The JBGI BS
jimmyb
adopted my five shapes to the flute and has been playing great ever
since. She comes from a classical background. Naturally she has
never improvised before studying my course. So her enthusiam for the
method got the best of her. She genuinely wanted to spread the word.
Her intentions were good, there was no intent to decieve anyone.
She is also a brilliant financial analyst. She's the one who keeps
the Intstitute financially solvent. I and the members at the JBGI
need her, without her, it will fail. So, lighten up a bit guys. I
really like doing this, and I make a few bucks and keeps me from doing
every road gig that comes along. I only take the high paying gigs
now. So this is important to me. The whole thing is really out
there. We're not talking about national security. If you still are
put off by her posts, use the kill file feature. Or, no one is
twisting anyone's arm to join. We are getting great results from
students all over the globe and I feel good about helping out aspiring
jazz players and hobbyists. The price is as low as it can be and
still stay in business. I would appreciate your understandiing with
this thing.
All the best
Jimmy Bruno
Max Leggett
Jay
Kevin Collins
hop.h...@gmail.com
I don't want to killfile Patricia - I want her to be a part of our
community. And as far as your institute, the price is right, the
material is good, I think I was one of the first to enroll, and I'll
be the first to endorse it if you ever want me to. Best of luck to
you, sir.
Jim Hopkins
jimmyb
Derek
are. I wish you continued success with your institute, sounds like a
great process for those involved.
RickH
Handled like an officer and a gentleman, no surprise to anyone here.
Good luck with JBGI. (I joined but have not had much time lately with
vacations and construction at home, hope to get really into it in a
few weeks).
tomsalvojazz
> now.
Um, so... can I have all your low-paying gigs? LOL!
Seriously, Jimmy abandoned what I'm sure was a relatively lucrative
career to pursue his love of playing pure jazz music. He has ALWAYS
expressed sincere thanks and gratitude to his fans for allowing him
some success and helping him make the payments on his Mercedes.
I give Jimmy a tremendous amount of credit and have a lot of respect
for someone who was able to be so devoted to the music he loves that
he pursued it against significant odds, and even more credit and
respect for him as an intelligent person who took an idea to present
this information creatively in a way that is accessible to many more
people and actually bring that idea to reality.
Nobody at the JBGI stole anything from anyone here. Nobody here has
been ripped off by the Institute. I haven't read anybody claiming
that they joined solely based on Patricia's posts and then were
disappointed. If you want to join; join. If you don't; don't. It's
a free country. If you feel that strongly that those marketing
tactics were that extraordinarily unscrupulous, then respond in a way
that our capitalist economy supports... DON'T JOIN.
Remember when Saturns first came out? Remember how General Motors
intentionally avoided ANY association between Saturn and GM, because
they wanted the general public to think Saturn was a new car company?
Remember the guy who is not only the president of the Hair Club for
Men; he's also a customer? There is creative marketing all over our
economy.
That's all this was. Just creative marketing. I've read a lot worse
here.
And I also give Jimmy credit for accepting the respectful, productive,
constuctive feedback regarding this marketing and his unwavering
humbleness in asking us to lighten up.
I don't know all that much about this... I just think that the JBGI is
a creative and innovative concept and I hope that it is overwhelmingly
successful for Jimmy and everyone who probably worked quite hard and
feverishly to make it happen. They deserve it.
And, just to avoid any misunderstandings, I am not affiliated.
~~~tom
tom walls
toms...@optonline.net says...
>
> I don't know all that much about this... I just think that the JBGI is
> a creative and innovative concept and I hope that it is overwhelmingly
> successful for Jimmy and everyone who probably worked quite hard and
> feverishly to make it happen. They deserve it.
>
>
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
Random Excess
wrote:
>>Jimmy Bruno
>
>You get my vote.
>
Mine too, even though he ain't Bird who lives.
Texas Pete Kerezman
Steve
Jimmy...
My wife plays flute. I would love for her to learn and enjoy some
improv. How in the world did Patricia incorporate your shapes on the
flute? My wife plays very well but is classically trained, sound much
like Patricia... any hints you would care to pass along?
thanx,
Steve
jimmyb
something like this. I believe the lowest note on the flute is a low
B or on some a low C. Instead of five shpes there are twelve
fingering patterns, one for each key. So if you start with low C, you
play from C to the top note in the key of C, next key, key of F, play
from low C to top of the intstrument but use notes from F major, key
of Bb, play from C to top of flute range, etc, etc. YOu don't have to
change the starting note until the key of Gb. They become the 12
pitch collections or tonal centers. You create lines from those pitch
collections according to the changes. Then you start to add the 5
outside tones in your lines.
Carl
Hey Steve-
I'm sure your question was well-intentioned, and I'm sure you somehow missed
this aspect, as I'm just as sure that if you look at it again you will see
that you're asking a guy to teach you for free what he's trying to teach for
a living!
I would suggest you sign up for the program for a 3 month period. It really
is a bargain. Then begin by downloading the document called "The Five
Shapes". It prints out as regular music on a staff sheet. They can then be
played on any instrument. Then there's the five shapes in all the keys;
followed by using the shapes to play over ii-V in all the keys, etc. Your
wife can listen to these exercises being performed on the guitar by Jimmy,
and by various students, and then apply them to the flute.
I'm a member/student, by the way, with no personal affiliation with Jimmy or
JBGI. I am truly enjoying working through the program and it has strongly
reinforced doors for me which I had begun to open on my own, but which I was
previously unsure of.
I hope my response to your post has been appropriate.
Best of luck.
dwilliams
what this is all about. I joined JBGI because I like the way Jimmy
strives to simplify what is often made into something needlessly
complex. It's pretty clear to me that he puts a lot of thought and
effort into the teaching business, and I can see why his new
innovative approach has caused a lot of excitement and enthusiasm. I
feel it too. He's putting together a great staff, which I think has to
be a major challenge for any startup, particularly one as innovative
as this. You can see and feel this as you progress through the program
and see the quality of the lessons as well as the postings by both
staff and students. Promotion is obviously part of the success of any
business. Enthusiasm is something that is sometimes forced, but I
don't see that here. I looked at this as a bargain opportunity when I
joined, and I feel even more strongly about it now. This system is
working for me, and believe me, I've spent a lot of money on a lot of
learning approaches over the last ten years.
Regards,
Dave Williams
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
I certainly appreciate your concern Carl. However, it has been my
impression that a good many of the people in this forum teach for a
living. I have always had questions for participants... I will
continue to have and post questions in the future.
And I don't mean to flame you either. And I'm sure that if you look at
it again you will see my point.
And I do (very much) appreciate Jimmy's time and his response. I hope
we don't become a forum of professionals, where we can't post
questions to anyone who might care to respond... or not. For that
matter this isn't even a flute forum... but I thought I'd ask.
best,
Steve
Carl
Got the point. 'Nuf said.
jimmyb
to answer most posts. I stay out of the theory driven topics because
I have a different view and I don't care to convert anyone to using
their ears instead of their brains. See, even that comes off badly
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> I don't mind helping out anyone who asks. If I have the time, I try
> to answer most posts. I stay out of the theory driven topics because
> I have a different view and I don't care to convert anyone to using
> their ears instead of their brains. See, even that comes off badly
I respectfully disagree--it came off fine.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Max Leggett
wrote:
>I don't mind helping out anyone who asks. If I have the time, I try
>to answer most posts. I stay out of the theory driven topics because
>I have a different view and I don't care to convert anyone to using
>their ears instead of their brains. See, even that comes off badly
LOL!
woland99
No problemo, JB. I think that is how she came thru "as a bit
overzealous". I do not consider it a huge conflict of interest
to work at JBGI and to talk about lessons that you take there.
She could have been more upfront about her working there and
nobody could say a word then but no great harm done. I'm glad
that you did not fire her or something - whole thing really
seemed so overblown.
JT
gotnothing
completely backwards and is still scale and mode oriented unlike what
jimmy claims it is.....watch the example videos......in one of them
your just playing g dorian in the fifth postion over g minor
7......execpet you call it f major shape 3.......ridiculous.
dont get me wrong jimmy is a heel of a playerr...i just dont agree
with this method of teaching......it works for jimmy because he knows
where all the chord tones are and can phrase with the strong notes of
the chord.....a beginner will just end up playing scale runs....or
should i say shape runs.....and wont really get into the meat of the
chords
jimmyb
You got it comeplety wrong. They are not modes at all. I start on G
and end on Bb. It's all the notes of the tonal center in one
position. It is also the application of these shapes where you would
really see the difference. The site is more inolved than just 5
shapes. There is a process involved. These shapes also put the same
partial (sound) on the same fingers thoughout the fingerboard, much
like a horn player has under his fingers.
Stan Fong
"gotnothing" <gotno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186162871.9...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Jimmy's approach is also about making melodies out of the shapes. Running
modes or shapes are exercises not music. What I've learned is the melodies
make music not modes or shapes. It's what you do with the modes, shapes,
arpeggios, chord tones or whatever you want to call it to make melodies.
Stan
(Not a shill)
Gerry
[ Arriving late...]
> how is renaming scales and modes "shapes" innovative?
It isn't. It's just another way of attempting understanding of the
whole. The CAGED system allows students to avoid the diffuse concepts
of 12 keys in 24 positions. They think of it as thousands of
possibilities. CAGED is just one way of many to break it down into
units that can then be used--knowledgeably--to accomplish 12x24. I
used something like CAGED when I was coming up, purely out of my own
brain. Then I locked on to Leavitt's positions and used that,
eventually discarding parts I didn't want. Now I sorta see everything
no matter where I am.
> it seems completely backwards and is still scale and mode oriented unlike what
> jimmy claims it is.....watch the example videos......in one of them
> your just playing g dorian in the fifth postion over g minor
> 7...
Because we can analyze modes and scales and positions doesn't mean the
player was thinking in the terms of the analysis. I asked a player a
generation ago what he was doing. He slowed it down. Oh, I said, that's
a m7b5 to a 7b9. Couldn't be, he responded abruptly, I don't know
those chords.
> ...execpet you call it f major shape 3.......ridiculous.
> dont get me wrong jimmy is a heel of a playerr...i just dont agree
> with this method of teaching......it works for jimmy because he knows
> where all the chord tones are and can phrase with the strong notes of
> the chord.....a beginner will just end up playing scale runs...
He might. But eventually he'll begin to look at the terrain in his own
way. First you learn the overall terrain then you begin picking out
the parts that are important. Playing the arpeggios and understanding
their relationship to the scalar/modal overlay allows you to understand
their relationships. Or not, depending on how you use your brain and
hand.
> .or should i say shape runs.....and wont really get into the meat of the
> chords
--
///---
Tim McNamara
gotnothing <gotno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, as someone whose worked through most of the first set of lessons,
I'd have to say that you're talking through your hat.
First off, there are seven modes for each key but only five shapes.
That pretty much ends the relationship between the modes and the shapes.
The shapes are not a scale of any type, mode or otherwise; they are
"pitch collections" that are within a five fret span. It's like being
able to transpose the white keys on a piano into any key, letting you
play all the white keys and using the black keys for accents, tension,
etc.
And since Jimmy shows you where the chord tones are found in the shapes,
it's easy to find them when you're playing. He also demonstrates that
there is no fixed relationship between the chord tones (e.g. arpeggios)
and the harmonic structure. The player ends up thinking much more
freely as a result of going through the first set of lessons (of which
there are 30+ broken up into small bite sized nuggets that are easy to
get under your fingers).
I find it to be a very effective teaching method. I can play a shape in
all 12 keys without moving my hand more than a fret up or down. I need
lots more practice to be able to get through it smoothly, though...
That's an exercise Jimmy could add. He's got cycling through all of the
shapes in each key progressing through the cycle of fourths (or fifths,
if you prefer), but it's interesting to cycle through one pattern in
each of the keys while staying in the same place on the fretboard.
pmfan57
> In article <1186162871.985180.138...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
You could make up your own exercise to augment the ones you have,
e.g., having a chord move up chromatically through all 12 keys while
you have to stay in a two or three fret span. Like the lessons in Pat
Martino's Linear Expressions. Martino organizes things in minor
shapes and is really using a pitch collection concept as well, it
seems to me. But maybe I'm wrong!
woland99
> how is renaming scales and modes "shapes" innovative? it seems
> completely backwards and is still scale and mode oriented
If I understand Jimmy's approach correctly he argues that horn
player have very limited set of fingering that that need to
learn in order to play scales, modes or arpeggios. In contract -
guitar players have complete freedom to choose whatever fingering
they want, So they end up stuck in learning how to play Gm7
arpeggio using several fingerings that may be very impractical.
So his approach is to limit scale, mode or arpeggio playing
to few basic and effective patterns. That limitation enhances
chances that your motoric memory will successfully absorb and
automate movements.
If remember correctly his approach to modes it is to play them
as scale fragments rather than separate fingerings so basic
shapes always stay the same. I may be wrong on this one.
I dunno about you but for me that is the basic function of a
teacher in any field - present material in a way that allows
student to absorb and use it without unnecessary frustration
or wasting time learning dead end ideas.
JT
skrohn
neck so that I can move through chord/key changes continuing in the
direction that I am going. I have worked towards that.
My anchor is mostly a degree of the key center that I am in.
My shape is a fragment associated with that degree.
When working with shapes from the sixth string I always seem to see them
from the sixth string. When playing fragments (smaller shapes) from a
degree I can flow much better.
I went through Jimmy's lessons with much interest in the nature
of the thinking. Mostly I like what I see very much.
I did not pick up on any nod to solving the issue that I mentioned,
that is seeing the shape from any point within as key centers are
shifting and you want to keep moving towards some point.
There must be some anchors that the mind forms from within the shapes.
I can play the shapes from any string just noting what degree they start
on. Taking the 3rd to 2nd string shift into account it all remains the
same. They become symmetrical shape fragments.
Curious how others see this.
Scott
FAJAH
> how is renaming scales and modes "shapes" innovative? it seems
> completely backwards and is still scale and mode oriented
On Aug 3, 6:46 pm, woland99 <wolan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I dunno about you but for me that is the basic function of a
> teacher in any field - present material in a way that allows
> student to absorb and use it without unnecessary frustration
> or wasting time learning dead end ideas.
I took weekly jazz guitar lessons for 3 years with a couple of very
good teachers. I learned what one could call "traditional theory"
which included the usual scales, modes, chord scales, etc., and the
application of the theory to tunes in a variety of styles. I enjoyed
every challenging minute of it. After taking a year or so off, I felt
the need to go back to instruction. For a change, I decided to join
the JBGI, and for the following main reasons;
1) Can't beat the price as compare to local lessons with an
instructor, even if one would take one lesson per month which I was
considering doing.
2) It was a totally different approach than what I was used to, which
I found intriguing.
3) A chance to work with a real pro.
Is Jimmy's method innovative? Don't know, and don't care. I decided to
approach his method of teaching jazz guitar with a completely open
mind, and put all the traditional theory on the side. Which by the
way, was not easy at first, and I'm certainly not dimissing it. But
I'm enjoying the experience immensely, and learned quite a bit so far.
More than I actually thought I would. Most importantly, what I
discovered after working through the material for a month or so, (and
where I agree with JT on his comment on teachers in general), is that
Jimmy happens to be a great communicator. When watching the
instruction videos, and more importantly, the video responses to
students that have submitted videos of themselves playing, you really
get a sense that Jimmy loves what he does and has a passion for it. I
have yet to submit a video, but that will happen after a few more
hours of practice :)
The 5 Shape Concept may be the underlying foundation of what is
taught, but what non-members don't see, is how Jimmy applies the
method. To me, this is where the value is.
Lawrie
Gerry
> He's got cycling through all of the
> shapes in each key progressing through the cycle of fourths (or fifths,
> if you prefer), but it's interesting to cycle through one pattern in
> each of the keys while staying in the same place on the fretboard.
One of my favorite activities. I like it the way I like a coin roll;
rolling a 50-cent piece along my knuckles. It just feels good.
I like to play, staying in the same position (+/- 1) through a cycle of
2nds/b7ths, b3rds/M6ths as well as 4ths/5ths. I like to do diatonic
arps as well as II/V/I sequences.
--
///---
Tim McNamara
FAJAH <lawri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is Jimmy's method innovative? Don't know, and don't care.
The real question is whether it's effective in helping the student play
music. IME it is quite effective, someone else's experience might be
different.
What Jimmy's method won't do is let you hang out in the heavy theory
discussions of whether the Lydaeolian mode of the harmonic minor is
better than the Mixophrygian mode over a V#5b9b13 chord.
FAJAH
> In article <1186221040.090531.255...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> FAJAH <lawriem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is Jimmy's method innovative? Don't know, and don't care.
>
> The real question is whether it's effective in helping the student play
> music. IME it is quite effective, someone else's experience might be
> different.
Quite true, but it's worked nicely for me.
> What Jimmy's method won't do is let you hang out in the heavy theory
> discussions of whether the Lydaeolian mode of the harmonic minor is
> better than the Mixophrygian mode over a V#5b9b13 chord.
Isn't it refreshing :)
Lawrie
Phil T
> Endeavor to persevere.
>
......We thought about it for a while, then we declared war
Phil T
In every group there's always someone who sees shadows and something
lurking in them, when there's nothing there.
Phil T
Phil T
> I don't mind helping out anyone who asks. If I have the time, I try
> to answer most posts. I stay out of the theory driven topics because
> I have a different view and I don't care to convert anyone to using
> their ears instead of their brains. See, even that comes off badly
>
>
pez espada
> In article <1186162871.985180.138...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
I am about to enrroll in the Jimmy's Institute but after there is
still something that concerns me -not learning your modes in the
"proper way" but the Jimmy's shapes sounds to me like that I will have
problems to comunicate (taking, not playing) my musical ideas to other
musicians who have learnt their classic modes and ways to
inprovisation..?
By learning with the Jimmy's method will I be able to understand and
take part in standars musical discussions with other musician I'm
playing with?? I mean if some bandleader asked me to improvise over
that changes using "what ever you name mode" will I be able t
understand and follow his/her "standar" theory??
thanks,
C.
pmfan57
Over the history of jazz, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the
great players didn't even think in terms of modes or even know them.
You obviously therefore don't need to know them for swing or bop.
But if you want to play with someone playing "modal" music, like Inner
Urge or originals in that vein, then you should learn the names.
Certainly if you want to play in a Mahavishnu cover band!
Although you can be sure Jimmy can wail over Inner Urge using his ear
even without thinking of modes, as could Benson, Martino, Wes et al.
The appropriate "pitch collections" (in Jimmy terminology) would
simply come to them by listening.
I wonder how Jimmy's course handles tunes like Inner Urge.
Erik
> I wonder how Jimmy's course handles tunes like Inner Urge.
It doesn't. Not yet.
Of course modal music can easily be broken down in pitch collections.
That's essentially what Miles' did at that first Kind of Blue
session. Trane, Evans, Adderly show up, and he writes out a pitch
collection:
D-E-F-G-A-B-C-D
You can call it D dorian if you want. That's just a name, though.
You will get much more mileage out of finding those notes on your ax
(shapes) and making music.
Tim McNamara
pmfan57 <jwra...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > I am about to enrroll in the Jimmy's Institute but after there is
> > still something that concerns me -not learning your modes in the
> > "proper way" but the Jimmy's shapes sounds to me like that I will
> > have problems to comunicate (taking, not playing) my musical ideas
> > to other musicians who have learnt their classic modes and ways to
> > inprovisation..?
> >
> > By learning with the Jimmy's method will I be able to understand
> > and take part in standars musical discussions with other musician
> > I'm playing with?? I mean if some bandleader asked me to improvise
> > over that changes using "what ever you name mode" will I be able t
> > understand and follow his/her "standar" theory??
>
> Over the history of jazz, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the
> great players didn't even think in terms of modes or even know them.
> You obviously therefore don't need to know them for swing or bop.
>
> But if you want to play with someone playing "modal" music, like
> Inner Urge or originals in that vein, then you should learn the
> names. Certainly if you want to play in a Mahavishnu cover band!
>
> Although you can be sure Jimmy can wail over Inner Urge using his ear
> even without thinking of modes, as could Benson, Martino, Wes et al.
> The appropriate "pitch collections" (in Jimmy terminology) would
> simply come to them by listening.
>
> I wonder how Jimmy's course handles tunes like Inner Urge.
Probably by looking at it the way he looks at other tunes: what are the
tonal centers and how does the song move between them.
Modes are often just confunding. If I play a phrase in C over a Cmaj7
chord, it's the Aeolian mode. If I play the same phrase over an Emin
chord, it's the Phrygian mode. If I play it over G7 it's the Mixolydian
mode. Or maybe it's the Locrian mode over the entire thing. I'm just
playing the phrase and think of it as being in C- what mode it's in is
up to the post hoc analysis. But really, IMHO it all boils down to
"what key are we in?"
I can safely say that I've never been able think of modes when playing,
maybe that's because my brain isn't fast enough or I am not smart
enough. I've never been able to think that way since I started studying
jazz guitar in 1980. I have always thought in terms of tonal centers,
phrases, motifs. But my soloing sucks (getting better with Jimmy's
course), so I am probably one of those people about whom it is said "if
you can't learn from your mistakes, you'll just have to be a horrible
example." :-D
jimmyb
scale when soloing. Even reading tunes or changes that I have never
seen before
On Aug 5, 11:53 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <1186321074.108949.139...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Gerry
> I am about to enrroll in the Jimmy's Institute but after there is
> still something that concerns me -not learning your modes in the
> "proper way" but the Jimmy's shapes sounds to me like that I will have
> problems to comunicate (taking, not playing) my musical ideas to other
> musicians who have learnt their classic modes and ways to
> inprovisation..?
> By learning with the Jimmy's method will I be able to understand and
> take part in standars musical discussions with other musician I'm
> playing with?? I mean if some bandleader asked me to improvise over
> that changes using "what ever you name mode" will I be able t
> understand and follow his/her "standar" theory??
Whether you study with Jimmy, or another teacher, or with no teacher at
all, no teacher teaches everything. And of course all information
you'll utilize as a player needn't emanate from a teacher's mouth; you
are free to read on your own.
Modes, their structure and application can be read out of any number
skinny little music or theory books. I figure it will take all of about
15 minutes to understand it and memorize the names of the modes so you
can disregard them for a lifetime of musical fun.
Modal playing has fallen out of favor over the past few decades though
it is and will remain as a valid approach to improvisation particularly
in static harmonic environments. I don't think you'll be in danger if
you study with any of the majority of teachers who do not make
significant use of it in their approach.
--
///---
Gerry
>> I wonder how Jimmy's course handles tunes like Inner Urge.
>
> Probably by looking at it the way he looks at other tunes: what are the
> tonal centers and how does the song move between them.
>
> Modes are often just confunding. If I play a phrase in C over a Cmaj7
> chord, it's the Aeolian mode.
That would be Ionian.
> If I play the same phrase over an Emin
> chord, it's the Phrygian mode. If I play it over G7 it's the Mixolydian
> mode. Or maybe it's the Locrian mode over the entire thing. I'm just
> playing the phrase and think of it as being in C- what mode it's in is
> up to the post hoc analysis. But really, IMHO it all boils down to
> "what key are we in?"
There are many ways to THINK about the same material and then play the
exact thing another might play while thinking a completely different
thing. The "play a mode over..." approach has never made much sense to
me, though I pursued it for years in the 70's. For me, modes are about
internal relationships, about thinking of different notes as the "one"
of scalar thinking.
If you've played a phrase that clearly identifies the key center as an
F, and then in a later phrase, further clarify that F as the five of a
particular key--well then you were playing mixolydian. But in my
thinking I was hanging out around the V chord while in the key of Bb.
If you're playing a minor chord and start hammering away on a minor
2nd, it's Phrygian. But for the most part I figure I'm hanging around
a III chord.
> I can safely say that I've never been able think of modes when playing,
> maybe that's because my brain isn't fast enough or I am not smart
> enough.
Or maybe it has no inherent utility to you. Not everything has the
same use to everybody. Thank god.
> I've never been able to think that way since I started studying
> jazz guitar in 1980. I have always thought in terms of tonal centers,
> phrases, motifs. But my soloing sucks (getting better with Jimmy's
> course), so I am probably one of those people about whom it is said "if
> you can't learn from your mistakes, you'll just have to be a horrible
> example." :-D
--
///---
Tim McNamara
Gerry <some...@sunny.calif> wrote:
> On 2007-08-05 08:53:47 -0700, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net>
> said:
>
> >> I wonder how Jimmy's course handles tunes like Inner Urge.
> >
> > Probably by looking at it the way he looks at other tunes: what
> > are the tonal centers and how does the song move between them.
> >
> > Modes are often just confunding. If I play a phrase in C over a
> > Cmaj7 chord, it's the Aeolian mode.
>
> That would be Ionian.
D'oh! Yes, of course. I even ran the the mnemonic to double check and
still screwed it up! LOL!
> > If I play the same phrase over an Emin chord, it's the Phrygian
> > mode. If I play it over G7 it's the Mixolydian mode. Or maybe
> > it's the Locrian mode over the entire thing. I'm just playing the
> > phrase and think of it as being in C- what mode it's in is up to
> > the post hoc analysis. But really, IMHO it all boils down to "what
> > key are we in?"
>
> There are many ways to THINK about the same material and then play
> the exact thing another might play while thinking a completely
> different thing. The "play a mode over..." approach has never made
> much sense to me, though I pursued it for years in the 70's. For me,
> modes are about internal relationships, about thinking of different
> notes as the "one" of scalar thinking.
My hope is just to "think music" and play rather than thinking concepts
and transferring them into finger movements. Sometimes I can do this
for seconds on end.
> If you've played a phrase that clearly identifies the key center as
> an F, and then in a later phrase, further clarify that F as the five
> of a particular key--well then you were playing mixolydian. But in
> my thinking I was hanging out around the V chord while in the key of
> Bb.
>
> If you're playing a minor chord and start hammering away on a minor
> 2nd, it's Phrygian. But for the most part I figure I'm hanging
> around a III chord.
>
> > I can safely say that I've never been able think of modes when
> > playing, maybe that's because my brain isn't fast enough or I am
> > not smart enough.
>
> Or maybe it has no inherent utility to you. Not everything has the
> same use to everybody. Thank god.
Whether or not it has inherent utility, I can't say. It (playing based
on modes) just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe that is because I am a
hobbyist player. I don't gig, I rarely play with others, I don't spend
ten hours a day playing music and- thinking about neuroplasticity
theory- I just don't have enough "brainspace" devoted to music. Someone
who plays music professionally might be able to afford having a lot more
brain power devoted to these kinds of things than somebody who's got a
full time day job.
Tim McNamara
jimmyb <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote:
> In my entire career, I have never, never thougth about a mode or a
> scale when soloing. Even reading tunes or changes that I have never
> seen before
Well, then perhaps I am not alone! :-)
Tim McNamara
Gerry <some...@sunny.calif> wrote:
> Modes, their structure and application can be read out of any number
> skinny little music or theory books. I figure it will take all of
> about 15 minutes to understand it and memorize the names of the modes
> so you can disregard them for a lifetime of musical fun.
LOL. I remember seeing my first mode diagram back in college and I
remember thinking "so what? There aren't any new notes."
gotnothing
want to be able to articulate sounds........ex. if your playing over a
gmin7 chord and your playing(to put it in jimmy's words) a pitch
collection of say FGABbCDE the tonality your expressing is a dorian
sound over the gminor......it doesnt sound like f major when played
over gmin7.....you know that sounds like dorian even though you're not
thinking it....you should be able to express it and think it without
having to go a step or two removed and think f major....but thats just
me. i like a more direct approach that involves my ears and my
instincts.....is it easier for beginners to think tonal centers and
pitch collections? probably....but it wont get them as deep into
harmony and the fretboard as learning how to articulate each different
type of chord in every position and up and down every string.....just
my opinion
pmfan57
But what about all those top players who don't think in terms of modes
at all? It's definitely a huge percentage. Were Barry Harris and Bud
Powell "deep into harmony"? Was Bird? Tristano? None of them were
concerned with modes.
And
gotnothing
not while they were playing....but they certainly practiced and
absorbed all their scales and how to express the sounds of chords all
over their instruments....your gonna tell me bird or tristano didn't
know or practice minor,major,dominant 7th scales,harmonic minor,
melodic minor, diminished scales etc?????(all of which are "modes" by
the way)????????or coltrane for that matter.....give me a break. thats
cool if you want us guitar players to stay in the dark and play tonal
centers..........wes didnt play tonal centers.....learn a few of his
solos....he was expressing the sounds of the chords and their
extensions.....the reason why some guitar players react so much
against modes is because of their experience with players who never
get beyond that step and play scale runs all day........it's really
the sound of the chords thats important.....if i'm playing min7 i'm
thinking and hearing 1,b3,5,b7,9,11,13 in certain situations and or
9,11,b13 in others.....if you organize those into scales....viola you
get modes
Tim McNamara
gotnothing <gotno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> of course you dont want to think modes while you're playing but you do
> want to be able to articulate sounds........ex. if your playing over a
> gmin7 chord and your playing(to put it in jimmy's words) a pitch
> collection of say FGABbCDE the tonality your expressing is a dorian
> sound over the gminor......it doesnt sound like f major when played
> over gmin7.....you know that sounds like dorian even though you're not
> thinking it....
It sounds like Dorian because of the underlying harmony, not because the
line you play.
> you should be able to express it and think it without
> having to go a step or two removed and think f major....but thats just
> me. i like a more direct approach that involves my ears and my
> instincts.....is it easier for beginners to think tonal centers and
> pitch collections? probably....but it wont get them as deep into
> harmony and the fretboard as learning how to articulate each different
> type of chord in every position and up and down every string.....just
> my opinion
So Jimmy Bruno hasn't gotten deeply into harmony and the fretboard and
learning how to articulate all that stuff? Wow, somebody shoudld let
him know! ;-)
Elektrik Hendrik
>pitch collections? probably....but it wont get them as deep into
>harmony and the fretboard as learning how to articulate each different
>type of chord in every position and up and down every string.....just
>my opinion
Just look at what Jimmy has achieved with his approach. Who says you
have to know all that theory naming shit? Sure, nice for explaining
what you're doing or look interesting to other musicians, but in the
end it's all of secondary, or less, importance. If you want to clutter
your brain with it, fine, but in my case it has only worked against me
in the past 20 years. So if Jimmy offers a practical and most of all
musical alternative to all this, I will be happy to part with 60$ per
three months, even though I already have No Nonsense Jazz Guitar. In
that video, by the way, Jimmy DOES adress outlining the chords you're
playing on through the arpeggios which are derived from his scale
shapes.
Gerry
Now that's funny!
--
///---
tom walls
tim...@bitstream.net says...
missing the point. You know that, right?
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
Tim McNamara
tom walls <tw...@cornell.edu> wrote:
Yeah. And no. I have never been able to find much practical utility in
modes.
gotnothing
> learning how to articulate all that stuff? Wow, somebody shoudld let
> him know! ;-)
"s it easier for beginners to think tonal centers and
> pitch collections? probably....but it wont get them as deep into
> harmony and the fretboard as learning how to articulate each different
> type of chord in every position and up and down every string.....just
> my opinion"
i said beginners not Mr. Bruno
tom walls
tim...@bitstream.net says...
>
> Yeah. And no. I have never been able to find much practical utility in
> modes.
>
We've all heard people play that way, and it's not pretty.
Elektrik Hendrik
When you begin talking you don't start with the grammar, you just
start talking by imitating. Why not start playing jazz guitar by
imitating Jimmy Bruno? You can add all the hoopla later if you really
need to get into the academic side of things.
Max Leggett
<elektri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>When you begin talking you don't start with the grammar, you just
>start talking by imitating. Why not start playing jazz guitar by
>imitating Jimmy Bruno? You can add all the hoopla later if you really
>need to get into the academic side of things.
That's how I learnt, just by playng and, basically, figuring out how
not to sound lame. The theory followed. The opportunitiews to do that
aren't as common as they used to be, plus a lt odf guys don't wat o
schle ams, deal with club owners, blah blah: they just want o have fun
noodling at home. So JB provides a method similar to learning to play
by playing. You can lay an awful lot of good music without ever going
near the 4th mode of the melodic minor.
Lumpy
Tim:
> > LOL. I remember seeing my first mode
> > diagram back in college and I
> > remember thinking "so what?
> > There aren't any new notes."
Tom:
> That was pretty much my reaction too,
> and it's funny, but it's also
> missing the point. You know that, right?
I think the point that gets missed is on the
presenter's side. When I hear the common explaination
"Dorian is like a Maj scale starting on the 2nd degree"
I tend to look at it like Tim suggests "No new notes."
I am guessing that most of us don't hear a natural
minor scale and say "That's just a Maj scale starting
on 6, no new notes". Instead we HEAR that it sounds
minor. We hear a flat 3rd, not the root note of the
relative Major scale.
If we view modes like we do various kinds of scales
"Oh that sounds like a whole tone or a diminished or a
harmonic minor scale" it might(?) seem more essential.
ie, "That sounds dorian".
I've played for hundreds of musical directors. I can
only recall one time in my life when any one of them
has used a greek mode to indicate how to play. He
said something like "Can you make this sound like
Nash chicken? Maybe something mixolydian?"
Lumpy
You were the "OPERATION" game voice?
Yes. Take out wrenched ankle.
tom walls
lu...@digitalcartography.com says...
overlooking the alternative possibilities that modes offer an
improvisor. If you're fond of the patterns and sounds of a particular
mode then it's at your disposal to apply to a given tonality. You may
also apply it to substitute tonalities. It's another technique to add to
your bag of tricks, and Trane and Liebman and others put it to good
effect, so it seems kind of sophmoric to write it off as superfluous.
Now I may be talking out of my ass because I don't use modes like this,
but I do use pentatonics this way and presume that modes can be utilized
the same way.
--
Tom Walls
You were the voice coming out of your ass?
Yes. I also talk through my hat.
Max Smith
several of the lessons are about finding the Imaj7, iimin7, V7 and
viimin7b5 arpeggios in all the shapes, all the keys - and knowing which
chord tones they are over a given chord.
And he stresses the creation of your own small melodic ideas as soon as
you learn the shapes. The shapes that Jimmy uses/teaches lend themselves
a very high amount of same or similar fingerings for a given idea or
phrase on different string combinations and positions of the fingerboard.
Hell - I'd pay $20 a month if Jimmy would just watch ONE video of me
playing a tune per month and offer his suggestions - but of course you
get much more than that.
Of course, it's not the only way to learn jazz, but is a great way to
learn from a great player at a very good price.
Max S.
tomsalvojazz
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not an educated player and not a great player by any means. I do
love to play, though, and I love hanging with people who inspire me to
practice. One thing I can do is play pretty fast. Another thing I
can do is come up with some pretty arrangements for solo chord melody,
when I put my mind to it.
So, as an ignorant player who is mostly self-taught and who doesn't
know shit about modes (a description that could easily also be applied
to Joe Pass... not that I'm comparing myself with him) I have a stupid
question: If I am playing over a Dm7 in the key of C, which is the ii
chord, right?!? - and if I play from an Ebm7 scale I get a nice
"outside" sound that I resolve by moving down a half-step. I
discovered this myself by accident. And then Mr Bruno confirmed that
this is, in fact, legal, in his "Inside Outside" video.
So... which mode would that be?
tom walls
toms...@optonline.net says...
>
> So... which mode would that be?
>
>
>
you're playing an Eb dorian and sideslipping to D dorian.
rpjazz...@gmail.com
I don't want to run scales or modes starting from the root. So, for
me, thinking D dorian vs C Ionian makes no difference to me.
I'd rather think about the chord tones of the chord I'm playing over
and which other notes will work against the chord to create different
sounds.
For major scale harmony it can be "Chord Tones and Key of X".
For another substantial group of chords it can be "Chord Tones and a
Melodic Minor Scale".
This way, all you need to know is the notes in each scale and the
fingerboard. You don't have to practice fingerings, you don't need to
memorize shapes and you can play anything, anywhere, starting on any
finger.
Of course, that's not the whole story. It's also helpful to be able to
think about "chord tones" and/or "another set of chord tones that fit
over the chord". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have impression that
this is the way Joe Pass thought.
I've thought about taking Jimmy's course, but I don't want to be
thinking about shapes after all the work I've done to avoid them.
Jimmy, what do you think?
335p...@gmail.com
> In article <1186330206.430546.95...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
with all due respect to both of you, what ARE you thinking about when
you solo on a tune like So What or Milestones? Of course it's very
possible to not think conciously "play D dorian...okay now Eb dorian."
But in fact, those scales do work and can be a useful guide especially
on tunes that stay on one chord for a long time. It's not the only way
to think of playing on a modal tune but it can be useful.
Max Leggett
<toms...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>So, as an ignorant player who is mostly self-taught and who doesn't
>know shit about modes (a description that could easily also be applied
>to Joe Pass... not that I'm comparing myself with him) I have a stupid
>question: If I am playing over a Dm7 in the key of C, which is the ii
>chord, right?!? - and if I play from an Ebm7 scale I get a nice
>"outside" sound that I resolve by moving down a half-step. I
>discovered this myself by accident. And then Mr Bruno confirmed that
>this is, in fact, legal, in his "Inside Outside" video.
>
>So... which mode would that be?
That's the mode that sounds good to your ears. Always the best mode to
play.
rayray
Isn't any great musician just thinking about the music, and the ideas
they want to express in relationship to what others in the group are
doing? Modes, shapes, arpeggios, or whatever crutch you use to get
through a tune are nothing more than that, a crutch.
If you want to know "what" to play over "So What", then lift Miles' solo
on it. Then lift three other solos by other players. I'd wager that
Jimmy Bruno learned to play by ear long before he came up with his
method of organizing his approach to playing the guitar. Years and
years of lifting heads, solos and any melodies by ear, until that skill
literally became second-nature. If you want to become a great player,
then drop the crutches and start working non-stop on the most important
tool, your ear!
rayray
335p...@gmail.com
> 335pla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 2:16 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >> In article <1186330206.430546.95...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> jimmyb <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote:
> >>> In my entire career, I have never, never thougth about a mode or a
> >>> scale when soloing. Even reading tunes or changes that I have never
> >>> seen before
> >> Well, then perhaps I am not alone! :-)
>
> > with all due respect to both of you, what ARE you thinking about when
> > you solo on a tune like So What or Milestones? Of course it's very
> > possible to not think conciously "play D dorian...okay now Eb dorian."
> > But in fact, those scales do work and can be a useful guide especially
> > on tunes that stay on one chord for a long time. It's not the only way
> > to think of playing on a modal tune but it can be useful.
>
> Isn't any great musician just thinking about the music, and the ideas
> they want to express in relationship to what others in the group are
> doing? Modes, shapes, arpeggios, or whatever crutch you use to get
> through a tune are nothing more than that, a crutch.
>
> If you want to know "what" to play over "So What", then lift Miles' solo
> on it.
Then lift three other solos by other players.
I've done a lot of that and I'm still doing it.
>I'd wager that > Jimmy Bruno learned to play by ear long before he came up with his
> method of organizing his approach to playing the guitar. Years and
> years of lifting heads, solos and any melodies by ear, until that skill
> literally became second-nature. If you want to become a great player,
> then drop the crutches and start working non-stop on the most important
> tool, your ear!
>
It sounds like you are proposing that a player should develop a
conceptual framework of music only after years of playing by ear.
That would be a long, frustrating and probably unsuccessful road for
most people. A framework and some essential building blocks are
necessary for most. I don't see them as crutches (although I guess
they can be if you're too lazy to do the ear training) as much as just
tools for conceptualizing the music. Someone upstream said Miles wrote
out the pitches of D Dorian when he presented So What to the other
players.All the players on that session had spent years practicing
scales, modes and arpeggios, and all had attended music school and
studied loads of theory. Eventually, if you play enough, these things
become second nature and your ear is the main thing. But It's one
thing to lift a Miles solo and quite another to play a good solo of
your own. You have to organize the music in some way and scales, arps,
modes shapes, whatever are just tools for doing that.
rayray
> It sounds like you are proposing that a player should develop a
> conceptual framework of music only after years of playing by ear.
> That would be a long, frustrating and probably unsuccessful road for
> most people. A framework and some essential building blocks are
> necessary for most. I don't see them as crutches (although I guess
> they can be if you're too lazy to do the ear training) as much as just
> tools for conceptualizing the music. Someone upstream said Miles wrote
> out the pitches of D Dorian when he presented So What to the other
> players.All the players on that session had spent years practicing
> scales, modes and arpeggios, and all had attended music school and
> studied loads of theory. Eventually, if you play enough, these things
> become second nature and your ear is the main thing. But It's one
> thing to lift a Miles solo and quite another to play a good solo of
> your own. You have to organize the music in some way and scales, arps,
> modes shapes, whatever are just tools for doing that.
>
I'm not saying that a "conceptual framework" doesn't need to be touched
upon, but few people become "successful" in their pursuit to play music
no matter what the approach. Primarily because they give up when the
going gets tough. You don't really need much theory to play music, but,
IMHO, if you're not focusing on the ear, then you're missing the boat.
It's a long road in any case.
rayray
Gerry
> In article <1186586145....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> toms...@optonline.net says...
>>
>> So... which mode would that be?
> From one self-professed uneducated player to another: I believe that
> you're playing an Eb dorian and sideslipping to D dorian.
It's not really a "mode" if we consider what you're doing. You're
taking a scale, which has a b3 and b7 and playing it somewhere other
than where it should be played. It's not a "mode" of any scale that
would be applicable, since you're in C and this scale refers to Db.
The modes are the same scale (say a C major scale) in which you operate
from the vantage point that "root" is something other than C. Each
successive note becomes the "root" of the mode. As such if you just
pick a F Locrian mode and throw it at whatever-the-heck is going on,
it's not a "mode" of anything in your mind or playing. You're just
playing a set structure in a random location.
That's why a lot of people who start getting excited about modes think
they are listening to other players USE these modes. The focus player
is certainly playing the same notes and he is doing internal
resolutions leveraging the 5th and b3 and b7 and so forth, so he is
relating to a subkey or mode of a parent key. He MUST be playing
modally, right? Not so.
Much of this stuff is about perspective. If I play a straight
phyrigian scale or mode in the appropriate place if I don't THINK I'm
using a mode, I'm not.
--
///---
Gerry
> In article <1186586145....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> toms...@optonline.net says...
>>
>> So... which mode would that be?
>>
>>
>>
> From one self-professed uneducated player to another: I believe that
> you're playing an Eb dorian and sideslipping to D dorian.
Oops: to respond to you, Mr. Walls: this is a classic example of
analyzing what another player is doing from a modeal perspective. The
OP gave you his string of notes and you analyzed them as a mode and
gave him the name and location. Accurate.
But if the OP doesn't know what the hell he's doing (no offense, Mr.
Salvo), and is instead just moving chess pieces around, then he can
hardly be said to be playing chess, right?
--
///---
335p...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is a long road and no argument form me about the importance of ear.
But it's crazy to think the majority of people we copy off of records
have only touched on a framework for understanding what they do.
Miles, Coltrane, Adderly, and Evans knew exactly what they were doing
and spent thousands of hours practicing the tunes, and the major,
minor, dominant scales, arps, and modes in all keys that are required
to play jazz. That's part of a basic conceptual framework and if you
don't have that you aren't going to get far.
jimmyb
but is certainly not about theory or modes or scales.
rayray
Personally, I'm thinking ear 90%, and conceptual framework 10%.
Practicing scales is overrated.
rayray
Max Leggett
wrote:
>>
>
>Personally, I'm thinking ear 90%, and conceptual framework 10%.
>Practicing scales is overrated.
Don't tell Trane.
Tim McNamara
335p...@gmail.com wrote:
Sticking with "So What," not having ever played "Milestones," I think in
terms of the tonal centers implied by the chords Dmin7 and Ebmin7: C
and Db respoectively, if keeping with the Dorian tonality. But since a
minor chord can be considered as being in three different keys (as the
ii, iii or vi chord)- C, F, Bb for the Dmin7 and Db, Gb and B for the
Ebmin7- I tend to cycle through different tonal centers to get a
different set of textures and emotional feel. It's not a perfect fit,
obviously, but it works well enough to be getting on with. For that
matter you can consider a minor chord as a vii chord if you can get away
with the b5 against the accompaniment; that would bring in one more
tonal center (D) in this case.
335p...@gmail.com
Well...the the goal is to make music from the scales, not to just
mindlessly run them. But you've got to learn them really well in order
to play your instrument and to respond to whatever is happening in the
moment. Depending on how you practice, working through scales can be a
form of ear training.Which players would you cite then that only have
a 10% grasp of what they do? Nobody is disputing that having good ears
is central to playing well. I'm saying most mortals need to grasp it
through a framework. Wes and Django are the exceptions not the rule.
Kevin Van Sant
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
<timmcn-1E4AFC....@news.iphouse.com> :
>Sticking with "So What," not having ever played "Milestones," I think in
>terms of the tonal centers implied by the chords Dmin7 and Ebmin7: C
>and Db respoectively, if keeping with the Dorian tonality. But since a
>minor chord can be considered as being in three different keys (as the
>ii, iii or vi chord)- C, F, Bb for the Dmin7 and Db, Gb and B for the
>Ebmin7- I tend to cycle through different tonal centers to get a
>different set of textures and emotional feel. It's not a perfect fit,
>obviously, but it works well enough to be getting on with. For that
>matter you can consider a minor chord as a vii chord if you can get away
>with the b5 against the accompaniment; that would bring in one more
>tonal center (D) in this case.
Obviously there are 100 ways to skin this cat, but I'm surprised with
all this talk of tonal centers and different ways you can consider a
minor chord... what about the minor chord being i, what about the
tonal centers being Dmin and Ebmin? That's certainly where I start
from. I never think of the key of Cmaj or Dbmaj when playing So
What.
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
http://www.kevinvansant.com
CDs, videos, mp3s, gigs, pics, lessons, info.
rpjazz...@gmail.com
When you've got 2 beats per chord at a high tempo without a ii-V in
sight, I'll forgive you if you're thinking theory.
Just my opinion.
Rick
Kevin Collins
>
> Personally, I'm thinking ear 90%, and conceptual framework 10%.
> Practicing scales is overrated.
>
I'm with ya there. Scales are great for warmups, even for setups (ie.
checking each note's playability vs. buzz). They're a little like
spelling out the alphabet in a conversation, though, when done too
much in context. And as it doesn't really behoove one to practice
something you don't intend to play, I don't find myself practicing
them a whole lot.
-Kevin
Lumpy
> I'm not saying that a "conceptual framework" doesn't need to be
> touched upon, but few people become "successful" in their pursuit to
I'd like to offer an argument to the concept "successful".
Jimmy Bruno - successful? He's happy with what he does.
He likes the way he plays. Others like the way he plays.
I'm "successful". I played with a lot of people and retired
early. It's paid the bills, I've enjoyed the heck out
of playing all my life.
Jimi Hendrix - Successful? He made records, kids adored him.
He OD'd at a young age (or was killed by his girlfriend,
depending on how you look at the story).
Phil Specter - Successful?
Jolene and the Lesbians playing at the local coffee house.
Successful? Maybe they all work at the bank and the health
club and the water department for their day job. They dig
going out on Friday nights and singing folk songs at
Coffee Sloffy for eleven dollars in tips.
Billy Bedroom Wanker - Successful? DUDE, he can play the shredder
lick from his favorite black metal mega death tune.
Maybe he perceives of himself as perfectly successful.
We don't need a "framework" to be successful. And we don't
need to "know the modes". We COULD have a framework. We
COULD understand what mode we're in while we're playing
any given solo. But heck, we could know 3 chords and
be a success in some genre.
Modes, scales even chord names, those are all analytical tools.
There surely are "successful" players that don't have a clue
about what mode or scale they're playing, maybe even what
chord. I've ghost tracked dozens of parts for guitarists
that are unmistakenly successful. Yet ask them to play a
Bb chord and they ask "What fret does the capo go on?"
Lumpy
Were you the voice of Casper?
No. Popeye, Snagglepuss and Wells Fargo Bank.
www.lumpyvoice.net
335p...@gmail.com
> In article <1186597910.425591.289...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> 335pla...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 2:16 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > > In article <1186330206.430546.95...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > jimmyb <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote:
> > > > In my entire career, I have never, never thougth about a mode or
> > > > a scale when soloing. Even reading tunes or changes that I have
> > > > never seen before
>
> > > Well, then perhaps I am not alone! :-)
>
> > with all due respect to both of you, what ARE you thinking about when
> > you solo on a tune like So What or Milestones? Of course it's very
> > possible to not think conciously "play D dorian...okay now Eb
> > dorian." But in fact, those scales do work and can be a useful guide
> > especially on tunes that stay on one chord for a long time. It's not
> > the only way to think of playing on a modal tune but it can be
> > useful.
>
> Sticking with "So What," not having ever played "Milestones," I think in
> terms of the tonal centers implied by the chords Dmin7 and Ebmin7: C
> and Db respoectively, if keeping with the Dorian tonality. But since a
> minor chord can be considered as being in three different keys (as the
> ii, iii or vi chord)- C, F, Bb for the Dmin7 and Db, Gb and B for the
> Ebmin7- I tend to cycle through different tonal centers to get a
> different set of textures and emotional feel.
I think you may have just made a case for what you say you don't do,
which is thinking in terms of modes. From a modal perspective you're
playing D dorian D phrygian and D Aeolian. What I find interesting is
that you say you cycle through them for different textures, which is
exactly the reason that some people approach music modally. Because
each mode has it's own personality or mood.
Tim McNamara
Kevin Van Sant <kvan...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:54:51 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> <timmcn-1E4AFC....@news.iphouse.com> :
>
>
> >Sticking with "So What," not having ever played "Milestones," I
> >think in terms of the tonal centers implied by the chords Dmin7 and
> >Ebmin7: C and Db respoectively, if keeping with the Dorian
> >tonality. But since a minor chord can be considered as being in
> >three different keys (as the ii, iii or vi chord)- C, F, Bb for the
> >Dmin7 and Db, Gb and B for the Ebmin7- I tend to cycle through
> >different tonal centers to get a different set of textures and
> >emotional feel. It's not a perfect fit, obviously, but it works
> >well enough to be getting on with. For that matter you can consider
> >a minor chord as a vii chord if you can get away with the b5 against
> >the accompaniment; that would bring in one more tonal center (D) in
> >this case.
>
> Obviously there are 100 ways to skin this cat,
The great thing about jazz!
> but I'm surprised with all this talk of tonal centers and different
> ways you can consider a minor chord... what about the minor chord
> being i, what about the tonal centers being Dmin and Ebmin? That's
> certainly where I start from. I never think of the key of Cmaj or
> Dbmaj when playing So What.
I tend to think in terms of major keys, one of my weaknesses as a
musician as the foregoing shows. Even if I thought about Dmin or Ebmin
as the tonal center, I would tend to use the enharmonic major keys (F
and Gb) for convenience, which of course are also the tonal centers
you'd be playing in if you adhered to the Dorian mode. I might use the
blues scale, too, but only for a limited time. Even when I play a
blues, I still tend to actually play in the major scale tonality a minor
third above (so Bb major over a G blues, etc.) since that contains the
notes of the blues scale and it's more convenient to finger.
tom walls
some...@sunny.calif says...
> On 2007-08-08 08:35:02 -0700, tom walls <tw...@cornell.edu> said:
>
> > In article <1186586145....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> > toms...@optonline.net says...
> >>
> >> So... which mode would that be?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > From one self-professed uneducated player to another: I believe that
> > you're playing an Eb dorian and sideslipping to D dorian.
>
> Oops: to respond to you, Mr. Walls: this is a classic example of
> analyzing what another player is doing from a modeal perspective. The
> OP gave you his string of notes and you analyzed them as a mode and
> gave him the name and location. Accurate.
And, of course, this is what he asked.
>
> But if the OP doesn't know what the hell he's doing (no offense, Mr.
> Salvo), and is instead just moving chess pieces around, then he can
> hardly be said to be playing chess, right?
>
Absolutely. Or absolutely not, I guess. I remember a guy telling me that
his guitar teacher told him that you could always approach any chord
tone from a half step away. By conjecture, I began superimposing entire
chords a half step away. And thus sideslipping was born! I also added
the b9 to the blues scale, and invented the bookpack. I'm just getting
warmed up!
rayray
That's a good one!
But in some respects it can be misleading to compare a horn player's
practice routine to a guitarist's. The physical nature of playing an
instrument like the tenor sax requires lots of practice just get a good
sound out of the notes being blown. I don't play a wind instrument, but
I'm sure that playing scales helps a horn player to isolate and resolve
the issues in sounding their respective instrument.
Instruments like the guitar and piano take less effort to "sound" a
note. To me, it would seem to be an advantage on the guitar to move as
quickly as possible away from playing scales and moving to working on
ideas. A large portion of my time is currently spent lifting ideas by
ear, coming up with a couple of fingerings and cycling them through all
keys. For me, I feel that it combines working on technique, my ear and
the music all at the same time.
My current warmup routine is playing the following 25 blues heads back
to back, all transposed to Bb (lifted with the kind help of Transcribe!):
The Opener (Charlie Parker) September 18, 1949
Au Privave (Charlie Parker) January 17, 1951
Visa (Charlie Parker) March 1949
Bloomdido (Charlie Parker) June 06, 1950
Buzzy (Charlie Parker) May 08, 1947
Billie's Bounce (Charlie Parker) November 26, 1945
Back Home Blues (Charlie Parker) August 08, 1951
Bongo Bop (Charlie Parker) October 28, 1947
Perhaps (Charlie Parker) September 24, 1948
Blues (Fast) (Charlie Parker) March 1950
Cheryl (Charlie Parker) May 08, 1947
Mohawk (Charlie Parker) June 06, 1950
Relaxin' at Camarillo (Charlie Parker) February 26, 1947
Blues for Alice (Charlie Parker) August 8, 1951
Blue n' Boogie (Dizzy Gillespie) March 31, 1951
Charlie's Wig (Charlie Parker) December 17, 1947
Jam Blues (Charlie Parker) June 05, 1952
Big Foot (Charlie Parker) December 11, 1948
Cool Blues (Charlie Parker) February 19, 1947
JATP Blues (Lester Young) April 22, 1946
Now's The Time (Charlie Parker) November 26, 1945
Jumping With Symphony Sid (Lester Young) January 1, 1949
Barbados (Charlie Parker) September 18, 1948
Chi-Chi (Charlie Parker) July 30, 1953
The Closer (Charlie Parker) September 18, 1949
I don't need no stink'in scales! ;)
rayray
Max Leggett
wrote:
>>
>> Don't tell Trane.
>>
>
>Instruments like the guitar and piano take less effort to "sound" a
>note. To me, it would seem to be an advantage on the guitar to move as
>quickly as possible away from playing scales and moving to working on
>ideas.
Yeah. Scales are useful for developing a legato tone all over the
range of the instrument and for developing dexterity, esp when you
play them in 3rds, 4ths, etc, and for getting outside sounds in your
ear and under yur fingers, but at the intermediate level, assuming
you're practicing 2 hours a day, more than 10 minutes on scales would
be overkill. At the beginner level, more than 20 minutes wd be too
much. Once y have a steady tone over the entire range and your
dexterity is comng along, scales start losing value.
>
>I don't need no stink'in scales! ;)
:-) Once you have the tone and dexterity, then copping solos and
heads and learning tunes is the way to go.
Tim McNamara
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
Noooope. Obviously not. That's what I get for typing late at night
when very tired. Sheesh. Ignore the last half of that sentence,
clearly the lunatic ravings of someone who doesn't proofread adequately!
Tim McNamara
335p...@gmail.com wrote:
You're confusing post-hoc analysis for realtime thinking. I don't think
of modes when I play. I think of keys. What you're doing is looking at
it afterwards and saying "you were playing in modes" when I played
phrases within a major scale with nary a thought of what modes there
might be.
jimmyb
the highest. Not from root to root. That's what gave me the ideas of
the five shapes. On a sax, there are twelve patterns for major
scales, one for each key. On the guitar, this same idea exists in
five places, as if it were five horns
rayray
> Horn players practice their scales from the lowest note of the horn to
> the highest. Not from root to root. That's what gave me the ideas of
> the five shapes. On a sax, there are twelve patterns for major
> scales, one for each key. On the guitar, this same idea exists in
> five places, as if it were five horns
>
I applaud you on organizing your approach to playing guitar. The pain
in the ass for me has always been the idea that there are so many
potential places to finger an idea on the fretboard, multiplied by 12
keys. It's always left me feeling a little overwhelmed. Your approach
appears to help simplify the very thing that likely discourages many
aspiring players.
rayray
tomsalvojazz
> On 2007-08-08 08:35:02 -0700, tom walls <t...@cornell.edu> said:
>
> > In article <1186586145.267861.3...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> > tomsa...@optonline.net says...
>
> >> So... which mode would that be?
>
> > From one self-professed uneducated player to another: I believe that
> > you're playing an Eb dorian and sideslipping to D dorian.
>
> Oops: to respond to you, Mr. Walls: this is a classic example of
> analyzing what another player is doing from a modeal perspective. The
> OP gave you his string of notes and you analyzed them as a mode and
> gave him the name and location. Accurate.
>
> But if the OP doesn't know what the hell he's doing (no offense, Mr.
> Salvo), and is instead just moving chess pieces around, then he can
> hardly be said to be playing chess, right?
> --
> ///---
None taken :) I was, in reality, not revealing that I don't know what
the hell I'm doing (although I'll often be the first one to admit
that); I was, hopefully, challenging people to think about playing in
different ways, with modes *not* being the end-all and be-all of
musical creativity.
Chess is a game with rules. There are no rules in music (to me).
I've heard some great jazz players (guitar, sax, other...) start out
playing a phrase, and then failing and moving to something else. Yes;
I think modes have validity in the analysis of why a certain set of
notes sound a certain way over a certain chord. But if all you play
over Dm7 is D dorian, you're following the "rule," but you're going to
be boring.
Jimmy explained it best as writing on a white piece of paper with
white ink. I'd rather hear the "wrong" notes over a given chord. I
used the quotes there since there are notes that do sound actually
wrong - harsh, dissonant, etc. but there are 'wrong' notes that are
just outside notes and you have to play them in a context and resolve
them. The chord structure is a moving target. An Eb dorian scale
sounds great over a Dm7 chord (with a cool resolution) but it's NOT a
mode in the key of C.
I don't think about where to place the direct object in a sentence,
although I once learned that there is a proper place for it. Yes,
modes are a valid common language that allow us to learn what MIGHT
work and what MIGHT not, in theory (maybe that's why it's called
"music theory" - it's just a theory?); they are also a great tool for
retrospective analysis. It's just one piece of the puzzle. You can
be a grammar expert who has nothing to say...
All I know is the guys toward whom I tend to gravitate as a listener
tend to be the ones who don't seem so obsessed with modes (Jimmy, Joe
Pass, Joe Diorio) but there seems to be more than one right answer and
no wrong ones.
tom walls
toms...@optonline.net says...
nothing but the most vanilla, pedestrian application of modes possible.
Oh well. I'm not big on modes myself, nor am I an avid transcriber, a
Charlie Parker obsessive, or the posessor of a massive repertoire, but I
have had the opportunity to enjoy the playing of musicians that have
followed these paths to great accomplishment.
I'm not necessarily directing this comment at you, Tom, I'm just sayin':
"Open your minds, gentlemen." You don't have to be a theory hating
crusader to find Jimmy's method rewarding.
tomsalvojazz
> In article <1186674669.425799.262...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> tomsa...@optonline.net says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
I absolutely agree and, in fact, I'm intrigued by the science - if you
can call it that - of music theory. Further, I do have the utmost
respect and admiration for people who can speak intelligently on the
subject. I feel the same way about guys who don't believe in
practicing technique. Technique and theory are the tools. I like the
idea that people can approach music in different ways and take it in
different directions. Frank Gambale certainly knows how to employ
modes in his playing and he's one of my favorites too.
rayray
> rayray wrote:
>> I'm not saying that a "conceptual framework" doesn't need to be
>> touched upon, but few people become "successful" in their pursuit to
>> play music no matter what the approach...
>
> I'd like to offer an argument to the concept "successful".
>
For me, "success" is just sticking with it and getting some enjoyment
out of it. But for others it may be just the fact that they ever played
at all.
Failure to me is getting discouraged and giving up. And I've failed
numerous times! No more! :)
rayray
jimmyb
or whatever you want to call it on the same finger, most fo the time.
That is what the CAGED system does not do. At first glance it looks
the same but it not anything remotely close. YOu will find that there
are only two fingers to play the same phrase give or take an exception
here and there when crossing the 'B' string
jimmyb
ear and defintely used shapes, he called them "grips". Different than
mine but noethe less, the same concept. As for joing, that is up to
you. I don't think you will have to unlearn anything. The lessons
are very specific
On Aug 8, 2:27 pm, rpjazzgui...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here's my problem with thinking about modes.
>
> I don't want to run scales or modes starting from the root. So, for
> me, thinking D dorian vs C Ionian makes no difference to me.
>
> I'd rather think about the chord tones of the chord I'm playing over
> and which other notes will work against the chord to create different
> sounds.
>
> For major scale harmony it can be "Chord Tones and Key of X".
>
> For another substantial group of chords it can be "Chord Tones and a
> Melodic Minor Scale".
>
> This way, all you need to know is the notes in each scale and the
> fingerboard. You don't have to practice fingerings, you don't need to
> memorize shapes and you can play anything, anywhere, starting on any
> finger.
>
> Of course, that's not the whole story. It's also helpful to be able to
> think about "chord tones" and/or "another set of chord tones that fit
> over the chord". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have impression that
> this is the way Joe Pass thought.
>
> I've thought about taking Jimmy's course, but I don't want to be
> thinking about shapes after all the work I've done to avoid them.
>
> Jimmy, what do you think?
Tim McNamara
jimmyb <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote:
> Horn players practice their scales from the lowest note of the horn
> to the highest. Not from root to root.
I didn't know that. That's interesting.
rpjazz...@gmail.com
For the hypothetical standard horn player ...
Let's say he gets the to the G7 in a ii V I in C. He's thinking, not
simply relying on his ear. He wants an outside sound, so he figures
he'll play Galt or maybe he's thinking Abmelmin (same notes).
Now he has to find them on his instrument.
Is he going to think, the scale has Ab Bb Cb Db Eb F G and just know
where those notes are ...
or,
is he going to think about a memorized fingering pattern that he can
find based on the geometry of the instrument?
or,
maybe he'll know the sequence of half steps and whole steps he wants
and find it that way?
This is a real question. I would like to know the answer to this. How
do horn players think?
Can the average horn player simply rattle off the names of the notes
in the scales he uses without thinking?
I'd imagine that pianists know which notes are in which scales and
probably often think about "those white keys and those black keys.
But, I bet that a lot of guitar players can't name the notes of the
scales or chords they use. I mean, automatically, as easily as you can
rattle off, say, the notes of an F major scale.
Rick
pmfan57
Right and wrong in tonal music is strictly based on context, both
temporally and harmonically. Just listen, in isolation, to some of
the Ivesian chords that appear in some of Bach's chorales, the "old
testament" of harmony. But in the context of the chord before and the
chord after, those dissonant chords sound exactly perfect. (I can
still remember my music professor clanging those chords and laughing).
pmfan57
You may have to unlearn how to type if you really want the entire
Jimmy Bruno experience. ;-)