[jazz_guitar] Primary Harmonic Approach
gabe
The 110 Primary Chords are built by stacking intervals (not compound intervals), and many of the 110 Primary Chords span more than one octave (but not more than 2).
It seems many have a better understanding of this. To be honest this is why I thought it would have been more beneficial to take our time in the beginning and flush out some of these questions. I had believed these concepts would be intuitable. Anyhow, now they are known. That is good. So that still leaves me with these 2 important questions.
1. Under the parameters above, can anyone provide a 3 note chord that is not one of the 110 Primary Harmony Chords?
2. Under the parameters above, can anyone provide any chord that isn't a combination of the 110 Primary Harmony Chords?
To explain further.
D7#9#11 D,F,F#,G#,A,C
D / F F# -> F / F# G -> F# / G# A -> G# / A C
1 / b3 3 -> 1 / b2 2 -> 1 / 2 b3 -> 1 / b2 3
or
D7#9#11 D,F,F#,G#,A,C
D / F# A -> F / G# C -> F# / A D -> G#/ C F -> A / D F# -> C / F G#
1 / 3 5 -> 1 / b3 5 ->1 / b3 #5-> 1 / 3 6 -> 1 / 4 6 -> 1 / 4 #5
This could go on and on. Well, to a point.
So, if you throughly understood and internalized the the relationships aurally and technically regarding the 110 Primary Chords, and had an approach to apply them to guitar, does anyone think this would change harmony as we know it? Not "revolutionize harmony" or "change the world as we know it" (I never said either of those things). Simply change the way we look at harmony.
Also, many have voiced concern over the use of the term "primary" referring to this approach. I believe I have made it clear that this is simply an analogous term meant to connect the approach to color.
Jon Damian used "Magic Palette". I assume palette is analogous to color. I'm curious why this title doesn't seem to bother anyone.
Does anyone have a better way to refer to this harmonic approach.
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
gabe
110 chords are a lot. We have all learned the basic tertian harmony chords as arpeggios and chords. I believe we could all agree that this takes a lot of work. Also, these basic chords are a much smaller number than 110.
Also, if any of you have tuned your guitar to major thirds you quickly have realized that it is like starting over on guitar.
So all of this talk about Primary Chords is great but why in the world would you want to give up years of work and years of internalizing the sounds and placement of notes on the fretboard?
Who really cares about 110 triads that have been identified before?
Why isn't standard tuning fine the way it is? Look what Wes did with it, that says enough in itself.
If I were you, I would be thinking, who is this autodidact, (yes, dpkingbluesguitar was right) and why for 3 weeks has he been so confident (sometimes arrogant) regarding this approach. He has some audacity to name the Primary Harmonic Approach.
When it comes down to playing its all about the music, the sounds, the communication, not the math.
Listen to Jim Hall, Pat Martino, Wes Montgomery, Ted Greene, John Scofield, Django Reinhardt, Julian Lage, Bill Frisell, they all use standard tuning. Look at how they sound. Why would anyone want to change tunings? The guitar is fine the way it is.
Or, the statement that was probably the best thing any one could have told me, "It all has been done before."
I like you have thought all these things. But I also like you have had those moments playing when certain magic happens and you get a glimpse of something else that is out there. I by no means compare myself to Charle Parker as an innovator or player, I think this quote helps identify this feeling.
"I kept thinking there's bound to be something else. I could hear it sometimes, but I couldn't play it.
Thanks for listening to all this. It brings me to the point I want to make. All of these questions are great. They are necessary to test the fortitude of a new idea or approach.
I also agree that an approach is only as good as it can be used.
To be completely honest I worked on developing this approach for the last 5 years. During that time I was completely immersed in it. For a year I thought I had wasted all of my time and was very discouraged. I actually went back to standard tuning a few times, and gave up on the 110 Primary Chords several times.
I had all these chords, that in my mind had immense potential, but I had no clue how to apply them to the guitar.
The application is the answer.
To be completely honest I haven't recorded anything using this approach. I just finished the application part in November 2012 and haven't picked up the guitar in the last 6 weeks, after picking it up nearly everyday for 12 years (I started playing when I was 24). Somehow my wife, who I adore, not only allowed this immersion, but encouraged it.
So, while were at it, why not some more background. I started playing when I was 24, I'm 36 now. My influences ranged from John Scofield<---Brad Mehldau--->Pat Martino, I definitely would say Brad Mehldau had the biggest influence on me as a musician. I've taken lesson from Carmen Caramanica and Trey Eaddy. I love jazz. I love guitar. I love designing and building guitars, I'll post a picture of the guitar I am playing have been using for the last 2 years in files (please note it is under reconstruction, blue tape is so I don't get sweat on the unfinished wood. Yes, that is electrical tape on the fretboard. I am currently planning on building a new neck with a shorter scale, the scale is now 26.5 and I taped it to cover the fret markers, tuned it to Eb, and I don't play the 1st fret to simulate a shorter scale length) I work as a physical therapist (hence the ergonomic guitar design), and I am currently deciding what to immerse myself in for the next 12 years.
Well, enough about me. Back to the original point of this post APPLICATION.
When I developed the application on major thirds tuning, like I have said everything fell into place. I believe that this approach is 90% application and 10% math.
The application unlocks the potential.
I wrote in an earlier post, HOW IN THE WORLD AM I GOING TO REMEMBER 110 CHORDS? The answer I gave is, "I DON'T". This is probably the most IMPORTANT STATEMENT in the last 3 weeks of posts. I hope that the information below helps you better understand this statement.
This is when it finally made sense.
1. On a symmetrical tuning you only have to know one shape of the Primary Chords, this is good.
2. Using the Primary Harmonic Approach with the parameters I have set means that every arpeggio and chord share the SAME shape.
3. If you learn the 7 ascending scales and 7 descending scales and internalize the intervallic relationships, you are good to go. That is all you need to do, to have control over all the 110 Primary Chords. (This was the most EXCITING realization)
4. Because only 11 interval shapes are used when constructed the scales, in knowing the scales you also now the 110 Primary Chords. You are simply picking one interval from one scale shape, and another interval from another scale shape.
5. This allows you to easily internalize the intervals of the chord you are creating. This allows you to not think in terms of grips are voicings as much any more, I believe it frees you to create movement with intervals, which I believe encourages fluidity.
I'll post below Primary Harmonic Approach Part 4. I hope that it make more sense now.
Part 4
So, we left off with ascending and descending functional scales.
This next part deals with creating diatonic primary chords from these scales.
For this example we will start with the I chord in the key of C.
There are 30 diatonic primary chords that can represent the I chord.
In Part 3 we formed the first part of these chords when we created functional
ascending and descending scales.
Let's go back to that part and create a functional ascending scale
from C major.
E - B (lets not worry about the octave C for now).
C - G -> A
Ab - D -> E -> F
E - C
So, in the last part I suggested to stay in one octave. This next part explains why,
Like I said above 30 diatonic primary chords can represent the I chord.
To form these chords we'll start from the first interval that arises while ascending,
the major 2nd.
If you had written out an ascending functional scale for the dorian mode like I had
suggested in the last part this will be repetitive. Sorry.
So lets create a ascending functional scale with the root of D.
Also let's start on the Ab string because the D note arises on this string
in the vertical position of C major we are using for this example.
Ab - C
E - A -> B
C - E -> F -> G
Ab - D
So now lets create 5 Primary Chords from C major based off of the major 2nd interval
CD/E
CD/F
CD/G
CD/A
CD/B
Repeat for the remaining intervals, CE, CF, CG, CA, CB. This will give you all 30 diatonic primary chords for the
major scale/ionian mode
In major thirds tuning these are the only shapes you need to know because it is a symmetrical tuning.
Repeat for the other 6 modes of the major scale. This will give you 210 chords all together. 30x7.
Repeat for harmonic minor modes, melodic minor modes, or what ever you choose.
After this post I will post all 30 chords, for 21 common modes.
This takes care of building diatonic ascending primary chords, now lets look at diatonic
descending functional scales.
C major over the I chord
descending from the high C note
E - C
C - G <- A <- B
Ab - E <- F
E - ( ) <- D (let's omit the octave C again)
Now let's create all the diatonic primary chords descending based off the first descending interval
the minor 2nd
So let's create a descending functional scale based off of B starting on the C string because this is where
it lies in the C major vertical position we are using in both examples.
C - B
Ab - F <- G <- A
E - D <- E
C - ( ) <- C
So now lets create 5 Primary Chords from C major based off of the minor 2nd interval
CB/A
CB/G
CB/F
CB/E
CB/D
Repeat for other 6 modes. This will give you 210 chords all together. 30x7.
Repeat for harmonic minor modes, melodic minor modes, or what ever you choose.
After this post I will post all 30 chords, for 21 common modes.
These diatonic chords can all be voiced as a chord played with pick (muting strings), or with fingers
"From any note I can play any interval, from any interval I can play any chord, from any chord I can play any interval, from any interval I can play any note.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
rguitarjj
If this was a set of instructions for building a house, at the end we would have neatly stacked wood, bags of cement, nail, pipe, wire, roofing materials etc. It would fill a field. It would be an enormous effort to acquire and arrange all the materials. But, we wouldn't have any of the building materials in the correct proportions to build a house and we'd have no idea of how to assemble anything.
The music has to come first.
I'm not in a position to judge what theoreticians do. But, I do know something about making music on the guitar. The last thing you want to do is begin the learning process by learning hundreds of shapes. The basic issue is that they aren't helpful unless you internalize the sounds. And, internalizing a sound is not something that happens quickly for most of us (some can -- and they won't need your theory).
Rather, you need to begin from the perspective of the music you want to play. You need to learn the most important things first. Out of the hundreds of chords you are describing, are they all equally important? You have to learn songs, and sounds and ways of moving voices.
After years of playing, standard tuning is internalized and ceases to be an issue. You hear the sound in your mind and your fingers find it. Arpeggios are no longer fingerings, but a string of intervals, and you can hear and find them automatically. Eventually, you stop thinking about grips and instead you think about moving voices.
So, if you're recommending that somebody take the time to learn 110 triads in a new tuning -- or was it hundreds more with the different scales? -- and somebody actually did that -- at the end of that process s/he would know a great many grips that aren't musically useful, would not know which ones were musically useful, wouldn't be able to play any songs without even more work to expand into combining triads, and would have no idea of how to apply any of this to a real playing situation.
What I see here is an effort to organize every triad within two octaves (without compound intervals between adjacent notes, even though music sometimes uses those too) and be able to play them on a major third tuned guitar. And yes, if you compile every triad into a list, that list will include, somewhere within it, all the triads used in music.
Now you have to show that the system has value. Not just assert that it does, but prove it.
Post some music.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
gabe
R If this was a set of instructions for building a house, at the end we would have neatly stacked wood, bags of cement, nail, pipe, wire, roofing materials etc. It would fill a field. It would be an enormous effort to acquire and arrange all the materials. But, we wouldn't have any of the building materials in the correct proportions to build a house and we'd have no idea of how to assemble anything.
GM Thank goodness were not building house. Just because you don't understand how to apply this approach, doesn't mean others can't. I also think you could have come up with a more unique analogy. That one doesn't really move me.
>
R The music has to come first.
GM I've have played music. For 12 years I have not sat and written math equations. You can think that if it pleases you, but you'll have to trust me, its not true.
>
R I'm not in a position to judge what theoreticians do. But, I do know something about making music on the guitar. The last thing you want to do is begin the learning process by learning hundreds of shapes. The basic issue is that they aren't helpful unless you internalize the sounds.
GM I have internalized sounds for 12 years, not 50+ years, but 12 years.
R And, internalizing a sound is not something that happens quickly for most of us (some can -- and they won't need your theory).
GM I agree.
>
R Rather, you need to begin from the perspective of the music you want to play.
GM I did this RIck. The music I wanted to play wasn't possible without the system I developed.
R You need to learn the most important things first. Out of the hundreds of chords you are describing, are they all equally important?
GM Out of the hundreds of chords you have internalized are they equally important?
You have to learn songs, and sounds and ways of moving voices.
GM I did this for years, not 50+ years, but years.
>
R After years of playing, standard tuning is internalized and ceases to be an issue.
GM I'm glad that you have internalized music. That is quite an accomplishment. How long did it take you to do this.
R You hear the sound in your mind and your fingers find it. Arpeggios are no longer fingerings, but a string of intervals, and you can hear and find them automatically. Eventually, you stop thinking about grips and instead you think about moving voices.
GM Being able to play exactly what you hear in your mind at all times is truly a gift. How long did it take you before you could do this?
>
R So, if you're recommending that somebody take the time to learn 110 triads in a new tuning -- or was it hundreds more with the different scales? -- and somebody actually did that -- at the end of that process s/he would know a great many grips that aren't musically useful, would not know which ones were musically useful, wouldn't be able to play any songs without even more work to expand into combining triads, and would have no idea of how to apply any of this to a real playing situation.
GM Rick, I don't even know what to say to this. You obviously see no merit in this approach. I recommend you stop investing so much time commenting about it.
>
R What I see here is an effort to organize every triad within two octaves
(without compound intervals between adjacent notes, even though music sometimes uses those too)
GM That is part of the picture. I am sorry you can't see the whole picture.
R and be able to play them on a major third tuned guitar. And yes, if you compile every triad into a list, that list will include, somewhere within it, all the triads used in music.
GM What does that mean?
>
R Now you have to show that the system has value. Not just assert that it does, but prove it.
GM I don't have to prove anything to you Rick, or anyone else in the group.
>
R Post some music.
GM Rick, please stop asking to post music. Once again, in your 50+ years of playing how many albums have you released? Maybe you're so concerned with me posting music because you feel you should have released more music over the last 50+ years. Please stop badgering me. If you see no merit in this approach, simply stop reading the posts, and commenting. Or, continue saying the same things over and over and over again. But to be honest its getting kind of boring responding to your same questions worded in a different way over and over and over again. I suggest you forget all about Primary Harmony and go immerse yourself in tertian harmonic galore.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
gabe
R If this was a set of instructions for building a house, at the end we would have neatly stacked wood, bags of cement, nail, pipe, wire, roofing materials etc. It would fill a field. It would be an enormous effort to acquire and arrange all the materials. But, we wouldn't have any of the building materials in the correct proportions to build a house and we'd have no idea of how to assemble anything.
GM Thank goodness were not building house. Just because you don't understand how to apply this approach, doesn't mean others don't also.
R The music has to come first.
GM I've have played music. For 12 years I have not sat and written math equations. You can think that if it pleases you, but you'll have to trust me, its not true.
>
R I'm not in a position to judge what theoreticians do. But, I do know something about making music on the guitar. The last thing you want to do is begin the learning process by learning hundreds of shapes. The basic issue is that they aren't helpful unless you internalize the sounds.
GM I have internalized sounds for 12 years, not 50+ years, but 12 years.
R And, internalizing a sound is not something that happens quickly for most of us (some can -- and they won't need your theory).
GM I agree.
>
R Rather, you need to begin from the perspective of the music you want to play.
GM I did this RIck. The music I wanted to play wasn't possible without the system I developed.
R You need to learn the most important things first. Out of the hundreds of chords you are describing, are they all equally important?
GM Out of the hundreds of chords you have internalized are they equally important?
You have to learn songs, and sounds and ways of moving voices.
GM I did this for years, not 50+ years, but years.
>
R After years of playing, standard tuning is internalized and ceases to be an issue.
GM I'm glad that you have internalized music. That is quite an accomplishment. How long did it take you to do this?
R You hear the sound in your mind and your fingers find it. Arpeggios are no longer fingerings, but a string of intervals, and you can hear and find them automatically. Eventually, you stop thinking about grips and instead you think about moving voices.
GM Being able to play exactly what you hear in your mind at all times is truly a gift. How long did it take you before you could do this?
>
R So, if you're recommending that somebody take the time to learn 110 triads in a new tuning -- or was it hundreds more with the different scales? -- and somebody actually did that -- at the end of that process s/he would know a great many grips that aren't musically useful, would not know which ones were musically useful, wouldn't be able to play any songs without even more work to expand into combining triads, and would have no idea of how to apply any of this to a real playing situation.
GM Rick, I don't even know what to say to this. You obviously see no merit in this approach. I recommend you stop investing so much time commenting about it.
>
R What I see here is an effort to organize every triad within two octaves
(without compound intervals between adjacent notes, even though music sometimes uses those too)
GM That is part of the picture. I am sorry you can't see the whole picture.
R and be able to play them on a major third tuned guitar. And yes, if you compile every triad into a list, that list will include, somewhere within it, all the triads used in music.
GM What does that mean?
>
R Now you have to show that the system has value. Not just assert that it does, but prove it.
GM I don't have to prove anything to you Rick, or anyone else in this group.
>
R Post some music.
GM Rick, please stop asking to post music. Once again, in your 50+ years of playing how many albums have you released? Maybe you're so concerned with me posting music because you feel you should have released more music over the last 50+ years. Please stop badgering me. If you see no merit in this approach, simply stop reading the posts, and commenting. Or, continue saying the same things over and over and over again. But to be honest its getting kind of boring responding to your same questions worded in a different way over and over and over again. I suggest you forget all about Primary Harmony and go immerse yourself in tertian harmonic galore.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
On 5/12/2013 3:24 PM, rguitarjj wrote:
> If this was a set of instructions for building a house, at the end we
> would have neatly stacked wood, bags of cement, nail, pipe, wire,
> roofing materials etc. It would fill a field. It would be an enormous
> effort to acquire and arrange all the materials. But, we wouldn't have
> any of the building materials in the correct proportions to build a
> house and we'd have no idea of how to assemble anything.
I've pretty much avoided being a art of this thread. But I tend to agree
with rguitarii on most of his points. For one thing, any interval,
either melodic, harmonic, or part of a bigger chord which spans a
distance greater than an octave, is by its very definition, a compound
interval.
Gabe, in the organization of his tuning system, may have found something
very useful to him and some (maybe several) others, but other than that,
I see nothing new here. Ralph Patt continues to come to mind. I am also
reminded of Robert Fripp and his tuning system - All perfect 5ths from C
to the second string, and then a minor third (C-G-D-A-E-G) or that in
use by Stanley Jordon (Perfect 4ths straight across). And then there is
the 7-string players. All have ideas worthy of respect.
My problem lies in the fact that other than Jordon or Ralph Patt, I just
haven't heard too many players who are able to "think" in the new system
they've chosen for themselves. The Fripp proteges mostly sound like
'washing machines' to me. They make very repetitive music, and have to
memorize it and play pretty much the same way over and over, and it
could not be more rhythmically boring if they tried. Also, I find that
many of these voicings contained in the in the '110' are common
suspensions which many guitarists overuse to the point of death anyway.
Having said that, I have no doubt that some players will put these ideas
to good, artistic use with time, and Gabe is certainly a nice enough
guy. he shares his concepts freely, and is very respectful to all. A
re-invention of the wheel? I just don't see it.
best,
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
rguitarjj
I have thought about it a good deal (don't ask me why), but, as far as I can tell, Gabe has set some parameters and, within those parameters, has ennumerated every possible triad. He states that these are "primary", analogous to the way primary colors are primary. And, there are 110 of them that start with C.
He doesn't relate it to the way the ear perceives harmony or the way songs are written, at least not in any way I can figure out. All I see here is an idiosyncratic way of making a list of triads. He asserts that all other triads are a combination of his 110, but when I pointed out a whole class of them that aren't (based on compound intervals), he redefined the game. In his list C D E is not the same as C E D (because the D is in the next octave and they don't sound the same), but in my list, suddenly, notes in a third octave didn't count even though they don't sound the same. His reasoning was that mine weren't primary enough.
He was polite, as I mentioned before. But, there were things about the way he presented the material that rubbed me the wrong way. I apologize to the group for that.
He is now doing the same thing in the google group, and he's facing a higher level of confrontation than I provided.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
On 5/16/2013 8:41 PM, rguitarjj wrote:
> In his list C D E is not the same as C E D (because the D is in the
> next octave and they don't sound the same)
Cmaj (add2) or Cmaj (sus2), and Cmaj (add9) to my thinking are different
versions of the same thing. Do they sound different? - Of course they
do. But are they harmonically functionally different = methinks the
answer is no. They are both I or IV chords, and with an imagination - as
in someone trying to emulate a pedal-steelish sound, for example - even
a V. And so they represent different colors of the same thing. When I
was a little sxxt coming up, I was taught to keep the root and 7th
and/or 9th apart. Even Berklee taught it. Now that's not so much
observed any more, sometimes for the betterment and sometimes for the
lesserment of the music..
I prefer that theory be as simple as possible in its explanations - the
complexity comes about all by itself without adding to it. And teaching
that a chord doesn't include compound intervals, when in fact it does, I
feel can be misleading to a student. Sort of like telling a student that
a Cdim7 chord = C - Eb - F# - and A. Is it enharmonic with those notes?
- Sure. But IS it THOSE notes - again the answer is no, and there is
absolutely no good reason that a student should be taught that it is.
If he just comes out and says that he is in love with these sounds for
his own esthetic and artistic reasons, I'm all for him. Someone like
Bill Frisell uses them a lot, as do some of the tele-freaks. And they
work, but they don't need different names then that which they've always
had. Steely Dan, btw, went at length to explain (humouristically, but
they even had a symbol for it) that that very sound was invented by
them, and called a Mu-Major chord. In D, they fingered it (from the 5th
string to the 2nd string, D-A-E-F#, and even threw in A on the 1st
string from time to time.
Years ago I put together a compendium of voicings just for myself, which
I worked to death (and have pretty much, sadly, forgotten). And never
forget dear Eubie Blake, who said that he always made up his own special
voicings, and that there was always a pianist in the bar who would come
up to try to 'lift' what he was doing by watching him. He said that he
would always play more conventional voicings until the guy left, and
then he would go back to his own.
But all warm wishes to you both,
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Brian Kelly
Bobby,
I know this is a little different than what you are talking about generally but the misconceptions concerning chord symbols are a plague in our business so I have added this. The way I was taught (and the way that makes the most sense) and also the way big band charts work (when they work correctly that is) is that a Cmaj (add9) doesn’t have a a seventh in it. All that chord symbol implies is a C triad with a second in the second octave. Neither does and Cmaj (sus2). A Cmaj 9 has both a seventh and a ninth (2+7=9) same thing works with thirtenth chords. A 6th chord needs a 7th (either a major seventh or a dominant doesn’t matter) to be a thirteenth chord (7+6=13) to be a thirteenth chord otherwise it is just a plain 6th chord. It makes it easy to figurre out the voicings if you understand this system but it is rare that anyone does.
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
gabe
> He was polite, as I mentioned before. But, there were things about the way he presented the material that rubbed me the wrong way. I apologize to the group for that.
Thanks for the apology Rick.
Also, thanks to the group for the feedback. It has given me great insight in how to present the approach more clearly. I am going to Berklee tomorrow to present it to some professors and feel that it has been vetted well. Thanks for all your help.
I hope some get to look at an updated version of the first post on my blog. I did my best to try to make the "compound interval" component clearer.
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6839858446073012012#editor/target=post;postID=7520172411267393763;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=22;src=postname
I wish you all the best!
-Gabe
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
gabe
> He was polite, as I mentioned before. But, there were things about the way he
presented the material that rubbed me the wrong way. I apologize to the group
for that.
Thanks for the apology Rick.
Also, thanks to the group for the feedback. It has given me great insight in how
to present the approach more clearly. I am going to Berklee tomorrow to present
it to some professors and feel that it has been vetted well. Thanks for all your
help.
I hope some get to look at an updated version of the first post on my blog. I
did my best to try to make the "compound interval" component clearer.
I wish you all the best!
-Gabe
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
gabe
> He was polite, as I mentioned before. But, there were things about the way he presented the material that rubbed me the wrong way. I apologize to the group for that.
Thanks for the apology Rick.
Also, thanks to the group for the feedback. It really helped me see what I needed to do to present it better. I am going to Berklee tomorrow to give it to some professors and I feel it has been vetted well.
I edited the first post in my blog and did my best to clear up any confusion about compound intervals. I hope some of you have the time to take a look.
http://www.primaryharmonicapproach.blogspot.com/2013/05/primary-harmonic-approach-preface.html
I wish you all the best!
-Gabe
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
Hi Brian,
I understand chord symbols. That's exactly the chord he was talking
about: C-D-E (or C-E-D, whichever he prefers). He just has no 5th.
What's your point?
Best,
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
Hi Gabe,
I don't know why, or if anyone else has this problem, but I each of your
posts 3 times.
best,
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
gabe
> Hi Gabe,
> I don't know why, or if anyone else has this problem, but I each of your
> posts 3 times.
>
> best,
> Bobby
>
Hi Bobby,
I only see it once on my feed. I can see how this could have happened though.
I put the wrong link, then thought it didn't post, and had to erase two times. Sorry if it posted more than once.
-Gabe
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
kiefer_wolfowitz
--- Bob Hansmann <bobbybmusic@...> wrote:
> [snip] I am also
> reminded of Robert Fripp and his tuning system - All perfect 5ths from C
> to the second string, and then a minor third (C-G-D-A-E-G) [snip]. All have ideas worthy of respect.
>
> My problem lies in the fact that other than [Stanley] Jordan [playing in all perfect fourths] or Ralph Patt, I just
> haven't heard too many players who are able to "think" in the new system
> they've chosen for themselves. The Fripp proteges mostly sound like
> 'washing machines' to me. They make very repetitive music, and have to
> memorize it and play pretty much the same way over and over, and it
> could not be more rhythmically boring if they tried.
Fripp's new standard tuning is used for the repertoire of the Guitar Circles (formerly Guitar Craft) and as part of the practice of active crafties, and for their performances in associated projects. This guitar practice is Zen-like, in that its focus is on the intrinsic practice of playing well as an ensemble.
Much of this repertoire grew out of pedagogical exercises and also serves pedagogical aims. I've not attended a Guitar Circle, but I am impressed by Fripp's having taught alternate/cross picking to three thousand students, one week at a time....
Don't mistake the Guitar Circle repertoire as being the sole or even primary musical expression for its associated guitarists. I've never heard Bill Rieflin's playing in REM described as drumming "like a wash machine". ;)
C.f., Rieflin's interview with the US's National Public Radio:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/09/29/140921003/talking-shop-with-bill-rieflin-journeyman-musician
Those near the Brooklyn--Boston corridor may wish to be irritated by the washing machines replaying their rhythmically boring music:
http://www.patriotledger.com/entertainment/music/x715755893/Guitarist-Robert-Fripp-to-play-Cambridge-show-on-May-24?zc_p=0
Cheers,
Kiefer
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Brian Kelly
Bobby,
To start off I wasn’t talking about what Gabe’s system has in it.
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Brian Kelly
Gabe,
I don’t say this disrespectfully but before anyone jumps into this I want to point out that your system could at best be called Alternative Harmony. Calling it Primary Harmony is way off bass. Our current system is based on the upper order harmonics and is the true primary system since it is based on what is actually heard when you play fundamental tone. From the upper order harmonics you get our harmonic system as well. We’ve added moving chromatics to all of that and lots of rules and ways to use the system including the Well Tempered system but the current system is based on the clearly understood physical properties of sound. Yours just isn’t. It’s and abstract like Atonalism which like your system has it’s own mathematical component (tone rows or example).
As it is it would do us all some good if we went back and studied the history of Western Music rather than trying to re-invent the wheel.
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
Hi Brian,
> As it is it would do us all some good if we went back and studied the
> history of Western Music rather than trying to re-invent the wheel.
Yup.
regards,
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
Hi Brian,
> To start off I wasn’t talking about what Gabe’s system has in it.
I understood exactly what you were talking about. I related it to his
chord to make a point.
Regardless of tuning system guitarists (all instrumentalists, really,
but not always for the same reasons) always have to make decisions about
what to play and what to leave out, and in what 8ve to include them if
they are going to. It's for this reason that the guitar is actually
refered to as an "implied harmony instrument", as opposed to a "true
harmony instrument" - for example, a pianist often leaves out notes, but
not because they are unavailable to him. It's common to either bring up
a 9th to it's "proper 8ve", just as it is to lower it an 8ve (or even
2), It is also common to raise the 2nd an 8ve, just as it is common to
leave it where it 'technically' is or to lower it as well. And so, a
chord 2nd = a chord 9th, regardless of octave, and calling it either way
is equally correct. That a chord may refer to it as a 9th instead of a
2nd has more to do with the common use of tertiary harmonic spellings
than it does anything else, unless a specific resolution is desired for
some reason (ie "sus 2", or "sus 4"). If it's that important to the
composer/arranger, it's best to write it out in standard notation (or
with a chord symbol, though I wouldn't), but considering how poor so
many guitarists are as musicians and as readers, if it's really, really
that important, he should just not hire a guitarist unless he is very
familiar with his skills.
;-)
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
rguitarjj
Brian,
I think you nailed it.
What he posted had surprisingly little to do with harmony. All he did was create some confusing parameters for generating a list of triads. The confusion was in which notes were in which octaves. Once we got that cleared up, his system was simply every possible triad that you could create by starting with a note, adding a simple interval (meaning less than octave) and then adding another simple interval starting with the second note. He then pointed out that they created 19 types and 6 bags, or something. There was also a special group of 30 which I confess I never figured out.
This was a way of enumerating a limited number of possibilities. Anything involving a compound interval was excluded based on reasoning which struck me as arbitary. For example, C D Db isn't the same as C Db D because of which note is in which octave. But, somehow putting a note in a third octave is not as "primary".
I detected no comprehensible connection to actual music. His website has something about ATTYA, but I can't figure out what he's talking about in it, and I don't need a reminder to read it again.
What rubbed me the wrong way was the hubris involved in the way he touted the system and the way he said that he was putting it out in small pieces to make sure the rest of us had sufficient time to absorb it. I also didn't care for it when I asked straightforward questions which were answered with reminders to re-read the same material which was confusing (and he later revised) in the first place. Finally, if you claim to have a new approach to harmony, I really think it goes without saying that you ought to post at least a little music which is based on your new approach.
Rick
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Kelly" <bkelly@...> wrote:
>
> Gabe,
>
> I don’t say this disrespectfully but before anyone jumps into this I want to point out that your system could at best be called Alternative Harmony. Calling it Primary Harmony is way off bass. Our current system is based on the upper order harmonics and is the true primary system since it is based on what is actually heard when you play fundamental tone. From the upper order harmonics you get our harmonic system as well. We’ve added moving chromatics to all of that and lots of rules and ways to use the system including the Well Tempered system but the current system is based on the clearly understood physical properties of sound. Yours just isn’t. It’s and abstract like Atonalism which like your system has it’s own mathematical component (tone rows or example).
>
> As it is it would do us all some good if we went back and studied the history of Western Music rather than trying to re-invent the wheel.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Brian
>
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Chris Smart
heck, do a PHD thesis on it and let the academic world evaluate
your world-changing approach. :)
--------------------------------------------------
CTS MASTERING, affordable and professional mixing and mastering:
http://www.ctsmastering.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CTSMASTERING
BLOG: www.ctsmastering.com/blog
Linked In: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536
Dropbox, Share Files Easily: http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
gabe
Rick,
I think the group is very clear that you think the Primary Harmonic Approach has no merit. You have voiced this opinion several times. You can of course continue saying the same thing over and over if you desire.
The thing I am curious about is why you are the one who has posted the most about it, and probably thought the most about it?
You have even posted on the google jazz group about it.
I believe it comes down to your realization that every chord you have ever played is one of the primary chords or a combination of them.
I believe even though you think this approach is, "all math and no music" you are affected by this.
I believe you look at your guitar and music differently because of this.
I believe this is good.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
gabe
> heck, do a PHD thesis on it and let the academic world evaluate
> your world-changing approach. :)
Chris, you seem very interested in seeing this approach moved forward in one way or another. Thanks for your enthusiasm!
Even in your sarcasm, I sense you see some potential to this approach.
I believe that is good.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Brian Kelly
Bobby,
I am glad you spoke on this issue. I have never heard the guitar referred to as an “implied harmony instrument” but you hit the nail on the head with that one and this is my primary complaint about many guitarists and their concept of harmony. Most guitarists are just incapable of seeing what is really happening harmonically in many cases.
Because the piano is played with two hands it is easier to see what is happening on the piano and much easier to understand how chords can be voiced. With the guitar no such luck. If you are a guitarist you need to study the subject and not from a guitar oriented book either.
I get a kick out of guitarists who think they’ve seen the light when they’ve learned that you can play a Gflat 7 chord between a C7 chord and an F chord when it reality it is better understood that you are lowering the 5th of the C7 chord in the first octave and raising it in the second which now positions these notes to resolve to the F note in the F Chord and the A note in F Chord. It’s still a C7 Chord though. If you don’t fully understand your harmony then the next question if you are a guitar player and have no real clue as to what the hell is going on is what scale do I play over the C7 when it changes to Gflat7? My answer is “Is that real question?”
I am sure if Juan see this response he will jump in here quick. He’s another on that feels like all of this is made harder than it needs to be.
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Brian Kelly
Rick,
Well I read your responses to Gabe’s system and I pretty much thought they were the only really intelligent views on the merits of this system. Plus, I admired the level of effort you put into trying to understand his system. After reading your comments I thought that there was pretty much nothing left to say.
Continued success.
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
rguitarjj
Gabe,
You have been unfailingly polite, which is the main reason I've been willing to engage.
But, in fact, you are correct that I think you have yet to show any merit to the system.
One of the things I notice in your posts is a certain level of self-congratulation. In this one, you have assumed that I kept posting because I got something out of the system. That's incorrect.
I made an initial effort to understand it. I found your posts ambiguous on the octave issue and it took multiple requests and questions before you clarified it. The responders on the other board read it exactly the same way I did and had the same questions. I posted there only to save them the time of trying to get the information from you.
Given that you set the thing up as a revolution in harmony, and given that I have had time on my hands lately, I decided to see where challenging you went. With all due respect, the result was that the merits of looking at things your way remain to be demonstrated, to say the least.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
JVeg...@aol.com
Bobby,
I am glad you spoke on this issue. I have never heard the
guitar referred to as an “implied harmony instrument” but you hit the nail on
the head with that one and this is my primary complaint about many guitarists
and their concept of harmony. Most guitarists are just incapable of seeing
what is really happening harmonically in many cases.
Because the piano
is played with two hands it is easier to see what is happening on the piano
and much easier to understand how chords can be voiced. With the guitar no
such luck. If you are a guitarist you need to study the subject and not from a
guitar oriented book either.
I get a kick out of guitarists who think
they’ve seen the light when they’ve learned that you can play a Gflat 7 chord
between a C7 chord and an F chord when it reality it is better understood that
you are lowering the 5th of the C7 chord in the first octave and raising it in
the second which now positions these notes to resolve to the F note in the F
Chord and the A note in F Chord. It’s still a C7 Chord though. If you don’t
fully understand your harmony then the next question if you are a guitar
player and have no real clue as to what the hell is going on is what scale do
I play over the C7 when it changes to Gflat7? My answer is “Is a that real
question?”
I am sure if Juan see this response he will jump in here
quick. He’s another one that feels like all of this is made harder than it
needs to be.
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
gabe
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "rguitarjj" <rpjazzguitar@...> wrote:
>
> Gabe,
>
> You have been unfailingly polite, which is the main reason I've been willing to engage.
>
> But, in fact, you are correct that I think you have yet to show any merit to the system.
>
> One of the things I notice in your posts is a certain level of self-congratulation. In this one, you have assumed that I kept posting because I got something out of the system. That's incorrect.
>
> I made an initial effort to understand it. I found your posts ambiguous on the octave issue and it took multiple requests and questions before you clarified it. The responders on the other board read it exactly the same way I did and had the same questions. I posted there only to save them the time of trying to get the information from you.
>
> Given that you set the thing up as a revolution in harmony, and given that I have had time on my hands lately, I decided to see where challenging you went. With all due respect, the result was that the merits of looking at things your way remain to be demonstrated, to say the least.
>
Well, thanks for giving it your best shot. It's too bad you don't
see the potential. The majority definitely doesn't. Lucky for me
that is how change usually begins. Good luck with your music!
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
rguitarjj
.> >
> Well, thanks for giving it your best shot. It's too bad you don't
> see the potential. The majority definitely doesn't. Lucky for me
> that is how change usually begins. Good luck with your music!
>
Good luck with yours too. You seem to see yourself as a misunderstood revolutionary. My suggestion is this. Maybe more people would see the value if you explained it better. So far, my impression is that you don't, because there isn't any real value there. But, I'm willing to be proved wrong. In fact, I have repeatedly invited you to prove me wrong by showing some value -- the fact that you don't do it leads me to assume that you can't do it. Your explication thus far has been limited to enumerating triads according to a set of parameters you set up. When it goes beyond that, I'll revisit it. Meanwhile, I'd suggest reviewing Joey Goldstein's posts on the other forum very carefully. He explained what the problems are better than I could.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
gabe
Thanks for your advice Rick! The people in the minority who are able to see the value in this approach are able to fill in the blanks where needed. It's too bad you were incapable of doing this.
I have given you all the information you need. You play very well, and have a very good understanding of music theory. I still have confidence that some day you will be able to put the pieces together. Feel free to contact me when this happens if you have any other questions.
I do plan looking into acoustic root theory some more. Thanks for the suggestion!
Joey is a talented player, I really enjoyed his new album.
Anyhow, thanks again for the questions and critique! Like I have said it really helped me understand how to present it better.
I wish you the best in life, and music!
-Gabe Mattson
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
rguitarjj
There is a condescending aspect to this. Although just about nobody seems to grasp the brilliance or revolutionary quality of your approach, you keep acting as if that is somehow the failure of the reader, not the writer.
In fact, you have not given all the information required for anybody to understand how your approach revolutionizes harmony -- and you have received repeated feedback from quite a few people who have made that point in different ways.
Obviously, you see it differently. I wish you the best with your approach.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
pecpec
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "rguitarjj" <rpjazzguitar@...> wrote:
>
> There is a condescending aspect to this. Although just about nobody
> seems to grasp the brilliance or revolutionary quality of your
> approach, you keep acting as if that is somehow the failure of the
> reader, not the writer.
>
> In fact, you have not given all the information required for anybody
> to understand how your approach revolutionizes harmony -- and you
> have received repeated feedback from quite a few people who have made
> that point in different ways.
>
> Obviously, you see it differently. I wish you the best with your
> approach.
zzzzz zzzzz
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
gabe
You're right. I apologize for being condescending.
-Gabe
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Chris Smart
Speaking of Joey, he has an excellent brand new
CD out, called Thank You Charlie, presumably in
memory of Charlie Banacos. If you want to hear
real theoretical understanding and chops put to
great compositional use, get a copy! It's really good!
At 06:09 PM 5/18/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>.> >
> > Well, thanks for giving it your best shot. It's too bad you don't
> > see the potential. The majority definitely doesn't. Lucky for me
> > that is how change usually begins. Good luck with your music!
> >
>
>Good luck with yours too. You seem to see
>yourself as a misunderstood revolutionary. My
>suggestion is this. Maybe more people would see
>the value if you explained it better. So far, my
>impression is that you don't, because there
>isn't any real value there. But, I'm willing to
>be proved wrong. In fact, I have repeatedly
>invited you to prove me wrong by showing some
>value -- the fact that you don't do it leads me
>to assume that you can't do it. Your explication
>thus far has been limited to enumerating triads
>according to a set of parameters you set up.
>When it goes beyond that, I'll revisit it.
>Meanwhile, I'd suggest reviewing Joey
>Goldstein's posts on the other forum very
>carefully. He explained what the problems are better than I could.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------
CTS MASTERING, affordable and professional mixing
and mastering: http://www.ctsmastering.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CTSMASTERING
BLOG: www.ctsmastering.com/blog
Linked In: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536
Dropbox, Share Files Easily: http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Chris Smart
Does this fellow know our friend who makes the
nonexistent uber-expensive guitars? Remember him
from a few months back?
At 07:10 PM 5/18/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>--- In
><mailto:jazz_guitar%40yahoogroups.com>jazz_...@yahoogroups.com,
>"rguitarjj" <rpjazzguitar@...> wrote:
> >
> > There is a condescending aspect to this. Although just about nobody
> > seems to grasp the brilliance or revolutionary quality of your
> > approach, you keep acting as if that is somehow the failure of the
> > reader, not the writer.
> >
> > In fact, you have not given all the
> information required for anybody
> > to understand how your approach revolutionizes harmony -- and you
> > have received repeated feedback from quite a
> few people who have made
> > that point in different ways.
> >
> > Obviously, you see it differently. I wish you the best with your
> > approach.
>
>zzzzz zzzzz
>
>
--------------------------------------------------
CTS MASTERING, affordable and professional mixing
and mastering: http://www.ctsmastering.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CTSMASTERING
BLOG: www.ctsmastering.com/blog
Linked In: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536
Dropbox, Share Files Easily: http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
Hello, Gabe,
> The thing I am curious about is why you [Rick] are the one who has
> posted the most about it, and probably thought the most about it?
I think you are too absorbed in this to appreciate Rick fully. He
actually took the time and effort to give you every opportunity possible
to make your point. I posted that I was deliberately keeping out of this
as I simply saw it as nothing new, and Brian said pretty much the same
thing, for which he was on the mark as well.
So, I'll comment. Unless there is something encrypted in your
presentation which my less than stellar experience and experience can
decipher, so far I find your "Primary...System" as being not just
worthless to an aspiring student, but potentially harmful as well. For
example, the only reason I can think of for your having to be asked
several times as to your claim of no compound intervals, when in fact
there are, shows me (unless I'm wrong, and I certainly have been known
to be at times) that you do not understand what is meant by the term
"compound interval".
Is this important? -Yes. One of the first things a student of music
learns about harmony is that of what is meant by the terms "simple
interval", and "compound interval". That you do not understand such a
basic, first year concept, leads me to believe (and, again, I could
certainly be wrong) that you merely put together a list of all possible
3-note combinations by experimentation (or calculator), and call them
"triads". Technically that term is more specific than your use of it, a
fact which all, including me, have granted you "license" to ignore.
I could go on from there, but I admittedly haven't spent much time at
all in your presentation, whereas Rick has.
Good teachers in any field have taken the time to learn the tools of
their trade, and for music theorists ( players, arrangers, composers,
improvisers, et al) that includes, but is not limited to) studying
roughly 400 years of harmony. This ranges from "strict" counterpoint, to
the unfortunate European dogma of 4-part writing, to modern harmonic and
voice leading concepts, &c. In American "Pop" music (Jazz, Rock, Blues,
Country, &c song form) this also means studying how those concepts have
been applied to the American way of beautifully simplifying "rules" to
their lowest common-denominator, and understanding how the American
musical form was born.
I think Rick is saying that in presenting your "Primary... System" as a
revolutionary new concept which negates all that important stuff, you
are not musical, but, rather offering to students who don't know better
something which is not new at all - the world of the guitar has a long
history of hundreds, if not thousands, of books and methods which will
promise everything and deliver nothing.
I'm really sorry for being so harsh - as you know that was never my
intent. In the past I've jumped on everything which I thought to be just
another attempt to hawk a system for some personal gain, financial or
otherwise. There was even a woman (well, I think she was a woman - Chris
can answer that better than me because he is visually challenged) who
was trying to charge $100/hour for video lessons on SKYPE on how to
learn the Bach "Chaconne" through the use of TAB. And, of course, there
were the scores of books of the '40s and '50s (Alisdair knows these
people, as do I, and as their books are now long gone, I'll spare the
authors' names) guaranteeing someone the necessary skills to "play on
the radio". There have been all kinds of "New" approaches, and the one
thing they have in common are that they are useless.
So, then, can you use your method (even theoretically) to either analyze
that great-old Bach "Chaconne", or Coltrane's "Giant Steps", or to come
up with something better than that (creatively)? Musical theory,
including harmony, is a process whereby basic concepts progress into
more complex concepts, and at each step of the way the student is
enabled to both use them creatively, and to properly progress to the
next step. That is how it's done.
I'm not trying to shoot you down. BUT, make no mistake about it, I have
been at it for many, many years, and have produced many excellent
guitarists and musicians, and continue to do so, and I know from
experience that what I do is well planned, effective, and solid.
Perhaps I'm getting too old to care about the students who are
determined to fall for these "quick trick gimmicks" (they sometimes seem
to multiply exponentially), and so I just dismissed your "System" early
on, whereas Rick dedicated more time to you. For that he is to be applauded.
good luck,
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
Thanks for the kind words, Brian,
I've been hesitant to jump in on this for the reasons I've stated
before. Other than to point out that my feelings were that this is not a
revolutionary concept at all, but one that in some way or other has been
approached by others (and I mentioned guitarists) as more of a "you can
try this, too" kind of thing.
I did respond to Gabe in more depth tonight, not because I wanted to
hurt his feelnigs, but in the hope that he will use my words to inspire
him to better re-evaluate his feelings toward the guitar and music, and
reassess his motivations. My gut is still telling me that he is more
excited about something he has more-or-less stumbled upon, and will see
it more clearly for what it really is down the road.
But he will take it in whatever way he chooses to take it, and that's a
fact. From what I've heard, he was attacked far more sharply than
anything I posted tonight.
Hey! - It was great talking with you yesterday.
all warmest regards,
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
On 5/18/2013 12:16 PM, Brian Kelly wrote:
> Well I read your responses to Gabe’s system and I pretty much thought
> they were the only really intelligent views on the merits of this
> system. Plus, I admired the level of effort you put into trying to
> understand his system. After reading your comments I thought that
> there was pretty much nothing left to say.
Ditto!
best,
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
Hi Rick,
> There is a condescending aspect to this. Although just about nobody
> seems to grasp the brilliance or revolutionary quality of your
> approach, you keep acting as if that is somehow the failure of the
> reader, not the writer.
There certainly is, and I've noticed it before. That is so shrouded in
patronizing accoutrements, it doesn't come across at first, but it is
certainly there.
>
> In fact, you have not given all the information required for anybody
> to understand how your approach revolutionizes harmony
Wrong there. He has given all the information required for anybody who
knows something about music to understand how his approach
revolutionizes harmony - it doesn't.
You are the one in this discussion who has been generous, respectful,
candid, and polite. Generous with your time; respectful in your
questions, candid in your responses to his non-answers, and polite
without patronizing.
I tip my hat to you. I jumped in because 1) this thread has gone on for
far to long, and 2) I feel his claims to be a real affront to real and
established musical concepts.
best,
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Chris Smart
Bobby,
At 10:32 PM 5/18/2013, you wrote:
> There was even a woman (well, I think she was a woman - Chris
>can answer that better than me because he is visually challenged) who
>was trying to charge $100/hour for video lessons on SKYPE on how to
>learn the Bach "Chaconne" through the use of TAB.
Hmm was that Jamie Andreas, author of
a revolutionary book called "The principles of correct practice for
guitar"?
I'm kidding about the revolutionary part, but when I posted about
that book once, I believe it was Alisdair who came back with many
books going back a hundred years or more that presented the same
information on how to physically manipulate the instrument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdZiY8RVaKA
I hope that was a demo of how NOT to play Dust in the Wind ...
As for her voice, all I'll say is that I used to phone a telephone
personals/chat line, and the guys pretending to be women sounded
like that ... deep and breathy. *LOL* Hey big boy ... my name is
Jamie, and I've got my guitar out, just waaaaaaiting for you to
plaaaaay it...
--------------------------------------------------
CTS MASTERING, affordable and professional mixing and mastering:
http://www.ctsmastering.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CTSMASTERING
BLOG: www.ctsmastering.com/blog
Linked In: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536
Dropbox, Share Files Easily: http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
Hi Chris,
I apologize for that comment - I simply couldn't resist.
Anyway, I think that was her. There are SO many so-called -"teachers"
trying to hook into the power of the Internet to shear the unsuspecting
sheep that it's hard to tell her from the rest.
And so - Do you call those hot-lines often?????
(laughing),
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Chris Smart
not any more.
found me someone, and not on one of those lines.
... online though. I won't go into detail on a
public forum full of classy folks. :)
At 11:28 PM 5/18/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Chris,
>I apologize for that comment - I simply couldn't resist.
>
>Anyway, I think that was her. There are SO many so-called -"teachers"
>trying to hook into the power of the Internet to
>shear the unsuspecting
>sheep that it's hard to tell her from the rest.
>
>And so - Do you call those hot-lines often?????
>
>(laughing),
>Bobby
>
--------------------------------------------------
CTS MASTERING, affordable and professional mixing
and mastering: http://www.ctsmastering.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CTSMASTERING
BLOG: www.ctsmastering.com/blog
Linked In: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536
Dropbox, Share Files Easily: http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
On 5/18/2013 11:43 PM, Chris Smart wrote:
> not any more.
LOL!!!
>
> found me someone, and not on one of those lines.
> ... online though. I won't go into detail on a
> public forum full of classy folks. :)
"Classy folks"???? I resent that remark!
(laughing again),
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Brian Kelly
Bobby,
I figured early on that this system was some sort of impractical nonsense but I admired Rick for trying to ferret out the validity in this system by asking intelligent questions of Gabe who is the originator of this system. I didn’t jump in because I wanted to see if he could sell this system to either you or Rick first. If you guys would have jumped on the bandwagon I would have taken it more seriously but I could see early on that that neither of you and especially Rick were not biting.
Juan took a look at this and bailed at the first Primary Triad.
I’ll also add that the whole subject has gotten tiring. To me it is nothing more than a fancy form a spam by someone I never heard of before in this group until he started posting about his revolutionary system.
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Brian Kelly
Bobby,
You are very deserving of anything I said kind about you.
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Brian Kelly
Bobby,
I’ve pretty much liked Rick all along but in truth the intelligent way in which he handled this whole thing with Gabe really added to my opinion of him both as a musician and a person.
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
JVeg...@aol.com
Bobby,
I’ve pretty much liked Rick all along but in truth the
intelligent way in which he handled this whole thing with Gabe really added to
my opinion of him both as a musician and a
person.
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
akmbirch
I haven't followed this thread at all, but it seemed immensely complicated.
Just a couple of thoughts...
Generally, if the explanation does nothing to improve my ear then whatever the intellectual purpose for me I put it aside. For some the intellectual works well, but for me unless it expands my hearing's understanding then I find I can't use it.
I do want to commend the discussion though, even if many thought it not useful. Discussion is a good thing, especially when it comes to what some may think are new concepts. I say this because today there is so much b.s. on the internet being packaged up and sold as revolutionary methods that at least this was discussed before another revolutionary, pseudo scientific tinged with pop psychology method was sold to bamboozle aspiring musicians. IMO, it has become almost tiresome - revolutionary parallel triadic substitution for lydian dominant harmony, get good overnight course anyone?? ;-)
--
Alisdair MacRae Birch
Guitarist/Bassist/Educator/Arranger
http://www.alisdair.com
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
Hi Alisdair,
> revolutionary parallel triadic substitution for lydian dominant
> harmony, get good overnight course anyone?? ;-)
I'll take two of those because I want to get twice as good in 1/2 the time!
regards,
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
rguitarjj
Thanks to Brian, Bobby, Juan, Chris, Alistair and anybody I've forgotten for their contributions -- and some very kind words which are much appreciated!. You guys make the forum worthwhile.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
robbyroiter
Gabe-
This has been a long discussion, but I did have another idea reading these recent posts. For the record, I agree with a lot of the critique so far of the limitations of your claims for what you've worked out, but I do see some merit/ usefulness in it as well, & would be interested in seeing if you can illumine for us, & possibly for yourself, how it could actually be applied & how new it is or isn't etc.
My idea is this:
Rather than trying to explain the entire system & how it may or may not have some new angle or approach to harmony, maybe you could describe how you imagine the application of one very small portion of it, literally just *one* new chord family.
In other words, starting with the regular triads, maj, min, aug, dim & maybe sus4, how about instead of jumping to the big picture of adding the rest of the 110 chord vocabulary, what if we just consider only one new chord type, for starters?
For example, w/C as root, we'd have the regular maj, min, aug, dim & sus4 in all permutations over 2 octaves. That would be 24 variations of maj,min,dim,& sus4 & 2 of aug. & then you could consider transpositions, giving (24x12) + (4x2)= 296 chords.
Then we expand the options using your list by adding the arbitrary chord CEF#.
The simplest application of your method I think would then also include CF#E, EF#C, ECF#, F#CE & F#EC. And then you could expand & use all their transpositions, a total of 6x12=72 more chords .
How would you use or apply these new chords in a way that expands or changes the usual way of looking at harmony?
For the maj, min, aug, dim & sus there's a lot of established ways to combine them in various & patterns, or ways to add a 4th note.
How do you envision using just this one new set of chords?
If possible please give a concrete example or several. I have my own ideas but I'm hoping to hear your take on it.
Robby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Brian Kelly
Rick,
You really deserve the praise you got on this. I was amazed at how hard you worked at trying to figure Gabe’s system out or to get him to further explain it. I think you gave his system much more than a fair shot.
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Chris Smart
What confused me was that there was no mention of money anywhere in
the sales pitch. If I had put that much time into figuring out a
"system", I would have also started trying to sell it. Geez, and
I'm Canadian eh? Americans are so much better at that
entrepreneurial stuff. :)
Let's try and bring this back to guitar...
I don't have a problem with guys coming up with ways to organize
and systematize everything, especially when it comes to mapping out
the fretboard. We all have to do that in some way. But, lots of
these systems seem to work only for their author.
Let's take Pat martino for example. I have no doubt his using the
I Ching, hexagrams etc. was a personal revolution for him, and hey,
the results are there for any of us to marvel at. :) But, I don't
see the neck that way, and don't want to put the hours in to try
and bend my mind around it. But, it works for him.
For me, the CAGED system was a revelation later on. I had always
understood you could slide a shape around and get say, a particular
major chord voicing in whatever key you wanted, but I had never
seen it mapped out and organized and given a handy name. I don't
think I missed anything early on by not starting with CAGED, but I
might have learned the basics a lot faster had I started there.
Maybe it's a shortcut, and those always have limitations, but I
figure if it gets someone looking at the whole neck, not just the
first three frets quicker, it can't be all bad.
Another one was realizing years later that we almost never start a
scale shape, playing the root on the lower strings at least, with
the second finger. I hadn't really thought of it, but yeah, it
almost never happens. So why worry about that possibility?
What other shortcuts or breakthroughs have people here had along
the way?
--------------------------------------------------
CTS MASTERING, affordable and professional mixing and mastering:
http://www.ctsmastering.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CTSMASTERING
BLOG: www.ctsmastering.com/blog
Linked In: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536
Dropbox, Share Files Easily: http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Brian Kelly
Juan,
Yeah, it’s definitely a tritone substitution but that is a jazz term. In reality it’s just a C7 chord with moving voices. They are moving for a reason and it is better to understand that than think of it as a clever chord substitution which is naturally followed by questions like what scale do you play over the tritone sub?
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
funkifized34
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Chris Smart <csmart8@...> wrote:
>
> Bobby,
>
> At 10:32 PM 5/18/2013, you wrote:
>
> > There was even a woman (well, I think she was a woman - Chris
> >can answer that better than me because he is visually challenged) who
> >was trying to charge $100/hour for video lessons on SKYPE on how to
> >learn the Bach "Chaconne" through the use of TAB.
>
> Hmm was that Jamie Andreas, author of
> a revolutionary book called "The principles of correct practice for
> guitar"?
>
> I'm kidding about the revolutionary part, but when I posted about
> that book once, I believe it was Alisdair who came back with many
> books going back a hundred years or more that presented the same
> information on how to physically manipulate the instrument.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdZiY8RVaKA
>
> I hope that was a demo of how NOT to play Dust in the Wind ...
>
> As for her voice, all I'll say is that I used to phone a telephone
> personals/chat line, and the guys pretending to be women sounded
> like that ... deep and breathy. *LOL* Hey big boy ... my name is
> Jamie, and I've got my guitar out, just waaaaaaiting for you to
> plaaaaay it...
I remember dealing with Jamie. I argued with some of her followers about the fact that in the examples she plays, she's not playing them very well. The piece of the "Stairway To Heaven" solo could be done better by some of my students. She also cites that one should *never* teach a younger beginner to read music. I've teaching younger beginners to play for decades, and I *always* teach them to read music. It's certainly the easiest way to teach grade-school students.
I also remember a flame war with someone on the usenet who was "inventing a new system of notation", using colors or numbers or some such thing. Seems like the people who are trying to come up with a new system are the ones who don't understand the old one. If they're not willing to do the work to understand the old system, how are they expected to do the work to formulate a new one?
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Brian Kelly
These are words for the wise. Something along the lines of “Those who can do and those who can’t teach.”
“Seems like the people who are trying to come up with a new system are the ones who don't understand the old one.”
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
On 5/19/2013 9:28 PM, funkifized34 wrote:
> I remember dealing with Jamie. I argued with some of her followers
> about the fact that in the examples she plays, she's not playing them
> very well. The piece of the "Stairway To Heaven" solo could be done
> better by some of my students. She also cites that one should *never*
> teach a younger beginner to read music. I've teaching younger
> beginners to play for decades, and I *always* teach them to read
> music. It's certainly the easiest way to teach grade-school students.
You are absolutely correct, and, while that may be obvious to guys like
you and me, it's surprisingly still resisted by many guitarists. "OK, I
want to learn to fix cars, but don't make me learn how a carburetor
works, or how to read a strobe light." hmmm.......
The very best time to teach students to read, regardless of age, is
right from the start. I know some on this list even disagree with it.
They are wrong. The single hardest thing for a teacher of a new student
is to get them to show up for a 2nd lesson. Good teachers know this and
accomplish it, GREAT teaches do it without compromising teaching them
that which is right.
>
> I also remember a flame war with someone on the usenet who was
> "inventing a new system of notation", using colors or numbers or some
> such thing. Seems like the people who are trying to come up with a new
> system are the ones who don't understand the old one. If they're not
> willing to do the work to understand the old system, how are they
> expected to do the work to formulate a new one?
That was exactly my point. There was once a list member, a nice guy and
retired dentist if memory serves, who told me that he'd invented a "new"
system for creating chord-solos that had never, ever been done before
(like he knew everything which had been done before....), and ALSO that
he knew techniques to cheaply turn a cheap guitar into a master
instrument (that's called "making a silk purse from a sow's ear", btw).
Well, I never asked him about his "secret" luthier techniques, but I did
ask him about his chord solos. I never heard back.
Years ago, I learned to count the game of Blackjack as an aside to my
life. As I studied the greats, it occurred to me always that "if they
only thought this way", or"if they only did that", it would be far
simpler and more effective a strategy of play. What I did not take into
account is that the game of Blackjack, as our lovely Diana on this lies
can attest to, is the single most computer studied topic ever, and that
these masters used that information properly. When I finally humbled
myself to that fact, I did pretty well.
best,
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
TriTone Dominant Substitution (Bob Hansmann)
The two tones which make up the basic characteristic quality of
any chord (or
scale, from which chords are derived) are the 3rd and 7th. There
are 4 possible
combinations of these 2 tones, and so there are 4 basic chord
(and scale)
types. Chords (and scales) containing both a Major 3rd and a
Minor 7th are the
Dominant Chords, irrespective of ANY of the other tones (root
excluded, of
course).
Within every Diatonic Scale is contained 1 Tritone (3- steps).
When that occurs
between the scale's 4th and 7th degree (as it does in the Major
Scale), it is
called the "Tonal Tritone", because those 2 tones make up the
Mi. 7th
and Ma. 3rd of the Dominant 7th (V7) chord, and the function of
the V7 is to
resolve to the I.
So for C Major, the "Tonal Tritone" exists from F (4) to B (7).
These
two notes make up the Mi.7th and Ma.3rd of the Dominant 7th (V7)
Chord (in this
case, G7). These two tones resolve in contrary motion (by 1/2
step) from F down
to E, and from B up to C, and E, C are the 3rd and Root of the I
chord (C),
respectively.
A Tritone away, in F#, the 4th and 7th tones are B and E#
respectively. These
make up Mi.7th and Ma.3rd of that key's V7 chord (now C#7), AND
ARE THE SAME
NOTES AS THE TONAL TRITONE OF THE PREVIOUS G7. Resolving these
by 1/2 step in
contrary motion, B down to A#, and E# up to F#, the resultant
A#, F# are
the 3rd and Root of the I chord (F#), respectively.
SO - resolving them the OTHER way by 1/2-step in contrary
motion, the G7's F UP
to F#, and B DOWN to A#, the harmonic gravity is directed to the
Root (F#) and
3rd (A#) of the I chord (F#); and resolving, similarly, C#7's B
UP to C, and E#
DOWN to E, the harmonic gravity is directed toward the Root (C)
and 3rd
(E) of the I chord (C).
So, to simplify, the notes F and B exist in C: V7 (G7), and E#
and B exist in
F#: V7 (C#7). The keys, and subsequently those Dominant Chords,
are a TRITONE
apart.
G7 can resolve to either C or F#.
C#7 can resolve to either F# or C.
This is what is meant by the term "Tritone Dominant Substitute",
and
there is a LOT of fruit that falls from that tree, indeed.
Neither the term nor the theory are exclusive to Jazz. The
theory goes all the
way back to 16th century Counterpoint (in one form or another),
and Jazz
players were not the first even to use the term.
The direct connection from theory to "hearing" (or lack thereof)
so
often cited on this list (usually as a reason to NOT learn
theory), is
incorrect, and assumes, wrongly, that everyone hears the same,
and that there
is such a thing as "Artistic Absolutes", which there is not.
Different people use the same principles and tools in different
ways, and many
things we take for granted as "good" were once considered
"wrong" until listeners' ears became accustomed to hearing them.
Jazz
is full of these examples, but it is not alone by any means. Had
people
ridgedly stuck to what was used to being heard, we'd have run
out of
possibilities long ago. Even something as simple as "Swing" was
once
considered unnatural and harsh. While many principles are
'written in
stone", the applications of those principles change throughout
time, and
so the art is both dynamic, and still grounded in its historical
roots.
Can someone learn to "hear" this without this theory? - Of
course
they can. Most (not all) theory is first discerned by hearing,
and then by
trying to analyze what has been heard in an attempt to make
further creative
use of it.
But neither will knowing this theory have a negative effect upon
one's ability
to "hear". I use the term "hear" in quotations because true
hearing on an intellectual or artistic level occurs in the mind,
and not the
ears. It is the mind that reacts, feels the "emotion", decides
upon
new and creative uses, remembers, and makes judgments. Expanding
the mind and
increasing understanding cannot help but have a positive effect
upon how one
"hears" music. And so, this is why we study the great minds of
the
past. As one student said to me long ago (she is a very
successful songwriter
still), "Bobby, I look at music as a long, long line. I want to
find my
1/4-inch on that line".
©2013, Bob Hansmann
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Rodney Buckle
I used a colour system for many years to great effect with severly mentally
handicapped youngsters. This brought them great joy and sense of
acheivement on keyboards. I "transcribed" and printed colour coded for many
pop tunes and tv themes of the day. Coloured stickers were placed on the
keys
Sometimes these "schemes" have their uses.
Rod
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Chris Smart
Interesting about notation.
I have a student who is eight. She's unusual in that she 1. really
really wants to be learning guitar, 2. can focus for the whole
half-hour (12 year-old boys can't seem to do that!), and 3. she
never ever says "oh i can't do that."
In other words, she's that one student we all want that make some
of the others bearable. :)
I tried starting her with tab. You know what? She found that more
confusing than learning a few notes on the treble clef, and we have
switched over! I have learned my lesson there. :)
My problem is finding repertoire easy enough for her to figure out,
especially in terms of rhythm, but not nersery rhyme type stuff.
She loves the Beatles. Which Beatles melodies would you rank as the
easiest to read? not necessarily to play - she likes the challenge
of playing things.
For example, I thought "ok, hey Jude is unforgettable and she will
have heard it", but when I went to transcribe Paul's vocal, I found
lots of syncopated stuff, tied/dotted notes, and things that are
past her current reading level, like sixteenths.
Should I intentionally dumb it down and encourage her to learn the
notes off of the page, but get the rhythmic feel from listening to
the recording?
The first one we did was "Let it Be", which she mastered and can
play from memory now.
Yesterday perhaps?
Chris
--------------------------------------------------
CTS MASTERING, affordable and professional mixing and mastering:
http://www.ctsmastering.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CTSMASTERING
BLOG: www.ctsmastering.com/blog
Linked In: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536
Dropbox, Share Files Easily: http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
JVeg...@aol.com
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Brian Kelly
Bobby,
Incredibly good explanation. Easily the best technically oriented response I have ever seen on this site plus you have added the artistic part as well. If you add this to my view that no matter what you do its all still C7 you know all there is to know about any of this. Never the less, despite knowing all there is to know, you will still spend your whole life trying to figure out how to use all of this artistically.
Here are a few of the highlights of this piece for me.
“Neither the term nor the theory are exclusive to Jazz. The theory goes all the way back to 16th century Counterpoint (in one form or another), and Jazz players were not the first even to use the term.”
I love this because as you point out none of this is new and has actually been better explained in commonly available harmony and counterpoint textbooks.
“There is no such thing as Artistic Absolutes.” I would add that the technology does end in absolutes but even then that is is only on paper. Once you start making music out of what is written you’ve entered another world. In that world your C7 and my C7 as performed by either of us will be slightly different.
I won’t copy this next point verbatim from your piece since it is hard to break it out all by itself but the notion you expressed here that everyone hears differently (both physically and conceptionally) is always worth considering when you are involved in anything musical.
“True hearing on an intellectual or artistic level occurs in the mind, and not the ears.”
Brilliant!!!
This also brings me back to a comment that I made several months ago about once teaching a student who after many frustrating years of trying to learn to play the guitar said “What happens if you don’t hear nothing cause I think that is my real problem?” Well, it took me three months to get him turned around and much of doing that involved just what you have done here in first correctly defining the actual terms. Lots of guys are screwed up trying to figure out what in the hell these bold, global statements like “You’ve got hear it or you’ve got to play it with feeling” really mean.
Well, I hate to blow your ego up since I know I will have to deal with you later but in truth this is one of the best technical and artistic pieces I have ever seen. What’s more important is that you rarely see the two issues discussed in such close relationship to each other. It’s either technique or art but rarely both at the same time.
It’s also worth mentioning since Gabe’s revolutionary harmonic system has taken up so much time lately that music has never truly been revolutionized but has instead only evolved (evolutionized ) stepwise over it’s entire history. You’ll learn a lot by just studying how it has evolved over the years as well. You don’t have to take my word for this either. Igor Stravinsky made the same claim. Words like revolutionary are marketing buzz words and that is all.
Continued success.
Brian
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
dpkingbluesguitar
'Another one was realizing years later that we almost never start a
scale shape, playing the root on the lower strings at least, with
the second finger. I hadn't really thought of it, but yeah, it
almost never happens. So why worry about that possibility?'
That is the way I start the major scale. It is different from all my other patterns and kind of throws me off. Right now I am considering phasing my forth finger out a little more and doing position shifting instead.
Music for Life.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Chris Smart
OH shoot.
I said second, without thinking, and meant third!
Second happens a lot and third is the one I
almost never use in that situation.
Sorry about any unintentional confusion there.
At 03:57 PM 5/20/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>'Another one was realizing years later that we almost never start a
>scale shape, playing the root on the lower strings at least, with
>the second finger. I hadn't really thought of it, but yeah, it
>almost never happens. So why worry about that possibility?'
>
>That is the way I start the major scale. It is
>different from all my other patterns and kind of
>throws me off. Right now I am considering
>phasing my forth finger out a little more and
>doing position shifting instead.
>
>Music for Life.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------
CTS MASTERING, affordable and professional mixing
and mastering: http://www.ctsmastering.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CTSMASTERING
BLOG: www.ctsmastering.com/blog
Linked In: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536
Dropbox, Share Files Easily: http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
rguitarjj
I think Jimmy Bruno teaches patterns starting with the second finger.
I do it all the time. It's the third finger that seems awkward to start a scale on to me. Say you're playing a C scale starting E string, 8th fret. Second finger is easy. You get the D with your pinkie and your first finger is already over the E.
But, third finger, you have to stretch or shift for the D. If you play the D on the 5th string, you might as well have played the C with your fourth finger to begin with. Similarly, if you're going to play the D on the E string, why not start with second finger rather than third?
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
rguitarjj
That makes more sense. There's just no advantage to starting on the third finger in most situations. I guess I can imagine coming off a chord with the third finger, say 8x876x and wanting to begin a line with the same C on the E string, but I can't say that I've ever done it.
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Chris Smart <csmart8@...> wrote:
>
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Bob Hansmann
Hi Brian,
Thank you so much for the 'deep-read' that you gave to that post,
and for the kind words and thoughtful responses to it. What you got
out of it and what I meant you to get out of it are very much in
agreement with eachother, and I'm really happy you found it thought
provoking and helpful. I'll try to address those responses:
If you add this to my view that no matter what you do its all still C7 you know all there is to know about any of this. Never the less, despite knowing all there is to know, you will still spend your whole life trying to figure out how to use all of this artistically.
Precisely. Theory is neither something to be dismissed, nor an end in itself. It's a means toward an end. Ideally, once the theory is understood, the end is pursued without thinking of 'why' it works anymore. Knowing about how a Tonal Tritone in a V7 chord resolves to a I chord through contrary motion is of no value unless it's put to use. You have to play that C7 chord (and a lot) if you're going to get any good at using it, regardless of whether or not you understand the theory behind it.
“Neither the term nor the theory are exclusive to Jazz. The theory goes all the way back to 16th century Counterpoint (in one form or another), and Jazz players were not the first even to use the term.”
I love this because as you point out none of this is new and has actually been better explained in commonly available harmony and counterpoint textbooks.
This is complex. My feelings are that the hook-up between European
Harmonic theory and American Harmonic theory has been difficult has
its roots in a few areas:
1) Jazz players were for decades essentially cut off from European
'Serious' music, and vice-versa.
2) Fixed 'Do' system is prevalent throughout some parts of Europe
and not others (Alisdair, being European himself, knows lots more
about this than me). Fixed 'Do' makes it extremely difficult to
communicate with a chord labeling system as in America, which uses
the musical alphabet. I've even had trouble teaching Europeans who
were taught a 'moveable Do' system.
3) Somewhere along the line, musical academia was hijacked by the
system of voice leading called "4-Part Writing". Stravinsky called
it, "An attempt to analyze music of the great composers by methods
which were foreign to the great composers." The topic is too broad
to be discussed here, but it is the no.1 reason why successful Jazz
musicians have the saying, "Take everything you learned in college,
and forget it." Phil Woods doesn't comment either way about it,
except to say he learned voice movement through Contrapuntal
studies. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven were all grounded in true
Faustian Counterpoint.
“There is no such thing as Artistic Absolutes.” I would add that the technology does end in absolutes but even then that is is only on paper. Once you start making music out of what is written you’ve entered another world. In that world your C7 and my C7 as performed by either of us will be slightly different.
Or even drastically different. That is what I was saying in my sentence: " While many principles are 'written in stone", the applications of those principles change throughout time, and so the art is BOTH dynamic, and still grounded in its historical roots."
music has never truly been revolutionized but has instead only evolved (evolutionized ) stepwise over it’s entire history.
Yes, and then it made a leap 'across the pond', as Brits are wont to
say. The 20th Century changed everything in the arts, particularly
because of both WW I and WW II. Where Europe took on devastation
which in some cases it still have not recovered from, America came
out stronger than ever. Whereas European art largely reflected upon
the "century of death", American art, and especially music, took on
an optimistic outlook, and, when combined with the multiculturalism
which America is, created Jazz, along with all other musics which
can be called "Pop".
This is such an oversimplification that I am almost embarrassed to
include it, and there are many sources of study one could pursue if
they want to, so I'll leave that point here. But America took the
principles of Western European Music, and, as Americans always do,
beautifully streamlined it and gave it a unique American accent.
This is long, and I've risked it being too short in several places.
So I'll close it here. Again I thank you. and, BTW, you can "blow my
ego up" any time you want. I'm a whore; I'm a tramp. I take it where
I can get it! :-)
warmest regards,
Bobby
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Chris Smart
yep, I actually meant third. Sorry about the confusion.
At 06:11 PM 5/20/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>I think Jimmy Bruno teaches patterns starting with the second finger.
>
>I do it all the time. It's the third finger that
>seems awkward to start a scale on to me. Say
>you're playing a C scale starting E string, 8th
>fret. Second finger is easy. You get the D with
>your pinkie and your first finger is already over the E.
>
>But, third finger, you have to stretch or shift
>for the D. If you play the D on the 5th string,
>you might as well have played the C with your
>fourth finger to begin with. Similarly, if
>you're going to play the D on the E string, why
>not start with second finger rather than third?
>
>
--------------------------------------------------
CTS MASTERING, affordable and professional mixing
and mastering: http://www.ctsmastering.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CTSMASTERING
BLOG: www.ctsmastering.com/blog
Linked In: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536
Dropbox, Share Files Easily: http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
robbyroiter
With young children I usually simplify the rhythm but explain to them that I am doing so.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
dphidt
Chris,
I was wondering the same thing. He sounds like a cousin of Paul's.
-- Mike V.
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Chris Smart <csmart8@...> wrote:
>
> Does this fellow know our friend who makes the
> nonexistent uber-expensive guitars? Remember him
> from a few months back?
>
>
> At 07:10 PM 5/18/2013, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >--- In
> ><mailto:jazz_guitar%40yahoogroups.com>jazz_...@yahoogroups.com,
> >"rguitarjj" <rpjazzguitar@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is a condescending aspect to this. Although just about nobody
> > > seems to grasp the brilliance or revolutionary quality of your
> > > approach, you keep acting as if that is somehow the failure of the
> > > reader, not the writer.
> > >
> > > In fact, you have not given all the
> > information required for anybody
> > > to understand how your approach revolutionizes harmony -- and you
> > > have received repeated feedback from quite a
> > few people who have made
> > > that point in different ways.
> > >
> > > Obviously, you see it differently. I wish you the best with your
> > > approach.
> >
> >zzzzz zzzzz
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> CTS MASTERING, affordable and professional mixing
> and mastering: http://www.ctsmastering.com
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CTSMASTERING
> BLOG: www.ctsmastering.com/blog
> Linked In: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536
> Dropbox, Share Files Easily: http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt
>
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
JVeg...@aol.com
Chris,
I was wondering the same thing. He sounds like a cousin of
Paul's.
-- Mike
V.
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Chris Smart
ok. thanks for all the responses guys.
At 08:03 PM 5/20/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>With young children I usually simplify the
>rhythm but explain to them that I am doing so.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------
CTS MASTERING, affordable and professional mixing
and mastering: http://www.ctsmastering.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CTSMASTERING
BLOG: www.ctsmastering.com/blog
Linked In: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536
Dropbox, Share Files Easily: http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
Chris Smart
thanks. i had forgotten his name.
At 11:16 PM 5/20/2013, you wrote:
>
>
>Chris,
>
>I was wondering the same thing. He sounds like a cousin of Paul's.
>
>-- Mike V.
>
>--- In
>Chris Smart <csmart8@...> wrote:
> >
> > Does this fellow know our friend who makes the
> > nonexistent uber-expensive guitars? Remember him
> > from a few months back?
> >
> >
> > At 07:10 PM 5/18/2013, you wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >--- In
> > ><mailto:jazz_guitar%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
> :jazz_guitar%40yahoogroups.com>jazz_...@yahoogroups.com,
> > >"rguitarjj" <rpjazzguitar@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is a condescending aspect to this.
> Although just about nobody
> > > > seems to grasp the brilliance or revolutionary quality of your
> > > > approach, you keep acting as if that is
> somehow the failure of the
> > > > reader, not the writer.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, you have not given all the
> > > information required for anybody
> > > > to understand how your approach
> revolutionizes harmony -- and you
> > > > have received repeated feedback from quite a
> > > few people who have made
> > > > that point in different ways.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, you see it differently. I wish
> you the best with your
> > > > approach.
> > >
> > >zzzzz zzzzz
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > CTS MASTERING, affordable and professional mixing
> > and mastering:
> <http://www.ctsmastering.com>http://www.ctsmastering.com
> > Twitter: <https://twitter.com/#>https://twitter.com/#!/CTSMASTERING
> > BLOG: www.ctsmastering.com/blog
> > Linked In:
> <http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536>http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536
> > Dropbox, Share Files Easily:
> <http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt>http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt
> >
>
>
--------------------------------------------------
CTS MASTERING, affordable and professional mixing
and mastering: http://www.ctsmastering.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/CTSMASTERING
BLOG: www.ctsmastering.com/blog
Linked In: http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/chris-smart/46/824/536
Dropbox, Share Files Easily: http://db.tt/bQ2GuIt
<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/
<*> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JazzGuitarGroup
