days of wine and roses
Kasper Poulsen
I扉e been tryin to play the standard "the days of wine and roses" for a
while now, but I惴 there is a few places where I惴 still not completely
sure what scales to use over certain chords.
here is what I have so far.
Fmaj7 ; Eb7 ; Am7 ; D7b9 ; Gm7 ; Gm7 ; Bbm ; Eb7 ;
Am7 ; Dm7 ; Gm7 ; Gm7/f ; Em7b5 a7b9 ; Dm7 G7 ; Gm7 ; C7 ;
Fmaj7 ; Eb7 ; Am7 ; D7 ; Gm7 ; Gm7 ; Bbm ; Eb7 ;
Am7 ; Dm7 Dm7/c ; Bm7b5 ; E7b9 ; Am7 Dm7 ; Gm7 C7 ; F6 ; ;
bar 2: sub for ivm (sub for Bbm) Bb melodic minor
bar 3: Am7 Phrygian mode of F major (or should I just play D7 like some
people do)
bar 4: G harmonic minor
bar 5-6: G dorian
bar 7-8: Bb melodic minor
bar 12: do you play gm7/f or c7 like some people do?
bar 13: e locrian and d harmonic minor
bar 14: ii-V of c major
bar 27-28: ii-v of a minor (some people play Bb7 in bar 28, what is
correct? or is it the same thing?)
any comments is greatly appresiated
Jeremey Poparad at
"Kasper Poulsen" <kas...@nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:1gfwk28.m2...@port187.cvx2-ejb.ppp.cybercity.dk...
> Hi
> I´ve been tryin to play the standard "the days of wine and roses" for a
> while now, but I´m there is a few places where I´m still not completely
> sure what scales to use over certain chords.
> here is what I have so far.
>
> Fmaj7 ; Eb7 ; Am7 ; D7b9 ; Gm7 ; Gm7 ; Bbm ; Eb7 ;
>
> Am7 ; Dm7 ; Gm7 ; Gm7/f ; Em7b5 a7b9 ; Dm7 G7 ; Gm7 ; C7 ;
>
> Fmaj7 ; Eb7 ; Am7 ; D7 ; Gm7 ; Gm7 ; Bbm ; Eb7 ;
>
> Am7 ; Dm7 Dm7/c ; Bm7b5 ; E7b9 ; Am7 Dm7 ; Gm7 C7 ; F6 ; ;
>
> bar 2: sub for ivm (sub for Bbm) Bb melodic minor
> bar 3: Am7 Phrygian mode of F major (or should I just play D7 like some
> people do)
> bar 4: G harmonic minor
same thing you're doing on Eb7, so just take it down a half step.
> bar 5-6: G dorian
> bar 7-8: Bb melodic minor
> bar 12: do you play gm7/f or c7 like some people do?
I play C7
> bar 13: e locrian and d harmonic minor
You could just play D harmonic minor over both these chords to simplify
things, since they both fit the scale.
> bar 14: ii-V of c major
> bar 27-28: ii-v of a minor (some people play Bb7 in bar 28, what is
> correct? or is it the same thing?)
>
Yes, they are the same. Bb7 is the tritone sub for E7. Anytime you have a
dom7 chord, you can play a tritone away. Whether you play E7 or Bb7 doesn't
matter since the rhythm section could be playing either one. Often, they
might play Bb7 the first time through the form, and E7 the second time for
variety.
> any comments is greatly appreciated
Joe Finn
http://www.joefinn.net/html/sounds.htm
enjoy ............joe
--
Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net
"Kasper Poulsen" <kas...@nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:1gfwk28.m2...@port187.cvx2-ejb.ppp.cybercity.dk...
> Hi
> I´ve been tryin to play the standard "the days of wine and roses" for a
> while now, but I´m there is a few places where I´m still not completely
> sure what scales to use over certain chords.
> here is what I have so far.
>
> Fmaj7 ; Eb7 ; Am7 ; D7b9 ; Gm7 ; Gm7 ; Bbm ; Eb7 ;
>
> Am7 ; Dm7 ; Gm7 ; Gm7/f ; Em7b5 a7b9 ; Dm7 G7 ; Gm7 ; C7 ;
>
> Fmaj7 ; Eb7 ; Am7 ; D7 ; Gm7 ; Gm7 ; Bbm ; Eb7 ;
>
> Am7 ; Dm7 Dm7/c ; Bm7b5 ; E7b9 ; Am7 Dm7 ; Gm7 C7 ; F6 ; ;
>
> bar 2: sub for ivm (sub for Bbm) Bb melodic minor
> bar 3: Am7 Phrygian mode of F major (or should I just play D7 like some
> people do)
> bar 4: G harmonic minor
> bar 5-6: G dorian
> bar 7-8: Bb melodic minor
> bar 12: do you play gm7/f or c7 like some people do?
> bar 13: e locrian and d harmonic minor
> bar 14: ii-V of c major
> bar 27-28: ii-v of a minor (some people play Bb7 in bar 28, what is
> correct? or is it the same thing?)
>
> any comments is greatly appresiated
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Greg M Silverman
Kasper Poulsen wrote:
Simplify it by using chord tones.... your time would have been better spent
by doing an harmonic analysis of the tune.
gms--
Kevin Van Sant
wrote in message
<1gfwk28.m2...@port187.cvx2-ejb.ppp.cybercity.dk> :
>Hi
>I´ve been tryin to play the standard "the days of wine and roses" for a
>while now, but I´m there is a few places where I´m still not completely
>sure what scales to use over certain chords.
>here is what I have so far.
>
>Fmaj7 ; Eb7 ; Am7 ; D7b9 ; Gm7 ; Gm7 ; Bbm ; Eb7 ;
>
>Am7 ; Dm7 ; Gm7 ; Gm7/f ; Em7b5 a7b9 ; Dm7 G7 ; Gm7 ; C7 ;
>
>Fmaj7 ; Eb7 ; Am7 ; D7 ; Gm7 ; Gm7 ; Bbm ; Eb7 ;
>
>Am7 ; Dm7 Dm7/c ; Bm7b5 ; E7b9 ; Am7 Dm7 ; Gm7 C7 ; F6 ; ;
>
>bar 2: sub for ivm (sub for Bbm) Bb melodic minor
>bar 3: Am7 Phrygian mode of F major (or should I just play D7 like some
>people do)
>bar 4: G harmonic minor
>bar 5-6: G dorian
>bar 7-8: Bb melodic minor
>bar 12: do you play gm7/f or c7 like some people do?
>bar 13: e locrian and d harmonic minor
>bar 14: ii-V of c major
>bar 27-28: ii-v of a minor (some people play Bb7 in bar 28, what is
>correct? or is it the same thing?)
>
>any comments is greatly appresiated
woah! I know that there are people who think this way when soloing,
but I never do and never would want to. My advice is to try to find
a way to approach songs like this looking for simple raw maj/min/dom7
key centers and use chord tones on some of the passing chords if you
want to address them. Instead of thinking of harmonic, melodic, or
dorian minor, I like to think of what I regard as the "base" minor
scale of 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, b7 and just be familiar with the 6, b6, and
maj7, (and b2 and b5 for that matter) so that I can use them with
purpose to decorate my lines without having to be thinking about three
or more distinct minor scales.
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
jazz guitar
http://www.kevinvansant.com
to buy my CDs, hear sound clips, see videos, and get more info.
Alternate site for recent soundclips
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/kevinvansant_music.htm
gtrmon
"Kevin Van Sant" <kvan...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:cmikd01ov24hieulh...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:03:03 +0200, kas...@nospam.dk (Kasper Poulsen)
> wrote in message
> <1gfwk28.m2...@port187.cvx2-ejb.ppp.cybercity.dk> :
>
> >Hi
> >while now, but I惴 there is a few places where I惴 still not completely
TGSST! (Thank George Someone Said That!) I was thinking I was being simple
and needed to complicate my thinking but that's the approach that has proven
to work best for me. I hear the tones that are altered from the scale as
colors to be applied against the generic (ok, not that generic but still...)
major minor and dom7 scales and help push or pull the melody to or through
the next change or set of changes.
Don
Keith Freeman
> but I never do and never would want to. My advice is to try to find
> a way to approach songs like this looking for simple raw maj/min/dom7
> key centers and use chord tones on some of the passing chords if you
> want to address them. Instead of thinking of harmonic, melodic, or
> dorian minor, I like to think of what I regard as the "base" minor
> scale of 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, b7 and just be familiar with the 6, b6, and
> maj7, (and b2 and b5 for that matter) so that I can use them with
> purpose to decorate my lines without having to be thinking about three
> or more distinct minor scales.
Right on the nail, Kevin!
-Keith
Music samples, tips, Portable Changes at
http://home.wanadoo.nl/keith.freeman/
E-mail: keith DOT freeman AT wanadoo DOT nl
Joey Goldstein
I think a better way to think of those scales is in relation to a chord
symbol with extensions. The idea is to be aware of which extensions that
chord-scale enables on that chord. The chord-tones plus the extensions
are the safest or strongest notes to play on that chord. I name all my
chord scales from the root of the chord:
Ionian Lydian b7 Phrygian Mixolydian b2b6
Fmaj7(9,13) |Eb7(9,#11,13) |Am7(11) |D7(b9,b13) |
Dorian Mel Min Lyd b7
Gm7(9,11,13) | |Bbm(maj7)(9,11,13) |Eb7(9,#11,13) |
Phryg Aeol Dor
Am7(11) |Dm7(9,11) |Gm7(9,11,13) | |
Locrian #2 Loc Mix b2b6 Dor
Em7b5(9,11,b13) [or Em7b5(11,b13)] A7(b9,b13) |Dm7(9,11,13)
Dor Mix b2b6
|Gm7(9,11,13) |C7(b9,b13) |
2nd ending
Phryg Aeol
Am7(11) |Dm7(9,11) |
Loc Loc #2 Lyd b7
|Bm7b5(11,b13) [or Bm7b5(9,11,b13)] |Bb7(9,#11,13) |
Phryg Aeol Dor Mix Ion
Am7(11) Dm7(9,11) |Gm7(9,11,13) C7(9,13) |F6(9,maj7) |
You'll find that in most cases (not all) the extensions chosen are found
withinn the F major scale.
These chord-scale relationships are just a starting point, a safe middle
ground. There are all sorts of other ways to play through these changes too.
As far as what the correct changes are I couldn't say exactly but most
folks around here play something very close to the ones I've got, which
are not that far off from the ones you've got. If you're playing with
people who do something different then just use your ears. It won't be
all that different.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
dirk
and disadvantages.I approach new changes by outlining the chords using arpeggios
etc , preparing my ear to the harmonic progression.Then i try to rely on my ear
improvising over the changes.The more you do it the better it goes.I also use
about the same route as kevin.Use the system that suits you best.
Dirk
"Kevin Van Sant" <kvan...@pobox.com> schreef in bericht
news:cmikd01ov24hieulh...@4ax.com...
Keith Freeman
> Fmaj7(9,13) |Eb7(9,#11,13) |Am7(11) |D7(b9,b13) |
My god, Joey, if I had to have all that running through my brain I'd
never get a note out (not even practising slowly)! Surely it makes much
more sense to get a feel for the harmonic movement by playing the chord
notes, or even just the 3s and 7s? Once you have those mapped out on the
fretboard and in your ears, adding notes in-between - chromatic or
diatonic - isn't that difficult.
Joey Goldstein
Keith Freeman wrote:
>
> > Ionian Lydian b7 Phrygian Mixolydian b2b6
> > Fmaj7(9,13) |Eb7(9,#11,13) |Am7(11) |D7(b9,b13) |
> [etc.]
> My god, Joey, if I had to have all that running through my brain I'd
> never get a note out (not even practising slowly)! Surely it makes much
> more sense to get a feel for the harmonic movement by playing the chord
> notes, or even just the 3s and 7s? Once you have those mapped out on the
> fretboard and in your ears, adding notes in-between - chromatic or
> diatonic - isn't that difficult.
There's all sorts of things you *can* do including the types of guide
tone lines that you are mentioning. I hope you noticed that I also
mentioned them.
Also, if you're used to playing melodies comprised of chord tones then
think about those extended chords as just being a bigger pallette from
which to choose. That's why I wrote them like that. Eg. on Fmaj7 you can
treat G and D as if they too are chord tones.
With practice lots of things you can't do now will come easier to you.
The stuff I wrote there is basically what they are teaching at Berklee
and elsewhere. Lots of people seem to be able to get it together
although not everybody makes great music thinking like that. Some will,
some won't. The same is true for any teaching method. There isn't one
way of thinking that makes sense all the time or to everyone.
The type of chord-scale relationships I've got mapped out there are a
big part of the way I learned and of the way I think but it isn't the
only way I think. That stuff is the easy part. I can personally attest
to the validiity of the approach. Of course I'm sure there's lots of
people who absolutely hate my approach. But if you're not one of them
and you are interested in knowing what I know and the way I approach
things, well there it is.
richieb
> Hi
> I´ve been tryin to play the standard "the days of wine and roses" for a
> while now, but I´m there is a few places where I´m still not completely
> sure what scales to use over certain chords.
> here is what I have so far.
>
> Fmaj7 ; Eb7 ; Am7 ; D7b9 ; Gm7 ; Gm7 ; Bbm ; Eb7 ;
>
I always play Ebmaj7 for the second bar. So does Wes Montgomery, so
I'm in good company... :)
...richie
----
Sound clips:http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andyandrichiemusic.htm
Tom Lippincott
for a vegetarian guitarist's saying!)
I agree that it's very important to understand and be able to play the chord
tones of each chord, have an understanding of what the possible upper
extensions are, ect. but in all honesty my way of thinking probably tends to
be most aligned with Kasper's original way of thinking. That's just the way
I first learned and it's sort of my first point of reference, even though I
later on went back and approached things the Van Sant way and the Goldstein
way as well. I tend to think these days that Hal Crook's approach is
probably the best one for beginning improvisors; learn to improvise on the
basic 4 chord tones and learn to connect them using logical voice leading.
But at the same time, some of my favorite players are/were very steeped in
the chord/scale concept that stems from George Russel's Lydian Chromatic
concept. I know that an essential part of Bill Evans' style is based on the
chord/scale way of thinking; it's very easy to hear when he plays over, say,
Stella, where he's playing block chord ideas over;
| Em7b5 | A7 |
that he's using E locrian nat. 2 (Gmelodic minor) for Em7b5 and A altered
(Bbmelodic minor) over A7. When I'm playing in that style, I "wouldn't be
able to get a note out" if I was just vaguely thinking Em7b5 to A7 with some
added extensions that I thought of on the spur of the moment. My brain
can't do all that math that quickly. At the same time, if I'm just playing
single note lines and not adding in any harmonic or contrapuntal stuff, it
often seems to work best for me not to think of anything at all. But I
didn't spontaneously get there from square one; my ears aren't good enough
for that. I had to learn all the different ways of thinking that different
posters have outlined here first, including Kasper's approach, which to me
makes as good sense as any of the other approaches.
I have no idea what level player Kasper is; I am guessing he's at least at
an intermediate level, though, based on his fairly sophisticated
understanding of the chord scale ideas. But maybe he could indeed benefit
from approaching the tune in less of a scale oriented approach and more of a
stricly chord tone based one, if he hasn't already been through all that. I
don't think Joey would advocate robotically thinking of each chord and upper
extensions in real time while playing (though I don't want to put words in
his mouth). This is stuff you have to work out ahead of time so that it is
there at your disposal on the gig withOUT having to think about it. As my
teacher Jack Petersen used to say, music's hard & tricky. Unless you're a
freak of nature who is gifted with the ears of a god (and even those guys I
suspect worked their asses off whether they admitted it or not), you have to
do a LOT of work ahead of time to be able to inhabit the same universe as
Bird, Coltrane, Bill Evans, ect. And I'm not talking about playing at that
level, I'm talking about just being any sort of professional or even
semi-professional level jazz improvisor. Maybe I'm just in an crotchety
mood, but I suspect sometimes that at least part of the reason there is less
and less interest in jazz among the general public these days is that there
are more and more jazz musicians out there doing gigs who haven't done their
homework, and they sound like it, and even relatively unsophisticated
listeners, at least on a gut level, can tell.
--
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
8 string guitar audio samples at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/3/tomlippincottmusic.htm
Keith Freeman <dont.use.t...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9512CBCF6...@194.134.2.2...
Keith Freeman
> and elsewhere.
I wonder if that's why people like Mike LeDonne are so critical of the
Berklee approach. I wished I'd asked him when I had the opportunity, but
as I had no intention of following it at the time it didn't seem so
important...
I'm sure a fella could learn all that stuff to the point where he could
apply it unconsciously - maybe if I was a teenager or even a 20-something
intending to make music my career I would even want to try that approach
- but from my perspective as an amateur with only limited time to invest
(which I suspect applies to a lot of us here) there are less time-
consuming and less complex approaches that I think can achieve good
results.
And as I've said before (many times!), I think for beginners and possibly
intermediate players the scalar approach can present you with too many
notes and not enough time to play them. Plus, if you know the arpeggios
you can easily add extra notes - even experiment with weird ones! -
whereas if you only know the scales it's much more difficult to sort out
the important notes (the chord notes). I know because I tried it for
several years with the early Aebersolds...
I'm not decrying your approach, Joey, I've no doubt some people will find
it very useful, depending on where they're starting from, where they want
to go and how they like to travel!
Keith Freeman
scales/modes when practising, isolating just one or two or three chords,
to expand one's ears. It's when it's applied to a whole tune that the
spectre of directionless 'scalular' (to use JB's delicious term) playing
looms up. Of course I have no idea whether it will have that effect on
the original poster, maybe he's capable of applying it to produce good
melodic material - if so, more power to his elbow!
> I suspect sometimes that at least part of the reason there is less
> and less interest in jazz among the general public these days
> is that there
> are more and more jazz musicians out there doing gigs who haven't done
their
> homework
I wonder: could it be they've done *too much* homework? The complaint I
hear about jazz (from jazz lovers, at least - and my own criticism) is
that it's too technical, there's not enough "soul" (or it's manufactured
soul). I think you're right that unsophisticated listeners can detect
that, even if they can't define what the problem is.
Tom Lippincott
> Your points are good ones, Tom. I have no problem with experimenting with
> scales/modes when practising, isolating just one or two or three chords,
> to expand one's ears. It's when it's applied to a whole tune that the
> spectre of directionless 'scalular' (to use JB's delicious term) playing
> looms up. Of course I have no idea whether it will have that effect on
> the original poster, maybe he's capable of applying it to produce good
> melodic material - if so, more power to his elbow!
>
I certainly agree about the "mindless running of scales" thing. But to me,
the operative word is "mindless," not "scales." A scale is just a group of
specific notes that you can do anything you want with.
> > I suspect sometimes that at least part of the reason there is less
> > and less interest in jazz among the general public these days
> > is that there
> > are more and more jazz musicians out there doing gigs who haven't done
> their
> > homework
> I wonder: could it be they've done *too much* homework? The complaint I
> hear about jazz (from jazz lovers, at least - and my own criticism) is
> that it's too technical, there's not enough "soul" (or it's manufactured
> soul). I think you're right that unsophisticated listeners can detect
> that, even if they can't define what the problem is.
>
> -Keith
>
I think you have a point; I've certainly on occasion heard young players who
come from some badass music school that have tons of chops, know all the
"right" notes, and still leave me cold, but I've heard FAR more players in
bars and clubs who have a few things together, but have glaring holes in
their musical development, show a lack of imagination in their approach (and
don't have enough basic skills together to be free enough to BE
imaginative), and because of this are just plain boring to listen to. I
can't help but think that the "soul-less badass" types are also neglecting
some important parts of "doing their homework," although those things might
not be as obvious, and are not specific to jazz playing. Maybe we're
talking about the same thing but calling it two different things. To me,
the "soul-less" thing is just about a lack of basic musicianship, and is not
specific to jazz. The thing that's specific to jazz is learning the
language, and that's where understanding the harmonies comes in (of course
that's only a part of the equation).
--
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
8 string guitar audio samples at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/3/tomlippincottmusic.htm
> Music samples, tips, Portable Changes at
Unknown
<dont.use.t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Ionian Lydian b7 Phrygian Mixolydian b2b6
>> Fmaj7(9,13) |Eb7(9,#11,13) |Am7(11) |D7(b9,b13) |
>[etc.]
>My god, Joey, if I had to have all that running through my brain I'd
>never get a note out (not even practising slowly)! Surely it makes much
>more sense to get a feel for the harmonic movement by playing the chord
>notes, or even just the 3s and 7s? Once you have those mapped out on the
>fretboard and in your ears, adding notes in-between - chromatic or
>diatonic - isn't that difficult.
>
I agree completely, Keith. I don't use these elaborate scale methods
for improv, and I don't know many really strong players who do. But
for some reason, this is what teachers teach.
I had an interesting conversation with one jazz teacher -- who is also
a great player -- who just came right out and said that he teaches
differently than he plays. He plays intuitively, but teaches all the
jazz education industry standard methods to his students, because he
says he can't explain how he really plays, and because that's what is
required at the conservatory where he teaches.
I don't teach at all, so I generally stay out of this type of
discussion, but my gut tells me that most beginning players would be
better off thinking in very simple key centers. You can play a
completely credible solo over Days of Wine and Roses without ever
straying out of the F major scale. Add an accidental or two from time
to time, and you're playing bop lines.
I think most players are better off thinking very simply and making
sure that what they play feels good and sounds easy.
Tim
http://timberens.com
A Website for Guitarists
Learn something...Have some fun
timb at erinet dot com
Jurupari
>a great player -- who just came right out and said that he teaches
>differently than he plays. He plays intuitively, but teaches all the
>jazz education industry standard methods to his students, because he
>says he can't explain how he really plays, and because that's what is
>required at the conservatory where he teaches.
A great reason to avoid conservatories if you want to learn to play instead of
teach.
I will not screw people who come to me to learn to play jazz.
My students stay with me for a long time, and it takes a long time, but they
go from no improvisation to competent improvisation with greatly expanded
harmonic awareness, and an intuitive understanding of music if they stay.
I learned from college that intiuiton can be taught and learned and I make use
of what I know from then to do this for my students.
My background academically is scientific, not musical, which pushes the
boundaries of that which could fairly accurately be assessed as the paradigm.
My approach is to teach in easy to hear and remember methods how music works,
and how to hear those workings and interact. It is extremely important to
establish basic consistencies that will not change and can be subconsciously
referenced and built on.
This will change a little from student to student with respect to pacing, but
they wind up knowing what i know and not having to think about it, just react
to it.
I base everything on a simple scale with two basic modifications, and more as
they advance but anyone that stays with me will learn how to hear and play
jazz. So far, anyway.
I'm getting an old student back monday who had to drop out a couple of years
ago, and I'm psyched at having the opportunity to help him again, as I was
impressed with a lot of his ability and think he'll probably be better than I
am in awhile.
I also have bass players and a steel guitar player, since I don't just teach
jazz or jazz guitar.
I've also been helping bands lately with arrangement and dynamics, which was
an unexpected source of income.
I can almost always make a bad band sound better in a short while with some
applications of basic stuff most of you guys probably know, but not so much
with players in other genres.
Clif Kuplen
Paul Kirk
"Jurupari" <juru...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040625114655...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> >I had an interesting conversation with one jazz teacher -- who is also
> >a great player -- who just came right out and said that he teaches
> >differently than he plays. He plays intuitively, but teaches all the
> >jazz education industry standard methods to his students, because he
> >says he can't explain how he really plays, and because that's what is
> >required at the conservatory where he teaches.
>
> A great reason to avoid conservatories if you want to learn to play
instead of
> teach.
I'll take the oposite view, based on my observation of the students at
Indiana U in the jazz program:
First, they are taught from a general improv/jazz perspective, not just on
their instrument. Next, when you put a lot of talented
young musicians together they will do a lot of playing and experimenting for
the love of it, as opposed to for the gig money. This includes
composing, playing free, bebop, fusion, rock, Latin, etc. Finally, those few
years in school gives them time to woodshed. They finish in their early 20s,
this is soon enough for the really good ones to go out and do the important
"bandstand woodshedding". In the meantime, the less talented ones have
probably been through the artistically most rewarding portion of their
lives, something that will
have meaning for the rest of their lives as listeners and players.
Most of the jazz musicians at the cutting edge in the last 20 years have
significant schooling.
PK
Jurupari
>significant schooling.
>
>PK
I don't have any stats, but I don't think you can say 'most', Paul. Also
there's always the argument that they attended school, but school isn't where
they learned to play.
However, you've brought up the most positive aspect of going to music school,
though - the milieu - that can be a profound learning experience, but courses
can be, and from what I've taken in from newsgroups and elsewhere, they aren't.
Also, you can start a collective or run an ad for jams or hang with your buds
and take in the same thing - you don't need the school for that.
...or fifteen grand a semester plus expenses. :o)
Clif
Jurupari
>Indiana U in the jazz program:
Paul, is that Bloomington? There are some places for sure that are better than
others, would have to be. I was in town for a long engagement a couple of
times in 1975, and David Baker had just been hired - big plus right there.
I have unbelievable memories of Bloomington - I felt like Hugh Hefner when we
played there - some place! :O)
Clif
Paul Kirk
> >Most of the jazz musicians at the cutting edge in the last 20 years have
> >significant schooling.
> >
> >PK
>
> I don't have any stats, but I don't think you can say 'most', Paul.
You're right, I dont know the stats either: I'm going by anectode...
Also
> there's always the argument that they attended school, but school isn't
where
> they learned to play.
I cant refute that.
PK
Paul Kirk
> >I'll take the oposite view, based on my observation of the students at
> >Indiana U in the jazz program:
>
> Paul, is that Bloomington? There are some places for sure that are better
than
> others, would have to be. I was in town for a long engagement a couple of
> times in 1975, and David Baker had just been hired - big plus right there.
P
Joey Goldstein
Tim Berens wrote:
>
>
> You can play a
> completely credible solo over Days of Wine and Roses without ever
> straying out of the F major scale.
I think that if you ever get around to actually looking at and trying to
understand the chord-scale relationships that I wrote out for that tune
you'll see that what you are saying is contained in what I am
suggesting. My chord-scale suggestions ALL take the F major scale as the
starting point but they get *more specific* on a chord by chord basis.
In my experience the people who put down the chord-scale theory ideas,
as taught at Berklee, almost invariably do not understand it.
Jack Zucker
> On 24 Jun 2004 17:59:22 GMT, Keith Freeman
> <dont.use.t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> Ionian Lydian b7 Phrygian Mixolydian b2b6
> >> Fmaj7(9,13) |Eb7(9,#11,13) |Am7(11) |D7(b9,b13) |
> >[etc.]
> >My god, Joey, if I had to have all that running through my brain I'd
> >never get a note out (not even practising slowly)! Surely it makes much
> >more sense to get a feel for the harmonic movement by playing the chord
> >notes, or even just the 3s and 7s? Once you have those mapped out on the
> >fretboard and in your ears, adding notes in-between - chromatic or
> >diatonic - isn't that difficult.
> >
>
> I agree completely, Keith. I don't use these elaborate scale methods
> for improv, and I don't know many really strong players who do. But
> for some reason, this is what teachers teach.
Teachers teach this because it's an effective way of communicating
tonalities. I studied at the University of Miami and everyone who studied
there used "elaborate" scale methods. I don't think I or Bollenback or
Johnston or T Lavitz or Bobby Watson or any of HUNDREDS of great jazz
musicians who went to that school sound like scale players. Dave Liebman
also uses "elaborate" scale methods and doesn't sound like he's a scale
player. Same with Brecker, Abercrombie, Towner, etc.
Once you understand how scales and modes work, they just become letters in
the alphabet with which you assemble words, sentences, paragraphs, pages,
etc.
I know that some folks don't use scale methods (jimmy bruno) but there are
just as many who do and sound great.
Regarding F major over Days of Wine and Roses...I'm sure you can fake your
way through the tune but if you're not outlining the Bbm7 Eb7 and D7b9
chords and then the Bm7b5 E7b9 in the 2nd ending (none of which you can
effectively communicate with plain old F major scale), in my opinion you're
just faking it. I've heard guys play over rhythm changes using a Bb Maj
scale and not once outline the G7b9 chord (Bbmaj7 G7b9 Cm7 F7, etc). That
always bugs me...
Is your goal to be able to noodle and fake your way tunes or to really learn
to play over them?
There are no shortcuts. Knowledge is always the key.
Unknown
>>I had an interesting conversation with one jazz teacher -- who is also
>>a great player -- who just came right out and said that he teaches
>>differently than he plays. He plays intuitively, but teaches all the
>>jazz education industry standard methods to his students, because he
>>says he can't explain how he really plays, and because that's what is
>>required at the conservatory where he teaches.
>
>A great reason to avoid conservatories if you want to learn to play instead of
>teach.
Clif:
I really like your attitude toward teaching, but I do want to add that
conservatories really can be a great experience. I went to a
conservatory and loved it. What I loved about it most was the total
immersion into music for several years. It's inspiring to be around
so many other people who are also deeply into music.
I also know plenty of others who went to music school and didn't like
it. Everybody will react differently to it.
Unknown
wrote:
>Teachers teach this because it's an effective way of communicating
>tonalities. I studied at the University of Miami and everyone who studied
>there used "elaborate" scale methods. I don't think I or Bollenback or
>Johnston or T Lavitz or Bobby Watson or any of HUNDREDS of great jazz
>musicians who went to that school sound like scale players. Dave Liebman
>also uses "elaborate" scale methods and doesn't sound like he's a scale
>player. Same with Brecker, Abercrombie, Towner, etc.
>
>Once you understand how scales and modes work, they just become letters in
>the alphabet with which you assemble words, sentences, paragraphs, pages,
>etc.
>
>I know that some folks don't use scale methods (jimmy bruno) but there are
>just as many who do and sound great.
>
>Regarding F major over Days of Wine and Roses...I'm sure you can fake your
>way through the tune but if you're not outlining the Bbm7 Eb7 and D7b9
>chords and then the Bm7b5 E7b9 in the 2nd ending (none of which you can
>effectively communicate with plain old F major scale), in my opinion you're
>just faking it. I've heard guys play over rhythm changes using a Bb Maj
>scale and not once outline the G7b9 chord (Bbmaj7 G7b9 Cm7 F7, etc). That
>always bugs me...
>
>Is your goal to be able to noodle and fake your way tunes or to really learn
>to play over them?
>
>There are no shortcuts. Knowledge is always the key.
>
>Jaz
>www.sheetsofsound.net
>
>
Jack:
The scalar method is one of many ways to improvise. Despite Joey's
experience, lots of people understand the scalar method and do not
like it or use it. It just does not work for everybody. I, for one,
couldn't possibly think fast enough to apply all the various scales
listed for each chord. Others apparently can and do think that fast.
To show you what I meant in my earlier post, I will record a solo over
the changes to "Days of Wine and Roses" that does not step out of the
Fmajor scale and sounds OK....It won't be anything brilliant, but it
will sound credible, and it will be musical. It is interesting to
note that Mancini felt the need to use only one note outside of an F
major scale for the melody.
Obviously, in order to really play the changes to this tune, you have
to play notes outside of the F major scale. I'll do that too, just to
prove I can, since your post implied that I am a noodler who fakes
tunes instead of really learning to play them.
Then you can give me a good Georging -- see if what I said holds
water.
By the way, I do know how scales and modes work. And chords and notes
too.
I'll let you know when I post the clip.
Joey Goldstein
Tim
The approach I outlined is basically a combination of the F major scale
with the notes of each chord.
this horizontal aspect of chord-scale theory is usually not dealt with
well or at all in the standard texts or courses.
If someone is playing the Eb7 chord in bar 2 of this song and you want
to harmonize with him it's a pretty good bet that the notes Eb G Bb and
Db will do just that. All the choices are made on the in-between notes,
the non chord-tones. The chord tones are a given (unless of course there
is some spontaneous reharmonizing going on somewhere in the ensemble).
What type of F makes sense?
The choices are Fb, F and F# *all* of which happen to fit the chord as tensions.
But F is the strongest choice in this particular key, so most of us use F.
What type of A makes sense?
The choices are Ab and A. Lots of folks learn that the parent scale of
almost all dom7 chords is the mixolydian scale built on its root. This
is what Barry Harris teaches but he calls it "the dom7 scale". Eb mix is
a fine choice here. It uses the note Ab at this position. But Ab happens
to clash with the chord and is also somewhat outside of the key of F,
which is still the primary key of the song. Most people, if they use
their ears intuitively here, will naturally play A instead of Ab because
it's one of the most important notes in the key of F major. Ab still has
a relationship to the key of F, but it's the key of F minor, as well as
being a blue note in the key of F. So there are key related reasons why
either one of them might be used, but the more 'normal' sound is A
rather than Ab.
What type of C makes sense?
The choices are Cb and C both of which fit the chord as tensions. C
however is the dominant of the key. Cb relates to the key only as a
borrowed note from the most distant parallel mode, the parallel locrian
mode. C therefore has more weight, in this key, at this time, on this chord.
Eb G Bb Db
F A C
All 3 of the non chord tones are *in the F major scale*.
It is also possible to emphasize the note E melodically on this chord. E
fits the chord as Tb9 and it is the leading tone in the key. But the
cross relation with it and the root of the chord is a little bit
confusing to the ear as far as the overall harmonic motion is concerned.
It is also possible to emphasize the note D melodically on this chord
because D is in the F scale. But D is the most dangerous note in the F
scale to use on this chord because it clashes vertically with the chord
and because the chord's function is predicated on the voice leading of
the note Db (the classical guys would write this as C#) rising to D on
the next chord. Emphasizing D here rather than Db is a form of
reharmonization that if not supported by the accompaniment just sound
like a mistake. On the other hand, if D is used melodically but is not
emphasized (eg. as an approach note on a weak beat to Db or even to C)
it can fit right in and the vertical rub will hardly be noticed at all.
All the other chords in this tune can be looked at through the same
lense. Yes, you can play a great melody through these changes that uses
just the notes of the F scale, but you've got a better chance of making
this work if you've also got a vertical understanding of how the notes
in the F scale fit or don't fit the chord of the moment. To ignore
either axis (the horizonatal or the vertical) is to invite trouble and
the loss of coherence.
So, I guess the way I'm teaching chord-scales is a little different than
the standard model because I *always* take the key into consideration.
Henry Moon
As a man once said, "Does it swing or not."
If it don't swing, you took the wrong road.
If it does swing, you're on the right road
and others are probably following you.
Henry
D.Onstenk
You know we are often concentrating on the process here but in the end it's
only the product that counts. Does it sound good? Do people like what you
are playing?
I tend to agree with Richard Bornman that in the end only how you sound is
relevant. Who cares how you got there?
Process orientation is for educators, students and scholars only. Not for
the actual purpose of music which is purely hedonistic and seeks to please
only.
If you strip it all down to the basics, books, courses, jazz guitar
education, teachers, gear etc. are just tools to create something bigger,
something more important which is the music itself.
Maybe as much as 75% (just a guess)of what we discuss here focuses on how to
get there. That produces lots of cognitive and analytical material. It's
easy to get carried away by that and lose sight of what it's really about.
But I have to admit that if you would leave out the process orientation,
we'd have little to discuss here ...
#####
"Henry Moon" <castl...@ev1.net> schreef in bericht
news:cbjeig$d...@odbk17.prod.google.com...
Ken Rose
might be worth considering that the "scalar method" might be useful as a
practice tool to learn to hear new sounds. There are so many harmonic
possibilities for any given progression that exploring various options
(chord tones, extensions, key centers, scales/modes) during practice can
really open up your ears. But I don't think anyone would advocate actually
*thinking* about all this while playing (at least I certainly wouldn't).
Thinking is for practice time. Who was it (Charlie Parker?) that talked
about learning these things, then forgetting about them while you play?
Practicing scales/modes has helped me hear different possibilities--to get
new sounds into my ears.
Ken Rose
www.cdbaby.com/kenrose
<Tim Berens> wrote in message news:40dd0753...@news.core.com...
Henry Moon
equiptment. And I enjoy and benefit from that. I just wish there was
more about the end product.
I do understand that discussing 'how to swing' is hard enough in person
and very difficult on the net. And even the subject of 'swing' and what
it is, is mysterious and elusive.
Yet, while I agree that there would not be alot said here if that was
all we talked about, that doesn't mean there isn't alot to say, however
clumsy or humble.
Henry
D.Onstenk wrote:
>
> ......But I have to admit that if you would leave out the process
Jack Zucker
> I, for one,
> couldn't possibly think fast enough to apply all the various scales
> listed for each chord. Others apparently can and do think that fast.
That's a common misconception. The fact is that EVERY great jazz guitarist
does exactly that. The point is that you use the scales as raw thesaurus
type material during PRACTICE. If you practice it enough, they become part
of your harmonic vocabulary and when you play live, you draw from material
that is already ingrained in your system. The scales are just a practice
technique. NOBODY espouses playing scales for actual solos.
> To show you what I meant in my earlier post, I will record a solo over
> the changes to "Days of Wine and Roses" that does not step out of the
> Fmajor scale and sounds OK....It won't be anything brilliant, but it
> will sound credible, and it will be musical. It is interesting to
> note that Mancini felt the need to use only one note outside of an F
> major scale for the melody.
I didn't say it can't be done - Just that I wouldn't be too interested in
listening to something like that. I can play a "credible" solo over the tune
hitting just the note "F" but that doesn't mean that's a good approach to
soloing over it.
Jack Zucker
news:2k4v6cF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Sure.
>
> You know we are often concentrating on the process here but in the end
it's
> only the product that counts. Does it sound good? Do people like what you
> are playing?
>
> I tend to agree with Richard Bornman that in the end only how you sound is
> relevant. Who cares how you got there?
If you're a fledgeling improviser, how you get there is the thing you're
most worried about.
DButler508
>about learning these things, then forgetting about them while you play?
>Practicing scales/modes has helped me hear different possibilities--to get
>new sounds into my ears.
Exactly. You have to learn it before you can forget it.
Honestly, I don't see why there is so much resistance to understanding modes
and scales. It's like saying that you want to be a great writer, but you don't
want to take the time to learn the mechanics that the great novelists used.
-Jon
Jack Zucker
confused about theory, some making the same claims about it not being for
everyone or messing up your playing, etc. I almost piped in telling folks to
just get a good book, learn it, then forget all that **** and play.
I know lots of exotic scales and harmonic material which I use when
practicing. On the gig, I just play.
--
Experience a revolutionary way to approach the instrument.
Introducing Sheets of Sound for Guitar
"Let the music govern the way you play guitar instead of the guitar
governing the way you play music!"
Check it out at:
http://www.sheetsofsound.net
"DButler508" <dbutl...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040626074015...@mb-m16.aol.com...
D.Onstenk
product.
#####
"Jack Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> schreef in bericht
news:A_KdnZvsP58...@adelphia.com...
Jack Zucker
> Sure. By definition, students are dealing with the process rather than the
> product.
You seemed to progress incredibly rapidly. What methodology do you subscribe
too? Obviously, lots of hard work and practicing but what specifically?
Jaz
D.Onstenk
taking private lessons initially
studying basic theory (not very advanced compared to the theory whizzards
here but I have a working knowledge and know my scales, subs etc)
practicing arpeggios and scales and getting used to the jazz sounds
Studying/memorizing/playing transcribed solos (Parker, Clifford Brown, Joe
Pass, Joe Diorio) and finding out what is happening theory wise in those
solos
Studying licks (quite a bit)
listening to good players (lots of it)
getting some good advice here
taping myself (lots of it)
go out and play right away (jam sessions, gigs very early)
lots of time spent on the guitar jamming along with Aebersolds
If I were to single out one specific element it would be studying bop
vocabulary (transcribed solos/licks). But it's still a melting pot.
#####
"Jack Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> schreef in bericht
news:MKGdnVdVStY...@adelphia.com...
D.Onstenk
concentrating on my time which was sloppy. It's way better now, though I am
not there yet. It ain't clockwork like yours, Dan's or Richard's.
#####
"D.Onstenk" <d.on...@chello.nl> schreef in bericht
news:2k599mF...@uni-berlin.de...
Jack Zucker
> By the way, most progress was made over the last year when I started
> concentrating on my time which was sloppy. It's way better now, though I
am
> not there yet. It ain't clockwork like yours, Dan's or Richard's.
Nonsense Dick. You sound great. You are definitely the role model for quick
starts, learning, etc. Whatever you're doing, you're doing it right. You
should document all this in detail.
Jaz
D.Onstenk
here at RMMGJ. I simply never was that aware of it until I heard it discuss
here and actually listened to the "time" players like you, Dan and Richard.
Dan told me to release the tension in the right hand and that helped quite a
bit.
One of the problems I still have is (in)consistency. Under controlled
circumstances (knowing the tune, in my own studio etc.) things are usually
ok but transferring that level to a live situation is hard for me. I tend to
play sloppier and more insecure at jams and gigs. More tension in the right
hand.
So much to learn.
#####
"Jack Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> schreef in bericht
news:mcidnZPUj4J...@adelphia.com...
Jack Zucker
>
> One of the problems I still have is (in)consistency. Under controlled
> circumstances (knowing the tune, in my own studio etc.) things are usually
> ok but transferring that level to a live situation is hard for me. I tend
to
> play sloppier and more insecure at jams and gigs. More tension in the
right
> hand.
I think we all go through that. Unfortunately, in the states it's not like
you can go out and jam on Donna Lee every night of the week like you could
in the '50s.
D.Onstenk
I was trying to think of a suitable term for what I sometimes lack and I
think I'd call it "delivery". I was stunned by Jesse van Ruller and Martijn
van Iterson at the Crow. Always comfortable on any tune and always in
control and always sounding great. I guess all name guitarists over the
world have that type of "delivery."(?)
#####
"Jack Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> schreef in bericht
news:68GdnYHt7MX...@adelphia.com...
Unknown
wrote:
><Tim Berens> wrote in message news:40dd0753...@news.core.com...
>> I, for one,
>> couldn't possibly think fast enough to apply all the various scales
>> listed for each chord. Others apparently can and do think that fast.
>
>That's a common misconception. The fact is that EVERY great jazz guitarist
>does exactly that. The point is that you use the scales as raw thesaurus
>type material during PRACTICE. If you practice it enough, they become part
>of your harmonic vocabulary and when you play live, you draw from material
>that is already ingrained in your system. The scales are just a practice
>technique. NOBODY espouses playing scales for actual solos.
>
Every great jazz guitarist does not think a different scale or mode
for every chord change in "Days of Wine and Roses". That is simply
not true.
There are other methods of playing that produce equally satisfying
results. One might think of Django or Wes for examples of players who
do not think a different mode for every chord change.
Jimmy Bruno also teaches an approach that is simpler in mental
approach and just as effective musically.
Many players, myself included, understand this method and do not agree
with it or use it, yet still manage to improvise.
Unknown
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>All the other chords in this tune can be looked at through the same
>lense. Yes, you can play a great melody through these changes that uses
>just the notes of the F scale, but you've got a better chance of making
>this work if you've also got a vertical understanding of how the notes
>in the F scale fit or don't fit the chord of the moment. To ignore
>either axis (the horizonatal or the vertical) is to invite trouble and
>the loss of coherence.
>
I have no disagreement with this paragraph at all. In fact I have no
disagreement with anything you said in your posts about how the scales
can be used to highlight interesting harmony notes. It is all
correct. All I'm saying is that this is not the only way to look at
the issue. We've had this debate here 100 times before.
I know that I'm not offering a good alternative way, because I haven't
put much thought into how to explain improvisation over changes. I
don't teach, so I have never had to explain it to anyone. Which is
why I usually stay out of these threads, and will stay out of them in
the future.
I will post those clips, because I think that all statements about
guitar playing have to be backed up with somebody's guitar playing. I
will back up my statements with my own playing, and you can decide for
yourself if I'm full of shit.
Joey Goldstein
Well I also happen to value music that is not jazz. The criteria to
'swing', in the way that I think you probably mean, is not meaningful in
a great many other styles of music. For me, it just has to 'work'. The
things I've been discussing, if they are useful at all, cover a large
spectrum of possible musical styles and serve to illuminate that which,
in theory, 'works' in the intervallic relationships between chords and
melodies. In the end it's up to the musican to make it work.
You may be able to teach yourself to play jazz having avoided any study
of chord-scale relationships, but it's harder. Everyone i know who plays
well, except for Wes Montgomerey, has studied scales and chord-scale
relationships intensively. There are two or 3 main schools of thought
about how scalar studies should proceed for a student.
The two main schools are:
1. The quaisi classical school where all scales are derived from the
major and minor scales are are named from the tonic of those scales.
Chord-scale relationships are determined via harmonic analysis for
primary and secondary keys. The tonic of the active key is the tonic of
the active major or minor scale.
2. The new chord-scale approach as taught at Berklee where the very same
scales are used and for the very same reasons but named from the root of
the chord of the moment.
A 3rd school seems to becoming popular in the way that Barry Harris
teaches which, from what I can see is so far (I've got his
video/workbook for a while), is really just a mish-mash of the two
schools mentioned above and is focussed specifically on the Bebop
language to the exclusion of other styles of music or jazz.
Most of the argument among jazz players is not about whether or not
chord-scale study is important, it's about whether to use method #1 or
method #2.
Joey Goldstein
"D.Onstenk" wrote:
>
> Sure.
>
> You know we are often concentrating on the process here but in the end it's
> only the product that counts. Does it sound good? Do people like what you
> are playing?
>
> I tend to agree with Richard Bornman that in the end only how you sound is
> relevant. Who cares how you got there?
>
> Process orientation is for educators, students and scholars only. Not for
> the actual purpose of music which is purely hedonistic and seeks to please
> only.
>
> If you strip it all down to the basics, books, courses, jazz guitar
> education, teachers, gear etc. are just tools to create something bigger,
> something more important which is the music itself.
>
> Maybe as much as 75% (just a guess)of what we discuss here focuses on how to
> get there. That produces lots of cognitive and analytical material. It's
> easy to get carried away by that and lose sight of what it's really about.
>
> But I have to admit that if you would leave out the process orientation,
> we'd have little to discuss here ...
Nothin' to argue about there.
Joey Goldstein
The arguments about scales among the folks here who already know how to
play are not about abandoning the study of the things that the great
players studied. Quite the contrary. The argument centers of the fact
that the great players of the past did not attend schools like Berklee
and therefore did not have access to the things that are being taught
there now. In the past, there were only classical harmony books,
recordings and the band stand and all the great jazz players learned
from those sources.
The Berklee chord-scale approach is something relatively new and points
the way to other things besides bebop. Many folks who are dedicated to
bebop and just want to know to play bebop have the idea that the old
ways are best. For their stated goal they might be right.
Joey Goldstein
Tim Berens wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 02:54:24 -0400, Joey Goldstein
> <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >All the other chords in this tune can be looked at through the same
> >lense. Yes, you can play a great melody through these changes that uses
> >just the notes of the F scale, but you've got a better chance of making
> >this work if you've also got a vertical understanding of how the notes
> >in the F scale fit or don't fit the chord of the moment. To ignore
> >either axis (the horizonatal or the vertical) is to invite trouble and
> >the loss of coherence.
> >
>
> I have no disagreement with this paragraph at all. In fact I have no
> disagreement with anything you said in your posts about how the scales
> can be used to highlight interesting harmony notes. It is all
> correct. All I'm saying is that this is not the only way to look at
> the issue.
Of course it's not the only way to look at the issue.
> We've had this debate here 100 times before.
Well in my mind the debate here is about me trying to convince you that
the way I've been looking at things is valuable or not. Your point is
that it isn't. My point is that it is. And yep, I seem to get this
argument a lot around here.
> I know that I'm not offering a good alternative way, because I haven't
> put much thought into how to explain improvisation over changes. I
> don't teach, so I have never had to explain it to anyone. Which is
> why I usually stay out of these threads, and will stay out of them in
> the future.
>
> I will post those clips, because I think that all statements about
> guitar playing have to be backed up with somebody's guitar playing. I
> will back up my statements with my own playing, and you can decide for
> yourself if I'm full of shit.
I don't think the issue here is whether or not you're full of shit. It's
about me being full of shit or not. I'm not going to post any clips of
me utilizing these scales on that tune because I don't have the time.
*All* my clips demonstrate the results of how thinking this way and
studying this approach has enhanced my music both as a player and as a
writer. I've still got lots of clips up at Soundcick.
Jurupari
>conservatories really can be a great experience.
I was sort of trying to be humorously cynical in commenting on more of a
particular outlook than condemning the whole practice, but that's a little too
much for anyone to infer. Soon as I saw it I realized it read more seriously
than I meant it to be.
And for the kind of training you brought away and where it allows you to go, I
doubt one could improve on the conservatory approach. I've been very impressed
with the stuff you are faced with and can overcome not to mention your ability
to interface with the best in the biz professionally while doing it.
But as to your improv facility, you'd have to judge whether that arose from
classes or the milieu or somewhere else, and how much each affected your
present skill.
Proof of competence at the conservatory level is iterated here frequently - Bob
Russell, for example is a teacher, but my impression is that he has little
patience for busy work in his professional capacity.
Similarly, some of your treatises, esp. like the rh on Besame Mucho were
excellent and succinct should you ever feel inclined to teach.
On the mode-scale fragment of this thread, as I always preach here, if you are
oriented to twelve tones in any key, then each secondary root in a key will
have the same meaning regardless of song.
This reduces the infinite to the finite, and is to me a surefire results
oriented method of tonal organization.
It has the benefit of adaptability if one's an ear player and ear training if
one's not
Also, the navigation is very quickly handed over to the ear to Yogi-shly mix a
metaphor, but one can practice towards harmonic expansion for probably a
lifetime with a benefit of steady advancement and continual exposure to new
sounds, kind of like a kaleidoscope.
...and THAT's how you make wine from roses...:o)
When I read things like this thread on scale or chordscale or whatever,
sometimes it seems to me that although the names and descriptions are different
and arguments arise, the internal processes themselves may be much closer. I'm
trying to learn from that.
Clif
Joey Goldstein
chords using just the F major scale, as well as just intuitively using
my ears and my experience I would be considering the following vertical
relationships between the notes of the F scale and the chord-of-the-moment.
CT = chord tone
AT = available tension
AN = avoid note
XT = exotic tension
Fmaj7
F G A Bb C D E
1 9 3 4 5 13 7
CT AT CT AN CT AT CT
Eb7
F G A Bb C D E
9 3 #11 5 13 7 b9
AT CT AT CT AT AN AT
[Note: On Eb7 it can be confusing to the ear to have both F (T9) and E
(Tb9) being emphasized. A 'one-or-the-other' proposition usually works
best. Also; if the chord being played is Eb9 then E would be an avoid note.]
Am7
F G A Bb C D E
b6 b7 1 b2 b3 11 5
AN CT CT AN CT AT CT
[Note: IIIm7 is often heard as Imaj9/III. The tonic, in this case F, is
often heard not as an avoid note but as a very strong note. It all
depends on how the b9 interval created between E (in the chord below)
and F is handled.]
D7
F G A Bb C D E
#9 4 5 b13 b7 1 9
AT AN CT AT CT CT AT
[Note: On D7b9 E will be an avoid note.]
Gm7
F G A Bb C D E
b7 1 9 b3 11 5 13
CT CT AT CT AT CT AT
Bbm(maj7)
F G A Bb C D E
5 13 7 1 9 3 #11
CT AT CT CT AT AN XT
Eb7
Same as before.
Etc.
So, for me at least, even if I want to play completely horizontally
(i.e. from the scale of the key) I have all these vertical
considerations. For me, it's about balancing both axes.
Jack Zucker
> Every great jazz guitarist does not think a different scale or mode
> for every chord change in "Days of Wine and Roses". That is simply
> not true.
That's not what I was saying. EVERY great jazz guitarist uses chord/scale
relationships whether they think about it as scales or not.
Henry Moon
Joey Goldstein wrote:
> Henry Moon wrote:
........Well I also happen to value music that is not jazz. The
criteria to
> 'swing', in the way that I think you probably mean, is not meaningful
in
> a great many other styles of music. For me, it just has to 'work'.
We are talking about jazz here. It's a jazz guitar website. Therefore,
my comments about swing.
.......You may be able to teach yourself to play jazz having avoided
any study
> of chord-scale relationships, but it's harder.
No one I know including myself endorses only self study or the
elimination of academic study.
........There are two or 3 main schools of thought
> about how scalar studies should proceed for a student.
#4. Playing with Brother Jack McDuff in the clubs for 2 or 3
years....and keeping your job.
...........Most of the argument among jazz players is not about whether
or not
> chord-scale study is important, it's about whether to use method #1
or
> method #2.
And whether or not it swings/works.
Henry
Joe Finn
> We are talking about jazz here. It's a jazz guitar website. Therefore,
> my comments about swing.
For me the definitive recording of this tune is that of Pat Martino. Pat's
rendition is not a terribly difficult thing to transcribe. His elegance and
simplicity are the stuff of legend.
Martino plays for the ages. Anybody seriously interested in performing this
classic [on a guitar] had better check out Pat's version.
We can talk chords, scales and swing till the cows come home.
Pat spoke the language. .......joe
--
Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Joey Goldstein
Joe Finn wrote:
>
> "Henry Moon" <castl...@ev1.net> wrote
>
> > We are talking about jazz here. It's a jazz guitar website. Therefore,
> > my comments about swing.
>
> For me the definitive recording of this tune is that of Pat Martino. Pat's
> rendition is not a terribly difficult thing to transcribe. His elegance and
> simplicity are the stuff of legend.
>
> Martino plays for the ages. Anybody seriously interested in performing this
> classic [on a guitar] had better check out Pat's version.
>
> We can talk chords, scales and swing till the cows come home.
>
> Pat spoke the language. .......joe
Jazz is a language with many dialects. Nobody speaks them all with total
command, nor should they attempt to IMO.
Joey Goldstein
Henry Moon wrote:
>
> GHGHG
I have no idea what that means.
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> > Henry Moon wrote:
> ........Well I also happen to value music that is not jazz. The
> criteria to
> > 'swing', in the way that I think you probably mean, is not meaningful
> in
> > a great many other styles of music. For me, it just has to 'work'.
>
> We are talking about jazz here. It's a jazz guitar website. Therefore,
> my comments about swing.
Right. Jazz has to swing *and* it has to work.
Swing is more involved with rhythm than it is with note choice. I've
been talking about note choice.
> .......You may be able to teach yourself to play jazz having avoided
> any study
> > of chord-scale relationships, but it's harder.
>
> No one I know including myself endorses only self study or the
> elimination of academic study.
I don't think that I ever suggested that you did. But, and perhaps I'm
wrong, you seem to be critical of the type of academic study of the
chord-scale approach that I've been discussing. I'm just trying to
clarify my ideas on the subject as well as my position.
> ........There are two or 3 main schools of thought
> > about how scalar studies should proceed for a student.
>
> #4. Playing with Brother Jack McDuff in the clubs for 2 or 3
> years....and keeping your job.
Well, that's one way!
> ...........Most of the argument among jazz players is not about whether
> or not
> > chord-scale study is important, it's about whether to use method #1
> or
> > method #2.
>
> And whether or not it swings/works.
That's a whole other topic.
Y'know, it's possible for something to swing and to suck melodically too.
Henry Moon
We can talk chords, scales and swing till the
cows come home.
I believe the cows are home now, Joe:)
It's about time for me to call this a thread.
Goodnight night, Joey.
Henry
Jack Zucker
news:40de4...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> "Henry Moon" <castl...@ev1.net> wrote
>
> > We are talking about jazz here. It's a jazz guitar website. Therefore,
> > my comments about swing.
>
>
> For me the definitive recording of this tune is that of Pat Martino.
I still like Wes' treatment the best. BIG beautiful block chords. Just
simply a classic.
Which recording is Martino's version on? Is that from Exit?
Joe Finn
"Jack Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote
>
> I still like Wes' treatment the best. BIG beautiful block chords. Just
> simply a classic.
I agree it's a classic.
> Which recording is Martino's version on? Is that from Exit?
Yes. It's on Exit. ..........joe
Paul Craven
news:40DDA530...@nowhere.net...
>
> Everyone i know who plays
> well, except for Wes Montgomerey, has studied scales and chord-scale
> relationships intensively.
Ed Bickert? I've been listening this weekend to the recent cd re-release of
his 70s lp with Don Thompson (At the Garden Party) and of course I'm just
blown away again by his brilliance, but he has the reputation of someone who
(like Wes in this respect) never intellectualized his approach to the
instrument or to music. Of course he must have worked incredibly hard to
develop his ear and playing skills, and no doubt his playing can be analysed
and partly explained in scale and chord-scale terms, but I have the
impression he doesn't think in those terms. He has certainly been
consistent in refusing to answer questions about it!
Jack Zucker
where folks actually attempt to lay the claim that knowledge is harmful or
not required.
If anyone posted in a saxophone forum that scales or reading hurt your
playing, I'll bet they'd be laughed at.
--
Experience a revolutionary way to approach the instrument.
Introducing Sheets of Sound for Guitar
"Let the music govern the way you play guitar instead of the guitar
governing the way you play music!"
Check it out at:
http://www.sheetsofsound.net
"Paul Craven" <pcr...@yorku.ca> wrote in message
news:MZJDc.2464$207.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Mondoslug1
>Guitarists are such a funny breed. It's the only modern jazz instrument
>where folks actually attempt to lay the claim that knowledge is harmful or
>not required.
>
>If anyone posted in a saxophone forum that scales or reading hurt your
>playing, I'll bet they'd be laughed at.
They're laughed at anyway - they don't any extra help.
Paul Craven
news:kOGdnQ-zMZ9...@adelphia.com...
> Guitarists are such a funny breed. It's the only modern jazz instrument
> where folks actually attempt to lay the claim that knowledge is harmful or
> not required.
I hope the fact that you posted this in reply to my message (below) doesn't
mean that you think I am making this claim. If that was my view, I could
have saved a few bucks over the past twenty years on teachers and books ---
yours included!
Joey Goldstein
I just heard a few tunes from that release on JAZZ.FM on the way home
from a gig in Port Perry (with Del Dako on *vibes*). Man there's some
great playing on that. I thought they were both struggling a bit on What
Is This Thing but everything else is sublime.
I asked Ed a technical question about drop voicings once, at a
clinic/masterclass he was doing at IMC's Jazz Camp. I asked him if
during his studies he had gone through a process of figuring out a drop
2, drop 3. etc. voicing for each possible melody note on the various
chord types, fully expecting him to say "yes" and to endorse the
technique. But what he said was "No, I just play what I hear." Of course
that answer is undoubtedly true and probably the most meaningful answer
he knows how to give to that question but it doesn't help a student
learn how he too might go about learning to hear things like Ed hears them.
When I listen to Ed I always get the feeling like he understands
harmonic analysis, along the lines of Delamont, but that he's never
really gotten into any type of a chord-scale approach. Ed is from that
generation and crowd that studied a lot with Delamont directly. Rob
McConnel, I think, was a Delamont disciple. But I don't know if Ed ever
did the course.
Mostly, the guys of Ed's generation learned a lot of tunes and lifted
some solos from the greats and extrapolated their own ideas about what
was happening from that. Not a shabby approach. But this takes nothing
away from the validity of the chord-scale concept IMO, which is
something relatively new.
Lumpy
> Guitarists are such a funny breed. It's the only modern jazz
> instrument where folks actually attempt to lay the claim that
> knowledge is harmful or not required.
>
> If anyone posted in a saxophone forum that scales or reading
> hurt your playing, I'll bet they'd be laughed at.
We're entertaining an arguement right now on
the midi group. A guy that claims he's an
experienced piano player wants a device that
will light up little LED's above each piano key.
When asked why he didn't just look at the standard
notation (super easy to do with midi) he replies
"Standard notation is too limiting".
Lumpy
--
In Your Ears for 40 Years
http://www.lumpymusic.com
Jack Zucker
> "Jack Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
> news:kOGdnQ-zMZ9...@adelphia.com...
> > Guitarists are such a funny breed. It's the only modern jazz instrument
> > where folks actually attempt to lay the claim that knowledge is harmful
or
> > not required.
>
> I hope the fact that you posted this in reply to my message (below)
doesn't
> mean that you think I am making this claim.
No, sorry...I just wasn't sure where to insert my comments in the thread and
yours happened to be the one that I read last.
Charlie Robinson
>> Guitarists are such a funny breed. It's the only modern jazz
>> instrument where folks actually attempt to lay the claim that
>> knowledge is harmful or not required.
>If anyone posted in a saxophone forum that scales or reading
>> hurt your playing, I'll bet they'd be laughed at.
>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack is right about this especially when it comes to reading.Yes, we all know
that you can learn to improvise without reading.This knowledge will not help
anyone though when players of instruments start putting charts in front of
them.These people aren't going to want hear any of the now legendary stories
about Wes,Tal or Django and will be unsympathetic when told of the difficulties
that are encountered when trying to read for guitar.This is the reality of the
jazz world as it now exists.You don't have to be an award winning sight-reader
but even just a little bit of expertise in this area might save you when the
chips are down.
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear and see me online (video) at:
http://66.194.153.49/~ramon/RamonPooser.swf
Soundclips:
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
Bill Godwin
James Seaberry
thomas
ott...@hotmail.com
> > I, for one,
> > couldn't possibly think fast enough to apply all the various scales
> > listed for each chord. Others apparently can and do think that fast.
>
> That's a common misconception. The fact is that EVERY great jazz guitarist
> does exactly that. The point is that you use the scales as raw thesaurus
> type material during PRACTICE. If you practice it enough, they become part
> of your harmonic vocabulary and when you play live, you draw from material
> that is already ingrained in your system. The scales are just a practice
> technique. NOBODY espouses playing scales for actual solos.
Egg-Zackly! The idea is to get all that knowledge and hearing to the point that when you play it's instinctive, there's not really time to think on the gig, it should be automatic. I think Charlie Parker said something to that effect.
Of course I'M nowhere near that level of comfort, but working on it :-(
Bg
Dom Minasi
> Hi
> I´ve been tryin to play the standard "the days of wine and roses" for a
> while now, but I´m there is a few places where I´m still not completely
> sure what scales to use over certain chords.
> here is what I have so far.
>
> Fmaj7 ; Eb7 ; Am7 ; D7b9 ; Gm7 ; Gm7 ; Bbm ; Eb7 ;
>
> Am7 ; Dm7 ; Gm7 ; Gm7/f ; Em7b5 a7b9 ; Dm7 G7 ; Gm7 ; C7 ;
>
> Fmaj7 ; Eb7 ; Am7 ; D7 ; Gm7 ; Gm7 ; Bbm ; Eb7 ;
>
> Am7 ; Dm7 Dm7/c ; Bm7b5 ; E7b9 ; Am7 Dm7 ; Gm7 C7 ; F6 ; ;
>
> bar 2: sub for ivm (sub for Bbm) Bb melodic minor
> bar 3: Am7 Phrygian mode of F major (or should I just play D7 like some
> people do)
> bar 4: G harmonic minor
> bar 5-6: G dorian
> bar 7-8: Bb melodic minor
> bar 12: do you play gm7/f or c7 like some people do?
> bar 13: e locrian and d harmonic minor
> bar 14: ii-V of c major
> bar 27-28: ii-v of a minor (some people play Bb7 in bar 28, what is
> correct? or is it the same thing?)
>
> any comments is greatly appresiated
Too much thinking and not enough listening. If you base your solos on scales, that's what they will sound like. Soling is more of a spiritual and emotional thing. Yes the knowledge is good, but you have to let it go and to be creative.
TD
Gerry
forget all that shit and blow."
--
Those who wish to sing always find a song. -- Swedish proverb
rpjazzguitar
But, for this post, lets just look at bar 4, and out of context.
It's D7b9 and the OP suggested GharmMin. D Eb F# G A Bb C. If this was a chord it might be called D11b9b13. I've never seen it written that way, but it gives an idea of what the alterations are.
Another very reasonable choice would be DHW. D Eb F F# G# A B C. Chord name? Maybe D7b9#9#11.
If we put these two scales together, there are 10 different notes. D Eb F F# G G# A Bb B C. What's missing? Only natural 9 and major 7. Recall that the chord in the chart in Bar 4 is D7b9 (b7, b9).
So, one way you could think of this chord would be to say play any note except lean more on the chord tones and be especially careful of the natural 7 and 9.
Or, even more simply, avoid the natural 7 and 9.
So, if you take this simplistic approach, what have you lost, compared to thinking Gharmmmin?
One thing is that Gharmmin has a different sound from DHW or the mixed scale. So, you may want to try each one and find the sound you like.
But, I'd argue that there are a lot of sounds which occur within each of those scales -- all the internal triads, for example, so that a disciplined practice approach might start from single note alterations, progress to triads, four note groups, pentatonics and so forth. Each of which will have a sound that one might want to learn.
Where I end up is that I need to know the chord tones, I need to know the inside extensions and I need to know the avoid notes, for want of a better term. That knowledge will get me through the situation where I have to read weird changes on a song I've never heard. Not music, but at least no clams.
As far as jazz ear training, it seems to me that it's not the place to begin. In fact, when I think it through, I end up in a very traditional place. Transcribe stuff you like, work out the theory (to help you understand how to find those sounds in a different context), work it into tunes during practice and then devote part of your practice time to discovering new sounds for yourself.
TD
rpjazzguitar
I could refuse to play, I suppose. But, with a knowledge of chord tones and scales, I can at least minimize clams. I'm aware that some players have big enough ears to do it without any theory -- I certainly could call one of them to sub for me.
An example that comes to mind is Metheny's solo on Toninho Horta's Prato Feito. It's a terrific solo. The story I heard is he had to spend some serious time working on those changes in order to play that solo.
Tony Done
fingerpicker, but an absolute hack at anything scalar. The best I can
safely manage is pentatonics, which I can pick up fairly well by ear.
Can you get by with these in the situation you describe?
--
Tony Done
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456
http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/
Gerry
> I could refuse to play, I suppose. But, with a knowledge of chord tones
> and scales, I can at least minimize clams.
Gerry
> Here's a near-random question. I'm a passable alternating-bass
> fingerpicker, but an absolute hack at anything scalar. The best I can
> safely manage is pentatonics, which I can pick up fairly well by ear.
> Can you get by with these in the situation you describe?
means. I hear players "getting by" out of their depth and think it
sounds really problematic, but I look around at others that are
watching and listening and they seem to think it is clearly under the
limbo stick with room to spare.
"Getting by" (above, back-referencing to rpjazzguitar's "minimizing
clams"): Certainly a pentatonic will put you in better stead than a
scale or a chord if you don't know which scale or chord would be
appropriate. Similarly, playing as few notes as possible and listening
really closely to ensure accuracy of the few notes you've chosen: All
these are good "getting by" approaches.
A better "getting by" approach, though, is learning your scales,
arpeggios and chord structures in all keys and positions, which though
it isn't really difficult to do, is certainly time-consuming. Too time
consuming for many. Particularly as the scales/arps/chords are
invariable related to style(s) of music and selection(s) of tunes.
Tony Done
getting increasing drawn to jazz, but I fear I'm too old and lazy to put
in the hard yards. With the clear vision of hindsight I should have
started a long time ago, but my formative years were in the folk/blues
revival era, and I was too busy trying to earn an honest living after that.
Had a nostalgia hit yesterday, found some manageable chords for "Fly me
to the moon". Going to start arranging it today.
rpjazzguitar
It turns out that those 5 notes are quite versatile. If you took the trouble to play a single pentatonic scale, one at a time, against all 12 major, minor and seventh chords, you'd find that a number of the combinations would be musically useful. Analysis would show various mixes of chord and nonchord tones.
But, actually making them work in a song isn't so easy. You'd have to be able to hear the sound of the juxtapositions in your mind, and then find them quickly on the guitar. And, you'd have to be making melody, not just running the scales. And, if you couldn't hear them and find them, and you still wanted to use the approach, you'd have to be doing mental math ... "against X chord, in Y situation, I'm going to use Z scale".
That said, pentatonics are commonly used and are part of the vocabulary of jazz.
rpjazzguitar
Know the notes in the chords you're playing over. That can work. The audience isn't likely to complain that you're not playing enough notes.
Then, you can embellish based upon whatever fancier stuff you can hear and find on the guitar.
A few simple tricks can help. For example, when a song is in, say, C major, play in Gmajor.
When you have a G7 going to a Cmajor, play an Abm triad over it.
Somewhere, I'm convinced, there is a secret list of these.
Dom Minasi
Gerry
> When you have a G7 going to a Cmajor, play an Abm triad over it.
>
> Somewhere, I'm convinced, there is a secret list of these.
secret handshake. If you know it--it's out of date!
Gerry
> I am getting increasing drawn to jazz, but I fear I'm too old and lazy
> to put in the hard yards.
day, you will be slack-jaw amazed at what you will have accomplished in
six-monhts. Age? Irrelevant. You do have to have a game plan though,
and part of that game plan involves using the hour for work, not
doodling. The work can be mapped out in tasks to learn, tasks operative
and tasks absorbed.
> With the clear vision of hindsight I should have started a long time
> ago, but my formative years were in the folk/blues revival era, and I
> was too busy trying to earn an honest living after that.
musicians of all styles across the entire world.
> Had a nostalgia hit yesterday, found some manageable chords for "Fly me
> to the moon". Going to start arranging it today.
for 3 nights.
Tony Done
> On 2013-09-06 21:22:01 +0000, Tony Done said:
>
>> I am getting increasing drawn to jazz, but I fear I'm too old and lazy
>> to put in the hard yards.
>
> You're not unless you decide to be. If you do exactly one full hour a
> day, you will be slack-jaw amazed at what you will have accomplished in
> six-monhts. Age? Irrelevant. You do have to have a game plan though,
> and part of that game plan involves using the hour for work, not
> doodling. The work can be mapped out in tasks to learn, tasks operative
> and tasks absorbed.
>
decide to apply myself to jazz, where would I start? I admire this
modern (post 70s?) Berklee-style scalar stuff, but it doesn't have any
emotional appeal for me, so I don't think I could stick with it. I wish
I had a better grasp of arranging things like Georgia, Hallelujah, Fly
Me... and some of the old Lonnie Johnson stuff. it doesn't help that I
know next to nothing about most of those altered and extended jazz
chords and their application.
>> With the clear vision of hindsight I should have started a long time
>> ago, but my formative years were in the folk/blues revival era, and I
>> was too busy trying to earn an honest living after that.
>
> That cut-and-paste story applies to the vast sweeping majority of
> musicians of all styles across the entire world.
>> Had a nostalgia hit yesterday, found some manageable chords for "Fly
>> me to the moon". Going to start arranging it today.
>
> There you go. Spend 100 days like that and you have enough material for
> 3 nights.
that I could keep up reasonably well on a simple arrangement by Tommy
Emmanuel, but a tricky Errol Garner arrangement lost me completely.
thomas
>
> The lazy bit is more pertinent than the old bit. However, suppose I did
>
> decide to apply myself to jazz, where would I start? I admire this
>
> modern (post 70s?) Berklee-style scalar stuff, but it doesn't have any
>
> emotional appeal for me, so I don't think I could stick with it. I wish
>
> I had a better grasp of arranging things like Georgia, Hallelujah, Fly
>
> Me... and some of the old Lonnie Johnson stuff. it doesn't help that I
>
> know next to nothing about most of those altered and extended jazz
>
> chords and their application.
The old guys before 1960 played off of the chord grips they knew, adding decorative notes and the occasional blues lick. Conceptually and methodologically not unlike Curtis Mayfield and Hendrix, if you're familiar with that style. You could get started quite easily by learning a couple of Charlie Christian solos, and seeing how 95% of his solos was just him decorating a handful of basic chord grips that you already know.
Tony Done
Tony Done
simulation of his style for the first few bars I tried by switching
quickly between the major and minor (Bb) pentatonics. Does that sound right?
Gerry
> On 8/09/2013 3:05 AM, Gerry wrote:
>> On 2013-09-06 21:22:01 +0000, Tony Done said:
>>
>>> I am getting increasing drawn to jazz, but I fear I'm too old and lazy
>>> to put in the hard yards.
>>
>> You're not unless you decide to be. If you do exactly one full hour a
>> day, you will be slack-jaw amazed at what you will have accomplished in
>> six-monhts. Age? Irrelevant. You do have to have a game plan though,
>> and part of that game plan involves using the hour for work, not
>> doodling. The work can be mapped out in tasks to learn, tasks operative
>> and tasks absorbed.
>>
>
> The lazy bit is more pertinent than the old bit. However, suppose I did
> decide to apply myself to jazz, where would I start?
> I admire this modern (post 70s?) Berklee-style scalar stuff, but it
> doesn't have any emotional appeal for me, so I don't think I could
> stick with it.
suggest Chuck Wayne:
http://tinyurl.com/k2atpu4
> I wish I had a better grasp of arranging things like Georgia,
> Hallelujah, Fly Me... and some of the old Lonnie Johnson stuff. it
> doesn't help that I know next to nothing about most of those altered
> and extended jazz chords and their application.
http://tinyurl.com/m7kntqp
Using this raw material is well served by such volumes as "Concepts:
Arranging for Fingerstyle Guitar (Howard Morgen):
http://tinyurl.com/l8j45al
I think you said you played fingerstyle.
>>> With the clear vision of hindsight I should have started a long time
>>> ago, but my formative years were in the folk/blues revival era, and I
>>> was too busy trying to earn an honest living after that.
>>
>> That cut-and-paste story applies to the vast sweeping majority of
>> musicians of all styles across the entire world.
>
> I don't doubt that
> We started this conversation on pentatonics. I found with Fly me....
> that I could keep up reasonably well on a simple arrangement by Tommy
> Emmanuel, but a tricky Errol Garner arrangement lost me completely.
more complex, fun and exploratory as complex, fun and exploratory
options become feasible for you. All the things I recommend above are
just heavy lifting, somewhat repetitive work just to load this stuff
into your frontal lobe. But it MUST be accompanied by memorizing
tunes, learning to play an arrangement of these tunes, and playing them
repeatedly too. Pick 30, any 30 that move your heart.
Then begin.
rpjazzguitar
Strum the chords and sing a solo. Keep doing it until you sing something you like. Then stop and figure out how to play it. If you really like it a lot, learn to play it in different octaves, different parts of the neck and different keys and try to remember it.
Gerry
> I recorded a three tunes of his from Youtube. I found I could get a
> fair simulation of his style for the first few bars I tried by
> switching quickly between the major and minor (Bb) pentatonics. Does
> that sound right?
triad, say a Gm triad against a C dominant chord which produces a C9th
arp. My triads docu might be of some use to you as well. Again, this
is just the heavy lifting part not the listening/emulating or
repertoire building part of things:
Triads Made Somewhat Easier:
http://tinyurl.com/94uufrz
thomas
Bill Williams
rpjazzguitar
I'm new to dropbox. I read that I don't need to sign up to d/l. Is that right?
Gerry
> Sorry for this question, but I got an error message "couldn't download etc".
>
> I'm new to dropbox. I read that I don't need to sign up to d/l. Is that right?
problem, for whatever reason, I'll email the doc. Let me know.
I assume this relates to the triads doc.
rpjazzguitar
Thanks. For some reason IE didn't work but Chrome did. Thanks for the triad material.
Rick
Tony Done
did he just play stuff he liked the sound of (putting it simply, a good
ear) and you (ie jazzers) are describing it after the event? <g> I might
start a thread somewhere about "ear" equating with talent. Analysis and
its potential for causing evolution are more like science.