Soloing On "Here's That Rainy Day"
Revrun' Doc
I've loved the tune "Here's That Rainy Day" ever since I took up jazz
guitar. Joe Pass and Jimmy Bruno do wonderful renditions for solo
guitar, and Johnny Smith has, for my mind, the definitive ensemble
recording.
Somehow, I still have difficulty soloing melodically over this tune. The
main problems come with the four bars. Once I get past that section, I
am a bit more at ease.
For reference, I'm using the following chords in the first four
measures:
/GMaj7/BbMaj7/EbMaj7/AbMaj7/Am7 etc.
Now I know I could go transcribe Johnny Smith, which I may just do
anyway. Still, I'd like to know how you all approach this.
What's interesting is a series of chords that do a cycle of fourths in
major chords. Normally we see that in dominant seventh. I also can spot
that Bb is the flat-five of E, Eb is the flat-five of A, and Ab is the
flat-five of D, which means we have a root movement that looks like a
simple I VI II V that has employed flat-five subs for the VI II and V.
What I like to try is to keep to one scale if at all possible, but here
it seems like a "vertical" approach is dictated.
Well have at it. Examples from other great solos would be helpful too.
--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“No, make no mistake. It’s not revenge he’s after, it’s…the reckoning…”
—Doc Holliday, spoken of Wyatt Earp in “Tombstone”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lawson G. Stone
Wilmore, Kentucky
Travis Harrell
Lawson,
I think this may lead to an interesting discussion. Reading your post
and those of others in unrelated postings, I have detected (perhaps
erroneously) a certain reluctance to employ a vertical approach to
playing. My question to the world in general is why? Mind you, I don't
think that vertical playing is the only way to go but it certainly is a
very nice tool in the old tool kit.
Anyway, to respond to the specifics of your question, for the above
chord sequence the first thing that enters my mind is playing it
vertically (surprise). By vertically, I certainly don't mean arpeggios,
but rather working within a collection of scales that to your ear apply
to the chord. If this doesn't appeal to you, we can compromise by
reducing the number of different key centers by playing in Eb for both
the Bb and Eb chords or play in Ab for both the Eb and Ab chords, etc.
Another approach may be to play Gmaj the first measure and then various
forms of Gm for the following three measures. If you examine the Bb,
Eb, and Ab chords they are all related to some form of Gm. In
general, I don't personaly use this approach too much because my lazy
mind will start to ignore the chord tones and this can, under the
influence of fatigue or beer, lead to a less than tasteful solo or
worse, degrade into a gawd awful pentatonic fit.
Now to wander away from your original question. You may have guessed by
now that I like vertical approaches and would encourage others to
incorporate them into their playing. Please note, lest I be burned to a
crisp by this group, that I don't advocate a 100% vertical philosophy to
soloing. Personally I do try first to develop the ability to solo over
any unfamiliar harmonic structure vertically and only then work on more
horizontal approaches. This may seem backwards to a lot of people but
it seems to help me alot.
(begin sermon here)
Vertical playing tends to outline the harmony by encouraging the use of
the current chord tones or the chord tones of the substitutions being
employed. Vertical playing also leads me (please note, I'm not
claiming this for anyone else folks!) to more reuseable ideas than
horizontal approaches. Perhaps this is letting a library of licks
substitute for substantive ideas but I'm aware of it and try to make it
work for me as opposed to working without me if you get my point.
Combined with horizontal approaches, vertical playing can add a lot of
variety over the old standards like Confirmation and rhythm changes.
Last point, I don't know how to play horizontally over tunes like Giant
Steps but maybe someone else has worked that out and can illuminate me
(I'd sure like to know).
Well! I feel better now that I've articulated all over the group.
Thanks for the opening Lawson.
Travis in Ft. Worth
PS: All of the above is my personal opinion and I'm not famous and
therefore of no credibility whatsoever. So just maybe you shouldn't
try this at home kids.
remove xx's for email
Andy Bullington
> For reference, I'm using the following chords in the first four
> measures:
>
> /GMaj7/BbMaj7/EbMaj7/AbMaj7/Am7 etc.
>
> Now I know I could go transcribe Johnny Smith, which I may just do
> anyway. Still, I'd like to know how you all approach this.
>
> What I like to try is to keep to one scale if at all possible, but here
> it seems like a "vertical" approach is dictated.
One scale definitely won't work but you could think G aeolian for
Bbmaj7 and Ebmaj7 (key of Bb) then flat the 2 for the Ab giving
you G phrygian. A quick and dirty way to do this would be in
2nd and 3rd position. You can also easily find all the arpeggios
here then move the same idea all around the fingerboard.
This idea also gives you #11s on your Ebmaj7 and Abmaj7.
You may or may not like them so adjust according to taste.
I like em! I'm calling this scale G aeolian for two reasons. Because of
where
I'm suggesting getting started (3rd position); if you're playing
it over Bb and Eb its really just a Bb major scale.Also in a case
like this I like to think out of one key(G) and change as little
as possible as the chords change. That way I might be able
to stretch one idea over all 4 chords. Hope this helps.
awb
Chris S.
> I've loved the tune "Here's That Rainy Day" ever since I took up jazz
> guitar. Joe Pass and Jimmy Bruno do wonderful renditions for solo
> guitar, and Johnny Smith has, for my mind, the definitive ensemble
> recording.
>
> Somehow, I still have difficulty soloing melodically over this tune. The
> main problems come with the four bars. Once I get past that section, I
> am a bit more at ease.
>
> For reference, I'm using the following chords in the first four
> measures:
>
> /GMaj7/BbMaj7/EbMaj7/AbMaj7/Am7 etc.
<snip>
>
> What I like to try is to keep to one scale if at all possible, but here
> it seems like a "vertical" approach is dictated.
I agree. The vertical nature of the structure pretty much begs *some*
amount of vertical movement in either scalar or arpeggiated thinking.
Personally, whenever I see a non-diatonic major 7th that's *not* preceded
by either its relative V7 or a IIm7 V7, I tend to hear it as Lydian in
nature (but that's just my ear; play around and see what sounds best to
you). You can also smooth the transition from chord to chord (and keep
your accents on chord tones) by using the bebop major scales.
Another approach that you might try, while still somewhat "vertical" in
nature, could lead you to some interesting thematic ideas. Take a
descending pattern of notes - NOT chords - like G - F - Eb - D (play it as
a bass line and you'll recognize it immediately) and make each *note* your
focus for one bar. You'll still have to alter the accompanying scales to
fit the chords, but your accented tones will then be the root of the G
chord, fifth on the Bb, root on the Eb, and a nicely colorful #11 on the
Ab. This will at least get you away from the old "play a theme, play it
up a minor 3rd, play it up a 4th, play it up a 4th AGAIN" sort of
approach. Best of luck. :)
--
/////////////////////////////////////////
// Writing about music is like dancing //
// about architecture. //
// - Frank Zappa //
/////////////////////////////////////////
Remove "X's" from email address to reply.
Revrun' Doc
Travis Harrell wrote:
>
>
> Lawson,
>
> I think this may lead to an interesting discussion. Reading your post
> and those of others in unrelated postings, I have detected (perhaps
> erroneously) a certain reluctance to employ a vertical approach to
> playing. My question to the world in general is why? Mind you, I don't
> think that vertical playing is the only way to go but it certainly is a
> very nice tool in the old tool kit.
>
think it's bad or anything (how could any kind of playing be "bad"?)
Well, when I frist started playing jazz guitar, I felt I had to hit
every change, and all my playing strove to be vertical. Playing mainly
solo jazz guitar, chord-melody style, that was natural. My melodic ideas
spun off the chord voicings I was using. But I found soloing in the
traditional way with a rhythm section was too frantic, and I ended up
recycling bunches of arpeggio fragments just to survive the changes. I
wasn't having fun, and the listeners weren't either. So I decided to
give the horizontal approach a whirl, mainly because I could take my
time and think about phrasing and melodic ideas. I'm NOT saying vertical
players dont', I just saying that when I tried it, I was too busy just
making the changes to play anything. "That boy sure can make the
changes" isn't exactly an insult, but I longed to be a more melodic
player. Anyhow, I also started transcribing players whose solos I
enjoyed, and I found usually they took a horizontal-melodic approach
reducing changes to key centers and playing in that key, but using a
vertical approach in spots for emphasis, variety, or to really hit the
harmonic structure hard. Of course, the bebop greats were very vertical
in approach, but I'm still surprised at how linear even they get. Or
rather, their vertical playing doesn't SOUND like "making the changes"
but rather sound like linear melodies that kiss the changes without
really falling into my "blazing arpeggios" approach.
> Anyway, to respond to the specifics of your question, for the above
> chord sequence the first thing that enters my mind is playing it
> vertically (surprise). By vertically, I certainly don't mean arpeggios,
> but rather working within a collection of scales that to your ear apply
> to the chord. If this doesn't appeal to you, we can compromise by
> reducing the number of different key centers by playing in Eb for both
> the Bb and Eb chords or play in Ab for both the Eb and Ab chords, etc.
>
Just this morning I discovered the Gmaj to G minor idea. I also tend to
play Gm pentatonic ideas over Eb as well.
> Another approach may be to play Gmaj the first measure and then various
> forms of Gm for the following three measures. If you examine the Bb,
> Eb, and Ab chords they are all related to some form of Gm. In
> general, I don't personaly use this approach too much because my lazy
> mind will start to ignore the chord tones and this can, under the
> influence of fatigue or beer, lead to a less than tasteful solo or
> worse, degrade into a gawd awful pentatonic fit.
>
Now you're talking about me. Be careful, there buddy! Actually I have
found pentatonics helpful when I want to work on rhythm or phrasing.
Fewer notes placed more meaningfully. I mean that not to the exclusion
of other approaches, but simply as a concious exercise or approach for a
particular peformance.
> Now to wander away from your original question. You may have guessed by
> now that I like vertical approaches and would encourage others to
> incorporate them into their playing. Please note, lest I be burned to a
> crisp by this group, that I don't advocate a 100% vertical philosophy to
> soloing. Personally I do try first to develop the ability to solo over
> any unfamiliar harmonic structure vertically and only then work on more
> horizontal approaches. This may seem backwards to a lot of people but
> it seems to help me alot.
>
For me, vertical playing is essential for learning the harmonic
structure of a song. I still like Aebersold's suggestion for learning
tunes--slowly taking each change and playing scale and arpeggio
fragments through the tune simply to learn the landscape. Yet I still
find I do better if, e.g. on a ii-V I just play the ii. Dm7 G7 for me
becomes either an extended D minor idea or an extended G7 idea. I tend
to classify reductions either as "Martino Style" (reduce to minor) or
"Joe Pass Style" (reduce to Dominant and altered Dominant).
> (begin sermon here)
> Vertical playing tends to outline the harmony by encouraging the use of
> the current chord tones or the chord tones of the substitutions being
> employed. Vertical playing also leads me (please note, I'm not
> claiming this for anyone else folks!) to more reuseable ideas than
> horizontal approaches. Perhaps this is letting a library of licks
> substitute for substantive ideas but I'm aware of it and try to make it
> work for me as opposed to working without me if you get my point.
> Combined with horizontal approaches, vertical playing can add a lot of
> variety over the old standards like Confirmation and rhythm changes.
> Last point, I don't know how to play horizontally over tunes like Giant
> Steps but maybe someone else has worked that out and can illuminate me
> (I'd sure like to know).
>
Bingo on that. Some songs, especially Bebop classics, demand vertical
playing. I think that especially the difference between a bebop approach
to blues and the traditional approach is in this. Traditional blues
plays horizontally, but the bebop blues player throws in lots of
approach chords and subs, then builds lines vertically. No question
about that. I love to hear that, I just find it incredibly hard to do. I
know, practise.
> Well! I feel better now that I've articulated all over the group.
> Thanks for the opening Lawson.
>
> Travis in Ft. Worth
>
> PS: All of the above is my personal opinion and I'm not famous and
> therefore of no credibility whatsoever. So just maybe you shouldn't
> try this at home kids.
>
Thanks for your opinions. I wonder if Marc Sabatella is out there
anywhere?
Revrun' Doc
Chris S. wrote:
>
>
> I agree. The vertical nature of the structure pretty much begs *some*
> amount of vertical movement in either scalar or arpeggiated thinking.
> Personally, whenever I see a non-diatonic major 7th that's *not* preceded
> by either its relative V7 or a IIm7 V7, I tend to hear it as Lydian in
> nature (but that's just my ear; play around and see what sounds best to
> you). You can also smooth the transition from chord to chord (and keep
> your accents on chord tones) by using the bebop major scales.
>
> Another approach that you might try, while still somewhat "vertical" in
> nature, could lead you to some interesting thematic ideas. Take a
> descending pattern of notes - NOT chords - like G - F - Eb - D (play it as
> a bass line and you'll recognize it immediately) and make each *note* your
> focus for one bar. You'll still have to alter the accompanying scales to
> fit the chords, but your accented tones will then be the root of the G
> chord, fifth on the Bb, root on the Eb, and a nicely colorful #11 on the
> Ab. This will at least get you away from the old "play a theme, play it
> up a minor 3rd, play it up a 4th, play it up a 4th AGAIN" sort of
> approach. Best of luck. :)
>
and Bb, then go up to Eb which is common to the next two chords, Eb and
Ab, then to E for the Am7 D7. That simple sequence could produce a nice
line if developed and phrased well.
> --
> /////////////////////////////////////////
> // Writing about music is like dancing //
> // about architecture. //
> // - Frank Zappa //
> /////////////////////////////////////////
>
> Remove "X's" from email address to reply.
--
Randall Zywicki
Hey, where did this thread about making music come from? Does this sort
of discussion belong in this ng? Maybe we can discuss whether or not
these approaches constitute "real jazz".
--
Randy Zywicki, Systems Engineer
Raytheon TI Systems
(972) 952-6293
zyw...@rtis.ray.com
Travis Harrell
Marc,
Couple of questions:
When you say you have a melody in mind, do you mean that before, say the
chorus, starts, you already have a complete melody for the entire chorus
in your head. If so that's way beyond me. Typically when I first
start a chorus, I will have an open ended idea that may or may not
extend beyond the first few beats. The remainder of the idea, if there
is any coherency to be had that day, develops as I go along. Maybe I'll
come up with an idea or theme that will last the whole chorus, or maybe
I'll have to putz along with my trademark disjointed phrases. This is
actually an interesting concept. Right now if God said, don't even
start the chorus without a complete idea for the whole solo, I'd be in a
lot of trouble. How do you do that?
Now on to another point. I think some of your concern about the prior
posts was that maybe I or Lawson were suggesting that a vertical
approach be sort of a chord to chord concept. At least in my mind, the
starting point for developing vertical playing is chord to chord but
once one is competent with this, then more overarching concepts can be
easily realized - what I tend to think of as vertical playing over chord
groupings. This approach in my mind leads to the longer melodic
concepts that are more connected and don't sound so disjointed. Maybe
you were saying the same thing, I dunno.
Travis in Ft. Worth
Marc Sabatella
>> = Lawson
> = Travis
>I decided to
>give the horizontal approach a whirl, mainly because I could take my
>time and think about phrasing and melodic ideas. I'm NOT saying vertical
>players dont', I just saying that when I tried it, I was too busy just
>making the changes to play anything.
First, let me be sure we're playing the same changes here (thought I
forgot about that one, huh?): when you say "vertical" in this context,
you mean the idea of changing scales for (almost) each chord, as opposed
to trying to find a common scale and letting it ride as long as
possible.
I think I have a different way of going about this type of "vertical"
playing than some people, and I think it may explain why I never feel
myself being melodically limited. I would say the difference is that
despite changing scales relatively often, my thinking is still largely
what I would call "horizontal" - having to do with melody, not harmony.
One simple test - do your ideas tend to come one chord at a time, or
do they span chords? I think the former is going to lead to dead ends;
one must always strive for the latter.
Here is how I would explain the difference with an analogy. Let's say
we are crossing a marsh - a big expanse of space with some dry land but
a lot more of puddles and ponds as well. Luckily, all the puddles and
ponds have large rocks, logs, and other slid objects we can step on,
provided we step carefully, to make our way across. So many objects, in
fact, that it isn't actually dangerous to cross; there are just a lot of
options as to how to proceed. The water isn't even more than a foot
deep for the most part, so even if you miss a stone and fall in, it is a
simple matter to pick yourself up and continue.
Here is how I see the "wrong" type of vertical thinker going about
crossing this marsh. He looks ahead at the next puddle (one chord),
finds all the possible stepping stones within it (scale tones),
formulates a plan (constructs a lick), then crosses following the
planned path (plays the lick). Then he approaches the next puddle
(chord) the same way.
What's wrong with this? Nothing, if your only goal is to make it
across the marsh. But it doesn't lend itself to making an interesting
path when you look at the big picture - and this is, in music, what I
think we should be doing. Trying to make a good melody when seen at a
level above that of the individual chord. I don't care how many nice
licks you play, if they don't relate meaningfully, it isn't going to be
a melodically interesting solo. Also, from a practical perspective,
when improvising, you don't get time to stop and assess each upcoming
chord to formulate your plan, so you either fall back on a couple of
tried-and-true licks or else fumble around and miss a lot of notes.
So what is the alternative? Start at one side of the marsh. Look out
as far as you can before taking your first step - not just one puddle,
but out to the horizon. Pick your general route, then start to follow
it. As you cross each pond, don't stop. Try to follow the contour of
whatever your original plan was, but as you take each step in the
direction you wish to go, just choose whatever stone happens to be
nearest your foot. Every once in a while, there may be no convenient
stone. Don't bother stopping to consider your dilemma, just take a
split second to decide whether to take a slight detour and hit the safe
stones, or just plunge into the water for a couple of steps, and then
*do it*. Keeping up the momentum is more important than which decision
you make. Trust that if you take the slight detour, you'll be able to
get back on track - or make a new plan, just as long-ranging
and yet non-specific, that will lead somewhere interesting as well.
Trust that if you plunge into the water, your momentum will carry you
out again and you will be no worse for the experience.
How does this relate to music? I hope it is somewhat obvious, but I'll
get to the specific example at hand to demonstrate what I mean a bit
later. Right now, I think I'll just throw in one more bit of analogy -
Super Mario Brothers. Remember that game? He just keeps moving, and
you make decisions on the run, not based on planning each screen one at
a time, but rather more on the fly. At least, that is how I played it.
I don't worry about making the ultimate path through each screen; they
come too fast for that. Instead, I have general game plan in mind (or
would have, had I ever learned anything about the game), and make
individual decisions as they come along. When you are on the screen for
one key (bring a bit of music back into play), it makes no sense to
worry about what key you started in, so of course your line molds
itselfs to the chords as they go by. You have to be good at thinking on
the run. But isn't that the whole challenge of improvisation?
>Of course, the bebop greats were very vertical
>in approach, but I'm still surprised at how linear even they get. Or
>rather, their vertical playing doesn't SOUND like "making the changes"
>but rather sound like linear melodies that kiss the changes without
>really falling into my "blazing arpeggios" approach.
Kissing the changes. I like it. A less long-winded way of getting at
the same thing I was just saying about following the general route and
hitting the stones (or not) along the way, as opposed to nailing a
specific path across each pond.
>> Anyway, to respond to the specifics of your question, for the above
>> chord sequence the first thing that enters my mind is playing it
>> vertically (surprise).
Me too. There are other changes one could use for this tune, though.
For one thing, the Bbmaj7 could just as easily be Bb7. Now you have
only two keys: G and then Eb (the Abmaj7 is the IV chord). But I'd be
likely to want use an A over the Eb, because I like lydian; this also
means it shares the same scale as Bb major. So actually, I'd break this
down as one bar of G major, two of Bb major, and one of Ab lydian. BTW,
your observation that this is a circle of fifths relationship is
relevant here - this is hardly the only tune that cycles major sevenths
in this way. The major scale of one key always becomes the lydian of
the next, so you can always buddy up a couple of scales. And if you
stick with all lydians the only note that ever need change from one
chord to the next is the raised fourth of one scale, which flattens to
the root of the next (example: E in Bb lydian becomes Eb in Eb lydian,
all else remains the same). Just like with dominants, where thirds
flatten into sevenths. It's a common enough idiom that it is worth
getting used to.
>> Another approach may be to play Gmaj the first measure and then various
>> forms of Gm for the following three measures. If you examine the Bb,
>> Eb, and Ab chords they are all related to some form of Gm. In
>> general, I don't personaly use this approach too much because my lazy
>> mind will start to ignore the chord tones and this can, under the
>> influence of fatigue or beer, lead to a less than tasteful solo or
>> worse, degrade into a gawd awful pentatonic fit.
This is a reason I tend to be skeptical of the purely horizontal
(diatonic) approach - I've heard way too many boring solos that fail to
find anything new to do with the one scale they are using, and, worse,
fail to avoid the avoid notes.
>I still like Aebersold's suggestion for learning
>tunes--slowly taking each change and playing scale and arpeggio
>fragments through the tune simply to learn the landscape. Yet I still
>find I do better if, e.g. on a ii-V I just play the ii. Dm7 G7 for me
>becomes either an extended D minor idea or an extended G7 idea.
I sort of combine these approaches: I'll see the ii-V-I as one entity,
but that doesn't mean I use one scale across it. I look for the V to
provide tension, so I will deliberately deviate from the original scale
over that chord. Sometimes by using a particular alternate scale, or
maybe by just choosing whatever particular alteration fits my melody -
this is more the "kissing the changes" approach.
OK, so back to the tune in question, and how I would apply the "stepping
stones" model to it.
First, the tune is generally played pretty slowly, and the scales (after
the the G-Bb change) differ by only one note, so this isn't going to be
as hard as a truly modal tune.
I have a melody in mind, starting on G. I start to play it. The melody
keeps going into the territory occupied by the Bb chord. I don't let
that phase me; I stick to my original plan and just move my foot
slightly to land on the notes I know to be in Bb lydian as opposed to G
major (I do use major at times, especially for the tonic of the tune).
This is ot all that different from what some more purely horizontal
players do - they talk about thinking in G, but adjusting certain notes
as cecessary. However, I adjust more than just certain notes. When I
am over the Bb pond, I am over the Bb pond, and my feet are unaffected
by the knowledge they just left the G pond. I'm sure interesting
effects can be made by remembering this bit of information - lines with
nice common tones in them across chords. But remember, I started with a
plan - a melody - and no matter how far removed the key I end in from
where I started, I expect the logic of my melody will tie the whole
thing together. And I am not completely unaware of what key I started
in, I just allow myself to embrace the new keys a bit more fully than a
purely horizontal player might.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
"The Outside Shore"
A Jazz Improvisation Primer, Scores, Sounds, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Clay M Moore
Marc Sabatella wrote:
(a plethora of useful and imaginative thoughts on jazz playing)
Marc,
Just a short note to thank you for the ideas and metaphors. Improvising is
sometimes a tricky topic to verbalize past the usual "this scale over that
chord", and your insights ring true in my experience.
--
Clay Moore
When you create, process is functional. There is no dogma to adopt, no romance
to maintain, no philosophy to uphold. Process is invented and designed to
serve the result you desire. This is its only purpose. -Robert Fritz
TomLippinc
>Somehow, I still have difficulty soloing melodically over this tune. The
>main problems come with the four bars. Once I get past that section, I
>am a bit more at ease.
>
>For reference, I'm using the following chords in the first four
>measures:
>
>/GMaj7/BbMaj7/EbMaj7/AbMaj7/Am7 etc.
>
>anyway. Still, I'd like to know how you all approach this.
>
>major chords. Normally we see that in dominant seventh. I also can spot
>that Bb is the flat-five of E, Eb is the flat-five of A, and Ab is the
>flat-five of D, which means we have a root movement that looks like a
>simple I VI II V that has employed flat-five subs for the VI II and V.
>
>it seems like a "vertical" approach is dictated.
>
>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>“No, make no mistake. It’s not revenge he’s after, it’s…the reckoning…”
> —Doc Holliday, spoken of Wyatt Earp in “Tombstone”
>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Lawson G. Stone
>Wilmore, Kentucky
>
>
>
>
>
>
While I don't really know what the original changes are, I think that (from my
experience, anyway) common practice dictates that the second chord, Bb, is
indeed dominant. When analyzing a tune (at least a typical jazz standard), one
of the first things I try to determine is the predominant key center, which in
this case is G major. It's also worth noting that the key center is
established right at the beginning of the tune with the Gmaj7 chord. Once this
key has been established to the listeners ear, all subsequent scale choices
will be at least somewhat colored by this original key center. With this fact
in mind I would typically try to keep as many common scale tones between the
original key center and the other scales as possible. What this means is that
I would approach the next three chords in the following manner:
1) Bb7 is the dominant chord in the key of Eb, and it is indeed followed by an
Eb major chord, which means it is indeed being used as a V chord in the key of
Eb. This would indictate that the Bb mixolydian scale be used.
2) Eb major: there are typically two basic possibilities for a major chord;
major and lydian. In this case, lydian contains more tones in common with G
major. Note that the key of Eb major is only breifly alluded to, and we don't
have a full-fledged modulation on our hands here, which would be a different
case entirely.
3) Ab major: once again, we have the possibilities of major and lydian, and
once again, lydian has more tones in common with the original scale, G major.
Also, Abmaj7 could be seen as the IV chord of Eb, which would also imply
lydian.
Also, if the second chord is played as Bbmaj7, using this logic the scale
should also be lydian, because once again lydian would have more tones in
common with the G major scale (than the Bb major scale).
In reference to the "vertical" vs. "horizontal" question, this approach could
be seen from either angle: Vertical, in that it considers each chord
individually, and horizontal, in that you are relating everything to the "home"
key center of G major.
Another factor I think is important (though in this case doesn't change
anything) in considering what scale(s) to play over a tune is the melody. If
the scale over a particular chord would logically be lydian, but the melody
contains a natural 4th in that spot, this would seem to indicate major
(ionian).
Keep in mind also that all of this sets up a basic structure that is not
necessarily meant to be followed to the letter no matter what. It can be seen
more as a "home base" or point of departure for experimentation with substitute
harmonies.
Also, don't forget the "minor" version, ala the Frank Sinatra recording.
Tom Lippincott
Fstyle
Hi,
I am new to jazz guitar, trying to get the basics under my belt.
I would like to thank everyone for sharing their knowledge
and experience so freely. I've learned more reading posts
in this newsgroup than I have studying the *required books*.
Vertical vrs. an horizontal approach to soloing has been mentioned many times
in this thread. Please bear with this
newbie question....is there a 'physical' side to these approaches
in addition to the theory? I mean, is vertical soloing maintaining
a position on the neck and changing scales to match the position
(looking *vertically* down the neck), and horizontal soloing the
opposite?
Thanks in advance, and hope you all had a nice holiday!
Michael.
Lawson Stone, alias "Revrun Doc"
Yes and no. Guitarists do sometimes use the terms vertical and
horizontal to refer to playing across the fretboard in one position vs.
moving a lot up and down, (I forget which is which) but that's not what
we were talking about here.
"Vertical" playing, to put it crudely, is playing in such a way that
every chord is approached by means of the scale or arpeggio it suggests.
So a simple progression of C Am7 Dm7 G7 would be played by first using a
C major scale, then an A Dorian, then a D Dorian, then a G Mixolydian.
Such playing highlights the harmonic movement of the song strongly.
"Horizontal" playing tries to find a scale or other playing framework
that allows one to stay in one frame of mind over several chords. Above,
you could simply just say "Hey, these are all modes of C major, so I can
just stay in C major." Another horizontal approach is blues playing.
Even though the blues might go from four measures of C7 to two measures
of F7, you just play the C blues scale all the way through. That's
horizontal playing described with almost criminal oversimplification.
Most players who think about such issues, and lots of good players don't
think in these terms, combine approaches. Maybe they'll generally run
changes, but to throw in variety they'll take a long stretch where they
almost force a single scale or melody over changes. Or maybe they'll be
horizontal players, sticking to large key centers, but maybe they want
to emphasize a particular section so they switch to a vertical approach
and really nail the changes there.
Most really good players would regard my explanation as superficial, and
would probably say to be melody driven, play lines that sing, etc.
Someday I'll get there I guess, but I need some hooks and ideas to work
with for now.
Travis Harrell
Lawson,
I thought your explanation was excellent.
Travis in Ft. Worth
--
For email, delete 'whocanbefound' in my return address.
Marc Sabatella
oink, who, can, be, found, @flash.net wrote:
>When you say you have a melody in mind, do you mean that before, say the
>chorus, starts, you already have a complete melody for the entire chorus
>in your head.
No. Just a basic idea of where I want to go for the next, say, four
measures. I fill in the details as I go along. And as I fill in those
details, I do so by choosing the notes appropriate to the scale
associated with the chord I am on at the time.
>Typically when I first
>start a chorus, I will have an open ended idea that may or may not
>extend beyond the first few beats. The remainder of the idea, if there
>is any coherency to be had that day, develops as I go along.
This is not inconsistent with what I experience. And I imagine most
"horizontal" players do this. They have it slightly easier than me
because when they start extending the idea past those initial few beats,
they can just stick with the same scale they started with. Whereas I
have to know where I am in the progression, and which notes are going to
work based on that.
Let me put it this way - you could give me a chord progression to sight
read, and I'd approach it the same way. Start playing a melody. As I
start adding notes, I might think to myself, "that next note is going to
be a little over a step above the note I was just on. Since I just
finished playing a B over the G chord, that next melody note is going to
be a D, D#, or E probably". Then I look down for the nearest "stepping
stone". If I'm playing "Here's That Rainy Day", the chord is Bb7, and
I'll choose the D. Or perhaps E, if I "hear" that the note I want is
suppose to sound "out". Probably not Eb, unless I plan to resolve it
down to D right away. Whereas if I'm playing some tune in which the
next chord is F7, then I might choose Eb. Or D, I suppose. Very
unlikely E.
The point is, the idea comes first, then I lay it over the changes. I
don't mean a whole chorus at a time. I mean in exactly the same size
chunks as you would if you were playing horizontally - using just one
scale over the whole progression. To me, it makes no sense that
vertical playing should be less melodic. If you do it the way I am
decribing, your melodies should be indistinguishable from "horizontal"
melodies except that they might differ by a half step in a few places,
usually where I will choose a note not diatonic to the original key but
one that is within the scale of the current chord. OK, in practice, the
differences will be more profound than that, but this is the basic idea.
>Now on to another point. I think some of your concern about the prior
>posts was that maybe I or Lawson were suggesting that a vertical
>approach be sort of a chord to chord concept.
Not that anyone suggested this; just that I think this is a common
reason why some people find themselves unable to play melodically when
using a vettical concept. I'm suspecting they aren't starting with a
melody, so of course, a melody isn't coming out.
To my way of thinking, whether you stretch one scale over the whole
progression, or changes scales with every chord, the method is the same:
you think of a melody then lay it over the scale. The only difference
is that the scale might be changing out from under you.
>starting point for developing vertical playing is chord to chord but
>once one is competent with this, then more overarching concepts can be
>easily realized - what I tend to think of as vertical playing over chord
>groupings. This approach in my mind leads to the longer melodic
>concepts that are more connected and don't sound so disjointed. Maybe
>you were saying the same thing, I dunno.
I don't think so. You seem to be talking about recognizing chunks of
chords and then constructing lines to fit them. This is useful too - in
fact, it is what "horizontal" players do all the time, where "groupings"
are "as many chords as you put together in a row from one key". But
there is still the question of whether you try to construct a pattern to
fit that chunk before you start (the approach I don't favor) or whether
you just plow ahead, letting your notes fall wherever the stepping stone
happen to be.
NOSPA...@well.com
I was lucky enough to study with near-genius musician/guitarist for a
couple of years about fifteen years ago (I'm still absorbing his
lessons). He summed up his approach to soloing: I try to keep the
melody and the bass line in mind and make up counter-lines.
I view that as a nice P.O.V., combining vertical, implied by the bass
line, and horizontal.
Alan
Paul Kirk
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> oink, who, can, be, found, @flash.net wrote:
>
> >When you say you have a melody in mind, do you mean that before, say the
> >chorus, starts, you already have a complete melody for the entire chorus
> >in your head.
>
> No. Just a basic idea of where I want to go for the next, say, four
> measures. I fill in the details as I go along. And as I fill in those
> details, I do so by choosing the notes appropriate to the scale
> associated with the chord I am on at the time.
>
> >Typically when I first
> >start a chorus, I will have an open ended idea that may or may not
> >extend beyond the first few beats. The remainder of the idea, if there
> >is any coherency to be had that day, develops as I go along.
OK. But some of the musicians I enjoy listening to most seem to have a
larger structure to their better solos,i.e. it sure seems like some
concepts are mapped out ahead of time. ( In the guitar world, I would
list Hall and Martino,eg) I have trouble articulating what this
structure is, never mind how to try to incorporate it into my own
solos. The standard example is " build and build and build up to a
climax, and then taper off to end the solo". This one is not to hard to
employ, but surely there are other descriptions. Clay once wrote a list
of dichotomies that he got from martino (fast/slow, etc) which should
be incorporated in a good solo. I dont have a formal musical education,
but I assume such issues can be and are formulated in as precise a
manner as "this scale over this chord" and I would appreciate if those
of you who know how to explain this would. Sabatella's trip across the
marsh was pretty good at explaining what he likes to do as he's
soloing-but I want to know why he took a trip across a marsh as opposed
up a mountain or whatever- maybe I'm wrong and nobody knows how to
explain it better than "Use your ears, youknowwhatImean?"
paul Kirk
Marc Sabatella
nospam...@indiana.edu wrote:
>> >Typically when I first
>> >start a chorus, I will have an open ended idea that may or may not
>> >extend beyond the first few beats. The remainder of the idea, if there
>> >is any coherency to be had that day, develops as I go along.
>
>OK. But some of the musicians I enjoy listening to most seem to have a
>larger structure to their better solos,i.e. it sure seems like some
>concepts are mapped out ahead of time. ( In the guitar world, I would
>list Hall and Martino,eg) I have trouble articulating what this
>structure is, never mind how to try to incorporate it into my own
>solos. The standard example is " build and build and build up to a
>climax, and then taper off to end the solo". This one is not to hard to
>employ, but surely there are other descriptions.
Sure, my solos end up coming out that way all the time - at least, I
sure hope they do. But that is not quite the same as saying I know what
I am going to do before I start. Even if I have a vague idea how the
overall peaks and valleys my solo will have before I start, that still
doesn't mean I have any idea what shape the phrase I play in bar 22 will
have. And that was the context here. The shape for bar 22 will
probably be conceived around bar 20, and only when we actually hit bar
22 will I put it to specific notes.
>Clay once wrote a list
>of dichotomies that he got from martino (fast/slow, etc) which should
>be incorporated in a good solo. I dont have a formal musical education,
>but I assume such issues can be and are formulated in as precise a
>manner as "this scale over this chord" and I would appreciate if those
>of you who know how to explain this would.
I have to say, I kind of doubt it. I mean, sure, you could catalog a
few basic devices, but every one of them would be met with yawns: "well,
that's *obvious*". I don't know, I think this is very important and
all, but I also think it is precisely the sort of thing you don't learn
intellectually.
I could realte it to telling jokes & stories though - do you feel you
feel a good sense of narrative, knowing what details to dwell on and
what to gloss over, do you pace well, how's your timing, that sort of
thing. I think I'm a pretty good storyteller in this sense, although I
tend to ramble a bit at times and annoy people who want me to get right
to the point. But if you're willing to be patient and listen, I think I
tell as good a story as anyone. I'd say my soloing has these same
characteristics (including the bit about rambling too much...).
I'm not sure I ever "learned" this skill consciously, but I do recognize
I possess it to some degree. But I have no idea how someone who didn't
already have it would work on. But telling some stories couldn't hurt.
Clay M Moore
Marc Sabatella wrote:
> nospam...@indiana.edu wrote:
>
> >Clay once wrote a list
> >of dichotomies that he got from martino (fast/slow, etc) which should
> >be incorporated in a good solo. I dont have a formal musical education,
> >but I assume such issues can be and are formulated in as precise a
> >manner as "this scale over this chord" and I would appreciate if those
> >of you who know how to explain this would.
>
> I have to say, I kind of doubt it. I mean, sure, you could catalog a
> few basic devices, but every one of them would be met with yawns: "well,
> that's *obvious*". I don't know, I think this is very important and
> all, but I also think it is precisely the sort of thing you don't learn
> intellectually.
How *do* we learn things, though? Certainly some things are more consciously
learned than others, but I think any aspect of performance can be developed.
And I don't agree that listing basics to consider in a solo is an obvious
venture, or rather, it IS obvious, but that doesn't mean it's not important,
and that we don't need to be reminded once in a while. How many players have
you heard who tend to stick to the same register, the same rhythmic units, the
same articulation, the same dynamic level, etc? Martino's point was that most
formal improv pedagogy focuses on scale-chord considerations, and neglects to
mention the other tools one can use to generate interest or even build a whole
solo. Typically what you might do is write down a list of contrasting
characteristics, such as high-low, slow-fast, loud-soft, and so on. Then, pick
a pair and improvise exploiting those possibilities. For a while. Really take
it to extremes. Pianissimo in one measure, fortissimo in the next; or, legato
and smooth for four bars, stacatto and jerky for the next four. As Mick
Goodrick says, they don't call it improvising for nothin'. Also, as I mentioned
to Lawren, these kinds of things are good to incorporate in regular practice,
because even though you are doing them consciously they are simple to
understand and implement, which helps to break the sometimes tedium of very
theoretical practice. Why shouldn't you practice this kind of stuff
systematically, the same ways you do other things? Why limit your options?
>
>
> I could realte it to telling jokes & stories though - do you feel you
> feel a good sense of narrative, knowing what details to dwell on and
> what to gloss over, do you pace well, how's your timing, that sort of
> thing. I think I'm a pretty good storyteller in this sense, although I
> tend to ramble a bit at times and annoy people who want me to get right
> to the point. But if you're willing to be patient and listen, I think I
> tell as good a story as anyone. I'd say my soloing has these same
> characteristics (including the bit about rambling too much...).
>
> I'm not sure I ever "learned" this skill consciously, but I do recognize
> I possess it to some degree. But I have no idea how someone who didn't
> already have it would work on. But telling some stories couldn't hurt.
But this is exactly what acting and speech classes work on teaching. It's about
awareness, and you DO practice. An anecdote: I used to do a jazz radio show on
one of the local public radio stations from 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. One morning I
got a call on the request line; a woman called to tell me that I was saying
"um" and "you know" a lot, and it was driving her nuts. At first I was a bit
defensive, but I had never noticed those habits, and they *were* annoying. I
was then able to catch myself in the act or, better yet, before, and edit out
the useless extra commentary. This is the same in playing (improvising.) You
increase your awareness by recording yourself, or by doing things in big,
obvious gestures that yell I'M WORKING ON DYNAMICS NOW!!! Or: SLOOOWWWW........
FAST! Wakes you up, dunnit?
--
Clay Moore
In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. --Kathleen Norris
(1880-1966)
Marc Sabatella
Clay M Moore <cmm...@ibm.net> wrote:
>> sure, you could catalog a
>> few basic devices, but every one of them would be met with yawns: "well,
>> that's *obvious*". I don't know, I think this is very important and
>> all, but I also think it is precisely the sort of thing you don't learn
>> intellectually.
>
>How *do* we learn things, though? Certainly some things are more consciously
>learned than others, but I think any aspect of performance can be developed.
Developed, sure. I'm just not convinced some aspects can be reduced to
anything quite so objective as "this scale over that chord".
>How many players have
>you heard who tend to stick to the same register, the same
>rhythmic units, the
>same articulation, the same dynamic level, etc?
It is certainly true that in one on one teaching situations, a lot of
what I say tends to be in this area. I agree this is quantifiable. But
I kind of thought the original question was getting at something deeper.
What exactly, I can't say, and of course, that's part of the problem.
I do agree that what you are talking about can be taught, and since this
is presumably what Paul was asking about, I take back what I said about
it being something that cannot be learned intellectually. I still feel
there are some things of which this is true, though.
>Martino's point was that most
>formal improv pedagogy focuses on scale-chord considerations, and neglects to
>mention the other tools one can use to generate interest or even build a whole
>solo. Typically what you might do is write down a list of contrasting
>characteristics, such as high-low, slow-fast, loud-soft, and so on. Then, pick
>a pair and improvise exploiting those possibilities.
This sounds great. But it is to me another micro-level moment-to-moment
sort of thing, something that works at the level of the individual
phrase or set of "adjacent" phrases.
>But this is exactly what acting and speech classes work on teaching.
No, I don't think it is. They also tend to be more concerned with
details - delivery of individual lines and so forth. This is also what
your anecdote deals with.
I have seen a woman who teaches an improvisational storytelling class,
and it was a bit more to the point, but she seemed just as much at a
loss as to actually *teach* her material as I seem to be. But I suppose
learning individual devices, and hoping it all sinks in and finally
leads you to see a bigger picture on your own, might be as close as we
can come.
Larry Lewicki
In article <34AC0D...@uky.campus.mci.net>, Revrun' Doc <lst...@uky.campus.mci.net> writes:
<:>I've loved the tune "Here's That Rainy Day" ever since I took up jazz
<:>guitar. Joe Pass and Jimmy Bruno do wonderful renditions for solo
<:>guitar, and Johnny Smith has, for my mind, the definitive ensemble
<:>recording.
<:>Somehow, I still have difficulty soloing melodically over this tune. The
<:>main problems come with the four bars. Once I get past that section, I
<:>am a bit more at ease.
<:>
<:>For reference, I'm using the following chords in the first four
<:>measures:
<:>
<:>/GMaj7/BbMaj7/EbMaj7/AbMaj7/Am7 etc.
<:>
<:>Now I know I could go transcribe Johnny Smith, which I may just do
<:>anyway. Still, I'd like to know how you all approach this.
<:>
<:>What's interesting is a series of chords that do a cycle of fourths in
<:>major chords. Normally we see that in dominant seventh. I also can spot
<:>that Bb is the flat-five of E, Eb is the flat-five of A, and Ab is the
<:>flat-five of D, which means we have a root movement that looks like a
<:>simple I VI II V that has employed flat-five subs for the VI II and V.
<:>
<:>What I like to try is to keep to one scale if at all possible, but here
<:>it seems like a "vertical" approach is dictated.
<:>
<:>Well have at it. Examples from other great solos would be helpful too.
<:>--
There are a lot of ways to look at the harmony for this song. I
normally play this with a Bb7. One way I like to harmonize this
is |Gmaj7 Gmaj7/F# | Fm7 E7b9 | Ebmaj7 Ebmj7/D | Cm7 Cm7/Bb | Am7 ....
This gives a falling bass line that I find interesting.
Regarding soloing over this song, I try to start with the melody.
Play the melody with as much feeling as possible (look at the words)
add embellishments (the melody is relatively static so there are
gaps to fill) that "lead" to the next melodic phrase. Try to create
forward motion and melodic interest.
As I continue to do this the fills start to take on a life of their
own and become the solo- they become melodic fragments. Since I can
hear the chord progression my own ear leads me to note choices that
are essentially within the scale - with chromatic leading tones to
keep the rhythmic flow happening. Maybe I'll take a fill on the
Gmaj7 and move it up a minor third and modify it slightily to play
it over the Bb dominant.
When I practice to learn new sounds - I'll take a theoretical concept
or a problem area that I am working on - say running ii Vs that last
only one measure. I'll take every note of the scale (say if
I was using | Fm7 Bb7b9 | for measure two. I'll work on starting
the phrase on the C, or on Bb, or on Ab - or G etc. Then I'll
consciously leading the phrase over the Gmaj7 to get it to the correct
starting point - and learn to *hear* this phrase. Maybe move it
to different keys.
I don't "solo" using this technique - but I do practice training my
inner ear this way.
Hope this helps,
Larry
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Larry Lewicki | National Semiconductor |Opinions are mine and in *NO* |
*l...@galaxy.nsc.com | Santa Clara, CA |way represent National Semi. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Kirk
Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> Clay M Moore <cmm...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> >> sure, you could catalog a
> >> few basic devices, but every one of them would be met with yawns: "well,
> >> that's *obvious*".
its also obvious that a cmaj scale sounds ok on a ami chord, but
information of this type is repeated often. I would like to see these
"devices catalogued" even if they are obvious. Clay's response -
overemphasizing
high-low, slow-fast, loud-soft dichotomies when practicing is
a practical (obvious?) way to start focusing on skills other than note
choice.
I am not trying to suggest soloing reduces to some mechanical set of
rules, and I personally find the "this scale over this chord"
discussions we have in this NG largely uninteresting, but when I started
improvising I would have been more interested in them. But what I want
to see are discussions of the many _other_ aspects of soloing besides
note selection.
And even if it is impossible to put these in precise form- discussions
of this type seem appropriate in this NG.
The reason why I go on about this is that for the first time in my 18
years of playing jazz I am starting to actually like to listen to my
playing, rather than being critical as I tended to be. I am focusing
more on soloing as art rather than gymnastics, and at this point I'm
ready to focus on making my solos more coherent.
Paul Kirk
Cass Weller
Your post on "Here's That Rainy Day" jogged my memory. Thanks. It reminded
of the descending bass line I used but had forgotten. For chord melody I
play:
Bb7-9/-5
Gmaj9 F#7+5 F13 E7+5-5-9 Ebmaj13 Abmaj9
F D D C
D D D Bb Bb G
A A# A F F Eb
F# E Eb C C Bb
B G# G Ab
G F# F E(open) Eb
Your suggestion of having the bass line descend from C to Bb to prepare
the Am11 is a really nice idea. On top of it I'd put the following:
Cm11=Ab6add9 Eb6/5=Abmaj7/9
F Eb
Eb C
Bb G
C Bb
I let the bass continue to descend to F# for the D7.
Again, thanks for the post.
Cass Weller
Cass Weller
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Larry Lewicki wrote:
>
>
> There are a lot of ways to look at the harmony for this song. I
> normally play this with a Bb7. One way I like to harmonize this
> is |Gmaj7 Gmaj7/F# | Fm7 E7b9 | Ebmaj7 Ebmj7/D | Cm7 Cm7/Bb | Am7 ....
> This gives a falling bass line that I find interesting.
>
Your post on "Here's That Rainy Day" jogged my memory. Thanks. It reminded
of the descending bass line I used but had forgotten. For chord melody I
play:
Bb7-9/-5
Gmaj9 F#7+5 F13 E7+5-5-9 Ebmaj13 Abmaj9
F D D C
D D D Bb Bb G
A A# A F F Eb
F# E Eb C C Bb
B G# G Ab
G F# F E(open) Eb
PINE 3.95b MESSAGE TEXT <mail/[]> sent-mail Msg 10 of 10 40%
jim fleming
As I recall the sheet we use for this tune has a series of descending dominants
from the 3rd beat of the first measure through the third measure. The bass
player lays out a descending chromatic line and against this I like to play a
descending digital dominant related line. I don't think it would work at a
slow tempo tho' (Our band plays this tune at a pretty good clip (~144)).
--jim
"Patience is bitter but its fruit is sweet" - Segovia
------------------------------------------------------------------
James T. Fleming, PhD Phone: 423-974-8074(office)
Center for Environmental Biotechnology 423-974-8080(secretary)
University of Tennessee 423-974-8070(lab)
676 Dabney Hall fax: 423-974-8086
Knoxville, TN 37996-1605 e-mail: j...@utk.edu
Douglas Jillings
You can look at bars 2-4 (BbMaj7/EbMaj7/AbMaj7) as chords in G minor
instead of G major and play around with that. For instance all sorts of C
minor licks (subdominant minor of G) sound great.
Cheers