and not scales, because lines accentuate the notes that need to stand out. Scales do NOT do that.

In that sense I think it's also better to think about later in your learning rather than earlier. I think it's a mistake to tell players this before they have the different sounds in their ears. Otherwise I agree with you


Well, I KNEW all the scales inside and out, and could not play jazz at ALL. I had to FOREGT about it, and unlearn what I learned. Then i started relying on melodic lines, and within MONTHS I was playing some pretty decent jazz solos. I should find my first one on "misty" and post it. very basic, but you can hear all the changes, and NO scales. Only later did I start to use the scales I knew to help me out a bit, and I STILL cant run them up and down like I used to. i just NEVER use them. You never hear scales like that in jazz.


You can learn any way you want though, but it will get you to the same place. Tonic and dominant.

[Tag]

It was a joke.

Personally, I think this whole thing is like saying 'You're either breathing in or you're breathing out'...

Jamie


Sorry. :o

[rockinrob]

None. give me one example.


Dmin7 vs Dmin11.



Name me ONE great soloist who can not play GREAT over a backing track. Take this board alone. Have ANYONE post a clip of them sounding GREAT soloing live over a tune, and then struggling with the same one on a backing track. (Unless they do it intentionally)


I don't know what to tell you. The things I look for in a good solo largely have to do with interacting with the group, interacting with the audience, etc. You can't interact with a backing track. You can play off it, but it won't follow you when you head somewhere, and that gets frustrating. Backing tracks are good for playing licks out of your bag- showing your chops. I've found players like that don't play well in a group (with a few rare exceptions). When I hear clips from players on this board over backing tracks some of them sound good, but none of them great. I can't play great over a backing- everything sounds "canned". It's a different skill.



Umm... a sharp 5 and b9 go together PERFECTLY. I have a feeling you have not transcribed a lot of jazz. A whole tone scale can be played PERFECTLY over a diminshed chord some times, and vice versa. You can play a perfect 5th over a min7b5 chord and it will sound PERFECT. You can play a melodic minor scale (which has a natural 7) over a min 7 chord,(flat7) and its done ALL the time in jazz. There is SPACE between things. Notes do NOT have to line up perfectly. That is the entire thing. why scales mislead you. It makes you think the notes have to line up with the chords. they DONT. It is a STARTING point. How do you think it works when the rhythm player is playing A-7/D7/Gmaj7, and the soloist plays C-7/F7/E-7#5 one time through??? the next he plays Eb-7/Ab7/E-??the next he plays F#-7b5/B7/B-7???? It ALL works perfectly. benson makes thos subs ALL the time. look at them, they are all just dominant to tonic, and very few of the notes line up, but they sound PERFECT.


Of course, you can play anything if you time it right. That's not what we're talking about here. If you wrote a tune with a whole tone line over a V7 chord would you write a diminished chord in for the harmony? NO!! Would the two different sounds resolve? Probably. Are they the same function? Maybe, probably not. Are they different sounds? YES!!



Not really, they are all really the same sound, just mixing the notes differently. No matter how you mix them, they WORK and you will sound TASTEFUL for the most part. You will not be hitting any "bad" or "wrong" notes. Its why you have to learn LINES and not scales, because lines accentuate the notes that need to stand out. Scales do NOT do that.


I agree with you, lines are what are important. I've never been a fan of the scale approach, I'm a fan of the chord tone approach. If you play off the chord tones you'll naturally "accentuate the notes that need to stand out". You'll also get the different sounds into your ear.

My issue is telling younger players there are only two sounds. There's not, there's many more than that. It's kind of like saying, "just play a C major scale over a ii-V-I in C." That's reducing everything to one sound, which you could do if you wanted- you could say, "just play off the sound of this key". So instead you say, "treat the ii7 and the V7 the same." Will it work? Sure. Are they the same? No! You're losing a lot of subtilty there. That's where the music is, IMO. It's in the details. Why even bother if there are only two sounds?

Beyond that, lot of young players can't hear the difference between a V7b9 and a V7+, for instance. When you take a scale approach it's very easy to still not hear it, as you're just running a scale. If you blaze over a scale in a playing context it doesn't hurt if it's the wrong one, as the sound of that scale is in your ear and that's all you're hearing. I used to host a jam, I've seen it a million times- guys playing "the melodic minor a 1/2 step up" anythime something sounds a little different to them. If you play a #5 on it's own over a basic triad and you didn't mean it, it will hurt- you'll feel it. And you'll remember it.



Well, I KNEW all the scales inside and out, and could not play jazz at ALL. I had to FOREGT about it, and unlearn what I learned. Then i started relying on melodic lines, and within MONTHS I was playing some pretty decent jazz solos. I should find my first one on "misty" and post it. very basic, but you can hear all the changes, and NO scales. Only later did I start to use the scales I knew to help me out a bit, and I STILL cant run them up and down like I used to. i just NEVER use them. You never hear scales like that in jazz.


You can learn any way you want though, but it will get you to the same place. Tonic and dominant.

That was your hang up. It sounds like you learned the scales and thought of them as "rules" and not as "guides". As in the quote earlier that I highlighted in red, the scales mislead you. By thinking tonic/dominant it has freed you from thinking of those scales as rules.

As you said (in blue above) you don't run scales anymore. I've never been an advocate of a scale approach. When I listen to the players I like they focus on the chord tones, with a scale run here or there. The chord tones won't mislead you. IMO, the scale approach is not the classic jazz approach, and neither is the tonic/dominant approach. But in the end, it doesn't matter, as you need to move past whatever means you use and play something. That much we can agree on for sure...

:BEER

[Tag]

Dmin7 vs Dmin11.




I don't know what to tell you. The things I look for in a good solo largely have to do with interacting with the group, interacting with the audience, etc. You can't interact with a backing track. You can play off it, but it won't follow you when you head somewhere, and that gets frustrating. Backing tracks are good for playing licks out of your bag- showing your chops. I've found players like that don't play well in a group (with a few rare exceptions). When I hear clips from players on this board over backing tracks some of them sound good, but none of them great. I can't play great over a backing- everything sounds "canned". It's a different skill.




Of course, you can play anything if you time it right. That's not what we're talking about here. If you wrote a tune with a whole tone line over a V7 chord would you write a diminished chord in for the harmony? NO!! Would the two different sounds resolve? Probably. Are they the same function? Maybe, probably not. Are they different sounds? YES!!




I agree with you, lines are what are important. I've never been a fan of the scale approach, I'm a fan of the chord tone approach. If you play off the chord tones you'll naturally "accentuate the notes that need to stand out". You'll also get the different sounds into your ear.

My issue is telling younger players there are only two sounds. There's not, there's many more than that. It's kind of like saying, "just play a C major scale over a ii-V-I in C." That's reducing everything to one sound, which you could do if you wanted- you could say, "just play off the sound of this key". So instead you say, "treat the ii7 and the V7 the same." Will it work? Sure. Are they the same? No! You're losing a lot of subtilty there. That's where the music is, IMO. It's in the details. Why even bother if there are only two sounds?

Beyond that, lot of young players can't hear the difference between a V7b9 and a V7+, for instance. When you take a scale approach it's very easy to still not hear it, as you're just running a scale. If you blaze over a scale in a playing context it doesn't hurt if it's the wrong one, as the sound of that scale is in your ear and that's all you're hearing. I used to host a jam, I've seen it a million times- guys playing "the melodic minor a 1/2 step up" anythime something sounds a little different to them. If you play a #5 on it's own over a basic triad and you didn't mean it, it will hurt- you'll feel it. And you'll remember it.




That was your hang up. It sounds like you learned the scales and thought of them as "rules" and not as "guides". As in the quote earlier that I highlighted in red, the scales mislead you. By thinking tonic/dominant it has freed you from thinking of those scales as rules.

As you said (in blue above) you don't run scales anymore. I've never been an advocate of a scale approach. When I listen to the players I like they focus on the chord tones, with a scale run here or there. The chord tones won't mislead you. IMO, the scale approach is not the classic jazz approach, and neither is the tonic/dominant approach. But in the end, it doesn't matter, as you need to move past whatever means you use and play something. That much we can agree on for sure...

:BEER
Hey Rockin, I could not figure out for the life of me how we could be so together on some things, and so apart on others, and now I have it. When I say there are only two SOUNDS, i am talking function, tonic or dominant. You are talking about what i would call COLORS. Yes, a whole tone scale is a different COLOR than a diminished, and an altered scale is a different COLOR than either of those, however, they are still the same SOUND. the are dominant, pulling you back to tonic. Since they are the same SOUND, you can mix and match them all you want. I think now we will be in 100% agreement. yes, Dmin 11 is a different color than D min7, but that makes no difference in what you play. You can interchange them anytime you want. (Of course the melody dictates what will sound the best) Are we in agreement now? I bet we are! Nothing more than misunderstaning each others terminology.
:dude:BEER

[russ6100]

If you play a #5 on it's own over a basic triad and you didn't mean it, it will hurt- you'll feel it. And you'll remember it.


At jazz jams, if someone comping for me has an affinity for playing natural 5th voicings for dominants, first they get glares. If that doesn't work I biff 'em in the noggin with a flying ashtray..... :nono

:D

[Frank Axtell]

Tag, that was an outstanding lesson...so glad you took the time to post this information...the more I study, transcribe and play standard tunes the more I have to agree with you. Keep up the good work!

[Tag]

Tag, that was an outstanding lesson...so glad you took the time to post this information...the more I study, transcribe and play standard tunes the more I have to agree with you. Keep up the good work!

:):):):):)

[rockinrob]

Hey Rockin, I could not figure out for the life of me how we could be so together on some things, and so apart on others, and now I have it. When I say there are only two SOUNDS, i am talking function, tonic or dominant. You are talking about what i would call COLORS. Yes, a whole tone scale is a different COLOR than a diminished, and an altered scale is a different COLOR than either of those, however, they are still the same SOUND. the are dominant, pulling you back to tonic. Since they are the same SOUND, you can mix and match them all you want. I think now we will be in 100% agreement. yes, Dmin 11 is a different color than D min7, but that makes no difference in what you play. You can interchange them anytime you want. (Of course the melody dictates what will sound the best) Are we in agreement now? I bet we are! Nothing more than misunderstaning each others terminology.
:dude:BEER

Well, we're more in agreement for sure. I still disagree because I'd treat Dmin7 and Dmin11 differently, for instance. It's just an overall approach or philosophy I guess- I agree that you can reduce everything down to tonic and dominant, I just don't advise it as a method for improvising. Although for some styles/approaches it's great.



At jazz jams, if someone comping for me has an affinity for playing natural 5th voicings for dominants, first they get glares. If that doesn't work I biff 'em in the noggin with a flying ashtray..... :nono

:D

I've never seen that before, but I have seen guys get pelted with a drumstick a couple times... :p

[Lucidology]

. I still disagree because I'd treat Dmin7 and Dmin11 differently, for instance.... :p

Interesting...
I've often found that a Dmin11 (or any min11 for that matter) if not used in a static harmony situation, often signifies a minor flat five chord tonality when it comes before a dominate chord...

[rockinrob]

Me either. And I'm not so sure this approach works with tunes that aren't based around 'functional' harmony.



You know, I was thinking that myself- that's where I thought this thread would lead. How does this fit on tunes like "Fe-Fi-Fo-Fum" or for that matter, a basic blues where a 7th chord is the tonic?

[Aj_rocker]

at first i liked the idea of "TWO" types of sound but there isnt theres many different types of sound which are created by moving one of the chord tone sharp or flat. I agree with the statement that its all about which notes you land on (or "accent"). but that also is a big fudge as that works for every chord therefore you wouldnt need scales or mode.


just a 19 year olds 2 cents

and yes im just starting out on jazz.



Ak

[Tag]

Me too. I'm also likely to change a m7 into a m11, or vice-versa, at will.


:confused::confused::confused: Thats exactly what I said. The two contain all the same sounds.



Me either. And I'm not so sure this approach works with tunes that aren't based around 'functional' harmony.

Possibly, but thats going to be very rare I would think. Can you give me an example? It works perfectly over modulations, vamps, and changes. With any given chord, you just use its relatives as well. With "synthetic" chords and some other instances, obviously a different approach is needed. With every standard song I can think of, it works perfectly.





As 'another tool in the toolkit', sure, and I wouldn't dismiss it if it works as the primary modus for someone else.

What method do you think works better? (Seriously interested) Most all lead to exactly the same thing, but take a MUCH longer approach. It takes years to realize many times that so many things you learn as seperate entitys are really the exact same thing.

[Tag]

You know, I was thinking that myself- that's where I thought this thread would lead. How does this fit on tunes like "Fe-Fi-Fo-Fum" or for that matter, a basic blues where a 7th chord is the tonic?


The 7th chord is your tonic sound now. Say you are in G7 blues. (Key of C maj) Now look at the relative chords you can use with that. G7, Dmin7,(Dmin9,Dmin11,Dmin13) B-7b5 and Fmaj 7. Its all the Dominant sounds in the key of C maj. SAME thing!!! Understand? VERY VERY SIMPLE!!!:dude

[Tag]

at first i liked the idea of "TWO" types of sound but there isnt theres many different types of sound which are created by moving one of the chord tone sharp or flat. I agree with the statement that its all about which notes you land on (or "accent"). but that also is a big fudge as that works for every chord therefore you wouldnt need scales or mode.


just a 19 year olds 2 cents

and yes im just starting out on jazz.



Ak

You are probably talking about altering a Dom7 chord. thats still all dominant sounds. depending on which color you want, mostly it will be the melodic minor built on the 5th of that chord, or up 1/2 step from that chord. Whole tone built on the root, or 1/2 whole diminished built on the root.

:BEER

[Tag]

You know, I was thinking that myself- that's where I thought this thread would lead. How does this fit on tunes like "Fe-Fi-Fo-Fum" or for that matter, a basic blues where a 7th chord is the tonic?


Give me the chords to fe fi fo fum. Ill tell you real fast.

[ToneGurus]

Give me the chords to fe fi fo fum. Ill tell you real fast.One of my favorites:

Eb7 / D7#9 / G-7 / Ab-7 / BMaj7 / D7 / D-7 / G7

Eb7 / D7#9 / G-7 / AbMaj7 / Gb7 / F7 / Bb7 /

A friend told me what was really going on with this tune was how Herbie chose to comp it, yielding these versions of the changes.

Mike

[Mike T]

I find this d-7/d-11 controversy so interstimg I have to throw in my 2 cents. Tension 11 is in the chord scale of virtually all minor chords that come from minor (b3) chord scales(not half/whole diminished). Minor pentatonic, Dorian(b3,b7,11,13), Phrygian(,b2,b3,b6,b7,11), Aeolean(b3,b6,b7,11), Locrain(b2,b3,b5,b6,b7,11), Melodic Minor(b3,11), Harmonic Minor(b3,b6,11) and I'm sure there are more. Using Mick Goodrick's words, whether the chord scale is "derivative or parallel" the 11th is usually there. So it is a natural sound on all these minor chords. The concept of "11th" instead of "4th" and being an extension of the scale beyond the octave came from somewhere. Just like "13" instead of "6th" or "10th" instead of "3rd". But probably because it is not used as one of the 4 voices of the tertial seventh chord which has been drummed into our heads it may sometimes not sound like it belongs there. It can definately be out of place in some situations, but usually not if used sparsely and tastefully. It is used as at least a passing tone in virtually all genres for improvisation.

I don't have an answer when it belongs or not. Just trying to help illuminate the grounds. :munch

[Tag]

One of my favorites:

Eb7 / D7#9 / G-7 / Ab-7 / BMaj7 / D7 / D-7 / G7

Eb7 / D7#9 / G-7 / AbMaj7 / Gb7 / F7 / Bb7 /

A friend told me what was really going on with this tune was how Herbie chose to comp it, yielding these versions of the changes.

Mike
It works perfectly for that, i do not see what the problem is. that LOOKS like an A min blues with a twist. so for the Eb7 we can play Eb7, Bbmin7 (or melodic minor), C#Maj7, or G-7b5, That Eb7 chord looks like a b5 sub for A7 going to D7#9 right? Then the D7#9 is just the V of G minor. Just use the altered, diminished or wholetone. (For the A Min, use A min,C7,E-7b5 orBbmaj7) Also, look at the relative II-V-I which is C min7-F7-Bbmaj7. Now use ALL of those relative chords as well! (C min,Ebmaj7,F7,A-7b5) VERY GOOD!! Now we get to Ab- 7 and Bmaj7 which are relative so the same sound, no change needed. Also, we can play Ebmin7 with those two right?(I-III and VI are relative) And the next chord is D7,so that Eb min7 to D7 is a nice 1/2 step down move. GOOD choice! Then we just have that D7 changing to D-7 to G7. Thats a II-V, but look where its going...to Eb7! SOOOO..use the RELATIVE II-V which is TAADAAA!! F-7 to Bb7 which is II-V to what? OUR Eb7 chord! VERY GOOD!! Then its just a repeat of the beginning to the G min. Then there is an Ab maj 7Chord and I dont know the song, so not sure where the melody is at that point, BUT, it then goes to Gb7-F7-B7. thats just a bVI-V-I blues progression. EVERY grouping works PERFECTLY for the entire song. Sub ANY of the chords in their proper grouping, and it works BEAUTIFULLY.

VERY GOOD!!

[Tag]

[quote=Tag;2883502]

I wasn't responding to anything you said. I don't think I even read any of your posts here until this one.

They contain unique sounds, but in many cases are interchangeable. Big difference.

Is that what you said?





Right, once you get into the post-Wayne Shorter vocabulary and non-functional harmony it doesn't really work.

To me, even over functional harmony it sounds like oversimplification instead of depth and nuance.

That said, there are situations I would use that - as far as I'm concerned, in the heat of improv no weapon is 'off the table' - but it's not my default.



Wrong time. Wrong place.



Yeah, OK dude. I'll keep at it then.

Ken, not sure why this seems to be getting to you a bit. its the same way Dioro looked at it as well from what i have seen. What song has a chord without a function? Its either the resting place or its not. A diminshed chord can be a tonic chord sometimes, and you can change the function at will once you hear it "all". Again, i am sure there are places where other outlooks help, but this will work in almost any tune. Let me hear you play on any standard tune. EVERTHING you play can be looked at from this perspective. there are other things like symetrical patterns, and other devices, but they are going to be tonic or dominant 99.9% of the time. Its not the ONLY method to use. Its just a darn good one that many of the best players in jazz have used. NONE of it is MINE, is simply what I was taught from someone who was taught by benson.

[Tag]

Dom /ton Dom /tonic/ tonic ........... /Tonic/.. Dom...../
Eb7 / D7#9 ../ G-7. / Ab-7 / BMaj7 / D7.. /.. D-7 / G7/

Dom ton / Dom / Tonic/ Tonic.. / Dom /Ton Dom / Dom /
...b7... / D7#9 / G-7 ../ AbMaj7 / Gb7 /... F7..... / Bb7 /



Here you have that chord progression with the function of the chord. Now in this tune, the melody COULD change things a bit. (I do not know the tune) However, this SHOULD work regardless for the most part. In the measures that same Tonic dominant, its because the previous chord was dominant, so even though the chord you are going to is a Dom, the previous chord HAS to resolve first. So the same chord acts as a resolution to the previous chord, and then a pull to the next chord. On a straight Dom 7 chord, this is USUALLY achieved by treting the 7 chord as a straight 7 chord for the first beat or two, then altering it to provide more of a pull to the next chord. Very simple, and very good! Analize almost every jazz solo ever played, and this is what it breaks down to. There are VERY few exceptions that I know of. (Any???)

[Tag]

I find this d-7/d-11 controversy so interstimg I have to throw in my 2 cents. Tension 11 is in the chord scale of virtually all minor chords that come from minor (b3) chord scales(not half/whole diminished). Minor pentatonic, Dorian(b3,b7,11,13), Phrygian(,b2,b3,b6,b7,11), Aeolean(b3,b6,b7,11), Locrain(b2,b3,b5,b6,b7,11), Melodic Minor(b3,11), Harmonic Minor(b3,b6,11) and I'm sure there are more. Using Mick Goodrick's words, whether the chord scale is "derivative or parallel" the 11th is usually there. So it is a natural sound on all these minor chords. The concept of "11th" instead of "4th" and being an extension of the scale beyond the octave came from somewhere. Just like "13" instead of "6th" or "10th" instead of "3rd". But probably because it is not used as one of the 4 voices of the tertial seventh chord which has been drummed into our heads it may sometimes not sound like it belongs there. It can definately be out of place in some situations, but usually not if used sparsely and tastefully. It is used as at least a passing tone in virtually all genres for improvisation.

I don't have an answer when it belongs or not. Just trying to help illuminate the grounds. :munch


You always have to use your ear for taste, but MOST of the time, that 11th sound is fine over a min7, and most jazz lines include it over a min 7 chord. Its part of the dorian mode for goodness sakes!. In the key of C, there are three minor chords. The I-III-VI are tonic, so the the 11th of Eminor (The III chord is) is A. thats the 6th of C maj. On the VI chord, the 11th is D, which is the 9th of C. Hmm, that gives you the 6 and 9 of C maj. Anyone use a 6/9 chord?
:dude

Now, the remaining minor chord is D min which is a dom chord. The 11th of that is G. Hey thats just the root of the V dom chord!! (G7) VERY GOOD VERY GOOD!!

[ToneGurus]

Dom /ton Dom /tonic/ tonic / Tonic /Tonic/.. Dom...../
Eb7 / D7#9 ../ G-7. / Ab-7 / BMaj7 / D7 /.. D-7 / G7/

Dom ton / Dom / Tonic/ Tonic.. / Dom /Ton Dom / Dom /
...b7... / D7#9 / G-7 ../ AbMaj7 / Gb7 /... F7..... / Bb7 /



Here you have that chord progression with the function of the chord. Now in this tune, the melody COULD change things a bit. (I do not know the tune) However, this SHOULD work regardless for the most part. In the measures that same Tonic dominant, its because the previous chord was dominant, so even though the chord you are going to is a Dom, the previous chord HAS to resolve first. So the same chord acts as a resolution to the previous chord, and then a pull to the next chord. On a straight Dom 7 chord, this is USUALLY achieved by treting the 7 chord as a straight 7 chord for the first beat or two, then altering it to provide more of a pull to the next chord. Very simple, and very good! Analize almost every jazz solo ever played, and this is what it breaks down to. There are VERY few exceptions that I know of. (Any???)Tonic/Dominant relative to which key center(s) please?

Thanks,
Mike

[Tag]

You misunderstand me. It's not 'getting to me' at all. I just don't choose to work that way - everything is either a tonic or a dominant - that's all. I respect that it's Benson's method but I don't like his playing really so I choose to go with the methods employed by the players I like - Jim Hall, Mick Goodrick, Abercrombie, Lenny Breau, Joe Diorio, Ted Greene, etc - who I've never heard mention this method. I know a few players that do teach this method, personally, so I'm familiar with it. I respect them but I don't really like the way they sound in terms of my own way of hearing things either.

My humble $.02? It's a recipe for facilitating playing a lot of notes and doesn't sound very 'modern' to me.

So, what's the big deal? Lots of different ways to approach things - that's all I've ever said.

If it works for you, you absolutely should use it.



I studied and played with Joe a lot. I never heard him mention anything like that, not even close. If he does espouse that method, he never did to me.


Cool Ken. He (Joe) must have changed over then, as he teaches it in his late video. I am not sure he calls it dominant tonic, but he relates the chords the exact same way. Not sure why this would have anything to do with playing a lot of notes though. it seems to me it would lead to playing fewer notes, as you dont have to "change" so much. That just comes down to what you are hearing though. I agree with you 100% there are many roads to get to the same result. regardless of who the player is though, you can break it down to this system very easily, and for ME, the less I have to think when playing, the better. Compared to Benson, Abercrombie, goodrick breau and the others are so by the book, its insane. they are so easily analyzed most of the time. I am surprised you are not more drawn to the many varied sounds that Benson uses, as he is not NEARLY as boxed in as they are. This also explains how benson, pass, and guys like that can play every mode, and every change without knowing any of them formally. It all comes down to just a few scales.

[Tag]

Tonic/Dominant relative to which key center(s) please?

Thanks,
Mike



Dom /ton Dom /tonic/ tonic ........... /Tonic/.. Dom...../
Eb7 / D7#9 ../ G-7. / Ab-7 / BMaj7 / D7.. /.. D-7 / G7/

Dom ton / Dom / Tonic/ Tonic.. / Dom /Ton Dom / Dom /
...Eb7... / D7#9 / G-7 ../ AbMaj7 / Gb7 /... F7..... / Bb7 /

Chord by Chord Mike...Eb7 Dom to D7#9 (Its the flat V sub for A7, the V of D7) You have to resolve on D7#9 for at least a note, then you can alter away, as it is Dom to the G minor which is tonic. (GMin dorian or melodic minor, as every note is a resolution. No "avoid notes") Abmin7 is the relative minor of Bmaj 7, so that gives that away, and you also have the III chord in B Maj, whic is the Ebmin I was talking about, which gives you that nice 1/2 step down to the next chord D7. Now that i would treat as a tonic, because it is not resolving anywhere, so benson will mix A melodic minor or A dorian DbMaj7,G-7b5. Then it goes to D minor, which is a common and pretty move. That is actually a relative II-V to the upcoming Eb7 chord. SO, benson would play a II-V line from D-7/G7 then F min/ Bb7 and resolve on the Eb7 chord. Now look again. that Eb7 chord is the flat V sub for A7 going to the D7#9 chord again. So play an Eb7 triad then an A7 triad, or other way around. ANY A altered scale will sound great, as its Dominant leading to that D7. then that D7 is tonic real quick, changing to a dom leading you to G min7. The Ab maj7 I would just treat as a tonic, as I do not hear it pulling me anywhere not knowing the melody. then its Gb7 (bV sub for C7, so dominant to F7) then F7 Tonic for at least a beat, the dom as its the V of Bb7. :AOK

[RichardB]

You misunderstand me. It's not 'getting to me' at all. I just don't choose to work that way - everything is either a tonic or a dominant - that's all. Even if you analyzed me after the fact in those terms, what matters is what my conception is going into it. I respect that it's Benson's method but I don't like his playing really so I choose to go with the methods employed by the players I like - Jim Hall, Mick Goodrick, Abercrombie, Lenny Breau, Joe Diorio, Ted Greene, etc - who I've never heard mention this method. I know a few players that do teach this method, personally, so I'm familiar with it. I respect them but I don't really like the way they sound in terms of my own way of hearing things either. The methods that I learned from them - using common tones as melodic focal points, melodic invention out of chord extensions, the deliberate imposition of technical and musical limitations and deliberately obscuring points of resolution, freely improvising off of gestures based on the melody and not the chord progression, etc, are methods that have helped me produce the kinds of sounds I like to hear - unusual, colorful, unpredictable melodies that play freely with both the bar lines & the harmony. At least,. it's what I work towards. I respect 'burning' players but I was never interested in being one (I'm not as a rock/blues/country/avant garde/whatever player either). As much as I love and have studied all of Coltrane's career, the part of his language that is most personally useful to me is the "Love Supreme" and post period, where it was more about pure melody and color and not so many labrynthian harmonic formulas. As far as mainstream players go, probably more important for me were Wayne Shorter, Sonny Rollins, Bennie Wallace and Joe Henderson, or Dolphy when he did that stuff - who I can guarantee you don't view everything as either tonic or dominant. No way they could do that and get as 'free' within standards as they do.

My humble $.02? It's a recipe for facilitating playing a lot of notes and doesn't sound very 'modern' or 'free' to me and produces sounds I'm already very familiar with. I like a sense of unpredictability, pliability, looseness, ambiguity, shade and gesture. This other method doesn't produce that for me.

So, what's the big deal? Lots of different ways to approach things - that's all I've ever said.

If it works for you and produces music you like, you absolutely should use it. I said that too.



I studied and played with Joe a lot. I never heard him mention anything like that, not even close. If he does espouse that method, he never did to me.

Ken,
That is a GREAT post. I also feel that to get more individual sounds and approaches out of any music, there needs to be more going on than slavishly following changes. Gesturing w reference to the melody (which was a huge one when I was jamming with Pete Bernstein), and all the other things you mention are right where I am trying to "live". These are the things that make one solo sound different from the next.
I really wish you would post a clip of you stretching out on some jazz, I know I would like it (and learn from it !) based on the things you have said.

[Tag]

OK, but here's where I find this method lacking. Telling me that Gm7, Abm7 (I think this is actually Maj7 - I don't have the recording right here), Bmaj7 and D7 are four 'tonics' in a row tells me exactly what? Not enough to work with, for my needs.

I dont have the song or know the melody either, and that COULD change everything,I agree 100%! The G min is tonic to itself as I explained, and you have all of its relatives to choose from. I pointed that out. As I have always said, you can interject all kinds of subs over this which benson wes and Coltrane almost always do. Anyway, then you Have Abmin7 and Bmaj 7 which are just the VI and I chord of Bmaj7. So one time around you play it that way, the next time you play the Abmin, then add F#7 pulling you to the Bmaj7. As I said, you also have Eb min 7 as the III of B, and thats a 1/2 step above the next D7 right? SOOO, benson would add the maj 3rd to that Eb min7, making it a 7# 9 chord! NOW, its the flat V sub for A7, making it a Dom to the next D7!

Also, for my needs - this is nothing but a chord progression. I need the melody to really know what to work with


Totally agree.

[Tag]

The methods that I learned from them - using common tones as melodic focal points, melodic invention out of chord extensions, the deliberate imposition of technical and musical limitations and deliberately obscuring points of resolution, freely improvising off of gestures based on the melody and not the chord progression, etc, are methods that have helped me produce the kinds of sounds I like to hear - unusual, colorful, unpredictable melodies that play freely with both the bar lines & the harmony. At least,. it's what I work towards. I respect 'burning' players but I was never interested in being one (I'm not as a rock/blues/country/avant garde/whatever player either). As much as I love and have studied all of Coltrane's career, the part of his language that is most personally useful to me is the "Love Supreme" and post period, where it was more about pure melody and color and not so many labrynthian harmonic formulas. As far as mainstream players go, probably more important for me were Wayne Shorter, Sonny Rollins, Bennie Wallace and Joe Henderson, or Dolphy when he did that stuff - who I can guarantee you don't view everything as either tonic or dominant.


Hey Ken,
Again, I have no idea why you would think this would obscure points of resolution or color. It ADDS as many as you can play. This REALLY helps show the common tones as well. All the players you name play exactly like this. Rollins is a GREAT example actually. Shorter too. Henderson? All the TIME. James Moody, one of my faves the same thing. Again, the end result is no different. You create EXACTLY the same lines, scales and EVERYTHING as any other method. Foe ME, its just an easier way, and the one that many of my idols use. (which include many of yours) Show me how you would approach those changes, or even a simple blues, and it breaks down to the same thing. Even vampming over One chord, what can you do to make it more interesting harmonically speaking? You inject other chords that add tension and pull you back to the tonic. I am not telling you anything you dont know. Its just an alternate way of looking at it.

[ToneGurus]

Dom /ton Dom /tonic/ tonic ........... /Tonic/.. Dom...../
Eb7 / D7#9 ../ G-7. / Ab-7 / BMaj7 / D7.. /.. D-7 / G7/

Dom ton / Dom / Tonic/ Tonic.. / Dom /Ton Dom / Dom /
...Eb7... / D7#9 / G-7 ../ AbMaj7 / Gb7 /... F7..... / Bb7 /

Chord by Chord Mike... :AOKOK, so I don't think I'm totally understanding your thought process yet. "Tonic" equates to a I, III, or VI chord, and "Dominant" equates to a II, IV, V, or VII chord, right? These Roman numerals are implying functionality within a key center.

So, let's say, in the example of the G-7/Tonic - You're saying that's a I minor in the key center of G, right? II (b5 sub) - V - I min.

What about Ab-7=BMaj7? Is that "tonic" sound a key center of B? It's a VI chord and a I chord in B, so is that what you're saying?

And the D7? What "tonic" key center is that?

Then D-7 to G7.... II-V dominant in the key center of C?

Then we're back to the G- tonic sequence = Key of G(?)

Then AbMaj7. "Tonic" in what key, Ab?

Then the II (b5 sub), V, I to Bb, which to me would be "tonic" in the key center of Bb. But you hear/see it as dominant, so what key center(s) are these last 3 chords functioning as "dominant" in?

Do you see what I'm asking? What are the key centers for this tune? In your theoretical world view, don't we need key centers for the terms/functions of Tonic/Dominant to have meaning to guide the improviser?

Mike

[Tag]

Maybe Joe felt it was a step I didn't need. By the time I came to him I had no problems 'making changes'. Whatever his reasons - he never mentioned it to me. He talked about painters more than any guitar players.



It just seems that everyone that I know that has openly espoused this and all the players you mention (Benson, Pass, etc) tend to play a ton of notes and not really interact with the band. Maybe it's just a coincidence. Sure, I don't see why any specific method would have to lead to a lot of notes.



Me too, which is why I spent a long time getting to make all that information second nature, like memorizing your multiplication tables so when calculus time comes you don't get hung up on it.



I've studied a lot of their work and it holds so many more mysteries to me. I don't really care if it comes across as academic compared to Benson or Pass. I have a ton of respect for them, but I just don't find their music very interesting. I don't find academics or intellectualism boring or intimidating by definition, if that's your inference.



I didn't come here to talk shit about George Benson, who is an amazing player that I have no issues with him personally. I just don't find his music very interesting.



I can't explain it, I guess. I just need more than that.


Cool Ken. Again, this is just another way to get where you already are. the music you make once you have it all digested is totally up to you, and I have no problem with your tastes VS mine. thats just personal taste, and there is no right or wrong there for sure.:)

[Tag]

I'm sorry, I don't do clips :)

I have a couple jazz records coming out either in the fall (hopefully) or early next year that I'm very proud of and I feel much more currently represent what I can do.

I will be sure to shill them here when they're available.

SPAMMER!!


I want one for sure, and sure i will enjoy it. :BEER

[ToneGurus]

Also, yes having a melody is nice, but under discussion is the proposition that this simplified schema works easily over any jazz chord progression. So to fully understand how Tag thinks in this context, there is no need for a melody.

Mike

[ToneGurus]

SPAMMER!!


I want one for sure, and sure i will enjoy it. :BEERBuy Bobby Bradford's Motet Live. I did. Ken goes off!

Mike

[KRosser]

Buy Bobby Bradford's Motet Live. I did. Ken goes off!

Mike

Thanks...I love that band and that's a good record but I wish the recording quality was better. It was just direct to minidisc.

Did I ever share the story of the name "mo'tet"?

Bradford says "If you don't have much money, I can get you a quartet. If you have a little more I can get you a quintet. Even more, I can bring a sextet, septet, octet...and so on. The mo' money you have, the mo' "tet" you get".

[KRosser]

Also, yes having a melody is nice, but under discussion is the proposition that this simplified schema works easily over any jazz chord progression. So to fully understand how Tag thinks in this context, there is no need for a melody.

Mike

Theoretically, at least, that would make every blues and rhythm changes tune EXACTLY the same, approach-wise. It would mean there's no difference between "Hot House" and "What Is This Thing Called Love".

[rockinrob]

Wow- a lot to respond to here. :eek:


I find this d-7/d-11 controversy so interstimg I have to throw in my 2 cents. Tension 11 is in the chord scale of virtually all minor chords that come from minor (b3) chord scales(not half/whole diminished). Minor pentatonic, Dorian(b3,b7,11,13), Phrygian(,b2,b3,b6,b7,11), Aeolean(b3,b6,b7,11), Locrain(b2,b3,b5,b6,b7,11), Melodic Minor(b3,11), Harmonic Minor(b3,b6,11) and I'm sure there are more. Using Mick Goodrick's words, whether the chord scale is "derivative or parallel" the 11th is usually there. So it is a natural sound on all these minor chords. The concept of "11th" instead of "4th" and being an extension of the scale beyond the octave came from somewhere. Just like "13" instead of "6th" or "10th" instead of "3rd". But probably because it is not used as one of the 4 voices of the tertial seventh chord which has been drummed into our heads it may sometimes not sound like it belongs there. It can definately be out of place in some situations, but usually not if used sparsely and tastefully. It is used as at least a passing tone in virtually all genres for improvisation.

I don't have an answer when it belongs or not. Just trying to help illuminate the grounds. :munch

In general I think you use a sus4 chord if you want ambiguity as it leaves out the 3rd. You'll use a minor11 more in bebop as it still shows the harmony/function. My point with the min11 chord is that it's a much different sound than min7- it's static but it still wants to move. To me it can be either tonic or dominant. Same with a sus4. It completely depends on the context, the way it's voiced, the line leading to the chord, etc...





What method do you think works better? (Seriously interested) Most all lead to exactly the same thing, but take a MUCH longer approach. It takes years to realize many times that so many things you learn as seperate entitys are really the exact same thing.

I'm not Ken, but I think looking at the chord tones and thinking of each chord's place both in the sequence and in the whole of the tune as well as in relation to the melody is a better method. It's also the quickest method. I'm mean if we're talking about playing changes what's easier than focusing on the chord tones? That's what's there- the root of what you're playing against, the foundation. Tag, I think you feel differently as you came up playing scales, that's why your method seems quicker to you as you already had the scales under your belt.



Dom /ton Dom /tonic/ tonic ........... /Tonic/.. Dom...../
Eb7 / D7#9 ../ G-7. / Ab-7 / BMaj7 / D7.. /.. D-7 / G7/

Dom ton / Dom / Tonic/ Tonic.. / Dom /Ton Dom / Dom /
...b7... / D7#9 / G-7 ../ AbMaj7 / Gb7 /... F7..... / Bb7 /



Here you have that chord progression with the function of the chord. Now in this tune, the melody COULD change things a bit. (I do not know the tune) However, this SHOULD work regardless for the most part. In the measures that same Tonic dominant, its because the previous chord was dominant, so even though the chord you are going to is a Dom, the previous chord HAS to resolve first. So the same chord acts as a resolution to the previous chord, and then a pull to the next chord. On a straight Dom 7 chord, this is USUALLY achieved by treting the 7 chord as a straight 7 chord for the first beat or two, then altering it to provide more of a pull to the next chord. Very simple, and very good! Analize almost every jazz solo ever played, and this is what it breaks down to. There are VERY few exceptions that I know of. (Any???)

OK, but here's where I find this method lacking. Telling me that Gm7, Abm7 (I think this is actually Maj7 - I don't have the recording right here), Bmaj7 and D7 are four 'tonics' in a row tells me exactly what? Not enough to work with, for my needs.


The G min is tonic to itself as I explained, and you have all of its relatives to choose from. I pointed that out. As I have always said, you can interject all kinds of subs over this which benson wes and Coltrane almost always do. Anyway, then you Have Abmin7 and Bmaj 7 which are just the VI and I chord of Bmaj7. So one time around you play it that way, the next time you play the Abmin, then add F#7 pulling you to the Bmaj7. As I said, you also have Eb min 7 as the III of B, and thats a 1/2 step above the next D7 right? SOOO, benson would add the maj 3rd to that Eb min7, making it a 7# 9 chord! NOW, its the flat V sub for A7, making it a Dom to the next D7!


I agree with Ken (and I haven't heard the original in awhile but I think most cats just play Abmaj each time). How do you get from the Gmin to the Abmin? Even if it's Abmaj, their not the same sound/function. Granted, this tune wasn't the best example, but there's a whole lot of music that doesn't rely on V7-I resolutions- doesn't feel tonic/dominant. Every chord is ambiguous and can be treated any number of ways.


Ken,
That is a GREAT post. I also feel that to get more individual sounds and approaches out of any music, there needs to be more going on than slavishly following changes. Gesturing w reference to the melody (which was a huge one when I was jamming with Pete Bernstein), and all the other things you mention are right where I am trying to "live". These are the things that make one solo sound different from the next.
I really wish you would post a clip of you stretching out on some jazz, I know I would like it (and learn from it !) based on the things you have said.


That's more of my point, are we talking about playing changes or playing tunes? It's not the same thing, although many guys play like it is. I think it has a similarity to the playing over a backing track vs live group debate.


Also, yes having a melody is nice, but under discussion is the proposition that this simplified schema works easily over any jazz chord progression. So to fully understand how Tag thinks in this context, there is no need for a melody.

Mike


I understand that, but it's a big reason why I don't agree with the approach. It leads a player to think of everything the same. It's the details that are important.



No, not really, because I don't really care about function. It's all colors to me, and any spot in the tune can be a point of tension or release. And I'm not just talkin' harmonic tension.



:BEER


Even vampming over One chord, what can you do to make it more interesting harmonically speaking?


Maybe nothing. Maybe I just play a chromatic scale real slow but in the pocket. Maybe I leave big gaping holes for the drummer to go nuts in. Maybe I just pick one note and make it rhythmically interesting. Or dynamically interesting. Or timbrally interesting. Maybe I find a way to make a sing-songy melody in another key and don't resolve it at all (Sonny Rollins does this all the time, now).

Depends on the 'big picture' feel I have for where I'm going.


Again, this is more my point of view, too. And as I've said before, harmonically interesting is usually the least of my concearns. I think my whole issue with the tonic-dominant approach is the players that seem to use it I'm not that into. To me they sound like they're playing over the changes, not in the changes. I've always been trying to find ways to say things with less notes rather than more. And I really don't understand how Coltrane gets lumped in with Benson, or Wes with either of them. All very different players with different approaches.

Anyway Tag, I think it's a good approach for some things and I thank you for sharing it. I just think that it shouldn't be veiwed as an only approach, more of a supplement.

[Tag]

Also, yes having a melody is nice, but under discussion is the proposition that this simplified schema works easily over any jazz chord progression. So to fully understand how Tag thinks in this context, there is no need for a melody.

Mike
Agreed Mike. This is nothing more than showing how chords relate and function. To learn to play an actual tune, the very first thing you want to do is learn the melody all over the place, as well as the underlying chords and bass movement.

[Tag]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tag http://www.thegearpage.net/board/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=2884610#post2884610)
Hey Ken,
Again, I have no idea why you would think this would obscure points of resolution or color. It ADDS as many as you can play. This REALLY helps show the common tones as well. All the players you name play exactly like this. Rollins is a GREAT example actually. Shorter too. Henderson? All the TIME.

Really? I don't hear that. When they're at their best I hear all gesture with little to no direct reference to the changes at all, at least in terms of spelling out their function. Especially early Sonny - there's a lot more going on than that. These days Sonny plays as free as Ornette Coleman.


I hear it perfectly. Name any of these guys playing over a simple standard (so as to not get TO confusing, as the same thing applys to the most complex or simplistic changes), and we can analyze EVERY SINGLE THING they do in this fasion.


Quote:
You create EXACTLY the same lines, scales and EVERYTHING as any other method.


Like I said, I don't care how you slice it coming out - going in, it doesn't work for me.

But you ARE doing it, just looking at it from a different perspective because you already have it all down.


Quote:
Show me how you would approach those changes, or even a simple blues, and it breaks down to the same thing.

No, not really, because I don't really care about function. It's all colors to me, and any spot in the tune can be a point of tension or release. And I'm not just talkin' harmonic tension.

But you DO play bthe function, even if you do not realize it. The same as any approach. Agree about colors as well. Each different chord that you group together gives you a different color in the Tonic or dom area you are in at the time. The soloist or comper can also play against or with the function once you can cleary hear it, but playing the wrong function over the chords of the moment is basically going to sound bad or wrong. Try playing D-/G7 lines or scales over Cmaj7 A-7 in Rhythm changes. (I-VI). Its just going to sound wrong, as while all the notes are the same, the FUNCTION is wrong. You are playing a dominant over a tonic area.


Quote:
Even vampming over One chord, what can you do to make it more interesting harmonically speaking?

Maybe nothing. Maybe I just play a chromatic scale real slow but in the pocket. Maybe I leave big gaping holes for the drummer to go nuts in. Maybe I just pick one note and make it rhythmically interesting. Or dynamically interesting. Or timbrally interesting. Maybe I find a way to make a sing-songy melody in another key and don't resolve it at all (Sonny Rollins does this all the time, now).

Which is perfectly fine. How does that have ANYTHING to do with what I am talking about?? Playing a little melody in another key is just adding a dominant area, waiting to be resolved. Now try doing that the entire song. No good.

Depends on the 'big picture' feel I have for where I'm going.

Same thing again. No difference



Quote:
You inject other chords that add tension and pull you back to the tonic.

Very Coltrane. I know how to do that, and sometimes I do. But, that's just what you'd be expecting, right?


Its one possibillity, and the one most used by YOUR favorite players! You can stay in the given key and play tonic the entire time if you want. The entire thing I am talking about is how to learn to play changes as easily as possible, to free yourself up and do OTHER things as well. You have this all digested from a different perspective, so why learn it again?? In the end, we are playing the same things. When analyzed though, I find many things Benson and these guys interject, and the ease at which they interject them, has a lot to do with this approach. You have MANY chords to choose from at any given moment, and are NOT restricting yourself to the chord of the moment, and its tensions. Even if you are superimposing other sounds, you know ALL of the sounds related to the one you are interjecting, so AGAIN, it opens it up even more. You are making the most out of any given choice, at any given moment.
__________________

[Tag]

Here are two basic examples using this approach. The first is just a simple I-VI-II-V played very basically. It leads to tasteful playing IMO. The secons is Blue bossa, where I go out a bit more. Now I am only an intermediate jazz player at best, but using this technique and approach, it makes it very easy to get the very cool jazz sounds.



http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=3216711&q=hi (http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=3216711&q=hi)




http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=1010216&q=hi (http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=1010216&q=hi)



[/URL]





[URL="http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=1010216&q=hi"]http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=1010216&q=hi (http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=3216711&q=hi)

[Tag]

Well, there you go. I have transcribed plenty of examples of Miles and Sonny Rollins doing exactly that.

And every other decent jazz player as well. Nothing more than DRAGGGGING out the dominant area to create more tension. They are NOT going to be resolving on those chords in those areas however.


It doesn't sound wrong to me at all. Miles also used to do this thing I love where he'd anticipate a key change two bars ahead of time so that it was the chords that would resolve and not the line, usually into what you'd call a dominant.

I showed above in Fee fi fo fum (the song you said this would not work on, and I showed it to work PERFECTLY) how you can resolve into what is BASICALLY a dom chord, but at that point, that chord is acting tonic for a moment. (Go back and study what I said, you will actually learn something if you think that is dominant at that time! :p )

And Sonny Rollins doing nursery rhymes in another key and not resolving them? He absolutely doesn't bring it back in much of the time.

You dont have too, because the chords resolve it. Damn, I use to do that in my heavy metal bands. (mary had a little lamb) Another thing, you are getting WAY ahead of the game, because all of this has got to be very well digested before you can do that effectively. If you cant hear the dominant and tonic areas and start to play out like that, you are going to sound AWFUL.

Have you heard Sonny recently? Like I said, Sonny playing over a tin pan alley standard is some of the best free playing you're ever gonna hear.

All the time! Just heard something fairly new on WBGO about 2 hours ago where he was playing over a one chord minor vamp. Was using everything I described above. Love the guy!


What more can I say? I'm not a very scale-based player, really. To me it's all chord tones, melody, rhythm and color

Same thing, different way to view it. You can try and pick this apart all you want Ken. I do not see you posting any examples like I asked. While there are exceptions to everything, this covers almost everything jazz musicians play harmonically speaking. My favorite players and yours.

[ToneGurus]

I agree with Ken (and I haven't heard the original in awhile but I think most cats just play Abmaj each time). How do you get from the Gmin to the Abmin? Even if it's Abmaj, their not the same sound/function. Granted, this tune wasn't the best example, but there's a whole lot of music that doesn't rely on V7-I resolutions- doesn't feel tonic/dominant. Every chord is ambiguous and can be treated any number of ways.

The fake book I have has Ab-7 the first time around, and AbMaj7 the second time, setting up and leading into the II-V-I in Bb blues. Again, I have a hunch that it was more simply written than it's notated now with Herbie's comping influence. I guess I need to sit down and see what Ron Carter is doing to get a more clear picture of what the chords may have originally been.

The reason I piped in on the Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum reference is because- as I posited in my key center/diatonic function question for Tag- I don't know how he would apply that thinking to this tune. Or how it "simplifies" the thinking and playing of this tune, with or without melodic consideration or influence.

To me, if you're approaching it from a diatonic functionality standpoint, then you're going to get a song that has 4 or more key centers, and that doesn't sound too simple to me. That's why I'm looking for clarification.

Mike

[Tag]

The fake book I have has Ab-7 the first time around, and AbMaj7 the second time, setting up and leading into the II-V-I in Bb blues. Again, I have a hunch that it was more simply written than it's notated now with Herbie's comping influence. I guess I need to sit down and see what Ron Carter is doing to get a more clear picture of what the chords may have originally been.

The reason I piped in on the Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum reference is because- as I posited in my key center/diatonic function question for Tag- I don't know how he would apply that thinking to this tune. Or how it "simplifies" the thinking and playing of this tune, with or without melodic consideration or influence.

To me, if you're approaching it from a diatonic functionality standpoint, then you're going to get a song that has 4 or more key centers, and that doesn't sound too simple to me. That's why I'm looking for clarification.

Mike

Hey Mike,
Then this method may not work for you, because this method trys to BREAK playing in a key center. It creates tension and release, and accentuates whats there. Playing in a key avoids the chords function, which this is all about. Knowing the players you dig however, I would think this would be something you would really be into. :)

[Tag]

Wow- a lot to respond to here. :eek:




In general I think you use a sus4 chord if you want ambiguity as it leaves out the 3rd. You'll use a minor11 more in bebop as it still shows the harmony/function. My point with the min11 chord is that it's a much different sound than min7- it's static but it still wants to move. To me it can be either tonic or dominant. Same with a sus4. It completely depends on the context, the way it's voiced, the line leading to the chord, etc...

For chords I totally agree. tha melody is going to show you what chords sound best.






I'm not Ken, but I think looking at the chord tones and thinking of each chord's place both in the sequence and in the whole of the tune as well as in relation to the melody is a better method.

Thats what this method is doing. It is just giving you more choices at any given time. Now when you see an A7, you do not just have to think of that chord and its extensions, but also E-7, Gmaj7#11, C#-7b5 just DIATONICALLY speaking!! Then you add in its relative Dom 7s (C7, Eb7, Gb7and C#7 add all of the relative chords to those, and you have an entire lifetime of possibilities. It KILLS the other methods, which is part of how Benson KILLS the other guitar players in terms of seemingly endless ideas. :AOK




It's also the quickest method. I'm mean if we're talking about playing changes what's easier than focusing on the chord tones?

:nono But you are not grouping them by function, so you have to think of EACH chord individually!



That's what's there- the root of what you're playing against, the foundation. Tag, I think you feel differently as you came up playing scales, that's why your method seems quicker to you as you already had the scales under your belt.

But I had to UNLEARN them! I have to THINK about each scale and mode now, and I used to know everyone, in every position, all over the fretboard. Now I RARELY need to think of a scale or mode other than Dorian, melodic minor, Whole tone or Diminished. I DO look at arps all the time.


I agree with Ken (and I haven't heard the original in awhile but I think most cats just play Abmaj each time). How do you get from the Gmin to the Abmin? Even if it's Abmaj, their not the same sound/function. Granted, this tune wasn't the best example, but there's a whole lot of music that doesn't rely on V7-I resolutions- doesn't feel tonic/dominant. Every chord is ambiguous and can be treated any number of ways. Disagree. every chord is NOT ambiguous. From Gmin to Abmin??

Come on! Easiest way? Modulate up 1/2 step from any note off dorian or melodic minor. Lol! The "so What" change. :) Want more? Interject a II-V before it. More? A sequence of minor 3rds...its endless.






That's more of my point, are we talking about playing changes or playing tunes? It's not the same thing, although many guys play like it is. I think it has a similarity to the playing over a backing track vs live group debate.



Well, good backings should switch up the changes as well, and some Abersold do this...but sure...to do it on the fly with other musicians is more fun. :AOK




I understand that, but it's a big reason why I don't agree with the approach. It leads a player to think of everything the same. It's the details that are important.

NO! It gives you MORE details to work with! As I showed above, now when you see a C maj 7, you can also think of A min7 and E min 7 and all of those lines as well as the usual maj/blues and sharp 11 sounds.Want the sharp 5 sound too? Just play melodic minor off of the relative minor and be done with it. :dude





:BEER




Again, this is more my point of view, too. And as I've said before, harmonically interesting is usually the least of my concearns. I think my whole issue with the tonic-dominant approach is the players that seem to use it I'm not that into. To me they sound like they're playing over the changes, not in the changes.
Ummm...Coltrane,benson,Wes, James moody, Parker, Stitt.....these are some of the greatest players in jazz. this approach lets you concentrate on the melody, and gives you MORE ideas to work with instead of chasing each and every chord like you stated above. You have a much bigger pallette over each RELATED chord to choose from. All you have to do is memorize whech chords are related, and then know you can choose from ANY of that group!
:dude:dude:dude




I've always been trying to find ways to say things with less notes rather than more. And I really don't understand how Coltrane gets lumped in with Benson, or Wes with either of them. All very different players with different approaches.

This approach has ZERO to do with what notes or how many you CHOOSE to play. It just gives you acess to the many possibilities, and grops them into areas where they function correctly, thats all. YOU have to find YOUR voice.

Anyway Tag, I think it's a good approach for some things and I thank you for sharing it. I just think that it shouldn't be veiwed as an only approach, more of a supplement.

Use it any way you want, or none at all. It worked for them, and it has allowed me to become a MUCH better player in a very short amount of time. Whetever you feel more comfortable with is right for you. :)

[ToneGurus]

Hey Mike,
Then this method may not work for you, because this method trys to BREAK playing in a key center. It creates tension and release, and accentuates whats there. Playing in a key avoids the chords function, which this is all about. Knowing the players you dig however, I would think this would be something you would really be into. :)When you describe the method in terms of I, III, VI, = tonic, and II, IV, V, VII = Dominant, are you not defining Tonic and Dominant in terms of chord function within a key center?

I'm into lots of stuff, including this. I'm just trying to understand the tool as you describe it and see how it applies to Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum.

Mike

[Tag]

[QUOTE]When you describe the method in terms of I, III, VI, = tonic, and II, IV, V, VII = Dominant, are you not defining Tonic and Dominant in terms of chord function within a key center?

Correct, but you are playing the chords function, not the key center. playing D minor has little to do with a C maj chord or scale other than the names of the notes. Now A minor and E minor have EVERYTHING to do with C maj 7. Just play each against a C maj 7 chord. You will hear that D minor wants to go to A minor, E minor or C maj. the A min and E min are all happy and gay on their own with the C maj. :D fee Fi works GREAT with this method. I wish I had a record of that song. Its really several II-V-I s with some twists it seems. Can you shoot me over a compressed version?

[ToneGurus]

[quote=ToneGurus;2886742]

I wish I had a record of that song. Its really several II-V-I s with some twists it seems. Can you shoot me over a compressed version? Check it out here. There's an intro, then the "A" section of the melody, which comprises the progression under discussion. The "B" section is just blues.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B00000I8UH001002/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_002/002-1441973-8763267

Mike

[rockinrob]

Hey Mike,
Then this method may not work for you, because this method trys to BREAK playing in a key center. It creates tension and release, and accentuates whats there. Playing in a key avoids the chords function, which this is all about. Knowing the players you dig however, I would think this would be something you would really be into. :)

When you describe the method in terms of I, III, VI, = tonic, and II, IV, V, VII = Dominant, are you not defining Tonic and Dominant in terms of chord function within a key center?

I'm into lots of stuff, including this. I'm just trying to understand the tool as you describe it and see how it applies to Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum.

Mike


No, he's talking about looking at the chords purely in relation to each other- it's all about getting from one chord to the next. Basically every chord is either a V7 or a I. For instance he has the IV chord as a dominant, but that's only in reference to the I chord. With this method 90% of the time a IV is going to be treated like a I (tonic), and you're changing keys nearly every other chord. That's one of my issues with this method. It makes it really easy to alter everything, but you'll notice that it lends it's self mainly to a certaint type of playing.



Thats what this method is doing. It is just giving you more choices at any given time. Now when you see an A7, you do not just have to think of that chord and its extensions, but also E-7, Gmaj7#11, C#-7b5 just DIATONICALLY speaking!!

Don't get me wrong, I understand it.

Then you add in its relative Dom 7s (C7, Eb7, Gb7and C#7 add all of the relative chords to those, and you have an entire lifetime of possibilities.

This is where I start to get turned off. To me C7, Eb7, Gb7 a C#7 have nothing to do with an A7 in 95% of tunes/contexts. Don't miss understand me- I understand the theory behind why people think it works, but to me it doesn't. C#7 over A7 sounds BAD!



It KILLS the other methods, which is part of how Benson KILLS the other guitar players in terms of seemingly endless ideas. :AOK


You mean like C7, Eb7, Gb7 a C#7 over A7?


It's also the quickest method. I'm mean if we're talking about playing changes what's easier than focusing on the chord tones?


:nono But you are not grouping them by function, so you have to think of EACH chord individually!


That's what's there- the root of what you're playing against, the foundation. Tag, I think you feel differently as you came up playing scales, that's why your method seems quicker to you as you already had the scales under your belt.



But I had to UNLEARN them! I have to THINK about each scale and mode now, and I used to know everyone, in every position, all over the fretboard. Now I RARELY need to think of a scale or mode other than Dorian, melodic minor, Whole tone or Diminished. I DO look at arps all the time.



That's not what I hear in your playing. I hear a lot of the above scales superemposed in different ways over chords. Over an alter 7th chord I don't hear you play altered arpeggios, I hear scale runs. And since you're altering half the chords it's half scale runs. I'm not knocking your playing, I'm just telling you what I hear. A lot of people are into that sound.



Come on! Easiest way? Modulate up 1/2 step from any note off dorian or melodic minor. Lol! The "so What" change. :) Want more? Interject a II-V before it. More? A sequence of minor 3rds...its endless.



But it's not explained with the tonic/dominant approach. They're two seemingly unrelated tonics.

That's more of my point, are we talking about playing changes or playing tunes? It's not the same thing, although many guys play like it is. I think it has a similarity to the playing over a backing track vs live group debate.


Well, good backings should switch up the changes as well, and some Abersold do this...but sure...to do it on the fly with other musicians is more fun. :AOK


See, you're still missing the point. Here's an earlier quote of yours (in your trademark red:D)- For chords I totally agree. tha melody is going to show you what chords sound best. And vice versa- the chords will tell you what melody sounds best- it's melody and harmony. Not neccesarily the chords in terms of function, but more in terms of quality- the voicing, the rhythm, the whole thing. Even if we're literally talking about a prewritten melody rather than improvising I'm still going to play it differently depending upon what I'm playing with. And hopefully the guys playing with me will react the same, and at some point we'll go from a group of people playing at each other to a group playing with each other.



I understand that, but it's a big reason why I don't agree with the approach. It leads a player to think of everything the same. It's the details that are important.


NO! It gives you MORE details to work with! As I showed above, now when you see a C maj 7, you can also think of A min7 and E min 7 and all of those lines as well as the usual maj/blues and sharp 11 sounds.


OK- Amin7/C = C6
Emin7/C = Cmaj9

IMO, when you get too far into substitution it leads you to playing BS. Same with the A7 thing- playing C#7 over A7 is a bad sound! It makes sense if you get there moving up in minor thirds or some other pattern, but to think that the two are interchangeable... :crazyguy

To me substitution is more about function. Emin7 is often subbed for Cmaj7 in the way a iii7 is often used for a I. Thinking Amin7 over C will lead you in a different direction. But with anything, if you get too far away from "home" it sounds bad. To me, the whole point is you need to be aware of you're relation to the home key- the home sound at all times. By thinking V7-I, V7-I, V7-I for everything you get further and further away from that. I know a lot of people say as long as you resolve "it's all good". But I don't agree with that- that leads to BS. The whole point is the tonic/dominant thing can lead you into playing a whole lot of nothing. And it's all stuff that can be explained theoretcially, but as far as musical content... :messedup

Like you said, your approach doesn't make you play anything, it just gives you options. I'm just telling you what this way of thinking seems to naturally lead to in my eyes.


Want the sharp 5 sound too? Just play melodic minor off of the relative minor and be done with it. :dude



More scales...



Ummm...Coltrane,benson,Wes, James moody, Parker, Stitt.....these are some of the greatest players in jazz.

Agreed.

this approach lets you concentrate on the melody, and gives you MORE ideas to work with instead of chasing each and every chord like you stated above.

Huh!? First off, it's your approach and maybe Bensons. It's not the approach of these other players. Can you deconstruct some of thier stuff using this approach? Sure. But it's not how they got there. Second- more ideas? Ideas come from your vocabulary. Harmony played for harmony's sake means NOTHING! That's why jazz is in the state it's in- too many players with that mentaility. If you want to chase chords or not that's up to you no mater what approach you take. Even if you think of the same notes over the ii, IV, V, and vii chords you still need to play the right ones if you want the sound of the chords to come across. So you still need to know the notes in each chord, tonic/dominant's no short cut.



You have a much bigger pallette over each RELATED chord to choose from. All you have to do is memorize whech chords are related, and then know you can choose from ANY of that group!
:dude:dude:dude



See, this is my issue entirely. It's the same as the scale approach- if you treat the ii, IV V and iiv all with the same sound you're missing a lot! It's the details- a ii chord in C has a C note, a V chord has a Bb. Details! -It's like thinking of a C major scale for all those chords, that works too. Beyond that, if I want a b5 over a ii chord, I play one. If I want to alter the V I do it. I don't need to think about melodic minor a half step from ANYTHING! This forces you to use your ears rather than your brain. And when you hit a note you didn't intend to you feel it- it registers deep down. If you do the same in context of a scale you probably won't even notice.


This approach has ZERO to do with what notes or how many you CHOOSE to play. It just gives you acess to the many possibilities, and grops them into areas where they function correctly, thats all. YOU have to find YOUR voice.


I agree, you have to find your own voice. Most of this discussion is about recommending this as an approach to beginning improvisers. In which case, the goal is generally to reduce the available pool of notes in order to make better choices, the opposite of what you're saying.



Use it any way you want, or none at all. It worked for them, and it has allowed me to become a MUCH better player in a very short amount of time. Whetever you feel more comfortable with is right for you. :)

:AOK

[Aj_rocker]

i have to say TAG i dont like it how you want to pull EVERYthing anyone has said to pieces. Trust me when i said if krosser has something to talk about its damm worth listening too. i think its easier to say i'll stick to my method and u to yours.


Aj

[Tag]

i have to say TAG i dont like it how you want to pull EVERYthing anyone has said to pieces. Trust me when i said if krosser has something to talk about its damm worth listening too. i think its easier to say i'll stick to my method and u to yours.


Aj


Wait a second babe. Whos trying to pick WHAT to pieces? Ken has been trying to pick apart this approach, put it down, or show some limitations anyway he could. It didnt work. Now see the ignore button? USE IT! :AOK

[Tag]

[quote=Tag;2887042] Check it out here. There's an intro, then the "A" section of the melody, which comprises the progression under discussion. The "B" section is just blues.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B00000I8UH001002/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_002/002-1441973-8763267

Mike



Thanks Mike! I will sit down later on, play along and get it in my head. It sounds like a cool tune! I am surprised I dont think I have heard it before.

[ToneGurus]

[quote=ToneGurus;2887280]
Thanks Mike! I will sit down later on, play along and get it in my head. It sounds like a cool tune! I am surprised I dont think I have heard it before.
Dude! Blasphemy! Get:

Night Dreamer
Speak No Evil
The Soothsayer &
Adam's Apple

These are indespensable! McCoy, Herbie, Reggie, Elvin, Tony!

If I were a "real jazz" guy, these would be somewhere near the epicenter of my collection. I think Wayne had a lot of influence on Miles.

And I like Speak No Evil the best of the four.

Mike

[azgolfer]

Tag, it seems you aren't addressing the larger context. For instance if I have C A7 Dm7 G7, the A7 is dominant, but it is also a VI chord. Also what about VII dominants like Fmaj7 -> Eb7 (Days of Wine and Roses) and IV dominants like Ebmaj7 - > Ab7 (Tenderly). In traditional analysis these don't take altered scales, just +11.

[bombdizzle]

Don Mock? That guy is scary good!

Jim

I take lessons at the school he teaches at, I occasionally get a spot with him

[Tag]

Very uncool, Tag. Very uncool. Why don't you use the ignore button?

And here I thought I was actually trying to have a civil discussion with you about this in a friendly way. I've never put down anything. I just said I prefer to use and teach other methods which have apparently fallen on deaf and insensitive ears.

I make a living at this. I really don't give a flying f*** what you think of my playing or my methods.

Do whatever you want with my blessings.

I'm done.

Ken, I have said from the beginning this is BENSONS method. I was taught it. This is not MINE. I did not invent, add to, or change anything. I am simply passing it along. Dont like it? Fine! Use a different one. I did not come in here bashing someone like he did. I asked you to state YOUR way of approaching even a simple blues change. with a few examples. You refused to state YOUR approach, but kept saying mine was limiting, led to playing LOTS of notes, and ridiclous things of that natur. (which has NOTHING to do with the method) Your done with what? Trying to pick this apart? You already said you had your method totally digested, and I said great! this is just an ALTERNATE way to the same end result. I feel it gives you many more choices when there are few changes, and enables one to simplify when there are lots in most cases. Simple as that.

[Tag]

Tag, it seems you aren't addressing the larger context. For instance if I have C A7 Dm7 G7, the A7 is dominant, but it is also a VI chord. Also what about VII dominants like Fmaj7 -> Eb7 (Days of Wine and Roses) and IV dominants like Ebmaj7 - > Ab7 (Tenderly). In traditional analysis these don't take altered scales, just +11.

The A7 is not a VI chord there. It is the V of D minor. You made it a Dom7 chord which changed its function. If it were a minor chord, it would be a tonic chord with C maj, and you could just play C maj and all its related chords.
Look at Days again. Same thing. Just because the root is the VII of the key means very little. That is a V chord of the next minor chord. Dont look at where you are coming from like in rock, look at where you are GOING to. bensons always says..."I always know right where I am, and right where I am GOING. Basic rule. If the Dom 7 chord is going down 1/2 step, use the sharp 11 only (melodic min up a 5th) If it is the V chord, use the altered scale(melodic minor up 1/2 step) If you analize this, you will see that the Dom 7 chord moving down 1/2 step is just the bV sub of the VDom 7 chord of the chord you are going to. If you alter all the notes on a 7 chord moving down a 1/2 step, you are basically giving yourself all of the PURE notes of the Dom 7 chord that it is the flat V sub of. The reason it is the flat V sub is to give you the altered notes in the first place. then by altering them, you are actually UN altering them! :) Ill give examples later...gotta get to work.

[andyland6]

WOW...a new Fox televison series...

When Jazzers attack!!!!

I'd watch it!

No really...since I'm caught in the pentatonic horseshit triangle*, and WANT TO improve my jazz vocabulary, I would like to examine both KRosser and Tags aproach to soloing. See which one works for me.

*listen to my samples in the Members soundclips area.

[Dana]

...feel the love

[andyland6]

...feel the love

mmm...gooey. With broken glass mixed in.

[GDking]

I think these guys should start a "Gangsta Jazz" movement and just do drive by shootings at each other, deal drugs. And get a large stable of jazz hos.

Would make the whole genre a lot more interesting for young people and well, most everyone else (the majority of the population) that thinks jazz is about as interesting as watching paint dry.

[Tag]

No, he's talking about looking at the chords purely in relation to each other- it's all about getting from one chord to the next. Basically every chord is either a V7 or a I. For instance he has the IV chord as a dominant, but that's only in reference to the I chord. With this method 90% of the time a IV is going to be treated like a I (tonic), and you're changing keys nearly every other chord. That's one of my issues with this method. It makes it really easy to alter everything, but you'll notice that it lends it's self mainly to a certaint type of playing.


Right, but you dont HAVE to alter anything if you dont want. It just gives you all the other possibilities.





Don't get me wrong, I understand it.

VERY GOOD! Its really simple once you do.




This is where I start to get turned off. To me C7, Eb7, Gb7 a C#7 have nothing to do with an A7 in 95% of tunes/contexts. Don't miss understand me- I understand the theory behind why people think it works, but to me it doesn't. C#7 over A7 sounds BAD!


It does work perfectly though, and is used ALL the time! You have to let your ear adjust to it. Martino is a master at it, Coltrane of course, and even Stan Getz used all of them at varios times. The C#7 over the A7 I actually got from HIM! Look at it this way. When A7 is a dominant chord going to D maj, C#7 is just the V chord of F#min, which is a tonic chord (III) of Dmaj! (the I-III-VI are tonic!) Look at it like this. You KNOW the A7 is the V of Dmaj. Done. you KNOW the flat5 sub of A7 is Eb7, so DONE! Gb7 is the V of B min, which is a tonic chord with D maj7 right? Its just the VI relative Minor! DONE! Now C7 is just the flat V of sub of Gb7!! DONE! Now here is another!G7 will work, because it is the flatV sub of C#7!!! YEEEEEHHHAAAAA!!!!!! NOW you are taking it OUT baby, and its STILL making sense harmonically. If you use boppish lines, this will all lead your lines to natural resolutions, and Benson uses ALL of these. thats why when guys say he is not as advanced harmonically as some other cats, its laughable. He is far beyond what most guys are doing. VERY GOOD!





It's also the quickest method. I'm mean if we're talking about playing changes what's easier than focusing on the chord tones?

Which this system gives you that option at all times. Its just the basic chords are already being played, so its a lot more hip sounding at times to play alternate changes.




That's not what I hear in your playing. I hear a lot of the above scales superemposed in different ways over chords. Over an alter 7th chord I don't hear you play altered arpeggios, I hear scale runs. And since you're altering half the chords it's half scale runs. I'm not knocking your playing, I'm just telling you what I hear. A lot of people are into that sound.

I the I-VI-II-V clip, I was playing as basic as possible. It was just a demo thing. I was trying to group the chords by function only. From habit, I altered here and there. The other clip,(Blue Bossa) I was actually improvising. I was using a mostly lines I have learned, used according to the function of the chord. I also superimposed several II V Is and dragged them out like ken was talking about earlier I think. I would have to go back and analyze what I played. It will be different every time.




But it's not explained with the tonic/dominant approach. They're two seemingly unrelated tonics.

Be more specific, I am not sure I understand what you are asking.

That's more of my point, are we talking about playing changes or playing tunes? It's not the same thing, although many guys play like it is. I think it has a similarity to the playing over a backing track vs live group debate.

I already said, the first thing you should do is learn the melody to the tune and have it DRILLED into your head. That will help you play the tune and not the changes, although lets face it. When most guys REALLY get into it, most of the song is long gone. Root motion, alternate changes, rhythms....The only thing pretty much left for the most part is the FUNCTION of the chords!



See, you're still missing the point. Here's an earlier quote of yours (in your trademark red:D)- For chords I totally agree. tha melody is going to show you what chords sound best. And vice versa- the chords will tell you what melody sounds best- it's melody and harmony. Not neccesarily the chords in terms of function, but more in terms of quality- the voicing, the rhythm, the whole thing. Even if we're literally talking about a prewritten melody rather than improvising I'm still going to play it differently depending upon what I'm playing with. And hopefully the guys playing with me will react the same, and at some point we'll go from a group of people playing at each other to a group playing with each other.


Totally agree, that has NOTHING to do with the method used to reach that point, and with thsi system, I feel you have the most options available to you at all times.



I understand that, but it's a big reason why I don't agree with the approach. It leads a player to think of everything the same. It's the details that are important.

Thats where you are mixed up. It allows MORE options! Over a simple C maj chord, you INSTANTLY know you can choose which color you want. Cmaj7 (#11-#5-6/9/Blues scale etc) or Emi or A min sounds. Its up to your taste to choose the COLOR of that TONIC sound. Same for the dom areas. you have to CHOOSE which COLOR you want, but now you KNOW all those choices work perfectly at any given moment, and now its up to your musical ability to apply as you hear it.





OK- Amin7/C = C6
Emin7/C = Cmaj9

IMO, when you get too far into substitution it leads you to playing BS. Same wit:crazyguyh the A7 thing- playing C#7 over A7 is a bad sound! It makes sense if you get there moving up in minor thirds or some other pattern, but to think that the two are interchangeable...



See above. They are, and yes some are VERY out sounds, but they work, and are used very often. Its usually what many of those really cool out sounds are.


To me substitution is more about function. Emin7 is often subbed for Cmaj7 in the way a iii7 is often used for a I. Thinking Amin7 over C will lead you in a different direction. But with anything, if you get too far away from "home" it sounds bad. To me, the whole point is you need to be aware of you're relation to the home key- the home sound at all times. By thinking V7-I, V7-I, V7-I for everything you get further and further away from that. I know a lot of people say as long as you resolve "it's all good". But I don't agree with that- that leads to BS. The whole point is the tonic/dominant thing can lead you into playing a whole lot of nothing. And it's all stuff that can be explained theoretcially, but as far as musical content... :messedup

Sure it CAN lead to a bunch of BS if you let your ear bring it there. Its up to what you choose to play and not play. Thats where taste and each persons style comes out. This simply allows you to choose to go out as far as you want, or just simplify, group as many chords as you can together, and play as basic as possible!

Like you said, your approach doesn't make you play anything, it just gives you options. I'm just telling you what this way of thinking seems to naturally lead to in my eyes.

Agree 100%! :BEER




More scales...

No. LESS scales. Benson does not even know his modes, nor did Wes or Pass!



Huh!? First off, it's your approach and maybe Bensons. It's not the approach of these other players. Can you deconstruct some of thier stuff using this approach? Sure. But it's not how they got there.

From my source, Benson said they used to sit around and talk about this exact thing, and it is more or less how they ALL approached it. This was guys like Wes, Coltrane, and many of the big guys at that time. If anyone knows benson on here, you should ask him this exact question.





Second- more ideas? Ideas come from your vocabulary. Harmony played for harmony's sake means NOTHING! That's why jazz is in the state it's in- too many players with that mentaility. If you want to chase chords or not that's up to you no mater what approach you take. Even if you think of the same notes over the ii, IV, V, and vii chords you still need to play the right ones if you want the sound of the chords to come across. So you still need to know the notes in each chord, tonic/dominant's no short cut.


Agree 100%!! This method goes along with transcribing and learning as MANY tunes and cliche lines as possible. Then you see how they can be applied over all of the chords in each group the same way!


See, this is my issue entirely. It's the same as the scale approach- if you treat the ii, IV V and iiv all with the same sound you're missing a lot! It's the details- a ii chord in C has a C note, a V chord has a Bb. Details! -It's like thinking of a C major scale for all those chords, that works too. Beyond that, if I want a b5 over a ii chord, I play one. If I want to alter the V I do it. I don't need to think about melodic minor a half step from ANYTHING! This forces you to use your ears rather than your brain. And when you hit a note you didn't intend to you feel it- it registers deep down. If you do the same in context of a scale you probably won't even notice.

This has nothing to do with a scale approach at ALL. I am using scale terms only as a sake of brevity. You need to learn all arpeggios inside and out, and see how bop lines outline the color of each chord. Go back and listen to my clips. I am never using more than a few notes of a scale at any time really. It is more one line into another.



I agree, you have to find your own voice. Most of this discussion is about recommending this as an approach to beginning improvisers. In which case, the goal is generally to reduce the available pool of notes in order to make better choices, the opposite of what you're saying.

RIGHT! And why it is so effective for beginners AND masters alike! It gives you the option of reducing many chords down to a few, OR, taking one chord and playing MANY! It works just as well eiether way!


VERY GOOD!!

[Tag]

Hey Ken,
You deleted your big anti Tag post. Does that mean we are friends again? :)

My point was still that the end result can be looked at from ANY method, NOT that you were using this approach, as you stated you were not.
I DO wish that you would have given specific examples to your approach as I did.

[KRosser]

I think these guys should start a "Gangsta Jazz" movement and just do drive by shootings at each other, deal drugs. And get a large stable of jazz hos.

Would make the whole genre a lot more interesting for young people and well, most everyone else (the majority of the population) that thinks jazz is about as interesting as watching paint dry.

...feel the love

mmm...gooey. With broken glass mixed in.

Gentlemen -

My apologies.

I deleted my exchange with Tag. You're right, it was uncalled for and I should have known better than to get involved. This is Tag's thread, I should have stayed out.

[KRosser]

I DO wish that you would have given specific examples to your approach as I did.

I did.

[russ6100]

I'm not Ken and I don't even play him on TV but.....

If I were tasked to explain my "approach" to playing though changes, i.e. detail my "system", I'd be hard pressed.

I view the fretboard from many different angles simultaneously. I see scales, chord tones, other chord tones, pentatonics etc as options for lines. The way in which I view the changes themselves can expand and contract at any time, i.e. reducing the amount of chords in my mind or adding some. It is just a kind of shifting awareness that is in flux during the improv process.

I think a lot of the disagreement here is largely semantic.

In a number of previous posts, Ken has attempted to detail some of the things that are running through his head during the improv process which has lead to some misunderstanding which, I think, frustrates the hell out of him.

So Tag, I'm thinking that Ken probably feels that any explanation of how he views the improv process is going to be too simplistic and horribly inadequate.

I'm not intending to put words in anyone's mouth here - it's just what I've gathered from reading (a lot!) here....

[ToneGurus]

Geez, and all I wanted to know was about how Tag's approach would apply to and simplify Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum. I guess all the antagonism takes priority over an actual musical question. :(

Mike

[Leucadian]

WOW...a new Fox televison series...

When Jazzers attack!!!!

I'd watch it!

No really...since I'm caught in the pentatonic horseshit triangle*, and WANT TO improve my jazz vocabulary, I would like to examine both KRosser and Tags aproach to soloing. See which one works for me.

*listen to my samples in the Members soundclips area.

...Tag ought to produce a show called, Benson. Oh yeah, there already was!:messedup

...how about, Tag!

[Tag]

Originally Posted by Tag http://www.thegearpage.net/board/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=2884508#post2884508)
Dom /ton Dom /tonic/ tonic ........... /Tonic/.. Dom...../
Eb7 / D7#9 ../ G-7. / Ab-7 / BMaj7 / D7.. /.. D-7 / G7/

Dom ton / Dom / Tonic/ Tonic.. / Dom /Ton Dom / Ton Dom /
...Eb7... / D7#9 / G-7 ../ AbMaj7 / Gb7 /... F7..... / Bb7 /

Chord by Chord Mike... :AOK



[quote]OK, so I don't think I'm totally understanding your thought process yet. "Tonic" equates to a I, III, or VI chord, and "Dominant" equates to a II, IV, V, or VII chord, right? These Roman numerals are implying functionality within a key center.


Right, in a major key.

So, let's say, in the example of the G-7/Tonic - You're saying that's a I minor in the key center of G, right? II (b5 sub) - V - I min.

Thats right!

What about Ab-7=BMaj7? Is that "tonic" sound a key center of B? It's a VI chord and a I chord in B, so is that what you're saying?

Thats right!

And the D7? What "tonic" key center is that?

Without knowing how the song goes, it LOOKS like that is just a I7 chord, setting up harmonic movement to a II-V sub to the Eb7. (D-7/G7 is subbing for F-7/Bb7....the II-V to Eb7. VERY tricky and NICE!! See how it is one of the Dom subs I listed that Rockin Robbin (I think)said did not work to his ear? Its used ALL the time! :dude


Then D-7 to G7.... II-V dominant in the key center of C?

No, see above. That is a typical II-V sub for the real II-V (F-7/Bb7) leading to Eb7.

Then we're back to the G- tonic sequence = Key of G(?)

VERY GOOD!! :AOK

Then AbMaj7. "Tonic" in what key, Ab?

Yea, and I am SURE there is a reason why that chord is there, I am just not seeing it now. (It could be functioning a different way) Once I have the tune down, I could probably pick it up, but I would just treat it as its own thing from LOOKING at these chords. (I have yet to sit down and play along with your clip.) I would love to hear the solos on it as well, to hear how guys are playing over this.

Then the II (b5 sub), V, I to Bb, which to me would be "tonic" in the key center of Bb.

But you hear/see it as dominant, so what key center(s) are these last 3 chords functioning as "dominant" in?

Mike, on the last chord (Bb), I should have stated Tonic for at least a beat THEN Dom. The reason is as you say, BUT, it changes to a Dom because it is the V of the next Chord Eb again. (Or in other words, you can TREAT it as a dom to Eb if you want)

Do you see what I'm asking? What are the key centers for this tune? In your theoretical world view, don't we need key centers for the terms/functions of Tonic/Dominant to have meaning to guide the improviser?

Mike, I think now you should have it. Let me know. I would love to see if you start to apply this approach to your transcribing, and playing. I really think it opens up an entire new world of not only playing things, but most importantly, how you hear music in general. I may have said this already, but look at a one chord vamp on A minor. A minor is relative to D7. So these are both tonic sounds now. So on that A minor, all of the D7 things work. You have A dorian (D mix) A melodic minor, Eb melodic minor, D wholetone. D 1/2 whole diminished, Cmaj#11, F#-7b5, F7,C-7,Cmelodic minor,F#melodic minor, Ebmaj7#11,A-7b5, Eb-7,Ab7, Ab wholetone,Ab 1/2whole dim,F#maj7#11, C-7b5,Gbmin7,Gbmelodic minor,C melodic minor,B7,B wholetone, B 1/2 whole diminished, Amaj7#11, F#-7,F#melodic minor,C melodic minor..and more. That is before you even LOOK at interjecting a Dom chord leading back in!!! Now you see why trane said once he started soloing, it was hard to "get out", because he wanted to "get it all in". :eek::eek::eek::eek: More than a life time of study for anyone.

[andyland6]

...Tag ought to produce a show called, Benson. Oh yeah, there already was!:messedup

...how about, Tag!

LOL!!!!!

I'd bet it would have a KILLER be-bop theme song.

Donna Lee @ 400 BPM. Go man go!

[Leucadian]

LOL!!!!!

I'd bet it would have a KILLER be-bop theme song.

Donna Lee @ 400 BPM. Go man go!

...or a re-harmonization of the Leave It To Beaver theme played at a head-cuttin' tempo...Tag would start each episode by showing George Benson burnin' someone a new arse!:p Then, he would shout, "Very, Very Good Babe! Yeehaw! An endless stream of ideas...even the very best think so!"

...I would watch that show as long as Tag had guests that he could debate...:munch

[Tag]

Gentlemen -

My apologies.

I deleted my exchange with Tag. You're right, it was uncalled for and I should have known better than to get involved. This is Tag's thread, I should have stayed out.


Ken, I started the thread but I do not "own" it. You (or anyone) are always welcome to come in and agree or disagree with me in ANY of my threads. Im GLAD you bought up all of those points about this system. It shows its a good one. I am not a teacher like you are, and sure not anywhere NEAR as good a player as you are. Im just trying to show that why IMO, TO ME, it MAY be the best one. (And after all, it is for Benson :p)

[Tag]

...or a re-harmonization of the Leave It To Beaver theme played at a head-cuttin' tempo...Tag would start each episode by showing George Benson burnin' someone a new arse!:p Then, he would shout, "Very, Very Good Babe! Yeehaw! An endless stream of ideas...even the very best think so!"

...I would watch that show as long as Tag had guests that he could debate...:munch



Hmmmmmmm....I like the sound of this! :D

[Strung Up]

Ken, I started the thread but I do not "own" it. You (or anyone) are always welcome to come in and agree or disagree with me in ANY of my threads. Im GLAD you bought up all of those points about this system. It shows its a good one. I am not a teacher like you are, and sure not anywhere NEAR as good a player as you are. Im just trying to show that why IMO, TO ME, it MAY be the best one. (And after all, it is for Benson :p)

Welcoming someone doesn't mean inviting them over for barbeque then haranguing them endlessly that your sauce is the best.

II and IV sometimes have to be treated as dominant preparation.

All standards have stronger and weaker harmonic areas that either should be shown if you want to reveal the tunes structure, or can be dismissed at will.

Lots of post-50s tunes are intended to be modal, not func. harmony (esp. Wayne, Herbie and the gang), to which the approach you cited (great though it be) is not the most appropriate.

Most pro anythings have more than 1 approach to their craft.

[Tag]

Welcoming someone doesn't mean inviting them over for barbeque then haranguing them endlessly that your sauce is the best.

OK. Then with your rules, is it nice to go to someones barbecue and say there sauce is OK, but It has a lot of shortcomings, and I would much rather have mine?

Sorry. I would rather be blunt and talk it all out with total honesty. Yea, I think my sauce is the best, and here is why. :dude


II and IV sometimes have to be treated as dominant preparation.

Not sure about the "HAVE TO", But I agree they are milder dominant sounds. Many lines will actually start out on the II or IV as a stonger, or more altered dom, then come back to the straight II or IV chord scale or arp. before resolving to the tonic. In other words, a stronger to weaker dom sound. I have only really noticed and tried to add that to my playing recently after transcribing a certain Benson line. Usually its a weaker to a stronger Dom color before resolving.



All standards have stronger and weaker harmonic areas that either should be shown if you want to reveal the tunes structure, or can be dismissed at will.

Totally agree.


Lots of post-50s tunes are intended to be modal, not func. harmony (esp. Wayne, Herbie and the gang), to which the approach you cited (great though it be) is not the most appropriate.


This approach allows that at any time. As a matter of fact, to me, by FAR the best modal players are the ones who know and can hear how to break in and out of the mode at will. (Like the players you mention.)


Most pro anythings have more than 1 approach to their craft.

Agree. I have always agreed there are probably infinite approaches. This is just the one "I" find the best. There may be others that are easier and better, and I would love to hear about as many as possible. :)

[vanhalen_guy]

Thanks for sharing, Tag.

Very informative! I have to admit that I knew nothing about Benson's approach.

[azgolfer]

The A7 is not a VI chord there. It is the V of D minor. You made it a Dom7 chord which changed its function. If it were a minor chord, it would be a tonic chord with C maj, and you could just play C maj and all its related chords.
Look at Days again. Same thing. Just because the root is the VII of the key means very little. That is a V chord of the next minor chord. Dont look at where you are coming from like in rock, look at where you are GOING to. bensons always says..."I always know right where I am, and right where I am GOING. Basic rule. If the Dom 7 chord is going down 1/2 step, use the sharp 11 only (melodic min up a 5th) If it is the V chord, use the altered scale(melodic minor up 1/2 step) If you analize this, you will see that the Dom 7 chord moving down 1/2 step is just the bV sub of the VDom 7 chord of the chord you are going to. If you alter all the notes on a 7 chord moving down a 1/2 step, you are basically giving yourself all of the PURE notes of the Dom 7 chord that it is the flat V sub of. The reason it is the flat V sub is to give you the altered notes in the first place. then by altering them, you are actually UN altering them! :) Ill give examples later...gotta get to work.
Interesting how there are multiple explanations for these things. For instance, vii7 (Bb7 -> Cmaj7) can be viewed as a chord from the parallel minor, or as a minor chord ivm in a "minor plagal" cadence (Fm6=Bb7->Cmaj7), or, as you view it, as a b5 to VI (Bb7 -> Amin). IV7 is another minor plagal cadence (for instance Cmaj7->Cm6=F7) , but it could also be a b5 sub for the VII7 (in this case B7 -> Em or B7->C). The explanation here is, since it is not a "true" dominant chord, with the tritone resolving, it doesn't take to altered 5 or 9. One thing I like about your method is that you only have to look at two chords to determine what it is. OTOH, if you see F7->Cmaj7 you would have to look at Cmaj7 as Em7/C to see the half step resolution.

[Tag]

Interesting how there are multiple explanations for these things. For instance, vii7 (Bb7 -> Cmaj7) can be viewed as a chord from the parallel minor, or as a minor chord ivm in a "minor plagal" cadence (Fm6=Bb7->Cmaj7), or, as you view it, as a b5 to VI (Bb7 -> Amin). IV7 is another minor plagal cadence (for instance Cmaj7->Cm6=F7) , but it could also be a b5 sub for the VII7 (in this case B7 -> Em or B7->C). The explanation here is, since it is not a "true" dominant chord, with the tritone resolving, it doesn't take to altered 5 or 9. One thing I like about your method is that you only have to look at two chords to determine what it is. OTOH, if you see F7->Cmaj7 you would have to look at Cmaj7 as Em7/C to see the half step resolution.

Sounds like you have it! VERY GOOD! Do you see all the subs and different sounds that this gives you as well?

[rockinrob]

It does work perfectly though, and is used ALL the time! You have to let your ear adjust to it. Martino is a master at it, Coltrane of course, and even Stan Getz used all of them at varios times. The C#7 over the A7 I actually got from HIM! Look at it this way. When A7 is a dominant chord going to D maj, C#7 is just the V chord of F#min, which is a tonic chord (III) of Dmaj! (the I-III-VI are tonic!) Look at it like this. You KNOW the A7 is the V of Dmaj. Done. you KNOW the flat5 sub of A7 is Eb7, so DONE! Gb7 is the V of B min, which is a tonic chord with D maj7 right? Its just the VI relative Minor! DONE! Now C7 is just the flat V of sub of Gb7!! DONE! Now here is another!G7 will work, because it is the flatV sub of C#7!!! YEEEEEHHHAAAAA!!!!!! NOW you are taking it OUT baby, and its STILL making sense harmonically. If you use boppish lines, this will all lead your lines to natural resolutions, and Benson uses ALL of these. thats why when guys say he is not as advanced harmonically as some other cats, its laughable. He is far beyond what most guys are doing. VERY GOOD!



It's funny you bring up Martino as I almost brought him up when I posted about the C#7 over A7. Like I said, I understand how it works harmonically. In fact, there's other explinations along with the one that you've given. I've even played that sort of thing myself, but in a sequence- A7 to C7 to Eb7 etc... But to me C#7 over A7 out of the context of a sequence is *out*. That doesn't mean it can't work, it can, and that doesn't mean you can't hear it. But the two are not interchangeable. I liken it to this comparison- take two drums loops, each at a different BPM and different length and play them at the same time. It will sound like a complete mess for awhile, but if you listen long enough you'll start to recognize little patterns here and there- if the loops keep repeating they'll sync up every so often. And if you listen long enough even the parts that don't sync will start to make sense, too.

But that doesn't mean they work. Play those loops for someone else and they will sound "out". And I don't expect anyone to have to school themselves to be able to enjoy my stuff- that's some Cecil Taylor sh!t. Anyway, that's what I think is happening with C#7 over A7. To me it doesn't work when you hear it off the cuff- they're not interchangable. And it's not a point I want to get to because I don't think it works for anybody that hasn't spent a lot of time doing it over and over again.

Sure it CAN lead to a bunch of BS if you let your ear bring it there. Its up to what you choose to play and not play. Thats where taste and each persons style comes out. This simply allows you to choose to go out as far as you want, or just simplify, group as many chords as you can together, and play as basic as possible!



This is really my whole issue. We're talking about using this as your primary approach here, as well as an approach for beginners. It seems to me this is a way to try and get a lot of "hip" or "modern" lines, and while jazz is all about tension and release, it's also about nuance and subtlety. Let me ask you- in that system how often do you treat a V7 as a ii7? And how often do you treat a ii7 as a V7? That's my point- guys use this more often to alter things rather than play them straight, and those same players tend to ignore what's going on in the tune or the group. And that's the kind of stuff that usually bores me pretty quick as a listener.

[kimock]

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!!!!!!!!!

Another way to say this might be "breaking the above rules results in beautiful melody".

If we visualize the above Tonic/Dominant concept correctly as every other rung on a ladder of thirds, orbiting equidistant inside and outside the the circle of fifths, and the answer to the question "why is any note out of bounds?", answered with the reply "function", then we must assume that in a strict interpretation the only remaining extensions are those belonging to the next group of rungs up the ladder.

The opposite function.

In a harmonic territory of areas and features, the melody, by virtue of its novelty, will always occupy a higher dimension than the
accompaniment.

There's nowhere left to go.

The next rung up the meta-ladder is the one you were just on in that line of reasoning. Out is in.
Diatonic Tonic/Non-Tonic Differentiation. . .What a hoot!

Over and out.

:munch

[Tag]

Another way to say this might be "breaking the above rules results in beautiful melody".

If we visualize the above Tonic/Dominant concept correctly as every other rung on a ladder of thirds, orbiting equidistant inside and outside the the circle of fifths, and the answer to the question "why is any note out of bounds?", answered with the reply "function", then we must assume that in a strict interpretation the only remaining extensions are those belonging to the next group of rungs up the ladder.

The opposite function.

In a harmonic territory of areas and features, the melody, by virtue of its novelty, will always occupy a higher dimension than the
accompaniment.

There's nowhere left to go.

The next rung up the meta-ladder is the one you were just on in that line of reasoning. Out is in.
Diatonic Tonic/Non-Tonic Differentiation. . .What a hoot!

Over and out.

:munch

The melody is always the most important thing in a song, and you can reharmonize it anyway you like. No disagreement here. We are really looking at the underlying chords and harmony here, in which case they function as either tonic or diminant. No, the next rung up the ladder is not always a change in function. Key of G major. A Bminor chord is tonic. The fifth of B minor is F#, tonic note. The next note up is G...tonic note. In a IMaj7-VI7-II-V. The The one is tonic...the VI7 is now actually the V of the II chord, and the II and V function as Dom chords back to the I. You can Change that II chord to a II7 as well, but then it becomes the V of the V.

[KRosser]

The melody is always the most important thing in a song, and you can reharmonize it anyway you like. No disagreement here. We are really looking at the underlying chords and harmony here, in which case they function as either tonic or diminant.

Seriously, Tag - you don't hear subdominant or supertonic chords, etc., as different functions?

It just seems to me like trying to oversimplify every painting into black and white, and then overcomplicate this grotesque simplification. Sure, you could go through any Van Gogh painting and separate all the dark colors into the 'black' category and all the light ones in to the 'white', and compute complex formulas about why red is considered 'white' in one painting and 'black' in another, but in order to create a Van Gogh you need more than that, in terms of both the subjective ambiguity of 'color' and the details of function.

I'd love to hear about this in your own words and not just "this is how Benson does it so that's why it's 'correct' ".

[Tag]

Seriously, Tag - you don't hear subdominant or supertonic chords, etc., as different functions?

It just seems to me like trying to oversimplify every painting into black and white, and then overcomplicate this grotesque simplification. Sure, you could go through any Van Gogh painting and separate all the dark colors into the 'black' category and all the light ones in to the 'white', and compute complex formulas about why red is considered 'white' in one painting and 'black' in another, but in order to create a Van Gogh you need more than that, in terms of both the subjective ambiguity of 'color' and the details of function.

I'd love to hear about this in your own words and not just "this is how Benson does it so that's why it's 'correct' ".


No, either a sound is at rest or its not. Im surprised you hear it differently. Sure, a 7b5b9 chord has WAY more "PULL" back to the tonic that a II minor chord or a IV maj7, but they are still pulling your ear back. You use the different shades and degrees of pull or tension to create your masterpiece, just as you said above. Sometimes you want a very mild sound, other times a HEAVY sound. Thats all up to ones taste at the time. For a month I seem to find the b9 the sweetest color on a Dom chord. the next month, the #5, the next a b5. Lately I have liked the sound of the natural 9th on a V going back to the I minor, which is not used a lot. Jackie Mclean and Benson both use that quite a bit, and at first it sounded "off" to me. Now its one of my fave sounds. Goes great resolving to a min/maj7 chord to my ear. This approach also allows you to do things like a line I got from Benson. Over a II A minor chord, he plays a D altered idea, then on the D7, he plays a simple A min arpeggio! Looking at that A min 7 as a sub dom area, that is usually NOT going to happen! It caught my ear right away, like WHAT was THAT! I went back and transcribed, and it was so simple using THIS technique. Of course he also plays the II as a V of the V, and alters that all the time as well, for an even stronger and more varied flavor. Its all how you hear it at the time.

Its really not over simplifying to me. Either you are home or your not. You can be a block away and be a LOT closer than half way around the world, but you still are not home.

Sometimes you want to go on a vacation to the beach which is 2 hours away. Other times you want to go to the caribbean. Big difference in distances, but a vacation none the less.

I hope that makes sense, because it is the way I hear music now, and it makes it SO much more enjoyable for me. Most of the time I can hear exactly where the soloist is, and where he is bringing it, or trying to at least.

[KRosser]

No, either a sound is at rest or its not.

What can I say that haven't said already a dozen times? I need more than that, as a player and a listener.

From a practical music making perspective - to me, the mechanics involved in making this over-simplification work get in the way. I want there to be a distinction between IV going to I and V going to I, if harmonic tension and resolution is what I have in mind. And, it means my sense of 'rest & motion' is dictated by the chord progression and the gamut of 'subs' needed to make that work if I whittle it down to only two sounds. I'm trying to eliminate harmonic subs, not add them!

And I'm sorry - I don't hear Benson as an interesting improvisor with a wellspring of ideas. An exceptional guitar player and musician, without a doubt. But I just don't hear him as a great improvisor, to my own tastes. No diss on him. It just means I tip my hat to him and try to follow another way of doing things.

Im surprised you hear it differently.

Well, I do. This is nothing to feel threatened by - I just do.

I hope that makes sense, because it is the way I hear music now,

It's always made sense. That's not the problem. The problem for me is it doesn't help me make music at all since there's so much more going on than harmonic tension & resolution and leaves no room for any ambiguity there. I like ambiguity. I want ambiguity. I want another way of organizing harmonic tension & resolution to the extent that I do use it, other than translating every chord into either a tonic or a dominant.

For instance, I find movies or books with unresolved tensions and ambiguous resolutions so much more compelling. If all the questions a book raises are answered I feel a little let down.

I could keep going on, but it doesn't really matter.

[Tag]

What can I say that haven't said already a dozen times? I need more than that, as a player and a listener.

Ken. What is that you need more of? There is nothing this does not include. In grouping the chords, the Sub doms are one of your choices. If its simply A min 7 to D7 to G maj 7, that is one of your choices. Look at the groupings again. You seem to be missing that. They are ALL there for you. You are taking the point that you HAVE to alter or choose a sub. Not so at all. Go back and look at the gropings, they are ALL there, and it gives you many choices that other players are not even aware of, and rarely play. I never hear the fusion guys make many of these, including Abercrombie. Its much more straight up and down, which is fine too. Listen to him play 4 on 6, then listen to someone like Rodney jones do it, or a similar tune. Putting personal preference aside, Jones is light years ahead harmonically speaking. All those simpler choices are there. It gives you the choice of playing PURELY diatonic if thats what you are hearing.

From a practical music making perspective - to me, the mechanics involved in making this over-simplification work get in the way. I want there to be a distinction between IV going to I and V going to I,

Great! me too many times! Its in there!


if harmonic tension and resolution is what I have in mind. And, it means my sense of 'rest & motion' is dictated by the chord progression and the gamut of 'subs' needed to make that work if I whittle it down to only two sounds. I'm trying to eliminate harmonic subs, not add them!

AHHH!!! Like RockinRobbin, you are thinking I mean all "colors" are the same! NOT so! An altered "color" is a totally different color than a diminshed "color", but make no mistake, they are both dominant sounds when used over a 7 chord.

And I'm sorry - I don't hear Benson as an interesting improvisor with a wellspring of ideas.

I know, you think Abercrombie is. :D (Who says himself that Benson can play circles around him) Seriously, thats just personal taste, and has nothing to do with the method used.




An exceptional guitar player and musician, without a doubt. But I just don't hear him as a great improvisor, to my own tastes. No diss on him. It just means I tip my hat to him and try to follow another way of doing things.


Nothing wrong with that. I always agree its better to be yourself than to try and sound like someone else. :)



Well, I do. This is nothing to feel threatened by - I just do.

Thretened?? How? I just am putting this out there for free, as a way to maybe help some guys who are learning to play music, or to give another look at what they already know.



It's always made sense. That's not the problem. The problem for me is it doesn't help me make music at all since there's so much more going on than harmonic tension & resolution and leaves no room for any ambiguity there. I like ambiguity. I want ambiguity. I want another way of organizing harmonic tension & resolution to the extent that I do use it, other than translating every chord into either a tonic or a dominant.


Ken, thats all there as I showed. Those are always choices available to you at ANY time. To me, THAT gets very boring real fast. I mean the chord is already being played. That sound is OUT there already. Still, if you want that sound, its right there as a choice.


For instance, I find movies or books with unresolved tensions and ambiguous resolutions so much more compelling. If all the questions a book raises are answered I feel a little let down.

Umm....then dont resolve your line. :)

I could keep going on, but it doesn't really matter.[/quote]

Please do if you want. Every single point you have made is all in the system. there is nothing thats NOT in there for you to choose from. The main issue I see as that I am seperating "color" from "sound". Sound is the function of the chord, the way you color is is all up to you, and all options are available at any time. from the most basic of just playing the chord, to the endless subs it yields. It may not be the way everyone approaches it, but it can all be easily analyzed this way too.

[KRosser]

Ken. What is that you need more of? There is nothing this does not include. In grouping the chords, the Sub doms are one of your choices. If its simply A min 7 to D7 to G maj 7, that is one of your choices. Look at the groupings again. You seem to be missing that.

I guess I am really confused now. I have Am7. I have D7. I have Gmaj7. You're saying (or at least I thought you were saying) Am7 and D7 are dominant chords in this case and require a harmonic treatment leading to a resolution (Gmaj7).

I'm saying whether Am7 is the tonic or part of this dominant 'group', I'm still going to treat it the same way - there's chord tones A, C, E, G - possibly B, D, and then there's everything else - Bb, C#, Eb, F, F#, G# and all are fair game melodically depending on where I want the melody to go regardless of what the harmonic 'pull' is.

Most importantly, for me - this also means I don't have to change my approach when I play something that's decidely not jazz, or on the fence somewhere....


They are ALL there for you. You are taking the point that you HAVE to alter or choose a sub.


Yes, if I'm thinking of subdominant Am7 as a dominant chord, I have to use a sub or else you're misusing the term 'dominant'.

I never hear the fusion guys make many of these, including Abercrombie. Its much more straight up and down, which is fine too. Listen to him play 4 on 6,

Well, Abercrombie played that song on an electric mandolin, he was going for something else.

then listen to someone like Rodney jones do it, or a similar tune. Putting personal preference aside, Jones is light years ahead harmonically speaking.

Rodney Jones is a fine guitar player. I have no overwhelming need to put him down, so I'm not going to be baited into it.

Either way, I don't care about 'harmonic light-years ahead'-ness, I want interesting, compelling music. I don't want 'advanced' music, necessarily.

If I want harmonically challenging music, there isn't a single jazz musician ever that could hold a candle to Stravinsky, Bach, Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Andriessen, Part, etc., if you wanna start getting competitive over it.



AHHH!!! Like RockinRobbin, you are thinking I mean all "colors" are the same! NOT so! An altered "color" is a totally different color than a diminshed "color", but make no mistake, they are both dominant sounds when used over a 7 chord.


But they're very different dominant sounds! So what's the point of making this unnecessary designation first? Why not get right down to the business at hand? And if I play Dominant seventh chord tones and then tonic chord tones, it's going to sound like a dom-tonic resolution whether I make that distinction or not...so again - what's the point of making that distinction first?


I know, you think Abercrombie is. :D (Who says himself that Benson can play circles around him)


Much of the time I do, but I've heard Ab have off nights too. At least he doesn't play so much canned stuff.

Ab says that about everyone, by the way, but I know he loves those old organ trio Benson records.

So what? I'm not compelled to follow Abercrombie's tastes just because I like him.


Seriously, thats just personal taste, and has nothing to do with the method used.


But you keep waving the Benson flag over this like that's all the explanation I should need.


Ken, thats all there as I showed. Those are always choices available to you at ANY time. To me, THAT gets very boring real fast. I mean the chord is already being played. That sound is OUT there already. Still, if you want that sound, its right there as a choice.


I want a melody that takes me somewhere, whether it's diatonic or not I don't care, and I don't really know until the goosebumps start coming up. That's the magic of improvisation. I don't want to hear lots of clever harmonic tricks. I'm done with clever harmonic tricks. I've heard so many college grads with harmonic tricks up the wazoo I could scream. That doesn't make it 'good' to me, in and of itself.


Umm....then dont resolve your line. :)

Again: then what's the point of making this unnecessary distinction? Why waste my time assigning something as the tonic if I'm not going to use that information? "Chord tones and non-chord tones" is information I can always use, and it doesn't change based on function. I've also found it leads me to consider relationships of those 12 notes not based on tertial diatonic harmony at all.



Please do if you want. Every single point you have made is all in the system.

No, it's not. I don't think you're really understanding me at all.

[Lucidology]

I've heard so many college grads with harmonic tricks up the wazoo I could scream...



Quote of the Decade ... http://www.smileyhut.com/excited/clap2.gif

[kimock]

The melody is always the most important thing in a song, and you can reharmonize it anyway you like. No disagreement here. We are really looking at the underlying chords and harmony here, in which case they function as either tonic or diminant. No, the next rung up the ladder is not always a change in function. Key of G major. A Bminor chord is tonic. The fifth of B minor is F#, tonic note. The next note up is G...tonic note. In a IMaj7-VI7-II-V. The The one is tonic...the VI7 is now actually the V of the II chord, and the II and V function as Dom chords back to the I. You can Change that II chord to a II7 as well, but then it becomes the V of the V.

In the key of C, chord tones of "dominant F" are A C E G B, pretty much the entire "tonic" area. C major, A minor, E minor. It can't be both or neither in this scheme.
Game over.
Next.
;)

[RichardB]

In the key of C, chord tones of "dominant F" are A C E G B, pretty much the entire "tonic" area. C major, A minor, E minor. It can't be both or neither in this scheme.
Game over.
Next.
;)

If I can interject momentarily:

Tag is in essence saying that any chord which contains the 4th degree of the scale is in "tension"

[kimock]

If I can interject momentarily:

Tag is in essence saying that any chord which contains the 4th degree of the scale is in "tension"


In the example I offered, the "dominant" area contains the "tonic" area.

Tag's thing here isn't a musical method, it's a belief system.

Nothing wrong with that, just don't expect it to stand up to any meaningful analysis.

[azgolfer]

I think he is talking about lines, not notes. He is saying that he finds a commonality to lines that fit over II IV V VII and I III VI. I don't see it as any less valid than other systems. Warren Nunes had a similar approach, he would emphasize the II IV and VI triads/arpeggios over the II V and the I III and V (and VI) over the I. To me it's an interesting simplification. It seems one step away from the most simple system, which is to play in large key centers, for instance, play in Bb over Dm7 G7 Cm F7. On the other end of the spectrum, you have people who like think in specific modes/scales for each chord. Another interesting idea is applying that tonic grouping to analyzing tunes, for instance viewing dominant chords as b5 subs into the VI and the III.

[trap]

i haven't read this entire thread but i remember an interview with benson a few years back where he talked about breaking it all down to major, minor dim, and aug.so i think it works for george to simplify it. he is a great player to me because he has a great , positive happy feel as well as great technique, and passion. i had the honor of being present at a recording session years ago with pat martino and he was talking about how his upcoming record(starbright) was in competition with georges new record(breezin), no competition. pat has the intellectual down but george knows how to use that lower chakra to get the groove on.and people feel that! go george!

[RichardB]

In the example I offered, the "dominant" area contains the "tonic" area.

Tag's thing here isn't a musical method, it's a belief system.

Nothing wrong with that, just don't expect it to stand up to any meaningful analysis.

Steve,
You misunderstand...
The presence of the 4th degree puts the chord in tension. It has nothing to do with what the other notes in the chord may be:

If the (natural) 4th degree is somewhere in the chord, the chord is antithetical to the tonic area...

BTW, what I have just articulated is not what Tag has actually said, but is essentially his "system" boiled down to 2 lines of text....

[rockinrob]

AHHH!!! Like RockinRobbin, you are thinking I mean all "colors" are the same! NOT so! An altered "color" is a totally different color than a diminshed "color", but make no mistake, they are both dominant sounds when used over a 7 chord.


Hey man, don't drag me into this! :p No Tag, I understand your point, always did. You're saying that there are two basic sounds, and within those sounds are different colors. I'm saying there's many different sounds, and within those sounds additional colors- that's the whole arguement. Sounds like a moot point I know...



Please do if you want. Every single point you have made is all in the system. there is nothing thats NOT in there for you to choose from. The main issue I see as that I am seperating "color" from "sound". Sound is the function of the chord, the way you color is is all up to you, and all options are available at any time. from the most basic of just playing the chord, to the endless subs it yields. It may not be the way everyone approaches it, but it can all be easily analyzed this way too.

But why don't you take it a step further? Let's just say over a ii-V-I in C we'll just play off the sound of "the key of C"? It's all the same sound, right? No! There's more sounds then that! Not just other keys but within that key. If that makes sense then maybe you can see how labeling everything as either tonic or dominant is shortsided as well.

I guess I am really confused now. I have Am7. I have D7. I have Gmaj7. You're saying (or at least I thought you were saying) Am7 and D7 are dominant chords in this case and require a harmonic treatment leading to a resolution (Gmaj7).

I'm saying whether Am7 is the tonic or part of this dominant 'group', I'm still going to treat it the same way - there's chord tones A, C, E, G - possibly B, D, and then there's everything else - Bb, C#, Eb, F, F#, G# and all are fair game melodically depending on where I want the melody to go regardless of what the harmonic 'pull' is.....

...Yes, if I'm thinking of subdominant Am7 as a dominant chord, I have to use a sub or else you're misusing the term 'dominant'.

No, he's saying you can treat the Amin7 as D7 and vice versa- that they're interchangable. The same notes, lines, licks, etc will work over both chords. Further more the same alterations, subs, etc will work over both chords. It reminds me of the advice I often see online recommending just playing your blues box licks a minor 3rd down for a major chord- you may technically be hitting OK notes, but they aren't going to sound the same.



I've heard so many college grads with harmonic tricks up the wazoo I could scream.Quote of the Decade ... http://www.smileyhut.com/excited/clap2.gif

+1

Er? 'dominant F'?

He means in Benson's system an F chord in the key of C is thought of as being in the dominant family, or the tension family.


Anyway, I've been thinking about this and it reminds me of a lot of debates I've had with people about politics, religion, social issues, etc. I consider the discussion we're having to based on fundamental ideas. Tag's goal seems to be to make things easier and therefore "better". My point this whole time (which I think is the same as Ken's) is that if you're going to get fundamental on this stuff, breaking it down to the chord tones is as basic as you can get. It's all the information you need. Your ears and ideas should tell you whether you want to treat a chord within the context of the tune/sequence or as it's own entity irregardless of what else is going on or anywhere in between. Your ears will decide if each chord is tonic, dominant, subdom, whatever- and you can change halfway through the bar. If you're not hearing enough ideas to keep you entertained based on what's there it's your own creativity and conceptions that's to blame.

[kimock]

Er? 'dominant F'?

According to the OP, that would be a glimpse into the musical thinking of John Coltrane. . .

we're not worthy. . .:roll

[KRosser]

My point this whole time (which I think is the same as Ken's) is that if you're going to get fundamental on this stuff, breaking it down to the chord tones is as basic as you can get.

Yes! Finally! Someone gets it!

No matter what the function of the water ultimately is, you can always have water at your disposal by combining two parts of hydrogen and one part oxygen - whether it's for ice cubes or steam, it doesn't matter.

[heretic]

I was thinking about the tune "Autumn Leaves", the first few bars or so...

Am7/D7/Gma7/Cma7/F#m7b5 ...

Tag, do I understand correctly that according to your system, the C major 7 chord above functions as dominant?

In my view, the hippest lines would stem from treating GMa 7 as dominant, with all the subs that apply - in effect, setting up resolution to C as a Tonic. This appears to me as something George Benson would do, even though the Gma7 is the tonic chord (and the key of the tune).

I would humbly postulate that in this particular case, just saying Cma7 = IV chord = Dominant would be missing the picture, do you agree? Or am I just totally missing your point?

[KRosser]

I was thinking about the tune "Autumn Leaves", the first few bars or so...

Am7/D7/Gma7/Cma7/F#m7b5 ...

Tag, do I understand correctly that according to your system, the C major 7 chord above functions as dominant?

In my view, the hippest lines would stem from treating GMa 7 as dominant, with all the subs that apply - in effect, setting up resolution to C as a Tonic. This appears to me as something George Benson would do, even though the Gma7 is the tonic chord (and the key of the tune).

I would humbly postulate that in this particular case, just saying Cma7 = IV chord = Dominant would be missing the picture, do you agree? Or am I just totally missing your point?

An excellent example - in Tag-speak, Cmaj7 would be a part of the dominant sequence ultimately leading to Em on the next bar (?).

No thanks!

[kimock]

I just am putting this out there for free, as a way to maybe help some guys who are learning to play music, or to give another look at what they already know.



That's exactly right, and at a certain level it's not bad advice nor is it uncommon.

I recieved exactly the same advice as a young man with an interest in jazz music thirty or so years ago, minus the Benson, Wes, Coltrane, name dropping of course.

It's exactly the kind of advice any mature, intuitive, experienced jazz guitarist might offer a beginning jazz guitarist with no formal training who was coming to jazz with a rock/blues/shred background.

It's exactly the kind of advice you get when your teacher sees you sliding up and down the neck with pentatonic boxes trying to negotiate chord symbols that refer to chromatic voice leading. . .

It's usefullness pretty much ends there.

There is no "musical method" here.
It's just another cliche in an endless stream of musical cliches. .

"It's all just tonic and dominant."

"You can play any note you want as long as the note before it and after it is right."

"It's all just lines and spaces."

etc.

I took that same advice as a wake up call to continue my education, as it was immediatly obvious to me, even at that tender age, that although it contained enough information to allow me to butcher a Billy Strayhorn tune, it didn't contain enough information to compose one.

At the level this cliche/concept is presented here it does have some merit,
as it is being communicated by a hobbyist as an introduction to a new style
for other beginners. Cool.

My own free advice here would be that followers of this naive belief system might do well to adopt some additional
truisms to moderate it, perhaps,
"For any pulse a beat may be sounded or not". . .


As you were. . .

[KRosser]

My own free advice here would be that followers of this naive belief system might do well to adopt some additional
truisms to moderate it


:cool:

[Tag]

In the key of C, chord tones of "dominant F" are A C E G B, pretty much the entire "tonic" area. C major, A minor, E minor. It can't be both or neither in this scheme.
Game over.
Next.
;)

Sorry, I was away for the weekend, but Im back now kids! :AOK

WOW! Just read through some of this stuff and cant believe how personal some guys seem to be taking this. OK, Ill take that attitude now as well.

Kimock: Wrong as usual. Its pretty much exactly as Richard B states below. Go back to your "free jam" style noodling now. :messedup

[Tag]

If I can interject momentarily:

Tag is in essence saying that any chord which contains the 4th degree of the scale is in "tension"

Thats pretty much it. We are talking about taking the chord progression as is, BEFORE we start changing the function, which I showed is always another possibility. (As in simply making the II min a V7 of the V chord in a I-VI-II-V, or making the VI min a dom 7 which changes its function from a VI min tonic chord to the I MAJ7, to a V dom7 chord of the II monor.

Way to go Richard. :dude The man with the big ears who can tell when a guy is bullshitting or not. As you know, I agree with you on that whether you like it or not. VERY GOOD VERY GOOD! :AOK

[Tag]

In the example I offered, the "dominant" area contains the "tonic" area.

Tag's thing here isn't a musical method, it's a belief system.

Nothing wrong with that, just don't expect it to stand up to any meaningful analysis.

You dont even know what I am talking about. Go analyze some greatful dead music. :rotflmao

[Tag]

Steve,
You misunderstand...
The presence of the 4th degree puts the chord in tension. It has nothing to do with what the other notes in the chord may be:

If the (natural) 4th degree is somewhere in the chord, the chord is antithetical to the tonic area...

BTW, what I have just articulated is not what Tag has actually said, but is essentially his "system" boiled down to 2 lines of text....


More or less, thats right. And as with any rule, yes you can find exceptions.

[Tag]

I think he is talking about lines, not notes. He is saying that he finds a commonality to lines that fit over II IV V VII and I III VI. I don't see it as any less valid than other systems. Warren Nunes had a similar approach, he would emphasize the II IV and VI triads/arpeggios over the II V and the I III and V (and VI) over the I. To me it's an interesting simplification. It seems one step away from the most simple system, which is to play in large key centers, for instance, play in Bb over Dm7 G7 Cm F7. On the other end of the spectrum, you have people who like think in specific modes/scales for each chord. Another interesting idea is applying that tonic grouping to analyzing tunes, for instance viewing dominant chords as b5 subs into the VI and the III.


You have it I think!! Playing in key is always an option as well, but its hard to always do that and sound good with the moving progression. Benson, Green and Wes were MASTERS at playing blues licks over moving progressions, and mixing it in with the moving harmony and melodic lines.

[KRosser]

Sorry, I was away for the weekend, but Im back now kids! :AOK

WOW! Just read through some of this stuff and cant believe how personal some guys seem to be taking this. OK, Ill take that attitude now as well.

Kimock: Wrong as usual. Its pretty much exactly as Richard B states below. Go back to your "free jam" style noodling now. :messedup

Tag - pretty uncool, dude. Nobody's getting personal here, just you. Kimock is a respected professional player. I think a little attitude adjustment is in order. He never attacked you, just your "logic".

Tag - with all due respect - teachers often give out only as much information as they think their students can handle. Have you considered this is why Richie Hart gave you this 'everything is either tonic or dominant' angle? It is after all, only one step removed from key center playing - "everything is I" to "everything is V to I"

[Tag]

Hey man, don't drag me into this! :p No Tag, I understand your point, always did. You're saying that there are two basic sounds, and within those sounds are different colors. I'm saying there's many different sounds, and within those sounds additional colors- that's the whole arguement. Sounds like a moot point I know...

What other sound is there besides one that is at rest, or one that wants to pull ypour ear somewhere else?




But why don't you take it a step further? Let's just say over a ii-V-I in C we'll just play off the sound of "the key of C"? It's all the same sound, right? No! There's more sounds then that! Not just other keys but within that key. If that makes sense then maybe you can see how labeling everything as either tonic or dominant is shortsided as well.


No is right!! You CANT "just play in the key of C". While the notes we are talking about (before altering) are all in the key of C, they produce tonic or dominant sounds the way they are aranged. See the groupings for the proper arangements.

No, he's saying you can treat the Amin7 as D7 and vice versa- that they're interchangable. The same notes, lines, licks, etc will work over both chords. Further more the same alterations, subs, etc will work over both chords.

Pretty much right.


It reminds me of the advice I often see online recommending just playing your blues box licks a minor 3rd down for a major chord- you may technically be hitting OK notes, but they aren't going to sound the same.


Not really the same, but I know what you are saying.




+1

Ill address this in a minute, and show how Ken is talking in circles. Approving what he just disapproved of. :NUTS



He means in Benson's system an F chord in the key of C is thought of as being in the dominant family, or the tension family.

Thats right.


Tag's goal seems to be to make things easier and therefore "better".


The beauty is many times you can use it to simplify complex chord progressions, or make simple progressions more complex IF you want to.




My point this whole time (which I think is the same as Ken's) is that if you're going to get fundamental on this stuff, breaking it down to the chord tones is as basic as you can get.

Which is in this system. Its just using the most basic part of it. All the chord tones are right there for you to choose, BUT you have the choice of many others, ALL of which will fit perfectly as well! Its up to what you are hearing and where YOU want to take it at the time. :dude




It's all the information you need. Your ears and ideas should tell you whether you want to treat a chord within the context of the tune/sequence or as it's own entity irregardless of what else is going on or anywhere in between.

Agree 100%. thats what this system is about. Giving you all the choices.





Your ears will decide if each chord is tonic, dominant, subdom, whatever- and you can change halfway through the bar.

:jo Again, I showed that above. this system allows that at ANY time. We are talking about using the EXISTING CHORDS BEFORE we start altering them. However, even when you start altering them, this system gives you all of the alternates of the alternates!!
:dude



If you're not hearing enough ideas to keep you entertained based on what's there it's your own creativity and conceptions that's to blame

And this system SHOWS you many, many, many areas to explore to give you other ideas and concepts. Here is an example as basic as it gets and speaking ONLY diatonically. The first chorus treat the I and VI chord as a I chord, and the II and V as a IV. The next chorus...Treat the I and VI as a III chord, and the II and V as just a II. The next chorus treat the I and VI chor as just a VI chord, and the II and V as IV-V. You just got through 3 choruses using the same basic ideas, while sounding VERY different each time! VERY VERY GOOD!

:AOK:AOK:AOK

[Tag]

Well....I had just read through this long thread and was gonna make a few comments and suggestions, but obviously you're not interested in that Tag.

You just want people to agree and tell you you're brilliant.

Not the dude I know.......I hope it's just been a bad weekend.

Personally, I would feel glad to have guys of the talent, experience and stature of Ken and Steve, etc trying to be helpful.

Listening can always get you a lot further than being a hard-head..............believe me, I know!!

- Jim


Jim, you are kidding right? Read their posts, they are trying to rip this apart. Especially Kimmocks, whos playing I really have no respect for anyway. Look at his last post here. Its funny! Then go listen to him play. Funny as well to my ear. He wants to play that way, so will I.

[KRosser]

Jim, you are kidding right? Read their posts, they are trying to rip this apart.

Tag - dude - I am not trying to rip anything apart. I'm trying to explain why that method is not one I primarily employ. I don't want or need to rip it apart. You apparently are taking this very personally.

Especially Kimmocks, whos playing I really have no respect for anyway.

Your lack of respect for everyone who dares expressing an opinion contrary to yours is duly noted.

[Tag]

Tag - pretty uncool, dude. Nobody's getting personal here, just you. Kimock is a respected professional player. I think a little attitude adjustment is in order. He never attacked you, just your "logic".

KIMOCK SAID....

"It's exactly the kind of advice any mature, intuitive, experienced jazz guitarist might offer a beginning jazz guitarist with no formal training who was coming to jazz with a rock/blues/shred background.

It's exactly the kind of advice you get when your teacher sees you sliding up and down the neck with pentatonic boxes trying to negotiate chord symbols that refer to chromatic voice leading. . .

It's usefullness pretty much ends there.

There is no "musical method" here.
It's just another cliche in an endless stream of musical cliches. .

"It's all just tonic and dominant."

"You can play any note you want as long as the note before it and after it is right."

"It's all just lines and spaces."

etc.

I took that same advice as a wake up call to continue my education, as it was immediatly obvious to me, even at that tender age, that although it contained enough information to allow me to butcher a Billy Strayhorn tune, it didn't contain enough information to compose one.

At the level this cliche/concept is presented here it does have some merit,
as it is being communicated by a hobbyist as an introduction to a new style
for other beginners. Cool.

My own free advice here would be that followers of this naive belief system might do well to adopt some additional
truisms"



Sorry Ken. I take that as a bit more.











Tag - with all due respect - teachers often give out only as much information as they think their students can handle. Have you considered this is why Richie Hart gave you this 'everything is either tonic or dominant' angle? It is after all, only one step removed from key center playing - "everything is I" to "everything is V to I"

Not V-I. Tension or rest, Tonic or dominant. Ken, I studied with him on and off for 20 years. I have tapes and tapes and tapes of almost every lesson talking of this over and over and over. I know another great player who is friends with Benson as well. Teaches EXACTLY the same way. I honestly do not think you are understanding what I am saying.

[KRosser]

What other sound is there besides one that is at rest, or one that wants to pull ypour ear somewhere else?

Oy....OK, well there's the problem....

[Tag]

[quote=Tag;2917969]

[QUOTE]Tag - dude - I am not trying to rip anything apart. I'm trying to explain why that method is not one I primarily employ. I don't want or need to rip it apart. You apparently are taking this very personally.

As you seem to be Ken. I have said form the beginning no one HAS to employ this. YOU keep trying to say it comes up short, and I am simply explaining how every thing you show is in the system. Its really as simple as that. If Kimok is going to come in here and start talking about being a "hobbiest", then I am going to point out that regardless of being a hobbiest or a pro, I dig many hobbiest playing a thousand times more than his pro playing.



Your lack of respect for everyone who dares expressing an opinion contrary to yours is duly noted

Why dont you start a thread explaing your system Ken. I would like to read about it in detail, like I am trying to explain about one I was taught here. Will you do that? I will come over and take a look at it and see what I think. I started this thread about a system that benson and some other of the most respected players in the history of jazz have used. Others came in and tried to show it has shortcomings. I am simply showing how these "shortcomings" do not exist.

[Tag]

Oy....OK, well there's the problem....

Example please? Key of C major in a I-VI-II-V. easy to say, give an example.