What's covered in Bruno's "Inside Outside Jazz Guitar"?
R
Outside Jazz Guitar." The limited outlines that I've seen indicate
that it's a continuation of his first video. Is it necessary to have
the first video before this will make sense?
Also, does it focus on outside playing, or is that just a tangential
thing? I'm looking for something that primarily covers jazz
approaches for getting outside, so maybe this isn't it?
Paul
i don't know what's in that video, but if i were you, my approach to
playing outside wouldn't be trying to learn things that sound
"outside," it would be getting more and more different things to sound
inside. ex. one of the things i'm working on is play triads from the
diminished scale over a dominant chord, so like over C7 in a 2-5-1 you
could play the 4 triads that come out of the c-half-whole diminished
scale (giving it a b9, #11, and/or natural 13) , which are c, eb, gb
and A triads. i particularly like the gb and a triads...but you could
probably make any triad work over any chord, so that's my next step.
so that's how i'm working on playing more out, is by trying to get
these sounds in my head and under my fingers so that they sound
in....hope this helps
Paul
jimmybruno
It's not about outside playing at all.. That was a dumbtitle that one
of the producers came up with. I have re-tooled my teaching approach
a lot since then. It's almost ten years old. Go to jimmybruno.com
and then go to the online school. There's plenty of info about the
site and what's in it. I believe there are sample lessons as
well.===JB
R
<ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote:
>On May 30, 4:04锟絧m, R <R...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Curious about the content and approach of Jimmy Bruno's "Inside
>> Outside Jazz Guitar." 锟絋he limited outlines that I've seen indicate
>> that it's a continuation of his first video. 锟絀s it necessary to have
>> the first video before this will make sense?
>>
>> Also, does it focus on outside playing, or is that just a tangential
>> thing? 锟絀'm looking for something that primarily covers jazz
>> approaches for getting outside, so maybe this isn't it?
>
>It's not about outside playing at all.. That was a dumbtitle that one
>of the producers came up with.
Well that's good to know. <g> I'm looking for something that runs
down various methods of getting outside in jazz domain. I know that
sometimes it's as simple as a semitone sidestep, but there's a way of
getting in and out that can be elusive.
And some players can stay out forever without sounding disjointed.
That's what I'd really love to learn.
> I have re-tooled my teaching approach
>a lot since then. It's almost ten years old. Go to jimmybruno.com
>and then go to the online school. There's plenty of info about the
>site and what's in it. I believe there are sample lessons as
>well.===JB
Thanks, I'll check that out, Jimmy.
R
wrote:
>On May 30, 4:04锟絧m, R <R...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Curious about the content and approach of Jimmy Bruno's "Inside
>> Outside Jazz Guitar." 锟絋he limited outlines that I've seen indicate
>> that it's a continuation of his first video. 锟絀s it necessary to have
>> the first video before this will make sense?
>>
>> Also, does it focus on outside playing, or is that just a tangential
>> thing? 锟絀'm looking for something that primarily covers jazz
>> approaches for getting outside, so maybe this isn't it?
>
>i don't know what's in that video, but if i were you, my approach to
>playing outside wouldn't be trying to learn things that sound
>"outside," it would be getting more and more different things to sound
>inside.
We may be talking about the same thing. If I just wanted to sound
dissonant, I could manage easily. But there's a grace and intent
that's evident in the great jazz players. Thought that some may have
elaborated on various methods for doing that.
> ex. one of the things i'm working on is play triads from the
>diminished scale over a dominant chord, so like over C7 in a 2-5-1 you
>could play the 4 triads that come out of the c-half-whole diminished
>scale (giving it a b9, #11, and/or natural 13) , which are c, eb, gb
>and A triads. i particularly like the gb and a triads...but you could
>probably make any triad work over any chord, so that's my next step.
I have a Pat Martino video that elaborates at great lengths on turning
dim7's into dom7's. Never got the underlying reason for doing that
(nor has anyone else that I've spoken to about it), and the video
never explored it as a mechanism for getting out.
In fact, the b9 is a rather abrupt transition (as opposed to b5/#4 or
whatever) if the 9th isn't altered to begin with. I'll check your
recommendation for m3rd and tritone juxtapositions though. Sounds
like you're getting that to work well.
>so that's how i'm working on playing more out, is by trying to get
>these sounds in my head and under my fingers so that they sound
>in....hope this helps
That makes sense, Paul. Often it's said that the main requirement is
'conviction' but that's wishful thinking. There's another language
there.
d...@danadler.com
I don't think any guitarists really play "outside" in anything near
the convincing manner of the sax players like Coltrane, Grossman,
Berg, Bergonzi, Brecker, Liebman, Garzone, etc. So, why not go to the
source and try to figure out how to transfer it to guitar rather than
try to figure out how someone else figured out how to transfer it to
guitar?
Joey Goldstein
>>> Curious about the content and approach of Jimmy Bruno's "Inside
>>> that it's a continuation of his first video. Is it necessary to have
>>> the first video before this will make sense?
>>>
>>> Also, does it focus on outside playing, or is that just a tangential
>>> approaches for getting outside, so maybe this isn't it?
>> It's not about outside playing at all.. That was a dumbtitle that one
>> of the producers came up with.
>
> Well that's good to know. <g> I'm looking for something that runs
> down various methods of getting outside in jazz domain. I know that
> sometimes it's as simple as a semitone sidestep, but there's a way of
> getting in and out that can be elusive.
>
> And some players can stay out forever without sounding disjointed.
> That's what I'd really love to learn.
>
>> I have re-tooled my teaching approach
>> a lot since then. It's almost ten years old. Go to jimmybruno.com
>> and then go to the online school. There's plenty of info about the
>> site and what's in it. I believe there are sample lessons as
>> well.===JB
>
> Thanks, I'll check that out, Jimmy.
>
Check out David Liebman's book and Aebersold play-a-long - A Chromatic
Approach To Jazz Improv...
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Gared Haus
If you want to learn about outside playing then you should look at the
Don Mock book on the Melodic Minor scale. It covers a lot of things
that'll help you to sound outside.
I think it has an awful lot to do with how you phrase when you are
playing those outside notes. If you dont have them in a tasteful
phrase then they will sound wrong, if you know what I mean. An easy
way to go outside is, when you have a dom 7 chord, play a minor
pentatonic scale a minor 3rd up. Say you're playing over an A7 chord -
play a C minor pentatonic run.
Gared.
Gerry
> Check out David Liebman's book and Aebersold play-a-long - A Chromatic
> Approach To Jazz Improv...
There are a number of books/cd's by Leibman available from Aebersold.
One very significant book would be "A Chromatic Approach to Jazz
Harmony and Melody", published by Advance Music, 1991. Just an
incredible resource for the topic. It's surprising to me that it's now
18 years old.
It's not an easy and straight-ahead book that one can flip through and
learn a few licks out of. It's a very deep book and has enough
material to work on (and think about) all the days of your life.
It's available at Amazon and at Aebersold's www.jazzbooks.com.
--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.
Gerry
Another run or lick-driven approach would be to play a simple motif and
then play the same motif in random locations. It "sounds outside" too,
and hardly demands any understanding of what you're doing. ;-)
It's pretty easy to adopt "an attitude" to this approach by listening
to Albert Ayler, Cecil Tayler, Archie Shepp and others from the
mid/late-60's. I guess the difference is whether you want to play a
little outside or want to go outside and stay there for a while. The
later demands a lot of concentration and a few very focused
compatriots, or significant amounts of booze and a certain level of
detachment. I'm not sure how much audience there is for any of it.
And after a while, if you don't get the "shock and awe" payback you
find yourself drawn, inextricably, to pllaying "Misty" or "Moonlight in
Vermont".
I've had two points in life where I played avant garde music. One was
an honest exploration that ran out of gas because in the end, we young
players found a road with no map at all (though initially "freeing) to
be as problematic as a road that had too many maps (like jazz theory,
complex changes, mastery of scales/arps). The other was a few
musicians playing in art Galleries in Soho or Dallas's Deep Ellum. If
it's a good night you get a lot of attention and respect. But it sure
takes a lot of focus--or as I indicated--not at all.
R
>I don't think any guitarists really play "outside" in anything near
>the convincing manner of the sax players...
...
I wonder why that is.
Of course there's Holdsworth, but his approach is not starting at the
same place. In this case, I was interested in how the mainstream jazz
guys do it.
>... like Coltrane, Grossman,
>Berg, Bergonzi, Brecker, Liebman, Garzone, etc. So, why not go to the
>source and try to figure out how to transfer it to guitar rather than
>try to figure out how someone else figured out how to transfer it to
>guitar?
You just named most of the guys that I listen to, and they all have
their own approaches to coloring outside of the lines. I'm not real
interested in completely out, as some of Garzone's things are, but one
of my favorite shows was Garzone with Elvin. Just brilliant. Exactly
what I'm looking for.
Unfortunately a lot of the sax stuff is tough to do on guitar.
Fingering, range, and all. And doesn't always transfer well.
R
wrote:
>Another run or lick-driven approach would be to play a simple motif and
>then play the same motif in random locations. It "sounds outside" too,
>and hardly demands any understanding of what you're doing. ;-)
>
>It's pretty easy to adopt "an attitude" to this approach by listening
>to Albert Ayler, Cecil Tayler, Archie Shepp and others from the
>mid/late-60's.
Usually too far out for what I am looking for. Cecil, for instance,
maintains some kind of tenuous thread with tonaliy, but it's tough to
discern. I do like a lot of dissonant and atonal classical stuff, and
I really wanted to like Cecil, but I just don't care for the sound.
And good luck to anyone who tries that on guitar. <g>
>I guess the difference is whether you want to play a
>little outside or want to go outside and stay there for a while.
I think that's the art of it--leaning over the edge without falling
off. But I've heard some players (mostly sax guys) that can do that
almost indefinitely. That's the sound that I'm after. Now if someone
could just crunch down the methodology into something 'teachable'...
Keith Freeman
> the convincing manner of the sax players
emotion into guitar sound in the way a horn can.
-Keith
Clips, Portable Changes, tips etc.: www.keithfreemantrio.nl
e-mail: info AT keithfreemantrio DOT nl
hw
<d...@danadler.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:f071e9ef-0705-49a0...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
rodney jones. his videos on mucony are great lessons how to reach for more
modern sounds.
tomw...@gmail.com
Now if someone
> could just crunch down the methodology into something 'teachable'...
I second Joey's recommendation of Liebman's book. Sounds like just
what you're looking for.
tomsalvojazz
I think two examples of guitarists who employ an outside approach very
convincingly are John Scofield and Larry Carlton, who has discussed
using the semitone up/down approach and the melodic minor scale. I
don't know how Sco does it, but it works.
"Inside Outside Jazz Guitar" does touch upon playing outside a
little. It's a great video to have anyway, but watching "No Nonse
Jazz Guitar" first brings some relevance to the topics. But as
Jimmy's teaching process is evolutionary, these are not representative
of his current methodologies.
KenK
the convincing manner of the sax players like Coltrane, Grossman,
Berg, Bergonzi, Brecker, Liebman, Garzone, etc. So, why not go to the
source and try to figure out how to transfer it to guitar rather than
try to figure out how someone else figured out how to transfer it to
guitar?
That's cuz guitar players are to busy imitating each other to really
learn
what jazz is about... ; )
Derek
>"Inside Outside Jazz Guitar" does touch upon playing outside a
>little. It's a great video to have anyway, but watching "No Nonse
>Jazz Guitar" first brings some relevance to the topics. But as
>Jimmy's teaching process is evolutionary, these are not representative
>of his current methodologies.
I agree with this assessment. Plus, there are some really nice lines
in IOJG.
I have not ventured into the Institute yet, but have both this vids,
and have enjoyed them.
tomw...@gmail.com
> That's cuz guitar players are to busy imitating each other to really
> learn
> what jazz is about... ; )
Imitation is a great way to learn music. I've been obsessively
listening to Emily Remler and Jim Hall for about a week and I'm
guessing that by imitating these two a player could learn everything
you know about jazz and then some. ;-)
Gared Haus
Howard Roberts had a column in Guitar Player magazine years ago about
his "sonic shapes," which he uses to get outside sounding licks.
Basically he'd think of lick as a shape and move it around the
fretboard. It's quite a simple and effective method.
G
KenK
Personally I was always more into imitating horns and pianos.
I don't have documented evidence, but I suspect that's what the early
generation of guitarists did.
tomw...@gmail.com
What precisely is there about jazz that one can't learn from Jim Hall
and Emily Remler? Spontaneity? Imagination? Swing? Soul? Lyricism?
What is missing that you'll need to consult your favorite horn player
or pianist?
Joey Goldstein
There are two axes along which a musical line can be said to be "outside".
1. The line emphasizes notes that are outside of the scales normally
associated with the key the music is in at that moment.
[Major keys are associated with the maj scale built on the tonic of the key.
Minor keys are based on 3 scales built on the tonic: natural minor,
harmonic minor, and melodic minor.]
2. The line emphasizes notes that clash vertically with the
chord-of-the-moment.
Many of the suggestions for "outside" playing techniques that have been
offered so far in this thread are not really "outside" ideas in my
opinion. They may be dense, but they are not really outside.
Let's examine this notion of using a maj pentatonic from the b5 of a
dom7 chord, eg. using Db maj pent (aka Bb minor pentatonic) on G7. Let's
say the G7 is part of a V7-I progression in C minor.
Here is a list of the functions of the notes within Db maj pent on a
G7#5b9 chord:
Db (#11) Eb (#5) F(b7) Ab(b9) Bb(#9)
All those note "fit" on G7. None of them are "outside" on G7.
All those notes, except for Db, are also found in the regular scales
associated with the key of C minor. The Db can be seen as being borrowed
from the parallel phrygian scale, which is a more exotic type of "minor
scale".
When this sound is used on a V7-I progression in C major the analysis is
that we're borrowing sounds from the parallel minor key.
So, to me, this is an example of very "inside" playing.
[Borrowing from the parallel minor is usually an harmonic affair and is
not normally just done within the melody alone. So using Db maj pent
over a G7(9,13) chord *would* be a form of "outside" playing even by my
definitions.]
The idea of melodic minor lines has been offered up also as a way of
playing "outside". But most of the ways that mel min scales are used in
jazz are in situations where the notes of the mel min scale are fully
inside the chord-of-the-moment.
These sounds only sound "outside" to someone whose ears are not yet
familiar with them. They *are* a little exotic, or modern sounding, when
compared to classical music or folk music. But they are all fairly
common within modern jazz of a fairly straight-ahead nature.
So, to be truly "outside" a line has to really be pushing the boundaries
of the key-of-the-moment or of the chord-of-the-moment.
But it's not really even as simple as that either.
There is a whole pantheon of melodic and harmonic devices that create
harsh dissonance (either against the key of the chord) but that are
quickly resolved, and they hardly sound "outside". Appoggiaturas,
passing tones. etc. can all occur in single note lines and also as full
chords.
As far as being outside of a major key is concerned, we're looking at
emphasizing: b2, b3, b5, b6, and b7 (without resolving them in obvious
ways).
But since b3 and b7 are so prevalent as borrowed sounds from the
parallel minor scale ala blues playing they hardly seem "outside" to
most folks ears these days.
The outside notes in minor keys are:
b2, 3 and #4, especially 3.
All the rest of the notes in the chromatic scale are found within the 3
typical minor scales associated with minor keys.
As far as being outside of a chord is concerned, most notes that are a
1/2 step (or b9) *above* a chord tone will tend to clash with the chord.
There are a few common exceptions to this though (Eg. b9 on dom7 chords).
So on a Cmaj7 chord, as Imaj7 in C major, the most "outside" notes will
be Db and Ab. These notes are quite outside of the key and also clash
with the chord.
Still outside, but a little bit less-so IMO will be, Eb and Bb. Neither
of these notes are a 1/2 step *above* a chord tone, but they are outside
of the key.
F is a strong note in the key but clashes vertically with the E in the
chord. So emphasizing F on Cmaj7 can sound quite "outside".
F# is outside of the key but fits the chord. It's quite common these
days for jazz players to emphasize #11 on Imaj7 chords, so it doesn't
sound all that "outside" to modern ears.
The remaining 6 notes of the chromatic scale are all "inside" of both
the chord and the key.
C(root) D(9) E(3) G(5) A(13) B(7)
So, one way to really play "outside" on Cmaj7, as Imaj7, would be to
emphasize the notes of a Dbmaj chord.
But if you outline Dbmaj and then resolve quickly into one of the 6
"inside" notes listed above (especially the notes of a c triad), all
you've really done is an extended arpeggiated chordal appoggiatura,
hardly "outside" at all.
Another aspect of "outside" playing is that it always involves competing
tonal centres (aka bi-tonality) in one way or another.
One way to explore this is simply by outlining strong sounds you are
already familiar with (eg. scales, maj pentatonic scales, maj7 arps,
min7 arps, etc.) on top of chords that these sounds are not normally
associated with.
An interesting effect can be achieved by outlining a chord whose notes
are all vertically strong on the actual chord-of-the-moment.
Eg. Outlining Em7 over Cmaj7 as Imaj7 in C.
This is a highly inside sound, even though it has a slight hint of
bi-tonality to it.
Now, if you play a scale that is associated with Em7 but that has
outside notes on Cmaj7 you'll be bringing out the bi-tonal effects even
more. Eg. E dorian over Cmaj7.
Here's another more dense example.
The notes of Emaj7 are all strong notes on G7.
E(13) G#(b9) B(3) D#(b13)
It's unusual having both 13 and b13 present in a chord voicing, but not
in a single-note line over a chord.
You could outline Emaj7 over G7 as V7 in a V7-I or V7-Im progression and
it would sound reasonably inside but with a whiff of bi-tonality.
But, if you use the E maj scale or the E lyd scale to outline that Emaj7
chord this will get a lot more "out".
Here's an example that everybody playing modern jazz needs to understand.
The notes of Db7 are all strong notes on G7.
Db(#11) F(b7) Ab(b9) Cb(3)
Outlining Db7 over G7 in a V7-I or V7-Im progression is pretty common
fare. Db7 is known as the "tritone substitute dominant" for G7.
If we associate the 4th mode of Ab mel min with this Db7 chord then we
have a pitch collection in which all 7 notes are inside the G7 chord as
well as the Db7 chord.
Db(#11) Eb(b13) F(b7) G(root) Ab(b9) Bb(#9) Cb(3)
[Starting this scale on G it is known as the "G altered dominant scale".]
Using this sound on G7 is pretty common fare among modern jazz players.
IMO It's an example of intermediate to advanced "inside" playing.
But if we associate a Db mixolydian scale with our Db7 chord things get
a bit more "out". Even this is a fairly common sound these days, when
used skillfully. To make it sound more out the trick is to emphasize the
note Gb a bit more.
Hope that gives you food for thought.
Joey Goldstein
The fact that both of these players themselves looked to horn players
and piano players for fluidity.
george4908
> and Emily Remler? Spontaneity? Imagination? Swing? Soul? Lyricism?
> What is missing that you'll need to consult your favorite horn player
I don't know that anything is missing, but listening to and playing
along with almost any instrument outside your own is a good way of
forcing yourself to break away from guitaristic or lick-based patterns
that are easy to fall into.
KenK
> What precisely is there about jazz that one can't learn from Jim Hall
> and Emily Remler? Spontaneity? Imagination? Swing? Soul? Lyricism?
> What is missing that you'll need to consult your favorite horn player
> or pianist?
It's sort of about working from a narrow gene base or not.
Just my preference and something I always advise my students to
attempt.
Reaching outside of the guitar box is a good thing imo.
KenK
jimmybruno
One of the best things you can do for your guitar playing is to listen
to piano and horn players. This is assuming you have a good enough ear
to know what they are playing without trying to find every note. You
should be able to hear a line or phrase and at least have some idea of
what notes just went by.
Derek
>
> It's sort of about working from a narrow gene base or not.
> Just my preference and something I always advise my students to
> attempt.
> Reaching outside of the guitar box is a good thing imo.
>
I get this, but I get a little weary of hearing guys talking about
wanting to sound like horn or piano players.
Pick a different instrument, might be a suggestion. Sometimes I get
the sense that there is a feeling guitar is inferior to a horn as a
soloing instrument.
Sco to me sounds the most like a horn player. He seldom plays long
lines, and has plenty of "outside" ideas going on.
He takes pauses that could be heard as breaths I suppose.
tomw...@gmail.com
> > and Emily Remler? Spontaneity? Imagination? Swing? Soul? Lyricism?
> > What is missing that you'll need to consult your favorite horn player
> > or pianist?-
>
> I don't know that anything is missing
And that's my point.
KenK says...
> >That's cuz guitar players are to busy imitating each other to really
> > learn
> > what jazz is about... ; )
...as though guitarists as a species are lacking in some unnamed
attribute which is crucial to jazz.
, but listening to and playing
> along with almost any instrument outside your own is a good way of
> forcing yourself to break away from guitaristic or lick-based patterns
> that are easy to fall into.
Of course, but IMHO that's another matter entirely.
tomw...@gmail.com
>
> > What precisely is there about jazz that one can't learn from Jim Hall
> > and Emily Remler? Spontaneity? Imagination? Swing? Soul? Lyricism?
> > What is missing that you'll need to consult your favorite horn player
> > or pianist?
>
> The fact that both of these players themselves looked to horn players
> and piano players for fluidity.
>
See my reply to george4908.
tomsalvojazz
Joey never ceases to freakin' amaze me. I would love to see an
instructional video from you, Joey! ;-)
Joey Goldstein
What makes you think I can actually play? :-)
Greger Hoel
> What precisely is there about jazz that one can't learn from Jim Hall
> and Emily Remler? Spontaneity? Imagination? Swing? Soul? Lyricism?
> What is missing that you'll need to consult your favorite horn player
> or pianist?
I suppose this ain't exactly what you're asking for, but what I find
lacking in jazz guitar is the lack of primal scream, for lack of a better
expression. You don't hear jazz guitarist go completely balls to the wall
apeshit, like Coltrane did and Liebman does. At least I have yet to hear
it. When going for the peak, jazz guitarists seem to always look for the
answer in faster flurries of notes or more clever choice of notes. They
rarely go to that raw, scraping naked nerves place.
I guess I'm saying that I'd like to hear a jazz guitarist with Jeff Beck's
range or register or whatever.
--
Sendt med Operas revolusjonerende e-postprogram: http://www.opera.com/mail/
rpjazz...@gmail.com
emphasize his compositions and ensemble play -- solos are generally
limited in length. But, live at a jam, he has several higher gears.
His energy level, at its peak, rivals anybody I've heard on any
instrument.
But, on the other hand, I've heard several well known players who
played great (including some of my favorite players, e.g. Jim Hall),
but didn't have that kind of high gear.
Gerry
> What precisely is there about jazz that one can't learn from Jim Hall
> and Emily Remler? Spontaneity? Imagination? Swing? Soul? Lyricism?
> What is missing that you'll need to consult your favorite horn player
> or pianist?
It's a two-fer:
rmmgj Discussion #5 - All instrumentalists should look to saxophone
players and maybe trumpets in learning phrasing and all other aspects
of "voice".
---
rmmgj Discussion #6 - In the big historic picture of jazz, guitarists
are irrelevant. With the possible exception of Charlie Christian, none
had any notable effect on the development of jazz.
Gerry
> The fact that both of these players themselves looked to horn players
> and piano players for fluidity.
Seems to me guitarists would be able to show you these concepts
actualized on the guitar, despite the general implication that if good,
it must have come from a sax or piano player. This seems like a more
direct approach than listening to myriad other instruments or
recordings on other instruments, and then trying to figure it a
"translation" for yourself. As we know, despite all laber, some
translations will never work. Since we'll never have the note-control
a horn player has, you'd think we'd look to guitarists for some of this.
There's nothing inherently wrong with judiciously avoiding being
influenced by one person or style. But it has always seemed logical
for guitarists to study guitarists that they admire.
There is a definite utility to studying diverse players, instruments
and styles. And also think it's useful to study the visual arts,
literature, poetry and film. But out of the full range of options, I
think studying guitarists to enhance your guitar skills makes perfect
sense.
And I realize I'm almost completely alone in this "maverick" viewpoint.
Gerry
> I get this, but I get a little weary of hearing guys talking about
> wanting to sound like horn or piano players.
Cool! Want to start a club?
> Pick a different instrument, might be a suggestion. Sometimes I get
> the sense that there is a feeling guitar is inferior to a horn as a
> soloing instrument.
Me too. I think the general reduced-capability for reading sometimes
exacerbates that. Also the way guitar was generally dismissed as a
"legitimate" instrument in colleges and universities for so long, and
still is in many institutions.
> Sco to me sounds the most like a horn player. He seldom plays long
> lines, and has plenty of "outside" ideas going on.
>
> He takes pauses that could be heard as breaths I suppose.
Every good soloist should make explicit use of rests, and produce solos
(very generally) in phrases. Like any other instrument. I've always
thought we respond to phrases because the mind is geared to human
speech. Which is also demarked by breath.
Gerry
I think of it as the *appearance" of loss of control. Like crying,
screaming or wailing from a human voice. Horns can and will always be
able to more accurately replicate the human voice, particularly the sax
and cello (to these ears). So guitars and pianos and flutes can only
go so far in this direction.
Joey Goldstein
> So guitars and pianos ... can only go
Unless you bring in technology, ala overdriven guitar amps and/or guitar
triggered synthesizers.
And then they won't let you call yourself a "jazz" musician.
tomw...@gmail.com
> På Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:28:08 +0200, skrev <tomwa...@gmail.com>:
>
> > What precisely is there about jazz that one can't learn from Jim Hall
> > and Emily Remler? Spontaneity? Imagination? Swing? Soul? Lyricism?
> > What is missing that you'll need to consult your favorite horn player
> > or pianist?
>
> I suppose this ain't exactly what you're asking for, but what I find
> lacking in jazz guitar is the lack of primal scream, for lack of a better
> expression. You don't hear jazz guitarist go completely balls to the wall
> apeshit, like Coltrane did and Liebman does. At least I have yet to hear
> it. When going for the peak, jazz guitarists seem to always look for the
> answer in faster flurries of notes or more clever choice of notes. They
> rarely go to that raw, scraping naked nerves place.
> I guess I'm saying that I'd like to hear a jazz guitarist with Jeff Beck's
> range or register or whatever.
>
You make a good point, Greger, although, I must say, I don't miss this
particular aspect all that much. I think I could find some if I was
really looking for it; maybe Jean-Paul Bourelly, Marc Ribot, David
Fiuczynski, John McLaughlin and Larry Coryell back in the day.
But I was really contradicting the implication that you couldn't go to
guitar to find out what jazz was all about.
thomas
> På Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:28:08 +0200, skrev <tomwa...@gmail.com>:
>
> > What precisely is there about jazz that one can't learn from Jim Hall
> > and Emily Remler? Spontaneity? Imagination? Swing? Soul? Lyricism?
> > What is missing that you'll need to consult your favorite horn player
> > or pianist?
>
> I suppose this ain't exactly what you're asking for, but what I find
> lacking in jazz guitar is the lack of primal scream, for lack of a better
> expression. You don't hear jazz guitarist go completely balls to the wall
> apeshit, like Coltrane did and Liebman does. At least I have yet to hear
> it. When going for the peak, jazz guitarists seem to always look for the
> answer in faster flurries of notes or more clever choice of notes. They
> rarely go to that raw, scraping naked nerves place.
> I guess I'm saying that I'd like to hear a jazz guitarist with Jeff Beck's
> range or register or whatever.
Like Sonny Sharrock with chops, say?
Gerry
> Gerry wrote:
>> So guitars and pianos ... can only go so far in this direction.
>
> Unless you bring in technology, ala overdriven guitar amps and/or
> guitar triggered synthesizers.
And then they can theoretically go farther, but again can only go so
far in that direction.
> And then they won't let you call yourself a "jazz" musician.
Well you have to give things up for progress... :-)
d...@danadler.com
Greger,
I have to admit that I totally agree with you on that... I couldn't
have said it better myself. The subdued sound of jazz guitar is
definitely not conducive to creating emotional drama.
Joey Goldstein
But then again, the subdued sound of jazz guitar does have its own
merits as well.
Gerry
> I have to admit that I totally agree with you on that... I couldn't
> have said it better myself. The subdued sound of jazz guitar is
> definitely not conducive to creating emotional drama.
You say that like there's only one kind of sound of jazz guitar;
subdued. It's true a subdued sound on the guitar doesn't produce a lot
of feelings antithetical to "subdued". But all the edgy, bitey,
anarchic and other sounds produced by jazz guitarists don't sound very
subdued.
It's like subdued sound of, say, Paul Desmond. It's so, well, subdued.
pmfan57
The one guitarist that goes balls to the wall like Liebman et al. is
usually put down as not being a jazz guitarist. He lives in
California but is originally from England. And he played with Soft
Machine and Tony Williams.
d...@danadler.com
KenK
Well- One thing specifically I'm talking about is comping.
Guitarists tend to comp w/ mostly block chords.
Pianists (and keys in general) do that too, but also will play under
the soloist in a melodic way. I'm thinking about Monk, Ellington,
Herbie and McCoy.
It's technically difficult to do that on the guitar but not
impossible.
If I listen to jazz guitarist play blues, I hear a lot of that
pentatonic blues shape that's so easy on our instrument.
But If I listen to Miles, J Hodges or Cootie Williams play 'gutbucket'
blues, I don't hear that so much. What I hear from them is more
"vocal".
That's what I mean as something to reach for that's from another
instrument.
Anyway it works for me.
KenK
Claus Rogge
> Joey never ceases to freakin' amaze me.
Me 2. I have a few text files on my desktop called "GoldsteinOn(Topic,
in this case OutsidePlaying).txt", all derived from his postings here.
> I would love to see an
> instructional video from you, Joey! ;-)
You could buy his book ...
--
Music at the iTunes Store:
http://tinyurl.com/57ots3
The rest of it:
http://tinyurl.com/73efjm
d...@danadler.com
> tomsalvojazz <tomsa...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > Joey never ceases to freakin' amaze me.
>
> Me 2. I have a few text files on my desktop called "GoldsteinOn(Topic,
> in this case OutsidePlaying).txt", all derived from his postings here.
>
That's cool. Joey always puts everyone else to shame by actually
answering the questions in detail in what ends up being a complete
mini-lesson...
tomw...@gmail.com
> Greger,
>
> I have to admit that I totally agree with you on that... I couldn't
> have said it better myself. The subdued sound of jazz guitar is
> definitely not conducive to creating emotional drama.
>
> -Danhttp://danadler.com
I guess Scofield might be an example of a relatively mainstream jazz
guitarist who occasionally goes for the (melo)drama. Blues guitar --
urban blues, that is -- dwells primarily in the domain of dramatics,
and that's a bag of tricks that a lot of jazz guitarists reach for now
and again.
tomw...@gmail.com
Jim Hall goes way beyond block chords in accompaniment, so does John
Scofield, just to name two that I've already referenced in this
thread.
> It's technically difficult to do that on the guitar but not
> impossible.
>
I don't see where that's particularly difficult technically. I think
it's more a matter of imagination, which is why I've been so taken
with Jim Hall and Emily Remler this week(I'm not ordinarily a real
guitarcentric guy).
> If I listen to jazz guitarist play blues, I hear a lot of that
> pentatonic blues shape that's so easy on our instrument.
> But If I listen to Miles, J Hodges or Cootie Williams play 'gutbucket'
> blues, I don't hear that so much. What I hear from them is more
> "vocal".
>
These guys typically bend notes and add blue notes as ornamentation.
When guitarists do this it sounds more "subdued", for some reason. I
think it's a matter of timbre.
> That's what I mean as something to reach for that's from another
> instrument.
> Anyway it works for me.
Nothing wrong with that.
tomsalvojazz
much emotion as Coltrane or anyone else one points to in jazz. The
problem is this (and this is just thinking out loud - I may be wrong
here) - the primary outlet that lends itself to a sax player to
improvise and let it rip is jazz. But the guitarists who play this
way play rock, blues or fusion or whatever it is that God Forbid we
erroneously label "jazz." But it's valid musical, emotional, raw
improvisation nonetheless.
Maybe the little box we call jazz guitar is filled with subdued
guitar,
Tell me Stevie Ray Vaughn doesn't "take it to the limit" every bit as
much as ______________ (insert favorite jazz icon woodwind/horn player
name here). Or, for that matter, Clapton, Van Halen, Jimmy Page,
Petrucci, Guthrie Govan, Jeff Beck, Scotty Anderson... this list goes
on and on.
How about Jack Zucker? Emotive intensity there.
And to bring the topic full circle, ever see Jimmy Bruno play live?
There's more than just fast notes there.
KenK
"Jim Hall goes way beyond block chords in accompaniment, so does John
Scofield, just to name two that I've already referenced in this
thread. "
I didn't know Scofield knew any chords. ; )
Just kidding, but it is true that I'm not a Sco fan.
I said that before here and got hell for it-
but if you tell me a track or 2 of his where he comps like what you
say, I'd give it a listen.
"These guys typically bend notes and add blue notes as ornamentation.
When guitarists do this it sounds more "subdued", for some reason. I
think it's a matter of timbre."
I think you're right about the timbre issue.
As Joey said somewhere here, we can use distortion to get to these
horn like
places, but then we get accused of not playing jazz.
On another note- I listen to a lot of flamenco these days.
These guys are generally very intense- nothing subdued about them at
all.
Of course there's no distortion, but it still could be a timbre issue.
Nylon acoustic tone is generally brighter than the typical jazz guitar
approach.
There's not much sustain and rarely a bent note, but it is intense.
KenK
KenK
"Maybe the little box we call jazz guitar is filled with subdued
guitar, "
I think you're on to something here.
But at the same time, jazz is full of other instruments playing lower
dynamic levels or subdued. You rarely hear the rock players you
mention play pp-mf. But those dynamic levels are part of the jazz
craft.
k
tomw...@gmail.com
> tomwa...@gmail.com wrote
> "Jim Hall goes way beyond block chords in accompaniment, so does John
> Scofield, just to name two that I've already referenced in this
> thread. "
>
> I didn't know Scofield knew any chords. ; )
> Just kidding, but it is true that I'm not a Sco fan.
> I said that before here and got hell for it-
> but if you tell me a track or 2 of his where he comps like what you
> say, I'd give it a listen.
You might be interested in Scofield's comping on Joe Henderson's "So
Near, So Far". I don't think that he does much in the way of
contrapuntal lines, but it's pretty creative. He uses chorus quite a
bit on this recording, not so much of his usual distortion.
>
> On another note- I listen to a lot of flamenco these days.
> These guys are generally very intense- nothing subdued about them at
> all.
> Of course there's no distortion, but it still could be a timbre issue.
> Nylon acoustic tone is generally brighter than the typical jazz guitar
> approach.
> There's not much sustain and rarely a bent note, but it is intense.
That occurred to me when you brought up the intensity thing. A player
like Sylvain Luc plays some very intense and harmonically adventurous
things, but, due to the innately listener friendly nature of the gut
string guitar, it doesn't come off that way so much.
Joey Goldstein
That's how my mother taught me, shame .... and guilt too.
Works every time.
rpjazz...@gmail.com
> Guitarists tend to comp w/ mostly block chords.
> Pianists (and keys in general) do that too, but also will play under
> the soloist in a melodic way. I'm thinking about Monk, Ellington,
> Herbie and McCoy.
> It's technically difficult to do that on the guitar but not
> impossible.
I think this is an excellent point.
A pianist I like very much is Ralph Sharon, Tony Bennett's long time
associate. His comping is highly melodic. To take an example, in a
standard AABA tune, Ralph will invariably lead into the bridge with a
couple of bars of countermelody, so that the first beat of the bridge
feels like a kind of resolution. It's hard to think of a guitarist who
does this -- maybe Jim Hall on ballads.
My guess (since I don't play much piano) is that pianists see the
entire scale in front of them and can fairly easily pick notes from
it. And that one group of notes isn't much harder than another. A
guitarist who thinks in grips and boxes is going to have more trouble.
A player who has worked out harmonized scales has a better chance of
making this work, but I think it's a rare player who has more than
tertian and quartile voicings under his fingers for a couple of scales
(and maybe even that much is rare). Maybe I'm wrong about that.
The Ralph Sharon countermelody-to-the-bridge idea is likely to sound
thin as single notes on guitar (I'm talking about a pianoless
situation and with Jim Hall as an exception -- he can make a single
note line sound full on a ballad), so it usually needs to be in double
or triple stops or more. A guitarist is likely to have some ii V
movements worked out and use those (which can sound fine, if maybe a
bit too familiar) but I don't usually hear anything as free or
variable as the stuff Sharon plays.
As an exercise, I just tried to create a countermelody leading to the
bridge for A Train. It's a I7 to IVmaj situation. It's easy enough to
hum a little melody and then find voicings with that melody on top
(thinking in grips and melody notes, which is the way I was taught
years ago). Going a little further, I found that voicing 1, 7, 10 eg.
x3x45x led to some nice ideas, but the band would be playing the next
tune before I had that little melody harmonized with those intervals
under my fingers.
Where this line of thought takes me is to work on comping in what I
might think of as harmonized countermelodies in which every note of
the chord sequence is nicely voice-led.
Rick
george4908
Ha! Good one.