horizontal vs. vertical
pmfan57
pmfan57
so-called horizontal and vertical playing approaches started when
people analyzed and contrasted the approaches of Lester Young and
Coleman Hawkins. Young tended to play melodically through a number of
chords that defined a common key center, without necessarily
addressing each chord on an individual basis, while Hawk "ran" each
change, for example by arpeggios, and often created lines that implied
an even denser harmonic structure than his accompaniment would
indicate. These are overgeneralizations, of course, since sometimes
Hawk would maintain a single riff through a series of chords and
sometimes Young would outline each change. This is the usage of these
terms that I have seen most often in discussions of jazz theory.
Some have said that nobody really "runs the changes" or plays
vertically, only horizontally. Well, Hawkins said many times in
numerous interviews that he did exactly that. He wanted the musically
astute listener to recognize he knew the changes and cool
substitutions thereof. The most vertical playing that I can think of
by this definition is Coltrane's playing over his tunes 26-2,
Countdown, Giant Steps, and his densification of But Not For Me. He's
hitting every change of the chords that he himself had added to the
tunes (or composed), so obviously he's thinking that way when he's
playing. Coltrane spent a lot of time practicing these techniques
and knew what he was doing and did them intentionally, at least on
these tunes.
Jimmy, you say Coltrane didn't play vertically, but most people say
that his playing in this period, at least over those tunes and the
other similar progressions he composed, is the height of vertical
playing, adding (and addressing) change upon change and leaving almost
no room for just playing melodically. What exactly do you mean when
you say he didn't play vertically? I recognize that on blues and most
un-altered standards he used all kinds of approaches, but it's hard to
argue that "countdown" style playing isn't vertical playing. What do
you play over that type of tune?
From the thousands of interviews I have read of famous musicians, most
of them say that they don't "think" when they play. But analysis
after the fact of their solos reveals that they are at least
unconsciously using a combination of the Young approach and the
Hawkins approach. I think these players have simply internalized the
theory, acquired in whatever way--intense listening, experimention,
experience, study, practice and preparation-- to the point where what
comes out of their heads over the changes are lines (melodies) that
very often, but not always, outline those changes. Because those kind
of lines sound good and pleasing to the ear.
So I don't thinks it's correct to say that nobody plays vertically.
However, it appears that most players aren't thinking that way when
they're playing, and many never think that way at all.
Joey Goldstein
pmfan57 wrote:
>
> I think the recognition of the theoretical distinction between
> so-called horizontal and vertical playing approaches started when
> people analyzed and contrasted the approaches of Lester Young and
> Coleman Hawkins. Young tended to play melodically through a number of
> chords that defined a common key center, without necessarily
> addressing each chord on an individual basis, while Hawk "ran" each
> change, for example by arpeggios, and often created lines that implied
> an even denser harmonic structure than his accompaniment would
> indicate.
Right. That is the sense in which George Russell used the terms and that
is the sense in which I was using the terms. But evidently Jimmy has
another meaning for the word "horizontal" that he has yet to explain to
us all.
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
Jimmy Bruno
understand what you mean by vertical and horizontal and by that concept of
vertical and horizontal I would have to agree. I am talking about the very
nature of music itself.. which I believe is horizontal. You can play an F#
over a Dm 7th and if you isolate the chord and the note it sounds awful..
but if you play it in the context of a line it sounds great. That's all I
meant.... I hope I don't get this thread going again... it was a real pain
in the ass to keep answering Joey G.... just kidding Joey
Jimmy Bruno
any player beginer, intermediate or advanced immense freedom to explore all
the possibilities of sounds
> From: Richard <hud...@earthlink.net>
> Organization: Ha!
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 06:14:21 GMT
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
> Joey Goldstein (nos...@nowhere.net) wrote:
>>
>>
>> pmfan57 wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the recognition of the theoretical distinction between
>>> so-called horizontal and vertical playing approaches started when
>>> people analyzed and contrasted the approaches of Lester Young and
>>> Coleman Hawkins. Young tended to play melodically through a number of
>>> chords that defined a common key center, without necessarily
>>> addressing each chord on an individual basis, while Hawk "ran" each
>>> change, for example by arpeggios, and often created lines that implied
>>> an even denser harmonic structure than his accompaniment would
>>> indicate.
>>
>> Right. That is the sense in which George Russell used the terms and that
>> is the sense in which I was using the terms. But evidently Jimmy has
>> another meaning for the word "horizontal" that he has yet to explain to
>> us all.
>
> In my musically ignorant way (relative to guys like you), I have always
> read what Mr. Bruno says as meaning that music is something that is only
> meaningful as it is played and heard over time.
>
> Maybe the word "linear" would be better than "horizontal," since George
> Russell has already pre-empted the meaning of "horizontal."
>
> (Speaking of getting horizontal, it's bedtime.)
>
> --
> The post simply expresses some of my personal opinions.
> ObURL: http://home.earthlink.net/~huddler
Joey Goldstein
Richard wrote:
>
> Joey Goldstein (nos...@nowhere.net) wrote:
> >
> >
> > pmfan57 wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the recognition of the theoretical distinction between
> > > so-called horizontal and vertical playing approaches started when
> > > people analyzed and contrasted the approaches of Lester Young and
> > > Coleman Hawkins. Young tended to play melodically through a number of
> > > chords that defined a common key center, without necessarily
> > > addressing each chord on an individual basis, while Hawk "ran" each
> > > change, for example by arpeggios, and often created lines that implied
> > > an even denser harmonic structure than his accompaniment would
> > > indicate.
> >
> > Right. That is the sense in which George Russell used the terms and that
> > is the sense in which I was using the terms. But evidently Jimmy has
> > another meaning for the word "horizontal" that he has yet to explain to
> > us all.
>
> In my musically ignorant way (relative to guys like you), I have always
> read what Mr. Bruno says as meaning that music is something that is only
> meaningful as it is played and heard over time.
>
> Maybe the word "linear" would be better than "horizontal," since George
> Russell has already pre-empted the meaning of "horizontal."
The point being made here is that these terms were already being used
that way before George Russell wrote the LCC and that these usages are
well established in the jazz community. There's lots of other ways to
use these terms as applied to music too so there's no real "right" way
to use them.
The word "linear" has lots of other musical phenomena associated with it
too. I use "dynamic" in the same way that you are suggesting "linear".
"Dynamic" has it's own problems. "Wholistic" is probably the best term
but it reeks of New Age psycho-babble.
I supected that this is what Jimmy meant but he still has not really
spelled it out. When Jimmy said that even atonal music is horizontal
then I knew for sure he was not talking about key oriented melodies when
HE says "horizontal" so I can only assume that he means that music
unfolds over time. And there is no argument here.
Joey Goldstein
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>
> I supected that this is what Jimmy meant but he still has not really
> spelled it out.
I can see now in a couple of the other threads that Jimmy has indeed
spelled this out very clearly so we can finally put this aspect of this
discussion to rest.
Now to me what it looks like that Jimmy is actually advocating is that
the study of the vertical relationships between harmony and melody by
means of the idea of the "chord-scale" is in his opinion a fruitless
study. And I can not agree with that. This study is not the "be-all and
the end-all", the "magic bullet" or any of that crap. There is no magic
bullet. The study of no singular aspect of music can encompass the
whole. Studying the vertical relationships between harmony and melody
can only help expand your ears and that's all anything a jazz musician
studies should do for him.
Jimmy Bruno
terms of what one can play over a given set of changes. notice I used the
plural a single chord cannot exist for me with any meaning. I need to hear
it in context. There are only 12 notes no matter what you look at it. How
you go about organizing those 12 notes is what gives each player a unique
voice. I can play an altered chord and not put the altered notes in the
line... I like the way that sounds better than including all the altered
notes in the chord. Too.. it's like writing on white paper with white ink.
In reality... when you are playing in a real live situation with other real
live musicians, you are not going to get a consistent set of alterations
and extensions. at least if any of them are pros. I think and know that
many musicians improvise n the harmony as well... so every time a tune is
played whether it is an original or standard. the chords are different.
Howard Alden is a master at this. I've never heard him play anything with
the same changes twice and yet every interpretation he uses sounds
wonderful. So how are you going to use a chord scale relationship when you
are playing with someone of that level. all you got is a your basic sense of
the the harmony i.e. no alts or extensions or very little (at least in most
standards) and the most important aspect of playing.... your EARS. Now how
you go about learning what it will sound like when you put your fingers
down.....( in other words, developing an ear) well... that is the whole
point of practice. I think learning the chord scale relationships is the
long way to developing your ears. I think it is better to be able to hear
an Ab and a Bb over a G7 and then find out that it COULD BE from the melodic
minor scale. I'm sure Wes didin't think of melodic minor when he was making
that sound. That's the way I've been studying and practicing for the last
25 years. Of course I think my way is the most efficient. I've wasted lots
of time trying to play according to rules and observations etc... So I
guess I am NOT a big advocate of theory playing but I believe it is
necessary to understand more about the music. I like to theorize after the
music... not before
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 11:30:44 -0400
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
>
>
Rick Ross
:)
"Jimmy Bruno" <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote in message
news:B8DF7652.1726%ji...@jimmybruno.com...
Jack A. Zucker
Surprise...You're all right. Quit arguing against knowledge and be
satisified that your approach works. So do dozens of other approaches. The
bottom line is to practice everything possible and then let your intuition
guide you when you play.
Wes played everything by ear and yet he obviously knew theory even if it was
an intuitive thing. My dad who's now 75, used to ask me why I practiced
scales and modes and "vertical" approaches to playing but now he realizes
that they are all weapons at my disposal. He recently asked me to teach him
about modal playing! When I play live, I just close my eyes and play. I
don't think of alterations, modes, scales or anything but I've certainly
discovered lots of new melodic ideas through disciplined applications of
theory.
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
"Jimmy Bruno" <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote in message
news:B8DF7652.1726%ji...@jimmybruno.com...
Thom_j.
Sorry Jimmy I couldnt resist, again.... :)
Charlie Robinson
:) >>
<< "Rick Ross >>
--------------------------------------------------
Welcome Jimmy Bruno #2 ?
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear me online at: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
or: <A HREF="http://rmmgj.iuma.com">http://rmmgj.iuma.com</A>
David Walden
"Jack A. Zucker" wrote:
>
> So who's right? You? Liebman? Bierach? Abercrombie? Bird ?
>
> Surprise...You're all right. (snip)
Yeah! This discussion, which has been fascinating for me, reminds me of
the differences in peoples approaches to religion. Some are looking for
the experience of closing the gap between the human and the divine;
others want answers to the riddles of life. Most people want some of
both, but seeing the poles represented by experience and knowledge helps
me see the "rightness" on both sides of the issue.
My thanks to the participants of this discussion!
Charlie
Rick Ross
"Charlie Robinson" <robins...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020414145426...@mb-cn.aol.com...
Jack A. Zucker
news:3CB9D5BB...@bigsky.net...
>
>
> "Jack A. Zucker" wrote:
> >
> > So who's right? You? Liebman? Bierach? Abercrombie? Bird ?
> >
> > Surprise...You're all right. (snip)
>
> Yeah! This discussion, which has been fascinating for me, reminds me of
> the differences in peoples approaches to religion.
Exactly. Let's not create a fundamentalist jazz sect...
It's not how you get there that counts...
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
Doug Bell
I remember telling you after the show "Hey man, you sounded great!" You
looked at me like "Oh no another west coast hippy. Weren't you looking for
Jerry?" Anyway I picked up your recording with those guys, "Concord Jazz
Collective" and another one with you and Howard, "Full Circle". Great
stuff. Doug
in article B8DF7652.1726%ji...@jimmybruno.com, Jimmy Bruno at
ji...@jimmybruno.com wrote on 4/14/02 10:03 AM:
Jimmy Bruno
Jimmy Bruno
coast hippie... It's still in there
Jimmy Bruno
> From: "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 19:34:05 GMT
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
Jimmy Bruno
How can someone know theory intuitively? I'm not buying that... What about
Joey Defrancesco.... Doesn't care about theory doesn't want to know about
... he's one of finest musicians I know. He can play anything on hearing
it one time. He did an entire Cd with me and learned 5 very difficult
original tunes in the studio as we were doing the run through... he played
them better than I did..... No formal music education what so ever. He has
to think about the name of the chord he is playing.. it's all by ear.
> From: "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com>
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> I don't think the study is fruitless but it is very, very misleading in
> terms of what one can play over a given set of changes.
I agree that lots of people and books that are trying to teach these
types of ideas use misleading language and that because of this there
ARE lots of confused students out there. As someone who teaches this
stuff myself I don't think it has to be this way, obviously. I don't
think the concept itself is misleading.
> notice I used the
> plural a single chord cannot exist for me with any meaning.
Well when I was learning I always had to get used to the sound of one
chord and then the sound of the next chord before I could successfully
go about tackling the phenomena involved with the transition from one
chord to the next. I've seen old school players who have demonstrated
the same approach at clinics, i.e. blowing over one isolated chord
outside of any musical context for practice. Nick Brignola did this at a
clinic at Mohawk. He went to the piano hit some chord with the sustain
pedal down and experimented with his horn trying all sorts of lines
against that chord. I myself did tons of that stuff in my formative
years but I used a tape recorder to record my self playing the chords.
These days we've got BIAB, Aebersold and digi audio on our computers
too. Since we can play chords on our instrument the best thing to do is
to strum a chord and then sing some stuff that sounds good.
But you are so right that the game changes completely when there is a
progression of chords. There are multiple layers of other things to
consider and become aware of when chords are moving through a
progession. Even a voicing of the expected chord can change the musical
possibilities drastically let alone a slight or drastic reharmonization
by the other players. To me, it's all been about learning the
intervallic possibilities from chord to chord and training my self to be
able to react to things I'm hearing on the fly.
An important exercise is to record, or have someone play, random chords
and to try to solo over them. The more random the better. The less thay
relate to any key center the better. The soloist has to completely rely
on what they are hearing in the moment and to react. If you hit a rub
you resolve it and try to hear the next note a little better. For me,
the more I have exposed myself to the general outlines implied by the
various chord-scale relationships and to the specifics of the
intervallic relationships encounterd in the various chord-scales the
better off I have become in reacting to the specifics of any real
playing situation.
> I need to hear
> it in context. There are only 12 notes no matter what you look at it. How
> you go about organizing those 12 notes is what gives each player a unique
> voice.
And how you go about learning to hear those relationships is also a big
part of a player's approach.
> I can play an altered chord and not put the altered notes in the
> line... I like the way that sounds better than including all the altered
> notes in the chord. Too.. it's like writing on white paper with white ink.
That's an interesting way of looking at that.
> In reality... when you are playing in a real live situation with other real
> live musicians, you are not going to get a consistent set of alterations
> and extensions. at least if any of them are pros.
True. And any good teacher of chord-scale relationships should be making
that point continually with his/her students.
> I think and know that
> many musicians improvise n the harmony as well... so every time a tune is
> played whether it is an original or standard. the chords are different.
Right. The only thing that stays constant (most of the time) is the
form. Melodies get screwed around with, harmonies get reharmonized and
rhythms and meters are up for grabs too. It's all about improvizing on
the thematic material of the original composition and often not about
literally playing that composition.
> Howard Alden is a master at this. I've never heard him play anything with
> the same changes twice and yet every interpretation he uses sounds
> wonderful. So how are you going to use a chord scale relationship when you
> are playing with someone of that level.
At that level you don't. At that level all those sounds have to be
internalized so that you can draw on them more or less subconsciously.
> all you got is a your basic sense of
> the the harmony i.e. no alts or extensions or very little (at least in most
> standards) and the most important aspect of playing.... your EARS.
No argument here.
> Now how
> you go about learning what it will sound like when you put your fingers
> down.....( in other words, developing an ear) well... that is the whole
> point of practice.
Agreed.
> I think learning the chord scale relationships is the
> long way to developing your ears.
Perhaps, but for me it has been a very thorough approach.
> I think it is better to be able to hear
> an Ab and a Bb over a G7 and then find out that it COULD BE from the melodic
> minor scale.
Perhaps, but the entire melodic minor scale when used over this chord
has its own texture too. That's a good thing to be able to hear as well,
IMO, if you want to be thorough. I have also found that by exploring
several of the possible G7 chord-scales where Ab and/or Bb are present
that I have a better grasp on what else I might play after I hit that
first Ab or Bb. A chord-scale is just a set of tones that happen to go
somewhat well together. And I have also come to the realization that I
do not have to use or rely on any chord-scale relationships at all to
play over this chord effectively. But I CAN if I want to.
> I'm sure Wes didin't think of melodic minor when he was making
> that sound. That's the way I've been studying and practicing for the last
> 25 years. Of course I think my way is the most efficient. I've wasted lots
> of time trying to play according to rules and observations etc...
It's interesting to me that you think that all that time was wasted
time. I think you turned out pretty good and that ALL of your
experiences have contributed to that.
Most folks say that it is a good idea to learn what the "rules" are and
what their effects are before you decide to throw them aside. That's the
camp I am in. Of course nothing sounds as good as something that sounds
good. So the more you can carry yourself with pure intuition the
stronger a player you will be. My own sense of intuition has been much
more finely tuned by studying chord scale relationships. When I first
started trying to play the jazz repertoire my "ears" were leading me
into some really awful sounding stuff. My ears are the direct
beneficiaries of my studying chord-scales. In my experience, when people
study this stuff and do not learn to hear it but rely instead on finger
patterns then they get into trouble.
> So I
> guess I am NOT a big advocate of theory playing but I believe it is
> necessary to understand more about the music. I like to theorize after the
> music... not before
I don't really think there is anything that can rightly be called
"theory playing". When you play you play. When you practice and study
you observe, or at least that's how I do it and that's how I try to get
my students to think about it. We just disagree on the worth of studying
certain things. I don't think we disagree on what the final result
should be.
Thanks for sharing Jimmy. It's nice to see some long sentences and full
paragraphs coming off your 'puter for a change! <g>
Thom_j.
you have no theory training how can you or anyone "intuitively"
have it? Robert Johnson is another prime example, and I know
he isn't within the jazz genre` but the concept still applies. yes? :)
"Jimmy Bruno" <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote in message
news:B8DFA8BE.175F%ji...@jimmybruno.com...
Rick Ross
Jimmy Bruno
something. LOL!! I hate writing all that long winded shit.. sounds like I
know something. This has been a good thread... I've tried to kill it many
times but it won't go away. I feeling it is not done yet. Hope I can
continue to have some free time to keep up with this. If nothing else, my
tying is getting better... now that I have the correct fingerings. That's
topic we can argue about. I think there should be standardized fingerings
for the major and all three minor scales.. maybe even the whole one
diminished and a few penta-tonics.
You know I haven't had a cigarette since Easter. I think it has an effect
on my typing and writing... I actually read what I type before hitting the
send button and actually take the time to compose a thought before I write
it. It 's very cool not to be hung up on the nicotine thing. I couldn't do
anything without a cigarette.. I used to type and get ashes all over the
keyboard and my guitars as well. I'm a little less anxious these days
of course I am now shooting heroin in the mean time 'till the cig jones goes
away but ...
Rick Ross
pick you were inventing..:)
"Jimmy Bruno" <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote in message
news:B8DFB682.1772%ji...@jimmybruno.com...
Jimmy Bruno
to call it. at the same time I was learning to read and play tunes and
scales but I practiced scales to learn to play the guitar not to play jazz
with. I think people forget about that aspect . You have to learn to play
your instrument before you can play jazz. Learning scales and modes and
reading various exercises or making some up on our own is important if you
want to play your instrument well whatever it maybe or jazz, or some other
type improv or whatever.
icarusi
news:3CB917E9...@nowhere.net...
>
>
> pmfan57 wrote:
> >
> > I think the recognition of the theoretical distinction between
> > so-called horizontal and vertical playing approaches started when
> > people analyzed and contrasted the approaches of Lester Young and
> > Coleman Hawkins. Young tended to play melodically through a
number of
> > chords that defined a common key center, without necessarily
> > addressing each chord on an individual basis, while Hawk "ran"
each
> > change, for example by arpeggios, and often created lines that
implied
> > an even denser harmonic structure than his accompaniment would
> > indicate.
>
> Right. That is the sense in which George Russell used the terms and
that
> is the sense in which I was using the terms. But evidently Jimmy has
> another meaning for the word "horizontal" that he has yet to explain
to
> us all.
I always thought 'horizontal' and 'vertical' referred to predominantly
close/small interval vs predominantly wide/large interval playing. It
always looks that way on a score sheet? OTOH it could be 'flat'
picking vs 'upright' bass?
Icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
Thom_j.
Since I started learning music at 4yrs/old, I have no idea what
came first? Sometimes I feel like I was popped out & my dad
just "musicized" me from the start. You know the ole chicken
or the egg thang? :) My father was with a local 'jazz group' for
almost as long as I can remember but his "wayward son" had
to become a "blues" player & now I am desperately' trying to
pick up on all the stuff he knew and I 'ignored' all those years.
I guess I was one stubborn kid?!! hahaha :)
"Jimmy Bruno" <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote in message
news:B8DFB78E.1773%ji...@jimmybruno.com...
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> You know I haven't had a cigarette since Easter.
It's been since December 1995 for me.
> I think it has an effect
> on my typing and writing... I actually read what I type before hitting the
> send button and actually take the time to compose a thought before I write
> it. It 's very cool not to be hung up on the nicotine thing. I couldn't do
> anything without a cigarette.. I used to type and get ashes all over the
> keyboard and my guitars as well. I'm a little less anxious these days
Hah. Positive thinking. Good luck. Keep some Nicorettes around just in
case.
And you're really happy because you haven't gained any weight, eh? All
good things come in time. <g>
> of course I am now shooting heroin in the mean time 'till the cig jones goes
> away but ...
Joey Goldstein
to feel better" or something like that.
Jimmy Bruno
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 19:15:36 -0400
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
Jurupari
>
...with Lord Buckley as patron saint?
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> sounds like Ed... do you ever run into him? I sure like his playing
Not so much anymore. He's in retirement now but I hope it's only
temporary because I really like his stuff too.
LAZZERINI
Then we can get the flock out
LAZZ
Joe Finn
> I agree.. I learned backwards. I learned to play first then found out
what
> to call it. at the same time I was learning to read and play tunes and
> scales but I practiced scales to learn to play the guitar not to play jazz
> with. I think people forget about that aspect . You have to learn to
play
> your instrument before you can play jazz. Learning scales and modes and
> reading various exercises or making some up on our own is important if you
> want to play your instrument well whatever it maybe or jazz, or some other
> type improv or whatever.
>
Jimmy, this is one of the more enlightened comments you've made in this
discussion. Learning to play one's instrument well enough to play jazz on it
is a personal thing. Some people learn by ear and some respond better to a
more theoretical approach. Some concentrate on the repertoire and the
reading. Some really good players managed to avoid learning to read
altogether. Some guys know dozens or hundreds of scales. Some very fine
players know only a few. You say you learned backwards. Well, whatever you
wish call it is fine with me. I have always said that performance is the
hallmark of understanding. Since your playing speaks for itself we can just
let it go at that.
This has been one of our longer threads. It seemed to yield more heat than
light for quite a while but now that we have gotten to the point where we at
least agree on our definitions of horizontal and vertical we can move
forward. You really had me goin' though.
Just to amplify a bit on the comments of Jack Zucker let me say that jazz
is a highly idiosyncratic expression. When I hear a Jimmy Bruno recording I
know I'm not listening to Wes, Martino, Hall or Benson.
You don't sound like anybody else and neither do they. That's the beauty of
it. We all achieve a certain sound and a certain way of playing that is
based on things like how we learn what we learn, what we listen to, our own
personal concept of melody, and how hard we are willing to work at
developing it. ...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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Will Sperry
> Vertical and horizontal doesn't mean the same thing to me as to ou. I
> understand what you mean by vertical and horizontal and by that concept of
> vertical and horizontal I would have to agree. I am talking about the very
> nature of music itself.. which I believe is horizontal. You can play an F#
> over a Dm 7th and if you isolate the chord and the note it sounds awful..
> but if you play it in the context of a line it sounds great. That's all I
> meant.... I hope I don't get this thread going again... it was a real pain
> in the ass to keep answering Joey G.... just kidding Joey
>
> > From: jwra...@aol.com (pmfan57)
> > Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> > Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> > Date: 13 Apr 2002 21:10:18 -0700
> > Subject: horizontal vs. vertical
> >
> > I think the recognition of the theoretical distinction between
> > so-called horizontal and vertical playing approaches started when
> > people analyzed and contrasted the approaches of Lester Young and
> > Coleman Hawkins. Young tended to play melodically through a number of
> > chords that defined a common key center, without necessarily
> > addressing each chord on an individual basis, while Hawk "ran" each
> > change, for example by arpeggios, and often created lines that implied
> > an even denser harmonic structure than his accompaniment would
> > Hawk would maintain a single riff through a series of chords and
> > sometimes Young would outline each change. This is the usage of these
> > terms that I have seen most often in discussions of jazz theory.
> >
> > Some have said that nobody really "runs the changes" or plays
> > vertically, only horizontally. Well, Hawkins said many times in
> > numerous interviews that he did exactly that. He wanted the musically
> > astute listener to recognize he knew the changes and cool
> > substitutions thereof. The most vertical playing that I can think of
> > by this definition is Coltrane's playing over his tunes 26-2,
> > Countdown, Giant Steps, and his densification of But Not For Me. He's
> > hitting every change of the chords that he himself had added to the
> > tunes (or composed), so obviously he's thinking that way when he's
> > playing. Coltrane spent a lot of time practicing these techniques
> > and knew what he was doing and did them intentionally, at least on
> > these tunes.
> >
> > Jimmy, you say Coltrane didn't play vertically, but most people say
> > that his playing in this period, at least over those tunes and the
> > other similar progressions he composed, is the height of vertical
> > playing, adding (and addressing) change upon change and leaving almost
> > no room for just playing melodically. What exactly do you mean when
> > you say he didn't play vertically? I recognize that on blues and most
I take vertical playing to mean you're using scales across the strings
of the guitar. i.e. playing bigger intervals on the guitar rather
than using primarily one string where hammer-on make it easier to play
faster.
Somebody like Coltrane could run up and down the scales because he
practiced so much and therefore got a more vertical approach as
opposed to a "horizontal" approach which is easier, but a little less
able to use the fullness of the guitar to make leaps of bigger
intervals.
> > un-altered standards he used all kinds of approaches, but it's hard to
> > argue that "countdown" style playing isn't vertical playing. What do
> > you play over that type of tune?
> >
> > From the thousands of interviews I have read of famous musicians, most
> > of them say that they don't "think" when they play. But analysis
> > after the fact of their solos reveals that they are at least
> > unconsciously using a combination of the Young approach and the
> > Hawkins approach. I think these players have simply internalized the
> > theory, acquired in whatever way--intense listening, experimention,
> > experience, study, practice and preparation-- to the point where what
> > comes out of their heads over the changes are lines (melodies) that
> > very often, but not always, outline those changes. Because those kind
> > of lines sound good and pleasing to the ear.
> >
> > So I don't thinks it's correct to say that nobody plays vertically.
> > However, it appears that most players aren't thinking that way when
> > they're playing, and many never think that way at all.
Jack A. Zucker
> I don't think wes new any theory at all.. Gearge Benson doesn't either...
> How can someone know theory intuitively? I'm not buying that... What
about
By playing and studying and learning for years. Wes didn't know traditional
theory but come on... You don't think he knows a 13b9 from a 7#5? Same with
Benson. And Benson does know theory although he started out playing by ear.
> Joey Defrancesco.... Doesn't care about theory doesn't want to know about
> ... he's one of finest musicians I know. He can play anything on hearing
> it one time.
And Paul Bollenback (Joey's guitarist for many years) studied theory at the
University of Miami and later studied for years with Dr. Asher Zlotnik (The
world-famous music theorist). Paul told me many times that his studies with
Zlotnik comprised the most important developmental period of his (Paul's)
career. There are many other jazz musicians who have told me the same thing.
Also, your philadelphia compatriot (Pat Martino) doesn't seem to be hurt by
his knowledge of theory ...
> He did an entire Cd with me and learned 5 very difficult
> original tunes in the studio as we were doing the run through... he played
> them better than I did..... No formal music education what so ever. He
has
> to think about the name of the chord he is playing.. it's all by ear.
And my mom treated dozens of childhood injuries without a medical degree but
that doesn't make her a doctor. You're deliberately obfuscating the real
issue. Nobody claimed you had to know theory to be a great jazz player. My
point - which you've conveniently failed to reply to - is simply that
studying all facets of music and theory can help you relate to new sounds
and concepts that may not have occured to you otherwise.
My studies of dodecaphonics is an example. The end result is that you play
whatever sounds good but the discipline of the study opens your ears to
other possibilities.
Jaz
Thom_j.
"Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
news:2Mru8.1912$mZ.9...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
Jimmy Bruno
> From: "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 03:26:54 GMT
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
> "Jimmy Bruno" <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote in message
> news:B8DFA8BE.175F%ji...@jimmybruno.com...
>> I don't think wes new any theory at all.. Gearge Benson doesn't either...
>> How can someone know theory intuitively? I'm not buying that... What
> about
>
> By playing and studying and learning for years. Wes didn't know traditional
> theory but come on... You don't think he knows a 13b9 from a 7#5? Same with
> Benson. And Benson does know theory although he started out playing by ear.
>
>> Joey Defrancesco.... Doesn't care about theory doesn't want to know about
>> ... he's one of finest musicians I know. He can play anything on hearing
>> it one time.
>
> And Paul Bollenback (Joey's guitarist for many years) studied theory at the
> University of Miami and later studied for years with Dr. Asher Zlotnik (The
> world-famous music theorist). Paul told me many times that his studies with
> Zlotnik comprised the most important developmental period of his (Paul's)
> career. There are many other jazz musicians who have told me the same thing.
>
> Also, your philadelphia compatriot (Pat Martino) doesn't seem to be hurt by
> his knowledge of theory ...
Pat does note use any traditional theory at all. What does Paul's theory
learning hav to do with Joey's ability to play anything without any theory.
I think the theory thing gets to much attention and not enough attention
goes to learning to hear. Theory is after some one makes the music. I'd
rather play something I like and let someone else figure out the theory.
every time one of my solos get analyzed,,, it is totally wrong. no one can
know what the improviser is thinking
>
>> He did an entire Cd with me and learned 5 very difficult
>> original tunes in the studio as we were doing the run through... he played
>> them better than I did..... No formal music education what so ever. He
> has
>> to think about the name of the chord he is playing.. it's all by ear.
But what where is your reply to this??? How can this be? No theory at all
... plays better than most people on the planet
Jimmy Bruno
I used to hear 'Trane playing Dm7 Fm7 and Abm7 runs over the G7 chord. I
wondered where this came from. Of course I could analyze the notes over the
G7 chord and they all made sense but occasionally he would "lay" on F# notes
which I "knew" were wrong :-) Eventually, my small mind figured out that he
was simply playing standard 'Trane licks built on the 5th, b7, and b9 of the
V (G7) chord. It started coming to me...
Let's use the Abdim7 chord and how it relates to dominant 7th chords. Take a
look at the notes in the Abdim7 chord enharmonically spelled as (Ab B D F).
Now this chord also happens to be, G7b9, Bb7b9, Db7b9, and E7b9 chords.
Notice that going from the Abdim7 chord to any other chord in the sequence
involves simply adjusting one note:
That is exactly what I am talking about... the music is horizontal
> From: "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 03:26:54 GMT
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
Jimmy Bruno
"Try different parts of different tables as well. Don't shy away from chords
that sound "funny". The first time I heard the ii chord row 4 of (fig 5)
(Bm7) over the G7, I hated it. It had the F# in it after all, and I was
taught that there was no more wrong chord than an F# over a G7 chord. I
couldn't have been more wrong. If you "live" with the Bm7 chord over the G7
for a while, you will understand how it wants to resolve and it will begin
to sound more "inside," same for all the other chords in the sequence. In
fact, the point is to get your ear used to hearing things that it did *NOT*
hear the day before."
I happen to agree with what you are saying but I think it also proves my
point of the importance of the melodic line. Do we need theory to make
melodic lines? What you are talking about comes from logic and not theory.
IMHO
> From: Jimmy Bruno <ji...@jimmybruno.com>
> Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
Dan Adler
> I think the recognition of the theoretical distinction between
> so-called horizontal and vertical playing approaches started when
> people analyzed and contrasted the approaches of Lester Young and
> Coleman Hawkins.
I think a more useful distinction nowadays is 'Bebop' and 'Modal'.
When post-Coltrane Modal players play over changes (which includes
about 90% of non-guitarists around today) - their approach is very
different from the Bebop approach. I tried to summarize my
visualization of this difference in this picture:
http://danadler.com/misc/BebopModal.htm
In general the modal approach is: play this mode for a while, then
play that mode for a while. The "for a while" can depend, and can be
as short as one beat or as long as a whole tune. Usually, people think
of modal as meaning playing for a long time on a chord, but when the
harmony is non-functional you can have modal playing on chords that
change once or more per bar.
Bebop players, on the other hand, live for functional harmony, and
look for cadences (dominants preceding tonics) as the primary vehicle
over which they construct lines that connect the chord tones linearly.
I grew up on the Bebop way of thinking and I find it very hard to
'cross over' to the modal way of thinking. Other people like Scofield
grew up on modal and you can make the argument that their Bebop
playing is not as convincing as their modal playing.
The Aebersold series (as well as most music schools) try to teach
people the modal approach from the begining, showing the modes beneath
each chord. Liebman with his Scale Syllabus takes the same approach.
Steve Grossman, on the other hand, started out as a modal player and
shifted back into Bebop, which is rare for people to go in that
direction.
The point of all this is that I can tell you someone's approach by
listening to them for 1 chorus - and the number of people who can live
comfortably in both camps is very small. So, I think it's useful to
realize, as a player, which camp you are in (educational visits to the
other side are encouraged).
Bob Russell
ji...@jimmybruno.com wrote on 4/15/02 8:56 AM:
> Do we need theory to make
> melodic lines?
No, we don't need theory to make melodic lines. I respectfully suggest that
anyone who does not need theory - for anything - should not be required to
use it. I also respectfully suggest that those who find theory helpful in
exploring new sounds be allowed to use it as they see fit.
Hey, wait a minute; that's how it already is! What's all this arguing about?
-- Bob Russell
http://www.uncwil.edu/people/russellr
Mark Kleinhaut
d...@danadler.com (Dan Adler) wrote:
(snip)
>The point of all this is that I can tell you someone's approach by
>listening to them for 1 chorus - and the number of people who can live
>comfortably in both camps is very small.
Hey Dan, now you've got me wondering, which camp am I in??? (identity crisis
setting in:))
--------------------Mark Kleinhaut
markkl...@hotmail.com
Info and soundclips about:
"Chasing Tales":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Chasing%20Tales.html
"Amphora":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
"Secrets of Three": http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/SO3.html
Mark Kleinhaut
to make any sense to me other than difference of semantics. Phoooey to that.
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> here's more from your site:
>
> "Try different parts of different tables as well. Don't shy away from chords
> that sound "funny". The first time I heard the ii chord row 4 of (fig 5)
> (Bm7) over the G7, I hated it. It had the F# in it after all, and I was
> taught that there was no more wrong chord than an F# over a G7 chord. I
> couldn't have been more wrong. If you "live" with the Bm7 chord over the G7
> for a while, you will understand how it wants to resolve and it will begin
> to sound more "inside," same for all the other chords in the sequence. In
> fact, the point is to get your ear used to hearing things that it did *NOT*
> hear the day before."
>
> I happen to agree with what you are saying but I think it also proves my
> point of the importance of the melodic line. Do we need theory to make
> melodic lines? What you are talking about comes from logic and not theory.
> IMHO
Jimmy,Jimmy, Jimmy. The use of logic to attempt to explain something as
unexplainable as music is what theory IS.
Stan Gosnell
> You know I haven't had a cigarette since Easter. I think it has an
> effect on my typing and writing... I actually read what I type before
> hitting the send button and actually take the time to compose a thought
> before I write it. It 's very cool not to be hung up on the nicotine
> thing. I couldn't do anything without a cigarette.. I used to type and
> get ashes all over the keyboard and my guitars as well. I'm a little
> less anxious these days of course I am now shooting heroin in the mean
> time 'till the cig jones goes away but ...
That takes a long, long, time. Actually, it was easy for me to get off
cigarettes, but not nicotine. I got out of the Army in 1982, & after
paying $1.86/carton, the sticker shock hit me on the outside, so I started
using just a little snuff. Easier to do while flying anyway. Soon, I
didn't want a cigarette, but I had to have my Skoal. After a few years, my
wife raised so much fuss I decided to quit. That was the hardest thing I
ever did, & the cravings stayed with me for years. I still get them once
in awhile. Congratulations on quitting, but it won't be easy, nor will it
be quick. It takes lots of willpower.
My government hooked me, through free cigarettes in C rations, & it kept me
going with tax-free cigarettes. All because the tobacco companies had paid
off the politicians, & still do.
--
Regards,
Stan
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> zack... here are your own words
>
> I used to hear 'Trane playing Dm7 Fm7 and Abm7 runs over the G7 chord. I
> wondered where this came from. Of course I could analyze the notes over the
> G7 chord and they all made sense but occasionally he would "lay" on F# notes
> which I "knew" were wrong :-) Eventually, my small mind figured out that he
> was simply playing standard 'Trane licks built on the 5th, b7, and b9 of the
> V (G7) chord. It started coming to me...
>
> Let's use the Abdim7 chord and how it relates to dominant 7th chords. Take a
> look at the notes in the Abdim7 chord enharmonically spelled as (Ab B D F).
> Now this chord also happens to be, G7b9, Bb7b9, Db7b9, and E7b9 chords.
> Notice that going from the Abdim7 chord to any other chord in the sequence
> involves simply adjusting one note:
>
> That is exactly what I am talking about... the music is horizontal
How you jump to the conclusion that something horizontal is going on as
Jack (not zack) disscusses all these vertical ideas is beyond me.
Joey Goldstein
Dan Adler wrote:
>
> jwra...@aol.com (pmfan57) wrote in message news:<f6b28b49.02041...@posting.google.com>...
> > I think the recognition of the theoretical distinction between
> > so-called horizontal and vertical playing approaches started when
> > people analyzed and contrasted the approaches of Lester Young and
> > Coleman Hawkins.
>
> I think a more useful distinction nowadays is 'Bebop' and 'Modal'.
I don't think it breaks down like that at all. You can play vertically
or horizontally, in the sense that jwagusa and I are using, through
modal tunes too. All that needs to be present in a tune for a horizontal
approach to be used is a fairly clear key feeling of some sort. Some pan
modal tunes obscure the key feeling and then vertical considerations
become much more persuasive.
> When post-Coltrane Modal players play over changes (which includes
> about 90% of non-guitarists around today) - their approach is very
> different from the Bebop approach. I tried to summarize my
> visualization of this difference in this picture:
>
> http://danadler.com/misc/BebopModal.htm
>
> In general the modal approach is: play this mode for a while, then
> play that mode for a while.
The modal approach has less to do with dictating any scale to the
improviser than it does with the nature of the composition. The modal
tunes pioneered by Miles and 'Trane simply had less chords so the player
had more time to explore certain relationships both vertical and
horizontal ON A SINGLE CHORD. This was the antithesis of what was going
on in the mainstream at the time. It worked. It opened up new things to
play and explore. 'Trane and Cannonball don't *just* play D Dorian on So
What. They merely use that scale as a backdrop the same way a bebop tune
forces you to use a 4 note 7th chord as a backdrop, a foundation of
sorts. Instead of 4 important target notes they had 7.
> The "for a while" can depend, and can be
> as short as one beat or as long as a whole tune. Usually, people think
> of modal as meaning playing for a long time on a chord, but when the
> harmony is non-functional you can have modal playing on chords that
> change once or more per bar.
If the chords are changing quickly, functional harmony or not, the lines
will need to be about voice leading rather than about vertical relations
on each chord. It is still a vertical approach to melody, in the sense
used above, because there are no key considerations and the chord tones
themselves are the focus of attention but I can easily see how the term
"horizontal" might be applied to voice leading.
I suppose this is where the confusion lies in these two terms. Vertical
playing does not mean that the player has to be running up and down each
chord with super fast arpeggios. All it means is that when it comes to
note choice he will favour notes that are in the chord itself or notes
that fit the chord as tensions rather than notes that are in the scale
of the key. Horizontal players tend to favour notes that are in the
scale of the key rather than notes that are part of the vertical
structure, the chord. Horizontal players can still run arpeggios up and
down the wazoo but they will be using notes from the scale of the key.
The two terms as they are usually used by the jazz "intelligentsia" have
nothing to do with voice leading or with the way music unfolds over
time. Of course the fact is that there are many fine musicians who use
these terms differently. Regardless of that fact the concepts involved
in the generally accepted sense in which these terms are used are very
important for an imroviser of tonal music. The concepts should be
understood in that sense whether you use those terms or not.
> Bebop players, on the other hand, live for functional harmony, and
> look for cadences (dominants preceding tonics) as the primary vehicle
> over which they construct lines that connect the chord tones linearly.
In bebop tunes one can still play almost entirely horizontally but most
players chose to explore the many possible vertical relationships. I
don't listen to him a lot but Clifford Brown always seemed to me to have
a very key centered (i.e. horizontal) approach to melody. That's one of
the reasons why he sounds so lyrical.
> I grew up on the Bebop way of thinking and I find it very hard to
> 'cross over' to the modal way of thinking. Other people like Scofield
> grew up on modal and you can make the argument that their Bebop
> playing is not as convincing as their modal playing.
I think you're way off base here with Sco. I have never heard him play a
single mode for more than 2 beats. Scofield can play the shit out of the
bebop repertoire he just refuses to play the same cliched lines that are
expected if you are a "bebop player". Sco is a Sco player. You can't peg
him. It's just him. As far as vertical vs horizontal is concerned he
does it all and draws on it all all the time. He can play up and down
the chord or the key and superimpose 3 other keys or chords at the same
time. Same with Metheny. These guys just don't sound like classical
bebop players because their phrasing, their sound, their note choice,
etc. is entirely personal and unique to them. That's the way they want
it too. They don't sit around thinking "Gee Wes did this. Wes did that."
They're too busy being themselves. They can still play the shit out of
that repertoire. They could get on the bandstand with anyone playing
that stuff and play their asses off and swing like hell if they want to
but they will still sound like themselves.
> The Aebersold series (as well as most music schools) try to teach
> people the modal approach from the begining, showing the modes beneath
> each chord. Liebman with his Scale Syllabus takes the same approach.
> Steve Grossman, on the other hand, started out as a modal player and
> shifted back into Bebop, which is rare for people to go in that
> direction.
>
> The point of all this is that I can tell you someone's approach by
> listening to them for 1 chorus - and the number of people who can live
> comfortably in both camps is very small. So, I think it's useful to
> realize, as a player, which camp you are in (educational visits to the
> other side are encouraged).
Again I disagree. Anyone worth listening to today has a foot in both
camps, IMO.
Joey Goldstein
Mark Kleinhaut wrote:
>
> Hey Bob, I've been wondering about all this arguing too. It doesn't seem
> to make any sense to me other than difference of semantics. Phoooey to that.
Well I look at it more like a debate with the outcome hopefully being
clarity of mind.
Ted Vieira
probably (for the most part) fall into the modal catagory in this
discussion. This is interesting to me because I used to be drawn to
listening to players who generally play more "modal," but the older I get,
the more I enjoy the phrasing of the bebop camp.
Most of my practice time these days is spent on developing my skills as a
bebop player. One area I particularly enjoy that kind of sound is in my solo
jazz guitar playing. To me, it helps me outline the progression and the
'sense' of the tune better when I'm soloing without accompanyment. The more
I develop my bebop sense of playing, the more I enjoy my own phrasing and
feel good about my progress as a player.
Ted Vieira
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
http://TedVieira.com
Bio Info, Free Online Guitar Instruction,
Instructional Books, Articles, hear my CDs and more...
--
Listen to my new solo jazz guitar CD, "Quiet Places"
at: http://TedVieira.com/sounds.html
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
> From: d...@danadler.com (Dan Adler)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
Jack A. Zucker
>
> I happen to agree with what you are saying but I think it also proves my
> point of the importance of the melodic line. Do we need theory to make
> melodic lines? What you are talking about comes from logic and not theory.
> IMHO
Wait...How is "logic" different from "theory"? Let's not get caught up
in semantics. Again, I think you ignored my main point which is that
the study of theoretical concepts allows you to achieve tonalities
that you might not have come up with were you simply playing what you
already know and hear.
Folks always say they know what they like but they really like what
they know. Given that, deliberately trying new and different
approaches (dare I say "Vertical" for example?!?) may cause you to
learn/like/know something new.
Jaz
Thom_j.
Jimmy Bruno
versus ear and the vertical versus horizontal in other words to me the
horizontal or melodic force is more important than the vertical sonorities
that result from playing a line with harmony underneath
> From: Bob Russell <bobrus...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:31:51 -0400
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
Jimmy Bruno
the guitar
> From: Stan Gosnell <stang@[204.52.135.1]>
> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:46:10 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
Jimmy Bruno
music. none of his thinking has to do with scales or modes in the
traditional sense. I still think that the line is what drives the music and
the vertical sonorities that result are an accident
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:56:30 -0400
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
>
>
Jimmy Bruno
it is horizontal to me because the the clashes don't matter
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:57:55 -0400
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
>
>
Jimmy Bruno
when I first heard giant Steps I could tell what harmony he was outlining
and was able to play it. Then I started to hear that progression in other
places as well.
I didn't have to know what it was to play it or use it:
You have 12 notes... the possibilities are endless. I can organize those
notes anyway I like. I could perhaps assign 7 notes to the alphabet like
this
_A= A B=B C=C D=D E=E F=F G=G H= A I = B etc. then i can make melodies
form a word or something else.
I constantly hear new ways of playing ideas. lately it has been hearing to
tonal centers at once. C Major and ebmin and then creating a pitch
collection form that.... etc.. I can cycle chords to go anywhere to a point
of resolution in any tune. The I can hear it in two keys or what you call
polychords.. I can go on and on forever. I just lean more toward the ear
rather than the mind. The theory can sound like shit but ear would never
let me play a wrong note
> From: j...@jackzucker.com (Jack A. Zucker)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: 15 Apr 2002 10:23:50 -0700
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
Jimmy Bruno
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:38:17 -0400
> Subject: Re: Bebop vs. Modal (was Re: horizontal vs. vertical)
the horizontal approach makes me use notes not form the scale or key.. I
hear the 5 outside tones
pmfan57
> I think I've got a little of both in me, but I would have to say that I
> probably (for the most part) fall into the modal catagory in this
> discussion. This is interesting to me because I used to be drawn to
> listening to players who generally play more "modal," but the older I get,
> the more I enjoy the phrasing of the bebop camp.
>
> Most of my practice time these days is spent on developing my skills as a
> bebop player. One area I particularly enjoy that kind of sound is in my solo
> jazz guitar playing. To me, it helps me outline the progression and the
> 'sense' of the tune better when I'm soloing without accompanyment. The more
> I develop my bebop sense of playing, the more I enjoy my own phrasing and
> feel good about my progress as a player.
>
>
> Ted Vieira
>
Where does Pat Martino fit in? He can do both. Listen to joyous
lake. How about Freddie Hubbard? He plays using sequential patterns
and is a "post-bop" player. I think the original usage of horizontal
is more universal and objective. But bebop vs. modal has a lot of
gray. Bill Evans? He helped invent it and really didn't play exactly
like his hero Bud Powell.
Joe
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> Pat Martino uses the logic of the fingerboard to understand and create
> music. none of his thinking has to do with scales or modes in the
> traditional sense.
Then he still has a form of music theory i.e. a concept that he is
proceeding from and expecting to get consistent results from. It's just
his own theory as opposed to Shenker's or Rameau's or Hindemith's or
Russell's. It's still a theory. And his music sure doesn't sound like
he's too worried about where things are on the fretboard. His music and
his lines all make perfect sense on any instrument.
I don't think the same holds true for Robert Johnson. The music he
played on guitar does not translate very well at all to other
instruments. Nor does it stick to many traditional theoretical "rules".
But the early blues guys heard white people playing I IV V cadences all
around them. I IV V cadences and the major/minor key system of tonality
itself are Western European intellectual/theoretical constructs. The
blues guys used their own creative intuition to build upon a harmonic
framework that they had essentially borrowed from European
intellectuals. This harmonic framework that the early blues guys chose
to work in was decidedly simple. Not all great music has to draw upon
every possible intellectual aspect of music making. There is lots of
great music to be found by working within a limited focus.
Just remember that originally the musicians of the tribe were the
leaders, the thinkers, the scientists and the intellectuals. Music came
from somewhere and I don't mean somewhere mystical. Any Tom Dick or
Harry that plays music today is standing on the shoulders of the giants
who came before him and most of today's most successful musicians are
blissfully unaware of it.
Tonal music is in the air now. It's most salient features are firmly
rooted in the subconscious of anyone born into the Western culture. Some
musicians, such as yourself, would rather keep certain aspects of music
making at the subconscious level and draw upon most things from a
totally intuitive level and that's cool. Some of us like to explore the
depths of certain aspects of music making a little bit differently and
bring some of those aspects into the light of day for a while before we
send them back into our subconscious where they belong. If the music
making is any good at all the deepest aspects of it will always have
been well digested by the composer or the player years before the actual
music making and are essentially drawn upon subconsciously. At least
that's the way I see it.
> I still think that the line is what drives the music and
> the vertical sonorities that result are an accident
You have stated this theory of yours before. I think it works both ways
myself and have said this many times as well. But you have yet to
explain the parameters of what makes a good line of the type that you
think "drives the music". In order for you to communicate that concept
successfully to us you are going to have to do some thinking about your
music, i.e. some theorizing of your own. Otherwise you have to give in
to mysticism and say that it all comes from some mysterious place that
can't be understood. If that's the case then why bother trying to
understand it or teach it at all?
Jack A. Zucker
> The theory can sound like shit but ear would never
> let me play a wrong note
Theory doesn't have a sound. It's simply a concept. What sounds like shit to
you might sound like beautiful music to someone else. It's all about opening
your ears.
People like what they know.
Jaz
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
Jack A. Zucker
> What does Paul's theory learning hav to do with Joey's ability to play
> anything without any theory.
> I think the theory thing gets to much attention and not enough attention
> goes to learning to hear.
I give up Jimmy! :-)
Over and over I've stated the opinion that the theory opens your ear to new
sounds. Somehow, you keep omitting that and insisting that I'm saying that
the theory is how you should learn how to play.
Cya
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
Jack A. Zucker
> zack... here are your own words
>
> I used to hear 'Trane playing Dm7 Fm7 and Abm7 runs over the G7 chord. I
> wondered where this came from. Of course I could analyze the notes over
the
> G7 chord and they all made sense but occasionally he would "lay" on F#
notes
> which I "knew" were wrong :-) Eventually, my small mind figured out that
he
> was simply playing standard 'Trane licks built on the 5th, b7, and b9 of
the
> V (G7) chord. It started coming to me...
>
> Let's use the Abdim7 chord and how it relates to dominant 7th chords. Take
a
> look at the notes in the Abdim7 chord enharmonically spelled as (Ab B D
F).
> Now this chord also happens to be, G7b9, Bb7b9, Db7b9, and E7b9 chords.
> Notice that going from the Abdim7 chord to any other chord in the sequence
> involves simply adjusting one note:
>
Horizontal Schmorizontal...
I don't care how you describe it. I never coined (nor lobbied for) the usage
of horizontal vs. vertical in the first place. Frankly, this discussion is
the first time I ever heard those terms used like that. I always thought
they referred to guitarist expressions of playing up and down the neck vs.
across the neck. So there! :-)
You're taking this too personally and getting hung up on semantics.
The theory is for opening your ears. If you chose not to use it or don't
need it fine but don't yell at other folks because they're interested in
other approaches. Thank God we have Bach *AND* Elliot Carter and don't have
to worry about which approach is "legit".
This conversation is scary 'cuz it reminds me too much of classical music.
Ironically, in your arguments against theory (rules), you are creating your
own rules about valid approaches to music. Why be limited? Why not use your
ear *AND* your knowledge.
And by the way, I studied with Martino for a year and am well aware of how
he relates his theoretical concepts of theory to actual playing. It doesn't
matter whether it's horizontal or diagonal! :-/
Jaz (not Zack)
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
Jack A. Zucker
> I happen to agree with what you are saying but I think it also proves my
> point of the importance of the melodic line. Do we need theory to make
> melodic lines? What you are talking about comes from logic and not
theory.
> IMHO
Read my lips:
IT'S ABOUT OPENING YOUR EARS. IT'S ABOUT OPENING YOUR EARS. IT'S ABOUT
OPENING YOUR EARS. IT'S ABOUT OPENING YOUR EARS. IT'S ABOUT OPENING YOUR
EARS. IT'S ABOUT OPENING YOUR EARS. IT'S ABOUT OPENING YOUR EARS. IT'S ABOUT
OPENING YOUR EARS. IT'S ABOUT OPENING YOUR EARS. IT'S ABOUT OPENING YOUR
EARS. IT'S ABOUT OPENING YOUR EARS.
Cya :-)
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> I still can't type you know.
>
> it is horizontal to me because the the clashes don't matter
Of course they matter if you don't know how to handle them ....
vertically <g>
All you are saying Jimmy is that vertical dissonances CAN be resolved
(and not necessarilly only by step) and that when this is done any clash
is inconsequential to the effectiveness of the line.
This is all just about emphasis for me. I know that I if I emphasize a
Db on a Cmaj7 chord that there will be a noticeable b9 interval created
with the root of the chord and that this sound may or may not be
desireable as an effect at that point in musical time. This is just a
vertical FACT and a vertical awareness that I have cultivated. This
doesn't mean that I can't use Db's on Cmaj7, it just means that I have
to take a little bit more care with how I use it than I do with several
other of the possible tones I might play on this chord, like D. It
doesn't even mean that I can't emphasize Db on this chord, just that I
should be aware of the effect that doing this will have.
Usually, on Cmaj7, a Db will resolve by step to either D or C. I.e. You
usually try not to leap *away* from a harsh vertical sonority like this
before resolving it. But there are ways to use Db in a sequence of tones
where leaping away from it sounds perfectly strong too, like when the Db
is part of another arpeggio being superimposed temporarily over the
Cmaj7, like Dbamaj7 or G7b5, etc. Still, if you hang on the tone Db
while the Cmaj7 chord is sounding for a long duration there is a
vertical rub that is seldom welcome. The same can not be said for the
tone D on this chord. It requires no special care.
I am just advocating that musicians should be aware of these FACTS.
There IS a quantifiable difference between the way that each tone in the
12 tone scale will function vertically in any given harmonic situation.
There are also important considerations with regards to the relationship
between the 12 tone scale and the key (my "horizontal") that a
thoughtful musician should take into account.
You just seem to be hell bent still on using the term "horizontal" to
describe the resolution of vertical dissonances. At least I understand
what you mean now, in my own language that is. <g>
Jimmy Bruno
you... that is all
> From: "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:28:42 GMT
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> well to use your coltrane example
> when I first heard giant Steps I could tell what harmony he was outlining
> and was able to play it. Then I started to hear that progression in other
> places as well.
> I didn't have to know what it was to play it or use it:
> You have 12 notes... the possibilities are endless. I can organize those
> notes anyway I like. I could perhaps assign 7 notes to the alphabet like
> this
> _A= A B=B C=C D=D E=E F=F G=G H= A I = B etc. then i can make melodies
> form a word or something else.
I hope you realize that that technique has a theoretical foundation.
One of my pet peeves is that, to me, music theory and melodic/harmonic
technique are really the same thing. I think of all those traditional
classical voice leading "rules" as a particular harmonic technique used
to get a particular musical texture as a result. So the idea of avoiding
parallel 5ths is just one particular technique but I can see that the
idea behind WHY they avoid parallel 5ths (so that the voices seem to
retain more individuality) is really a theory.
The only things that I can see about music that are truly theoretical,
IMO are things like whether or not and how the overtone series affects
the feeling for tonality, or how many vibrations per second a particular
pitch is, or how music is percieved psychologically, etc. Whether or not
I use a b9 is just technique to me, not theory.
> I constantly hear new ways of playing ideas. lately it has been hearing to
> tonal centers at once.
Even you has got to realize that the idea of a tonal center is a theory....
> C Major and ebmin and then creating a pitch
> collection form that.... etc..
....let alone two tonal centers. <g>
> I can cycle chords to go anywhere to a point
> of resolution in any tune. The I can hear it in two keys or what you call
> polychords.. I can go on and on forever. I just lean more toward the ear
> rather than the mind.
Anybody trying to play from any approach should be doing the same.
> The theory can sound like shit but ear would never
> let me play a wrong note
Well I when I first started out my "ears" lead me to some really awfull
sounding stuff. By exposing my self to more and more sounds AND IDEAS my
ears were improved and expanded greatly.
Where are all these "theory players"? Could you name a well known
musician or two who are playing theory based jazz instead of ear based
jazz so that we can judge for ourselves what the results of this
approach might be?
Jimmy Bruno
that term.
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:45:48 -0400
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
>
>
Dan Adler
> d...@danadler.com (Dan Adler) wrote:
> (snip)
> >The point of all this is that I can tell you someone's approach by
> >listening to them for 1 chorus - and the number of people who can live
> >comfortably in both camps is very small.
>
> setting in:))
Clearly modal, especially on your own compositions. In fact, one of
the better examples of modal guitar playing over changes.
Of course, I know better than anyone that you can play the hell out of
bebop, as you did on our jam session:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/danadlermarkkleinhaut
so of course, it's not black and white. Still, the distinction holds,
in the same way people are categorized as being more visual or more
aural or more kinesthetic, etc.
Jimmy Bruno
thing for the past ten years on a national level. I have toured the globe
playing my music. That horizontal thing has gotten me to the Blue note and
Birdland and the JVC festival in New York and Japan and in May the Blue
Note In Vegas . I have given lectures at universities on four continents. I
have been offered huge advances from two major publishers to put my thoughts
down on paper. You think I am going to change because some book says it is
so? I am out there doing it... every day week after week. I think I will
keep my own ideas and you can keep yours.
> From: "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:29:34 GMT
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
Jimmy Bruno
to them for 3 more. you know... I like my horizontal playing !!!
Jack A. Zucker
> You will never change my thinking.
I wasn't trying to and it doesn't matter if you're a Prince and I'm a
pauper.
If studying theoretical approaches opens a player's ears, there's nothing
wrong with that. And that fact has nothing to do with your's or my stature
in life.
Jaz
web: www.jackzucker.com
Jack A. Zucker
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
"Jimmy Bruno" <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote in message
news:B8E11E51.18A6%ji...@jimmybruno.com...
Jimmy Bruno
broke.. don't fix it" No insult was intended at all. you are a great
player as well....
> From: "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:24:08 GMT
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> the horizontal approach makes me use notes not form the scale or key.. I
> hear the 5 outside tones
Geez Jimmy have you not caught on yet that when you say "horizontal" and
when I say "horizontal" we mean different things? I've already let you
know that I understand what you mean, the least you could do is show me
the same consideration or at least appear to.
Once again the sense in which jwragusa, myself and George Russell are
using the term "horizontal" has to do with a melodic preference for
emphasizing tones from the scale of the key over chromatic "vertical"
alterations that the chord of the moment might contain.
And of course you can "use" the 5 tones from outside the key in a
horizontal style but they will not be *emphasized* as much as the tones
from the key. Again it's all about emphasis.
In case you have not yet caught on here's an example:
In the key of C major, when encountering A7 as V7 of IIm, a horizontally
oriented player will tend to emphasize C naturals and B naturals if he
decides to emphasize any type of C or B at all. A vertically oriented
player might target C# or Bb as well as C or B.
The two main scales that a horizontally based jazz melody draws upon are
the major or minor scale associated with tonic of the key or the blues
scale associated with the key. So a horizontally oriented player might
also draws upon the blue notes b3, b5 and b7 within any particular major
(or minor) key.
One of George Russell's great accomplishments was that he figured out
several other related scales that could also be used for a sort of "out"
sounding horizontal playing.
In a nutshell: Horizontal lines apply a single key oriented scale over a
series of chords. Vertical lines use the tones of the chord of the
moment as a basis for the melodic line. This is the sense in which I am
using these terms.
The phenomena that you are describing with your use of "horizontal" are
present in both of the approaches that I am describing as the lines
unfold in time.
Jimmy Bruno
Liberace and Wayne Newton when I lived in Vegas .. oh and Tanya the
elephant. that's when I got out of the musician biz....
Jack A. Zucker
> You got a good sense of humor. I used to have to play the banjo for
> Liberace and Wayne Newton when I lived in Vegas .. oh and Tanya the
> elephant. that's when I got out of the musician biz....
Thanks! I'm glad there's no hard feelings. I thought maybe you had taken it
personally. Believe me, I respect and admire you, your playing and all the
hard work you've put in to get to where you are. None of that has escaped
anyone (least of all, me!)
Take care, :-)
Jaz
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> I didn't know we ere talking about theory players? I don't believe I used
> that term.
Sorry. I didn't mean that to look like I was quoting you directly using
that term. I was just trying to highlight the phrase.
But you have have been implying that a certain type of player approaches
jazz not from his ear but from some sort of a theoretical approach. If
you don't call these cats "theory players" then what do you call them
and who are they? Give me an example please.
Rick Ross
"Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message news:uuIu8.2234>
You're taking this too personally and getting hung up on semantics.
>
Jack..watch the anti-semanticism..there are lansman in the group:)
Jimmy Bruno
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:37:10 -0400
> Subject: Re: Bebop vs. Modal (was Re: horizontal vs. vertical)
>
>
>
I would go for the C# and Bb
Another way
if the chord are a turnaround to a II chord like:
CMa7 F9 em7 A7 I would tell someone that to address that A7 chord you need
to play a C#. So I would demonstrate some line form a C scale over the
progression until I got tot he A7 and then use the C# 'cause C#and Bb are
the only notes that are different.. you only need the one or the other
Maybe build a dim arpeggio from it as well ( the Bb)
or the other way is to keep playing the C scale and let the chord color the
line. as long as you come up with a good line it all works. I think good
playing is a combination of both but to me I call that horizontal I have
never heard the term used in the way you mean but I'm sure it is correct
Jimmy Bruno
.. that approach worked to a certain degree then I seemed to have hit a rut.
That's when I started thinking about the guitar in a different light., which
led to some other ideas about music itself. PS : Liberace hated my
horizontal term. we use to argue about it all night long. !!!!!
> From: "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:42:01 GMT
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
Joey Goldstein
Well there ya go. We're saying the same thing just with different words
just as I thought. But isn't it funny that with my words you turned out
to be a "vertical" player! <g>
Jimmy Bruno
think we all fall prey to it at one time or another.
maybe some students at music college
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:47:22 -0400
> Subject: Re: horizontal vs. vertical
>
>
>
Jimmy Bruno
Joe Finn
> LOL !!!!! that is funny..
>
You think that's funny? Last year after coming off the bandstand one night
this woman who I had never seen before in my life runs up to me, throws here
arms around me and gives me a big wet kiss right on the lips. Then she
breathes in my ear, "Honey, that was a *vertical* expression of a
*horizontal* desire....".
I shit you not.
Lucky me 8-) .............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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Bob Russell
ji...@jimmybruno.com wrote on 4/15/02 7:39 PM:
> You got a good sense of humor. I used to have to play the banjo for
> Liberace and Wayne Newton when I lived in Vegas .. oh and Tanya the
> elephant. that's when I got out of the musician biz....
Somebody I knew referred to banjo doubling as "the musical equivalent of
coal mining".
-- Bob Russell
http://www.uncwil.edu/people/russellr
Nazodesu
LAZZERINI
LAZZ
LAZZERINI
LAZZ
Charlie Robinson
<< Nazodesu >>
------------------------------
Kleinhaut------------
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear me online at: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
or: <A HREF="http://rmmgj.iuma.com">http://rmmgj.iuma.com</A>
David Baxter
>
> > I grew up on the Bebop way of thinking and I find it very hard to
> > 'cross over' to the modal way of thinking. Other people like Scofield
> > grew up on modal and you can make the argument that their Bebop
> > playing is not as convincing as their modal playing.
>
> I think you're way off base here with Sco. I have never heard him play a
> single mode for more than 2 beats. Scofield can play the shit out of the
> bebop repertoire he just refuses to play the same cliched lines that are
> expected if you are a "bebop player". Sco is a Sco player. You can't peg
> him. It's just him. As far as vertical vs horizontal is concerned he
> does it all and draws on it all all the time. He can play up and down
> the chord or the key and superimpose 3 other keys or chords at the same
> time. Same with Metheny. These guys just don't sound like classical
> bebop players because their phrasing, their sound, their note choice,
> etc. is entirely personal and unique to them. That's the way they want
> it too. They don't sit around thinking "Gee Wes did this. Wes did that."
> They're too busy being themselves. They can still play the shit out of
> that repertoire. They could get on the bandstand with anyone playing
> that stuff and play their asses off and swing like hell if they want to
> but they will still sound like themselves.
>
Thanks for setting the record straight on Sco. I shudder to think
what someone might think of him if they had only heard his releases of
the past decade (does anyone here dig the sound he is getting at the
moment?).
But I would add that Sco isn't afraid to steal licks, he was saying
recently how he was playing a certain Charlie Parker figure a lot. In
fact that's how he says he learnt - by playing Parker licks.
He would also steal from Miles.
Don't know how much he thought about the "incline" of his playing.
I'd put him at 45 degrees :)
Oh and Sco has to be THE jazz guitarist of all time as he's the only
one of ours who would come close to upstaging the aforementioned
greats on a gig. (Pat Meth sound not macho enough)
Anyone see Sco with the Herbie Hancock All Stars in the mid 90's?
Stole the show on the gig I saw.
--
Dave Baxter
Thom_j.
"Nazodesu" <mus...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:150420022116424265%mus...@adelphia.net...
Dan Adler
> improviser than it does with the nature of the composition. The modal
> tunes pioneered by Miles and 'Trane simply had less chords so the player
> had more time to explore certain relationships both vertical and
> horizontal ON A SINGLE CHORD.
Joey,
This was true historically for the 60's. But, 40 years later, it has
come to mean an approach to improvising over chord changes. The old
meaning of static harmony was just the starting point.
I know Scofield can play the Bebop repertoire, but he doesn't think
like a bebopper, and I don't mean anything negative by that.
If you watch Scofield's video, he always thinks of the mode built from
the root of the chord that is on the paper. That's the modal approach.
I don't like to call it vertical of horizontal because I can't
remember which is which. Bebop and Modal don't confuse me.
Dan Adler
> Where does Pat Martino fit in? He can do both. Listen to joyous
> lake. How about Freddie Hubbard? He plays using sequential patterns
> and is a "post-bop" player. I think the original usage of horizontal
> is more universal and objective. But bebop vs. modal has a lot of
> gray. Bill Evans? He helped invent it and really didn't play exactly
> like his hero Bud Powell.
> Joe
I agree there is lots of gray - nothing is clear cut. I'm just saying
there is an overall approach. It's hard to label a way of thinking.
I'm not referring to the repertoire that people play - just their
approach to improvisation. Pat Martino is a beboper in that regard no
matter what he plays.
Freddie Hubbard - can do both, but primarily modal since the 60's
Bill Evans - bebop all the way
A lot of elements that Bill Evans brought in were adopted by modal
players like Chick Corea and Herbie Hancock, but Bill Evans himself
himself didn't think modally as far as I can tell.
Jimmy Bruno
> From: "Joe Finn" <J...@joefinn.net>
> Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 80,000+ UNCENSORED
> Newsgroups.
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:30:32 -0400
> Subject: Re: Bebop vs. Modal (was Re: horizontal vs. vertical)
>
Jimmy Bruno
> From: Nazodesu <mus...@adelphia.net>
> Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 04:16:42 GMT
> Subject: Re: Bebop vs. Modal (was Re: horizontal vs. vertical)
>
Tom Walls
n2r...@DELETETHISOUTcomcast.THISTOOnet says...
> PA 5, OH 1, CAN 5, :)
>
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Mark Kleinhaut
robins...@aol.com (Charlie Robinson) wrote:
><< I've been gone for awhile. Who's winning? >
>
><< Nazodesu >>
>------------------------------
>Kleinhaut------------
>
>Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
HUH? Waddid I do?
--------------------Mark Kleinhaut
markkl...@hotmail.com
Info and soundclips about:
"Chasing Tales":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Chasing%20Tales.html
"Amphora":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
"Secrets of Three": http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/SO3.html
Charlie Robinson
>
><< Nazodesu >>
>------------------------------
>Kleinhaut------------
>
>Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, >>
I felt that the situation warrented some levity at this point.
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer