How Well Can You Improvise Over an Unknown Song?
Paul
Surely even the pros do better with music that they are
familiar with, but I've heard people improvise very well over
songs that they may not have been very familiar with.
Take "All of Me", for example:
http://frogstoryrecords.com/analysis/all_of_me.html
No doubt I would have come close to these scales by
noodling around with the changes until they sounded right.
But the real trick is to know these changes even on a song
you are unfamiliar with, with only the lead sheet in front of
you.
Jazz composers clearly steal chord progressions
from each other, so is it really a matter of memorizing
patterns like: If you go to a III7 or VI7, you would usually
use mode 5 of the harmonic minor scale?
I imagine after a while, you see the same changes
over and over again, and you just automatically know
what to do.
TD
No. Way off target. Some of us sight-improvise very well. Do not have
to know any changes in advance. Can even be changes that seem to be
esoteric in logic. Sight-improvising is an art and a skill and it
exists. You will only realize this if and when you are on a record
date or orchestra gig where the sword of damacles is ever present.
-TD
Rick Stone
After you've played enough of these tunes, you learn to "hear" where
things are going. I also pay attention to certain "sign-posts" along
the way the first time through a tune; things like the form, what keys
does it go to, and anything unusual where I'll need to pay attention,
etc. Then I just play. I really don't "think" much about what scale(s)
I'm going to use, or at least not it the way that you describe, although
I'll automatically use scales, arpeggios, etc., in the right places
based on the chords. I've always practiced chords and scales together,
so I really only think about the key(s) and the chords. The scales are
like second nature.
I also am a real stickler about learning the MELODY first! Check out
this video of practice tips. It came from an interview I did last year
with Emon for Guitarkadia.
http://guitarkadia.com/emon/jazz/interview-with-rick-stone-jazz-guitarist-part-2/
--
Musically Yours,
Rick Stone
Website: http://www.rickstone.com
Recordings: http://www.cdbaby.com/all/jazzand
Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/jazzand
Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/rickstonemusic
EPK: http://www.sonicbids.com/rickstone
David J. Littleboy
"Rick Stone" <rick...@rickstone.com> wrote:
>
> http://guitarkadia.com/emon/jazz/interview-with-rick-stone-jazz-guitarist-part-2/
Part one's interesting, too.
http://guitarkadia.com/emon/jazz/interview-with-rick-stone-jazz-guitarist-part-one/
I'm still stuck on Stitt.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
jimmybruno
Gerry
> Surely even the pros do better with music that they are
> familiar with, but I've heard people improvise very well over
> songs that they may not have been very familiar with.
If I have a chart in front of me, no worries. If somebody just counts
it off I'll probably be able to suss it out pretty rapidly. I guess
that comes from playing a thousand tunes over 40 years. But in the
latter case, if I can't hear myself or the crew around me, I'm a goner.
--
-- Gerry
Phil
Seems like that's the reason we study 2-5-1 (maj and min) in all keys,
secondary dominants and the cycle of fifths, etc. -- so we can
negotiate tunes of all shapes and sizes.
That said, knowing a song might mean knowing the lyrics, or knowing
someone else's famous solo, which would allow an improviser a greater
palette of expression.
Carl
> Surely even the pros do better with music that they are
> familiar with, but I've heard people improvise very well over
> songs that they may not have been very familiar with.
>
> Take "All of Me", for example:
>
> http://frogstoryrecords.com/analysis/all_of_me.html
>
>
> No doubt I would have come close to these scales by
> noodling around with the changes until they sounded right.
> But the real trick is to know these changes even on a song
> you are unfamiliar with, with only the lead sheet in front of
> you.
>
> Jazz composers clearly steal chord progressions
> from each other, so is it really a matter of memorizing
> patterns like: If you go to a III7 or VI7, you would usually
> use mode 5 of the harmonic minor scale?
>
>
many others in this thread that are much more capable. Let me, instead,
throw out an idea to you about the complex question you posed just above.
It's been incredibly helpful to me to have learned to stop worrying about
the theoretical complexities of things like "mode 5 of the harmonic scale"
and just think about the key I'm in at the moment and its related pitch
collection (ie. "scale") and chord tones.
For illustration, in your example tune, All of Me, the key is C and the
fundamental tonal center would be notes from the C pitch collection. Ask
yourself, what is changing when you approach the E7 (III7) chord? The ONLY
thing that's different from the fundamental C pitch collection is that the G
now has become G#. All the other notes have remained the same. You can now
choose to ignore that G# 3rd and play around it, or address it by playing
notes from the C pitch collection and replace the one changed note to a G#.
You don't NEED to name this new scale. Doing so is purely academic, imho.
The same thing is true when you come to the A7 (VI7). The only tone that's
"different" is that C has now become C#. Just worry about addressing that
one note and not about naming the "new" scale.
Now isn't that a far simpler approach than wondering whether you should play
the "mixolydian scale of the II chord", or "mode 5 of the harmonic minor
scale"???
Frankly, I don't think anyone can really think that fast, that all that
stuff sure confounded the heck out of me, and that those theoretical
constructs are best saved for the academic analyzing of a tune rather than
being used for playing in one.
Honestly, trying to learn that way kept me from even trying. It just made
things too daunting. It wasn't until I moved away from that kind of thinking
that I actually found myself beginning to be able to improvise. I would
suggest you at least explore this idea.
Of course, every person learns best in their own way and I am well aware
that there are many who are heavily invested in that entire mode- or
scale-naming- thing which I find so cumbersome.
To give credit where credit is due, I learned this approach from JB, the
first teacher with the first method that made any practical sense to me. I
thank him for shedding light on a path I had previously found way too dark.
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yea, all of that helps, of course, but if we speak of extreme limited
situations ( where several "training-wheel" elements are no where in
sight, like no prior knowledge of the melody {might be an original
tune on a record date or TV show or celebrity involved in a show}, no
time to build reinforcements and/or scan the tune ahead of time, etc,
etc) where there is virtually no luxury of criteria, another dimension
must kick in. And it will, but not for beginners or novices. These
individuals need a teacher and a thrown into the lion's pit
experience. Having stated this, I *have* run across name experienced
players who are weak in the area you mentioned in your initial thread.
This factor is a tell-tale sign that there is actually more involved
than 1,000 tune experiences and/or being super theory-minded. A few
key factors are 1: ear 2: spontaneous bass line, during playing,
scanning chops. This is of course, only an underlying factor where the
real deal is concerned: Playing a viable, story-like improvised line
that serves the tune or the over all harmonic ambiance (whichever is
most pertinent at the moment) and form. The more cusion-like elements
that can be available, of course can help trump what I have stated.
Yea baby...
-TD
Paul
Usually people who boast the loudest have the least
ability......
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see, so you say I am one of them?
-TD
Joe Finn
news:ac34135f-f598-42ac...@u11g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
If I understand you correctly you are making an observation about the finite
aspects of harmony. "The same changes over and over again" is a function of
the fact that there are only so many chords and only so many combinations.
Some progressions naturally are more frequently seen than others. And the
dominant cadence is ubiquitous in all of western harmony. So with experience
you can become familiar with the conventions and practices, learn to
recognize the various harmonic twists and turns and learn to apply your
improvisational ideas accordingly. Most accomplished jazz players can
improvise over material they have never seen or heard before. This is
common.
I don't see this as a matter of jazz composers stealing chord progressions
from each other. I think it's simply a function of the fact that harmony is
something of a finite universe. ...joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
Or say hello via Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/?ref=home
Paul
Somehow I get the feeling you don't have any links
to your playing, that would allow me to decide that......
Gerry
>> No. Way off target. Some of us sight-improvise very well. Do not have
>> to know any changes in advance. Can even be changes that seem to be
>> esoteric in logic. Sight-improvising is an art and a skill and it
>> exists. You will only realize this if and when you are on a record
>> date or orchestra gig where the sword of damacles is ever present.
>
> Usually people who boast the loudest have the least
> ability......
If I say I can swim, is that boasting? Or is it only boasting if I say
it around a guy who can't swim well?
--
-- Gerry
Paul
Well, certainly whatever sounds good is King. That supercedes
any theory or academia.
But I'm interested in little details like the b9 in the VI7,
which
really isn't required, but I suppose you can try both flat and
natural and see what you prefer.
I agree with you that there is no getting around hours
of woodshedding, and just jumping in the water and
playing. In fact, most of my personal favorite musicians
have stressed that it's when they stop thinking that
they play the good stuff.......pure musical instinct....
Joey Goldstein
>
First off.
The scales you've picked as your default scales on All Of Me are the
same default scales that I think of when I play this tune.
Nice, organized job of laying it out too.
When I first started playing I had one of the original copies of The
Real Book and there were at least 20 tunes in there where I had
scribbled in something very similar to what you're doing.
It looked really ugly and silly and I took a lot of flack from many more
experienced musicians when they saw it.
But it worked, for me.
It works because, as someone else has pointed out in this thread, it's
very difficult to keep all that stuff in your mind while you're actually
playing. So having it written out in front of you as you learn the tune
frees up a certain part of your mind so that you can concentrate on
finding melodies you like from within those default scales.
After you've done that type of thing with 20 or so good tunes that cover
a wide harmonic palette you won't have to do it anymore.
You ears and your muscle memory will just know the right sounds to play.
IMO, when you're first learning to play, it's a good idea to treat these
default scales as being the only notes to play and to more or less
ignore any other good sounding notes that your ears are telling you to play.
By doing this you'll learn to hear those scales. You'll know what those
particular scales have to offer, and later on, when your ears and your
chops are more advanced, you'll be better able to decide if you want to
use those sounds or some other sounds.
Because those default scales are by no means the "right scales" or the
"best scales". They're just a convenient and logical place to start
building your palette from.
There are lots of other possible scale choices too.
Later on you should also do some work to assimilate those other sounds
you're hearing into your playing.
And eventually you'll be able to throw all that shit away and just play
what you hear.
These exercises are all about expanding what you're capable of hearing.
But playing jazz itself isn't about the scales or the exercises. It's
about playing what you hear.
Now, All Of Me has a harmonic rhythm where most chords last for 2
measures and the tempo is usually not all that fast. On this tune, there
will be time to explore most of the 7-notes of each of the scales you've
picked.
But many tunes you're going to play are not going to be that forgiving.
The changes may go by at a much faster rate and there will not be time
to articulate anything as large as a 7-note scale.
I think that you'll find that the "trick" to being able to successfully
navigate tunes like this is going to be to concentrate on the
chord-tones themselves, not the scale.
I also think that if you concentrate more, as a general rule - no matter
what the harmonic rhythm, on improvising with chord-tones that you'll
learn to hear the actual chord progression much more completely.
Concentrate especially on the places where there are common tones
between chords and where the chord tones join together by 1/2 step and
whole step. I.e. Pay extra attention to the point of the chord change as
compared to what happens during the duration of a single chord. Etc.
Search for "guide-tone lines".
And you'll also tend to be able to feel which non-chord-tones make the
most musical sense at any particular time.
At a certain point in your development it's a good idea to begin to
treat extensions (i.e. the non-chord-tones that happen to blend
vertically with the chord) as if they too are chord-tones and to
practice playing chord-tone melodies of 5 6 or 7-note chords.
Eg.
On Dm7 as IIm7 in the key of C major the notes E G and B are all
available extensions. So when you're improvising chord-tone melodies
over this chord try working off of all of the following chord symbols:
Dm
Dm7
Dm7(9)
Dm7(9,11)
Dm7(9,11,13)
Dm7(9,13)
Dm7(11,13)
Dm(add9)
Dm(add11)
Dm(add13)
etc., etc.
After that you might spend some time looking for ways to use the
remaining 5 notes of the chromatic scale as approach notes into the 7
notes of Dm13.
Eg. You might use Eb as an approach to D or to E.
You might use F# as an approach to F or to G.
You might use G# as an approach to G or to A.
You might use Bb as an approach to A or to B.
You might use C# as an approach to C or to D.
Now you're using the entire 12-tone scale, but you're emphasizing the
notes of Dm7 and its associated extensions.
When someone hands you a chord chart for a tune (unless you're playing
with advanced players or the chart is written poorly) you can be pretty
sure that when you play the chord-tones of the written changes your
lines are going to harmonize with the chords that the other guys are
playing.
When playing over pre-determined changes the chord-tones themselves are
more-or-less a given.
All the decision-making is really about the non-chord-tones.
That approach of concentrating on the chord-tones is also the "trick" to
being able to play over a tune you've never heard before.
So, the gist of what I'm trying to say is that I think you'll get more
mileage and develop more quickly if you start to concentrate on
chord-tones as opposed to scales.
Here's a short list of tunes that have lots of chords in them.
I suggest learning to improvise over these tunes using just the
chord-tones of the written chords. Because these tunes have lots of
chords these types of chord-tone lines can sound pretty interesting.
You'll never get a really good complete solo by playing just chord tones
so don't expect this to sound "great". It won't ever sound great.
But if you don't work on it enough so that it sounds "good" and/or
"strong" then you haven't worked on it enough that it will do you any good.
Falling Grace
Conception
Confirmation
Giant Steps
26-2
There Is No Greater Love
Anthropology
Bluesette
Alone Together
Au Privave
Black Orpheus
Blues For Alice
Etc., etc.
The more chords, the better.
And I hope it goes without saying that this approach will never bear
fruit if you're not also listening to lots and lots and lots of jazz
records that you are passionate about and that you actively try to
emulate the sounds of in your own playing, especially the rhythms.
Spending a significant amount of time learning to play other people's
solos is also a prerequisite to learning how to play jazz.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Paul
> "Paul" <quiller...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well, as the other poster mentions, the 2-5-1 is pretty
ubiquitous in the jazz genre. And even as the Circle of Fifths
is finite, even more so Jazz as a style of music.
All musicians "steal" from each other.....licks, chord
progressions.....you cannot be sued for
using the same chord progression, in fact, many
people recycle the same progression, and just put a
different melody on top....
That would certainly make improvising over "different"
songs easier!
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -
First of all there are links to my playing and I have a history, but I
can see that "no deed goes unpunished." I also have a very well
selling method book, which I NEVER brag about, which could very well
help you. In addition, I see nothing boastful about what I have
written. I do see the results from you, which are quite moronic. Have
no fear, nothing is wasted. My post can be utilized by others with far
greater respect and attitude.
-TD
Paul K
Hey Paul, I dont want to derail what looks like a promising flame war
heating up, but most semi competent jazz musicians can sight improvise
from a lead sheet, even unusual chord progressions. The results aren't
going to be their best solos, but the improvising semi-convincingly
from a lead sheet you've never seen before is virtually the same skill
as comping from a lead sheet you've never seen before. Jazz musicians
have to do this all the time.
If you recognize familiar progressions (eg II V I) you can do better.
The link you linked to giving a scale choice for each bar can give a
misleading idea of what is going on in an improvisors' mind as he
follows a chord chart.
--
Paul K
http://www.youtube.com/user/fibrationboy
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=240975
http://mypage.iu.edu/~pkirk/
Paul
You yourself recognized that you were being an asshole
in the other thread, but somehow you cannot do anything about
it....oh well.....don't talk about "respect" when you don't have
any....
Keith Freeman
> misleading idea of what is going on in an improvisors' mind as he
> follows a chord chart.
on the lines of 'What I play is a mixture of tunes I hear in my head and
things that I know will work'.
-Keith
Clips, Portable Changes, tips etc.: www.keithfreemantrio.nl
e-mail: info AT keithfreemantrio DOT nl
Paul
Well, I'd like to take credit for the scale chart, but someone
else posted it on the web! Yes, they did a good job.
I often will play a chord-solo when I don't know the
tune well, which is kinda like the way Hendrix would
play "Little Wing", where you barre the chord and just
add little grace notes here and there. This always ends
up sounding at least decent.
But it sounds like you are advocating single note
solos, using only the chord tones. Kinda like arpeggios,
right?
I'll try it......thanks Joey.
Phil
>
> - Show quoted text -
And that someone else appears to be Steve Carter, who Joey surely
knows from Berklee. I had Steve for Chord Lab when I was there.
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -
What other thread? What did I recognize? This is what I get sometimes
when I reply to jerks.
-TD
Paul
He's got the program that generates the scales for sale:
http://www.frogstoryrecords.com/
It looks like the song list is fixed data. In other
words, it doesn't look like you can input your own
chord progression, and see what scales it would recommend.....
Carl
to delete everything I had written on that since I thought I was writing too
much and beginning to veer off the topic. But it falls under the same
category as what I had written before. It does come down to trying it and
seeing if you like it. I happen to love that tone.
What I began to write before, which I deleted, was that I found that I
preferred using half-diminished arpeggios as subs for many dom7 chords in
tunes. So, for the A7 in All of Me, I like to play an A#dim arpeggio, which
will automatically give you that b9. If I'm not mistaken, an A7b9 is also
called a half-diminished chord.
For some reason which I can't explain, other than that it helps me find the
best arpeggio position and that I like the resulting sound, I start on the
3rd of the dom7 chord and play a dim arp from there. So, with an A7, I'd
begin on the C# on the 3rd string at the 6th fret for example. It takes me
right to the Bb on the first string, a sound I like. And that's only a
half-tone away from being right back in the pitch collection and a chord
tone, by following that Bb with an A.
Hey, I'm not trying to pretend here. I am actually a relative beginner at
jazz guitar and I am really just dipping my toes in the water and floating
these ideas that I've discovered for myself out loud here. I am not nearly
knowledgable nor capable yet to tell anyone what to do with any certainty.
But I'm learning. And one of the things I'm working on most is what you
stated in your first paragraph: listening more to what I'm doing because
"whatever sounds good is King". Well said.
Frankly, my only main point is to not get bogged down into worrying about
what the name of a scale is, or what mode it is, or any of that. I think
some people like to learn like that but I'm not one of them. I do study
theory, and I understand scales/modes, etc. but I can't organize my thinking
that way to enable me to play anything. My bet is that most players are like
me, 'cause my mudder didn't raise no dummy. ;-)
jimmybruno
Tony, that's called being a pro. Tony you are one of the best at this
jimmybruno
Hey Tony, why don't you tell them how when you got 16 bars in a Ann
Margret book that says solo vs another act they says sol etc, etc
etc, There is nothing better than experience ce and there is no room
for discussion when the conductor points at you and you PLAY.
Two different worlds here
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean where Don Costa and/or Billy Byers( and they are hovering
around your ass on the stage sipping coffee spiked with martell?)
penned the charts and all eyes are on you ( the likes of James Moody,
Sam Noto, and Carl Fontana?)to sound like a million bucks on the first
try? What good with it do? They will call me a braggard. Meanwhile the
conductor hates my guts because the act digs me more than they dig
him? And he can't wait for me to fuck up??? Oh, excuse me, that might
sound like blatant bragging. And in addition, I got scratches on my
face and I barely made it to the rehearsal on time because some crazy
bitch I had been careening around on an all nighter (never going to
bed) with had thrown a jealous raging tantrum on my ass??!!?? Wait a
second, let me look up the correct mode for all this crap...
....burp
-TD
jseaberry
I respect you, Tony.
Joey Goldstein
Actually, people like you who have no ability at all usually have no way
of telling what type of ability that your betters have, and quite often
you say stupid ignorant arrogant things like you just did.
Tony has more experience and ability than pretty much anybody else who
posts on this ng.
Sometimes his posts are a little bit tricky to parse, but generally
sepaking he's usually right on the money.
You should apologize to him and then you should go back and try to
understand hat he's telling you.
Joey Goldstein
>
> But it sounds like you are advocating single note
> solos, using only the chord tones.
Right. "Chord-tone melodies" are melodies comprised only of the notes of
the chord-of-the-moment.
> Kinda like arpeggios,
> right?
You have to start by learning your arpeggios.
But it goes much deeper than just being able to run an arpeggio.
You have to know the notes of each chord inside and out.
You have to know the fretboard positions of the notes of the chord
inside and out.
You have to study the way the notes of one chord connect into the notes
of the next chord inside and out.
And you have to have worked on it so hard that you can make music with
just these notes and no other notes. I.e. You have to learn to hear what
they sound like.
When you play you should be hyper aware of whether the note you're
playing is a chord tone or not.
If it's not a chord tone then you need to be hyper aware as to what its
function is on that chord (eg. 9, 11 or 13, available extension or avoid
note, etc.).
It's a type of melodic analysis you do *while* you're improvising.
Joe Finn
Yes, that is a good point. It would be easier. In a sense the differences
sort of evaporate once you can develop some sort of a working knowlege of
harmony. If your progression begins on a C chord for instance there are only
eleven possibilities for the root of the next chord. Of these eleven options
some are more common than others. And it gets easier as you go forward from
there because the function [major, minor, dominant, altered] of each chord
steers the progression in ways that can be recognized, understood related to
something familiar. I think this is why the shorthand we use with our chord
nomenclature has become so popular. It gives us a formula that can be used
to understand and describe chord functions in progressions. Once things are
broken down in that way the similarities from one progression to another
become obvious. ....joe
Joey Goldstein
> Paul wrote:
>> Surely even the pros do better with music that they are
>> familiar with, but I've heard people improvise very well over
>> songs that they may not have been very familiar with.
>>
>> Take "All of Me", for example:
>>
>> http://frogstoryrecords.com/analysis/all_of_me.html
>>
>>
>> No doubt I would have come close to these scales by
>> noodling around with the changes until they sounded right.
>> But the real trick is to know these changes even on a song
>> you are unfamiliar with, with only the lead sheet in front of
>> you.
>>
>> Jazz composers clearly steal chord progressions
>> from each other, so is it really a matter of memorizing
>> patterns like: If you go to a III7 or VI7, you would usually
>> use mode 5 of the harmonic minor scale?
>>
>>
> many others in this thread that are much more capable. Let me, instead,
> throw out an idea to you about the complex question you posed just above.
>
> It's been incredibly helpful to me to have learned to stop worrying about
> and just think about the key I'm in at the moment and its related pitch
> collection (ie. "scale") and chord tones.
>
> For illustration, in your example tune, All of Me, the key is C and the
> fundamental tonal center would be notes from the C pitch collection. Ask
> yourself, what is changing when you approach the E7 (III7) chord? The ONLY
> thing that's different from the fundamental C pitch collection is that the G
> now has become G#. All the other notes have remained the same. You can now
> choose to ignore that G# 3rd and play around it, or address it by playing
> notes from the C pitch collection and replace the one changed note to a G#.
> You don't NEED to name this new scale. Doing so is purely academic, imho.
>
> The same thing is true when you come to the A7 (VI7). The only tone that's
> "different" is that C has now become C#. Just worry about addressing that
> one note and not about naming the "new" scale.
>
> Now isn't that a far simpler approach than wondering whether you should play
> scale"???
A good player will usually be able to think both ways.
I.e. Knowing that all these scales are just like the C scale with slight
modifications is great but not at the expense of knowing how each note
you play operates on the chord that you're playing on.
> Frankly, I don't think anyone can really think that fast,
I can. And do.
> that all that
> stuff sure confounded the heck out of me, and that those theoretical
> constructs are best saved for the academic analyzing of a tune rather than
> being used for playing in one.
I totally disagree.
I guess it depends on much control you want to have on your materials.
When I first started playing I was quite happy with simply noodling with
the major scale when I was playing over changes.
But that's the first baby-step in the process. I.e. that's something to
grow out of.
Still, we all have to start somewhere.
> Honestly, trying to learn that way kept me from even trying. It just made
> things too daunting.
Learning a few scales was too daunting?
That's too bad.
Look...
Whether you see
A B C D E F G# A
as being the A harmonic minor scale - or the C maj scale with G# - or as
an E mix b2b6 sale, you still have to learn the scale.
You need to learn how to play it.
You need to learn what each note sounds like on E7.
And you have to learn it so well that you can make music with it.
What you call the pitch collection is what's irrelevant.
> It wasn't until I moved away from that kind of thinking
> that I actually found myself beginning to be able to improvise. I would
> suggest you at least explore this idea.
>
> Of course, every person learns best in their own way and I am well aware
> that there are many who are heavily invested in that entire mode- or
> scale-naming- thing which I find so cumbersome.
>
> To give credit where credit is due, I learned this approach from JB, the
> first teacher with the first method that made any practical sense to me. I
> thank him for shedding light on a path I had previously found way too dark.
>
>
Keith Freeman
> called a half-diminished chord.
A half-dim is a m7b5.
rpjazzguitar
never heard -- just from the lead sheet -- isn't all that difficult if
you have some basic skills.
But, even fgreat players can do a better job after they know the tune
well.
There isn't just one way to do it. I used to play with an old clarinet
player who couldn't tell you the notes of a Cmajor chord. But he had
big ears and could improvise over standard type changes whether he
knew the tune or not. But, you'd hear him way behind the chord change
-- it took him a moment to digest the sound when the chord changed.
And if the chord changed unexpectedly, he could get caught, although
he'd cover it pretty well.
Another way to do it is to be able to look at the changes and figure
out enough about them to play something. With just basic knowledge of
the notes in the chords you can play something without clams. If you
can analyze the harmonic movement, identify underlying tonal centers,
scales and/or guide tone lines, even better. There's no limit to how
sophisticated that can get.
I think it's pretty basic to know the notes in the chords you're using
and which other notes are likely to work (or sound like clams) in a
given harmonic situation. Can anyone go to a simple jam session and
expect to know every tune? Sooner or later, somebody is going to put a
chart in front of you and you're not going to want to sit down.
Bg
> Hey Paul, I dont want to derail what looks like a promising flame war
> heating up, but most semi competent jazz musicians can sight improvise
> from a lead sheet, even unusual chord progressions. The results aren't
> going to be their best solos, but the improvising semi-convincingly
> from a lead sheet you've never seen before is virtually the same skill
> as comping from a lead sheet you've never seen before. Jazz musicians
> have to do this all the time.
>
> Paul Khttp://www.youtube.com/user/fibrationboyhttp://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=240975http://mypage.iu.edu/~pkirk/- Hide quoted text -
Yup, it seems Jazz musicians are only ones who are expected to get a
Lead sheet thrown in front of them(Maybe) and then traspose it into
another key, and may even be asked to take it from 4/4 into 3 or 6/4
or even 5/4, and to play it with feeling and competence and groove,
and to sound good, or make the person who threw the lead sheet in
front of you sound good.
Bg
Rick Stone
> Yup, it seems Jazz musicians are only ones who are expected to get a
> Lead sheet thrown in front of them(Maybe) and then traspose it into
> another key, and may even be asked to take it from 4/4 into 3 or 6/4
> or even 5/4, and to play it with feeling and competence and groove,
> and to sound good, or make the person who threw the lead sheet in
> front of you sound good.
> Bg
Yeah, that's the gig. It pays $50 and a plate of pasta. Starts at
7:00pm, but be there by 6:30 to setp (and don't forget to wear a tie :-)
--
Musically Yours,
Rick Stone
Website: http://www.rickstone.com
Recordings: http://www.cdbaby.com/all/jazzand
Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/jazzand
Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/rickstonemusic
EPK: http://www.sonicbids.com/rickstone
Keith Freeman
> and which other notes are likely to work (or sound like clams) in a
> given harmonic situation.
deliberately play 'wrong' notes and work out ways of converting them into
ornaments/harmonic devices you won't be thrown by one if you play it
inadvertently, and you may even be able to turn it into something
interesting.
Keith Freeman
> Lead sheet thrown in front of them(Maybe) and then traspose it into
> another key
a song accompaniment at sight.
Bg
> Classical pianists and organists are also expected to be able to transpose
> a song accompaniment at sight.
>
> -Keith
Now, THAT would be Really stressful.
Bg
Paul K
> Classical pianists and organists are also expected to be able to transpose
> a song accompaniment at sight.
>
I've never heard of this. I could be wrong, but I doubt there are many
classical pianists who can do this with any fluidity.
--
Paul K
http://www.soundclick.com/paulkirk
http://www.youtube.com/user/fibrationboy
http://mypage.iu.edu/~pkirk/
Eric E
> Surely even the pros do better with music that they are
> familiar with, but I've heard people improvise very well over
> songs that they may not have been very familiar with.
>
> Take "All of Me", for example:
>
> http://frogstoryrecords.com/analysis/all_of_me.html
>
> No doubt I would have come close to these scales by
> noodling around with the changes until they sounded right.
> But the real trick is to know these changes even on a song
> you are unfamiliar with, with only the lead sheet in front of
> you.
>
> Jazz composers clearly steal chord progressions
> from each other, so is it really a matter of memorizing
> patterns like: If you go to a III7 or VI7, you would usually
> use mode 5 of the harmonic minor scale?
>
> over and over again, and you just automatically know
> what to do.
Tony is right on the money (not that he needs me to chime in). I get
thrown charts all the time for tunes that I don't know and if you are
comfortable improvising, then you can go with the flow when this
happens and just play. I think it was already mentioned in the
thread, but you get to know what ii-V chords sound like, various
turnarounds, and other types of changes and you use what is in your
vocabulary to create improv over any changes when you play. You can
do this by sight looking at the changes. I don't think Tony was
bragging when he wrote that, but if anyone here has the right to its
him. Also, you want to get to hear what the all the notes sound like
on any chord. This is just a practice thing, but you'll start to
creat interesting lines when you can hear what the b7th, or #5 or b9,
etc sound like on any chord. It takes a little work. Check out Jimmy
Bruno's lessons for some great ideas for that kind of work.
--Eric Elias
rpjazzguitar
handwritten, error-filled, chord chart of an original tune written in
#3 pencil, of which there's one copy which is on the piano and the
bass player is in the way of you getting close. And it's got time
signature changes and harmony that Rod Serling would have thought was
outside. The composer didn't include the roadmap in the chart -- he
rattles off a set of directions that would baffle a London cabbie and
then plays his odd reharmonization. He knows the melody by heart, but
you can't follow along because it's not in the chart.
Paul
> On 11/9/2010 6:52 AM, Paul wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Surely even the pros do better with music that they are
> > familiar with, but I've heard people improvise very well over
> > songs that they may not have been very familiar with.
>
> > Take "All of Me", for example:
>
> > http://frogstoryrecords.com/analysis/all_of_me.html
>
> > No doubt I would have come close to these scales by
> > noodling around with the changes until they sounded right.
> > But the real trick is to know these changes even on a song
> > you are unfamiliar with, with only the lead sheet in front of
> > you.
>
> > Jazz composers clearly steal chord progressions
> > from each other, so is it really a matter of memorizing
> > patterns like: If you go to a III7 or VI7, you would usually
> > use mode 5 of the harmonic minor scale?
>
> > I imagine after a while, you see the same changes
> > over and over again, and you just automatically know
> > what to do.
>
> things are going. I also pay attention to certain "sign-posts" along
> the way the first time through a tune; things like the form, what keys
> does it go to, and anything unusual where I'll need to pay attention,
> etc. Then I just play. I really don't "think" much about what scale(s)
> I'm going to use, or at least not it the way that you describe, although
> I'll automatically use scales, arpeggios, etc., in the right places
> based on the chords. I've always practiced chords and scales together,
> so I really only think about the key(s) and the chords. The scales are
> like second nature.
>
> I also am a real stickler about learning the MELODY first! Check out
> this video of practice tips. It came from an interview I did last year
> with Emon for Guitarkadia.
>
> http://guitarkadia.com/emon/jazz/interview-with-rick-stone-jazz-guita...
>
> --
> Musically Yours,
> Rick Stone
> Website:http://www.rickstone.com
> Recordings:http://www.cdbaby.com/all/jazzand
> Videos:http://www.youtube.com/user/jazzand
> Myspace:http://www.myspace.com/rickstonemusic
> EPK:http://www.sonicbids.com/rickstone
Why should a guitarist learn the melody? We don't
sight-read well enough! We all just wanna shred Al Di Meola
speed licks over changes!! We don't care if it's sloppy,
as long as it's FAST!!! Leave the melodies to those
loud horn guys.....
Haha! :)
I liked the idea of practicing melodies in different
parts of the neck. And soloing in one area only. That's
good for piano too......
Des Higgins
> On Nov 9, 12:37 pm, Paul <quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 10:10 am, TD <tonydecap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 12:03 pm, Paul <quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > On Nov 9, 6:52 am, Paul <quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Surely even the pros do better with music that they are
> > > > > > familiar with, but I've heard people improvise very well over
> > > > > > songs that they may not have been very familiar with.
>
> > > > > > Take "All of Me", for example:
>
> > > > > > http://frogstoryrecords.com/analysis/all_of_me.html
>
> > > > > > No doubt I would have come close to these scales by
> > > > > > noodling around with the changes until they sounded right.
> > > > > > But the real trick is to know these changes even on a song
> > > > > > you are unfamiliar with, with only the lead sheet in front of
> > > > > > you.
>
> > > > > > Jazz composers clearly steal chord progressions
> > > > > > from each other, so is it really a matter of memorizing
> > > > > > patterns like: If you go to a III7 or VI7, you would usually
> > > > > > use mode 5 of the harmonic minor scale?
>
> > > > > > I imagine after a while, you see the same changes
> > > > > > over and over again, and you just automatically know
> > > > > > what to do.
>
> > > > > to know any changes in advance. Can even be changes that seem to be
> > > > > esoteric in logic. Sight-improvising is an art and a skill and it
> > > > > exists. You will only realize this if and when you are on a record
> > > > > date or orchestra gig where the sword of damacles is ever present.
>
> > > > Usually people who boast the loudest have the least
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > > -TD
>
> > Somehow I get the feeling you don't have any links
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> can see that "no deed goes unpunished." I also have a very well
> selling method book, which I NEVER brag about, which could very well
I went and ordered it. This better make me sound like Louis Stewart
or I will be very disgruntled.
> help you. In addition, I see nothing boastful about what I have
> written. I do see the results from you, which are quite moronic. Have
> no fear, nothing is wasted. My post can be utilized by others with far
> greater respect and attitude.
>
> -TD
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Disgruntled"...don't you guys serve that with tea over there? Thank
you for that. And hopefully it will help you to sound like YOU.
-TD
Derek
when you are taking swipes at Tony.
The bragging suggestion is off base. He was making a distinction
between sight improv and the improv we all engage in, after knowing
the tune.
Tony' sense of humor is decidedly NYC, but you will not find a more
generous guy on this site.
Des Higgins
+1
Gerry
> On 11/9/10 7:38 PM, Keith Freeman wrote:
>
>> Classical pianists and organists are also expected to be able to transpose
>> a song accompaniment at sight.
>>
>
>
> I've never heard of this. I could be wrong, but I doubt there are many
> classical pianists who can do this with any fluidity.
Nor I. I think pianists and organists that accompany vocalists are
expected to do such things, but the vast majority of them cannot.
So much for "expectations".
--
-- Gerry
Gerry
> they are hovering around your ass on the stage sipping coffee spiked
> with martell
Ech....
--
-- Gerry
Keith Freeman
remember my high school music teachers could do it. I found this with
reference to the Trinity College exams, for instance:
> For grade 5 transposition you have a score which has a bass line at
concert pitch with a treble line (separate stave) written as for Bb
instrument.
> You have to play both lines while transposing top line at sight. Grdae 6
you transpose both staves down a tone. Grade 7 top stave is written as for
horn in F and includes some 3 and 4 part chords in. Grade 8 is a piano
style piece (grade 2 standard) which you transpose down a perfect 5th.
Grade 8 is the highest level, required for admission to a college of music
(conservatory) as a piano student.
Joey Goldstein
>
> I also am a real stickler about learning the MELODY first!
I hate it when I have to work from a chord chart with no melody, which
is often the case in the big band that I play in regularly.
I'd much rather see a lead sheet-style part with the lead lines of the
various sections (A B C, etc.) in small notation.
But far too often that's not what you get.
So you have to always have to have your antenna up listening for the
lead line and trying to not play any voicings that rub too bad.
And then when you go to blow over the changes, it's only the written
chord symbols that you have to work with.
I have to have played the chart many times before I'll have any sense of
what the melody and the melodic themes of the tune actually are.
Jim Hopkins
> face and I barely made it to the rehearsal on time because some crazy
> bitch I had been careening around on an all nighter (never going to
>
> -TD
Now he's bragging.....
Jim Hopkins
andy-uk
TD
> As long as I can see my hand angles in a mirror I can play anything.
Well that settles it then. It's all done with mirrors.
-TD
Carl
>> If I'm not mistaken, an A7b9 is also
>> called a half-diminished chord.
> You are mistaken. A7b9 contains a diminished chord plus the root A.
>
> A half-dim is a m7b5.
>
> -Keith
>
>
astute enough to say, "If I'm not mistaken"... :-)
Thanks for the correction.
Paul K
That's gotta take a lot of work to master. But "grade 2 standard a
perfect fifth" not remotely as difficult as transposing even a fairly
straightforward classical piano accompaniment "at sight" and I doubt
many are expected to be able to do this. I'll ask a piano prof later
this week and see what he says.
--
Paul K
http://www.youtube.com/user/fibrationboy
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=240975
http://mypage.iu.edu/~pkirk/
tom walls
>
> "Disgruntled"...don't you guys serve that with tea over there? Thank
> you for that. And hopefully it will help you to sound like YOU.
>
> -TD
I'm not really a book guy, but I hope to get a sit down lesson with
you someday. Maybe over a cup of disgruntled.
Carl
> On 11/9/2010 11:34 AM, Carl wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>> Surely even the pros do better with music that they are
>>> familiar with, but I've heard people improvise very well over
>>> songs that they may not have been very familiar with.
>>>
>>> Take "All of Me", for example:
>>>
>>> http://frogstoryrecords.com/analysis/all_of_me.html
>>>
>>>
>>> No doubt I would have come close to these scales by
>>> noodling around with the changes until they sounded right.
>>> But the real trick is to know these changes even on a song
>>> you are unfamiliar with, with only the lead sheet in front of
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Jazz composers clearly steal chord progressions
>>> from each other, so is it really a matter of memorizing
>>> patterns like: If you go to a III7 or VI7, you would usually
>>> use mode 5 of the harmonic minor scale?
>>>
>>>
>> are so many others in this thread that are much more capable. Let
>> me, instead, throw out an idea to you about the complex question you
>> posed just above. It's been incredibly helpful to me to have learned to
>> stop worrying
>> about the theoretical complexities of things like "mode 5 of the
>> harmonic scale" and just think about the key I'm in at the moment
>> and its related pitch collection (ie. "scale") and chord tones.
>>
>> For illustration, in your example tune, All of Me, the key is C and
>> the fundamental tonal center would be notes from the C pitch
>> collection. Ask yourself, what is changing when you approach the E7
>> (III7) chord? The ONLY thing that's different from the fundamental C
>> pitch collection is that the G now has become G#. All the other
>> notes have remained the same. You can now choose to ignore that G#
>> 3rd and play around it, or address it by playing notes from the C
>> pitch collection and replace the one changed note to a G#. You don't
>> NEED to name this new scale. Doing so is purely academic, imho. The same
>> thing is true when you come to the A7 (VI7). The only tone
>> that's "different" is that C has now become C#. Just worry about
>> addressing that one note and not about naming the "new" scale.
>>
>> Now isn't that a far simpler approach than wondering whether you
>> should play the "mixolydian scale of the II chord", or "mode 5 of
>> the harmonic minor scale"???
>
> A good player will usually be able to think both ways.
> I.e. Knowing that all these scales are just like the C scale with
> slight modifications is great but not at the expense of knowing how
> each note you play operates on the chord that you're playing on.
>
>
Well, Joey, I accept what you say and have a high regard for you, but I'll
take a slight exception with your use of the words "a good player" in this
context. There are many famous "good players" who are untrained in music and
probably don't actually think either way.
>
>> Frankly, I don't think anyone can really think that fast,
>
> I can. And do.
>
Yes, but you actually practice! Then there's the rest of us... :-)
>
>
>> that all that
>> stuff sure confounded the heck out of me, and that those theoretical
>> constructs are best saved for the academic analyzing of a tune
>> rather than being used for playing in one.
>
> I totally disagree.
> I guess it depends on much control you want to have on your materials.
> When I first started playing I was quite happy with simply noodling
> with the major scale when I was playing over changes.
> But that's the first baby-step in the process. I.e. that's something
> to grow out of.
> Still, we all have to start somewhere.
>
>> Honestly, trying to learn that way kept me from even trying. It just
>> made things too daunting.
>
> Learning a few scales was too daunting?
> That's too bad.
>
I don't think I said that in that context. Or at least I didn't mean it the
way you're implying it. It isn't "learning a few scales" that was too
daunting. It was trying to learn the same scales with many different names
attached and all the rules about when to apply them, that was too daunting.
It made playing too academic for me and not musical. I am not alone in this.
There exists an outstanding guitar professional or two who believe that
students of the guitar don't need to be overloaded with ideas like, "Play
the pentatonic dorian scale over the ii7 chord, ending on the 7th tone which
you should then follow with the 3rd tone of the mixolydian scale of the I
chord when soloing over the V7 chord, which can be substituted with the bV
of the V mixolydian as a tritone substitution, or a half-whole diminished
arpeggio if you wish", in order to play a good improv.
>
>
> Look...
> Whether you see
> A B C D E F G# A
> as being the A harmonic minor scale - or the C maj scale with G# - or
> as an E mix b2b6 sale, you still have to learn the scale.
> You need to learn how to play it.
> You need to learn what each note sounds like on E7.
> And you have to learn it so well that you can make music with it.
> What you call the pitch collection is what's irrelevant.
>
>
We absolutely agree 100% with this. I don't think I implied or stated
otherwise. All I said was that one does not need to learn that the C maj
scale with G# is also the A harmonic minor scale, which is also the E mix
b2b6 scale. No one needs to know all of that in order to play well. It's
great if you do, it just isn't necessary. To me, it's theory for theory's
sake, not for the art of playing. Don't get me wrong. I love music theory
and I am probably the most learned of everyone I play with in terms of
theory. But it was better for me to learn to play first and have the theory
come as an "aha" enlightenment afterwards than the other way 'round. Many of
the people I play with are as good or better players than me, and know
little of the theory behind what they're doing.
>
Once again, you are a highly respected professional on this n.g., one whose
information I personally highly regard, and it's not my intention to get
into some sort of debate with you (in which I would get sliced and diced),
but I put those ideas out there and they continue to make sense to me.
Nothing personal intended. I did get much further in my playing when I put
those theoretical constructs in the background. Trying to use them to play
was holding me back. That's just me and that's all I meant. There may be
others. Thanks for the exchange of ideas.
>
>> It wasn't until I moved away from that kind of thinking
>> that I actually found myself beginning to be able to improvise. I
>> would suggest you at least explore this idea.
>>
>> Of course, every person learns best in their own way and I am well
>> aware that there are many who are heavily invested in that entire
>> mode- or scale-naming- thing which I find so cumbersome.
>>
>> To give credit where credit is due, I learned this approach from JB,
>> the first teacher with the first method that made any practical
>> sense to me. I thank him for shedding light on a path I had
>> previously found way too dark.
TD
Yes Tom, come down anyhow and we can have lunch and play some tunes
together. Myles likes to do that. He jams with a different cat each
day and gets all his lunches for free. I think the disgruntles are
really a type of scone. They are flown in daily from Sheffield,
England to Mulberry Street here. They 'reluctantly' go down your
pipes, so best to have them with tea. "The pipes, the pipes are
calling.."
-TD
charlieguitar
> Surely even the pros do better with music that they are
> familiar with, but I've heard people improvise very well over
> songs that they may not have been very familiar with.
>
> Take "All of Me", for example:
>
> http://frogstoryrecords.com/analysis/all_of_me.html
>
> No doubt I would have come close to these scales by
> noodling around with the changes until they sounded right.
> But the real trick is to know these changes even on a song
> you are unfamiliar with, with only the lead sheet in front of
> you.
>
> Jazz composers clearly steal chord progressions
> from each other, so is it really a matter of memorizing
> patterns like: If you go to a III7 or VI7, you would usually
> use mode 5 of the harmonic minor scale?
>
> over and over again, and you just automatically know
> what to do.
Tony is right this time,it's an acquired skill and not one that you
get overnight. After some years of going slowly through tunes in
Fakebooks and trying to figure out what would work over a given
sequences of changes I finally got to the point that I can just look
at them and blow over them with no preparation or even knowledge of
what the tunes sound like, but it took some time.
Charlie
Keith Freeman
> perfect fifth" not remotely as difficult as transposing even a fairly
> straightforward classical piano accompaniment "at sight"
True. From what I remember, my music teachers were able to play a basic
accompaniment in the new key, they wouldn't necessarily have played it note
for note.
And some of the 'transposing' mentioned involves reading a transposing
instrument's line along with the accompaniment rather than transposing the
whole piece.
I can't find any reference to transposition in the latest Associated Board
piano syllabuses for grades 5-8, though.
Organists don't have it so easy:
> TRANSPOSITION*: a simple passage in four-part harmony for a single
manual and pedals, eight bars long in 4 4 , with simple note values, to be
transposed up or down a tone or semitone within major keys of up to three
sharps or flats, as directed by the examiner. The bass line must be played
on the pedals. Anacrusis, occasional accidentals and modulation may be
encountered.
Keith Freeman
> really a type of scone.
cookies? ;-}
What you really need to have with tea, to do it properly, of course, is
crumpets, which everyone knows are sexy chicks...
Joey Goldstein
I think we probably disagree on what it means to be a "good player" then.
Can you name a few of these players who are "untrained in music" for me
please?
I'm guessing that we probably will disagree on what it means to be
"untrained in music" as well.
>>> Frankly, I don't think anyone can really think that fast,
>>
>> I can. And do.
>>
> Yes, but you actually practice! Then there's the rest of us... :-)
Right. There's the Catch 22. You have to actually work on this stuff in
order for it to be of any use to you.
>>> that all that
>>> stuff sure confounded the heck out of me, and that those theoretical
>>> constructs are best saved for the academic analyzing of a tune
>>> rather than being used for playing in one.
>>
>> I totally disagree.
>> I guess it depends on much control you want to have on your materials.
>> When I first started playing I was quite happy with simply noodling
>> with the major scale when I was playing over changes.
>> But that's the first baby-step in the process. I.e. that's something
>> to grow out of.
>> Still, we all have to start somewhere.
>>
>>> Honestly, trying to learn that way kept me from even trying. It just
>>> made things too daunting.
>>
>> Learning a few scales was too daunting?
>> That's too bad.
>>
> I don't think I said that in that context.
> Or at least I didn't mean it the
> way you're implying it.
Of course, I was exaggerating what I see as being your position/attitude.
> It isn't "learning a few scales" that was too
> daunting. It was trying to learn the same scales with many different names
> attached
Many of us feel that it's useful and illuminating if we look at the same
set of pitches from several different angles, like how they sound on one
chord vs some other chord.
That's all it is.
The various names for the same pitch collection are really just
mnemonics to help us remember the relationship between the chord and the
scale.
Certainly, not everyone playing jazz needs to have explored this way of
looking at things.
But the more advanced players of today's music generally have spent some
time looking at things that way. Some have not. But most have.
Whether or not this concept will be of any importance to your own
development really depends on what your goals in music happen to be.
If you're content with simply noodling with the major scale over changes
and if that sounds good to you, then go right ahead.
But many of us feel the need to be more in control of our resources.
And many of us find musical satisfaction in understanding the deeper
logical aspects of the music we play.
Since Coltrane, jazz music has not been the same happy-go-lucky
endeavour it used to be.
In today's jazz scene you're expected to have explore more. Not less.
> and all the rules about when to apply them,
> that was too daunting.
Sorry man. But everything you say seems to reek of a general laziness to me.
But I tend to listen to music played by musicians who think the way I do
too.
I'm not as fond of music played by less advanced players or players in
different bags from my own.
I tend to be attracted to musicians who have something going on in their
playing that the general musical population does not have going on in
their playing.
And usually those types of people have invested a large amount of time
into investigating every possible angle they can think of into making music.
Chord-scales is just one of many concepts that are out there and are
available to today's music students.
IMO It's definitely worth knowing about and it's definitely worth
knowing well. I say that based on my own personal experiences.
If you happen to enjoy my playing, then you should know that it's
probably impossible to play that way without having studied chord-scale
relationships very very closely.
But of course, nobody needs to know that stuff to play jazz well.
All you need to play jazz well is to be able to play jazz well.
Sounding good is its own reward.
> It made playing too academic for me and not musical. I am not alone in this.
No you're not.
The vast number of people who take up jazz guitar never get very far
with it.
In my experience, the people who do end up going far with it are usually
the ones who are willing to explore every conceivable alley rather than
just sticking to some comfort zone they discovered when they were novices.
Whether or not chord-scales becomes an important concept for your music
making or not is really besides the point.
You're going to have to work very hard at something or other whether
it's chord-scales or something else in order to become a good player.
The chord-scale concept is out there.
It's logically consistent, and it works.
It wasn't out there when the creators of this music started making it,
but it's out there now, and it works.
You don't have to have studied it.
Lots of great players haven't.
But it's available, and it works.
And lots of today's great players *have* studied it.
> There exists an outstanding guitar professional or two who believe that
> students of the guitar don't need to be overloaded with ideas like, "Play
> the pentatonic dorian scale over the ii7 chord, ending on the 7th tone which
> you should then follow with the 3rd tone of the mixolydian scale of the I
> chord when soloing over the V7 chord, which can be substituted with the bV
> of the V mixolydian as a tritone substitution, or a half-whole diminished
> arpeggio if you wish", in order to play a good improv.
I would hope that there are no professional players who advocate that
stuff because what you just said is absolute meaningless gibberish.
>> Look...
>> Whether you see
>> A B C D E F G# A
>> as being the A harmonic minor scale - or the C maj scale with G# - or
>> as an E mix b2b6 sale, you still have to learn the scale.
>> You need to learn how to play it.
>> You need to learn what each note sounds like on E7.
>> And you have to learn it so well that you can make music with it.
>> What you call the pitch collection is what's irrelevant.
>>
>>
> We absolutely agree 100% with this. I don't think I implied or stated
> otherwise. All I said was that one does not need to learn that the C maj
> scale with G# is also the A harmonic minor scale, which is also the E mix
> b2b6 scale. No one needs to know all of that in order to play well.
Of course no one needs to.
It's just that it's, generally speaking, musically enlightening if one
is capable of looking at those pitch collections from all those various
angles.
I'm sorry if that's too much work for you. But to those of us who are
more serious it's a small price to pay.
Look.....
If you play A harm min on an Am chord, don't you see any use in knowing
what the intervals involved are and how they relate to the Am chord?
A B C D E F G# A
R 9 b3 11 5 (b6) 7 R
Do you see no utility in knowing that the F doesn't fit harmonically and
that, generally speaking, it's better to resolve the F into the E below
it rather than leaping away from the F?
Do you really see no utility in knowing that B D and G# happen to sound
pretty cool when emphasized on this chord?
If you're using the same pitch collection on E7, then the
pitch-to-chord-relationships are:
A B C D E F G# A
(4) 5 b13 b7 R b9 3 (4)
When you realize that A is the weakest note in this scale on that
particular chord, then maybe you'll be better able to see our position
that thinking of this as some sort of an A scale, in this particular
situation, is actually counter-productive to music making.
In order to get those numbers above, we still have to think of the
intervals as stacked up above E.
Jumping to the next logical step of visualizing this as some sort of an
E scale, rather than an A scale, is really no big deal.
E F G# A B C D E
R b9 3 (4) 5 b13 b7 R
I.e. Even if you're still thinking of this as being an A harm min scale;
every time you play the E you still need to know it's the root of the
chord you're actually playing on, every time you play the F you still
need to know that it's the b9 on the chord you're actually playing one,
etc., etc.
On an E7 chord, thinking of this as an E scale with the intervals 1 b2 3
4 5 b6 b7 can be more useful than thinking of it as A harm min scale.
I really don't understand why that is so hard to see for the
chord-scale-detractor crowd that's become so prevalent in jazz-ed
circles these days.
Whether you call it A harm min, C maj with G#, E mixolydian b2b6, the
E7b9 scale, the E phrygian major scale, E7(b9,11,b13) or Fred, you still
have to study the pitches involved in relation to an E7 chord.
It's all the same process, no matter what you call it.
> It's
> great if you do, it just isn't necessary.
Nothing is necessary. But certain concepts can be helpful.
> To me, it's theory for theory's
> sake, not for the art of playing.
Theory for theory's sake?
I don't think I've ever encountered such a thing.
> Don't get me wrong. I love music theory
Err. Umm. I don't think that's really true, based on everything you've
said here.
> and I am probably the most learned of everyone I play with in terms of
> theory. But it was better for me to learn to play first and have the theory
> come as an "aha" enlightenment afterwards than the other way 'round.
I've generally found that the two go hand in hand.
Certainly, when I first learned to play, I knew no theory at all.
It was all about wiggling my fingers in familiar and easy to hear box
shapes on the fretboard.
And it was also about elementary ear training by lifting solos off of
recordings.
I could have conceivably continued on that exact same tract and could
have become a fairly advanced player in some regards.
For the vast majority of todays players that's still all they do.
But the people who I respect in music nowadays are several thousand
miles beyond that approach to music.
If you prefer to be the type of player who is only interested in the
mysterious intuitive and unknowable aspects of music, then it may make
sense for you as an artist to remain willfully ignorant of certain
logical aspects of music making.
But there is an important logical component to music making that can not
really be denied.
In my experience, the music that generally becomes recognized as the
best music usually has much more logic involved in it than music that is
less admired.
Musical coherence and logic are really the same things IMO.
So, my attitude is to ignore musical logic at my own peril.
I'd rather have more knowledge than less knowledge, just like I'd rather
have more technique rather than less technique.
Certainly, for a beginner, too much information at too early a
developmental stage can be detrimental to his/her progress.
As I said earlier, the first baby steps towards being able to play this
tune are probably to do exactly what you've suggested, i.e. to visualize
all the scales as being C maj with chromatic alterations from
chord-to-chord.
That type of noodling can give the student the confidence they need to
progress further.
But if you only explore the things that make you feel the most
comfortable you're unlikely to reach a very high level of playing. IMO
> Many of
> the people I play with are as good or better players than me, and know
> little of the theory behind what they're doing.
>>
> Once again, you are a highly respected professional on this n.g., one whose
> information I personally highly regard, and it's not my intention to get
> into some sort of debate with you (in which I would get sliced and diced),
> but I put those ideas out there and they continue to make sense to me.
Those ideas, are good advice *for beginners*.
But passing on the attitude that your's is the preferred approach for
professionals is probably not such a good idea.
> Nothing personal intended. I did get much further in my playing when I put
> those theoretical constructs in the background. Trying to use them to play
> was holding me back.
And how is your playing progressing nowadays?
> That's just me and that's all I meant. There may be
> others. Thanks for the exchange of ideas.
>>
>>> It wasn't until I moved away from that kind of thinking
>>> that I actually found myself beginning to be able to improvise. I
>>> would suggest you at least explore this idea.
>>>
>>> Of course, every person learns best in their own way and I am well
>>> aware that there are many who are heavily invested in that entire
>>> mode- or scale-naming- thing which I find so cumbersome.
>>>
>>> To give credit where credit is due, I learned this approach from JB,
>>> the first teacher with the first method that made any practical
>>> sense to me. I thank him for shedding light on a path I had
>>> previously found way too dark.
>
>
>
Chickenhead
Do you have any freakin' idea who Tony is and how lucky you are that he's
taken the time to respond to your post?
It's actually pretty funny that you would respond to someone of Tony's
stature that way. It's even funnier that Tony continued to indulge you by
responding. The joke's on you, dude.
Tony doesn't brag. Why don't you research it, then, when you're done, maybe
if you're really really nice and and apologize really sincerely Tony might,
just might, speak to you again. Though he really should charge you for the
privilege.
"Des Higgins" <dazzh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45b74bc6-c9e1-43b9...@l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Chickenhead
"Jim Hopkins" <bwan...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.11.10....@swbell.net...
TD
Crumpet, disgrunt...get it? It's how I heard it, man. Was an automatic
reharm.
-TD
Chickenhead
"Keith Freeman" <x...@x.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9E2CDFD19DCE8k...@212.54.40.12...
Paul
>
> read more »
Yes, often the "avoid" note is the 4th. And on certain songs
I have played, the 7th is to be avoided on certain chords.
Al Di Meola mentions ending phrases on important
notes, like the 3rds and 7ths. He mentions that he's aware
of where the 3rds and 7ths are, up and down the fretboard,
so he knows where he should end up. This is related to what
you said about playing chord melodies, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27TvT6XatBM&feature=related
And you are BOTH right. Different roads, hopefully ending
up with great music. Some people like Paul McCartney prefer
musical intuition. He prefers not to know how it all works....like
it would somehow ruin it for him.
TD
Now I really must brag.
Guess who taught him that as a remedy for a problem he was facing at
the time.
-TD
Dan Adler
> On Nov 9, 6:22 am, TD <tonydecap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Surely even the pros do better with music that they are
> > > familiar with, but I've heard people improvise very well over
> > > songs that they may not have been very familiar with.
>
> > > Take "All of Me", for example:
>
> > > http://frogstoryrecords.com/analysis/all_of_me.html
>
> > > No doubt I would have come close to these scales by
> > > noodling around with the changes until they sounded right.
> > > But the real trick is to know these changes even on a song
> > > you are unfamiliar with, with only the lead sheet in front of
> > > you.
>
> > > Jazz composers clearly steal chord progressions
> > > from each other, so is it really a matter of memorizing
> > > patterns like: If you go to a III7 or VI7, you would usually
> > > use mode 5 of the harmonic minor scale?
>
> > > over and over again, and you just automatically know
> > > what to do.
>
> > to know any changes in advance. Can even be changes that seem to be
> > esoteric in logic. Sight-improvising is an art and a skill and it
> > exists. You will only realize this if and when you are on a record
> > date or orchestra gig where the sword of damacles is ever present.
>
> Usually people who boast the loudest have the least
> ability......
It would be a huge mistake to underestimate TD's playing, his
musicianship or his insights. But, it would be an even bigger mistake
to dismiss what he says about sight reading and playing over unknown
material, since he's one of the few here who has made a career out of
doing exactly that at the first-tier pro level.
In general, on many gigs today in NYC jazz clubs, sidemen are playing
original material that they have not seen, heard or rehearsed before.
drthoma...@gmail.com
>
> > And you are BOTH right. Different roads, hopefully ending
> > up with great music. Some people like Paul McCartney prefer
> > musical intuition. He prefers not to know how it all works....like
> > it would somehow ruin it for him.
>
> Now I really must brag.
>
> Guess who taught him that as a remedy for a problem he was facing at
> the time.
You taught Paul McCartney not to know how music theory works?
Rick Stone
> In general, on many gigs today in NYC jazz clubs, sidemen are playing
> original material that they have not seen, heard or rehearsed before.
I'd say that except for a handful of real "working" groups, this is
probably the norm.
--
Musically Yours,
Rick Stone
Website: http://www.rickstone.com
Recordings: http://www.cdbaby.com/all/jazzand
Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/jazzand
Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/rickstonemusic
EPK: http://www.sonicbids.com/rickstone
TD
wrote:
If anyone else here thinks I refer to Paul McCartney, I could no
longer consider you unique. That would be a pity.
-TD
Bg
Definitely not McCartney the way I read it.
Bg
Frisbieinstein
Well, you asked.
Greger Hoel
> You mean where Don Costa and/or Billy Byers( and they are hovering
> around your ass on the stage sipping coffee spiked with martell?)
> penned the charts and all eyes are on you ( the likes of James Moody,
> Sam Noto, and Carl Fontana?)to sound like a million bucks on the first
> try? What good with it do? They will call me a braggard. Meanwhile the
> conductor hates my guts because the act digs me more than they dig
> him? And he can't wait for me to fuck up??? Oh, excuse me, that might
> sound like blatant bragging. And in addition, I got scratches on my
> face and I barely made it to the rehearsal on time because some crazy
> bitch I had been careening around on an all nighter (never going to
> bed) with had thrown a jealous raging tantrum on my ass??!!?? Wait a
> second, let me look up the correct mode for all this crap...
>
> ....burp
>
> -TD
Post of the year!
--
Always cross a vampire; never moon a werewolf
Carl
this particular question of yours, the one that surprised me a little. As
examples of technically untrained "good players", I'll toss out (with
trepidation, mind you) the names Charlie Christian, Django Reinhardt, and
Wes Montgomery as jazz players representing both the pre- and post- bebop
areas. I believe that Johnny Smith self-taught while working for free,
tuning guitars in music stores and had almost zero exposure to theory.
To my knowledge, none of them had formal music training and none of them
could name any of the scales they were playing over any of the chords. Jimi
Hendrix, while not yet a "jazz" guitarist, though many feel moving towards
it, falls in the same category. BB King, one of the most reknowned blues
artists is also musically illiterate. Then, as TD points out, there's Paul
McCartney, or any of the the three guitar-playing Beatles, and Eric Clapton,
who couldn't explain anything they did from a theoretical standpoint. I'm
sorry that I don't really know the musical educational level of most of the
contemporary jazz guitarists.
My "trepidation" comes from that I suspect you're going to explain these
guys away through that vague escape hatch you opened for yourself with that
qualification, "I'm guessing that we probably will disagree on what it means
to be "untrained in music" as well." Very "legal-ezed". I'm guessing we
probably will.
Once again, Joey, my hat's off to you as a player and a teacher. I'm not
anywhere in your league and shouldn't be in this debate. Thanks for the
exchange. We'll talk again.
Carl
Carl
But I can see that we're both going to take a hit on the McCartney thing. I
guess by "him", he meant God or something, which might then mean Clapton...
;-)
TD
Guess again (and no longer impt. I felt it all too compellingly
apropos to state something I usually keep to myself). So Tom Is not so
unique after all.
-TD
Jonathan (not from Cleveland)
McCartney isn't the only name in the thread :)
Rick Stone
> I'm going to extricate myself from this at this point with only addressing
> this particular question of yours, the one that surprised me a little. As
> examples of technically untrained "good players", I'll toss out (with
> trepidation, mind you) the names Charlie Christian, Django Reinhardt, and
> Wes Montgomery as jazz players representing both the pre- and post- bebop
> areas. I believe that Johnny Smith self-taught while working for free,
> tuning guitars in music stores and had almost zero exposure to theory.
I think you'd be surprised by how much "untrained" players like Wes
Montgomery knew. Self-taught isn't the same as untrained. Wes learned
by copying Charlie Christian solos note-for-note, and also had two
brothers in the music business before him. Buddy, in particular (being
a pianist) know a LOT and was a resource Wes could draw on. Although
was always said he didn't "read" music, it would be just plain foolish
to think that he could play the way he did without knowledge of how
things fit together.
Check out this video of Wes rehearsing a band for a tv show; he's
showing the piano the chord changes and substitutions, and he's blowing
arpeggios over EVERY change. Just because he wasn't formally "schooled"
you shouldn't extend that to think that he didn't know EXACTLY what he
was doing. Wes knew the $h!t out of chords and substitutions, and in
the jazz players world, knowing chords is pretty much the same as
knowing scales.
Now about this whole modal/chord-scale thing, it's another matter.
That's a fairly recent development in jazz education, and one that's
debated by certain players who actually know a lot about theory.
> To my knowledge, none of them had formal music training and none of them
> could name any of the scales they were playing over any of the chords. Jimi
> Hendrix, while not yet a "jazz" guitarist, though many feel moving towards
> it, falls in the same category. BB King, one of the most reknowned blues
> artists is also musically illiterate. Then, as TD points out, there's Paul
> McCartney, or any of the the three guitar-playing Beatles, and Eric Clapton,
> who couldn't explain anything they did from a theoretical standpoint. I'm
> sorry that I don't really know the musical educational level of most of the
> contemporary jazz guitarists.
Hendrix, BB King, Clapton, etc., draw from a VERY limited harmonic
palette. Improvising with basically just a blues scale is a MUCH
different ball-game than being able to play over chord changes.
If all you want to play is some basic blues and rock, then you you can
probably get away with improvising without a deep knowledge of chords
and changes, but as you start getting into standards and jazz tunes,
that approach isn't going to take you very far. Just look at the
abysmal recording of Clapton trying to play "Autumn Leaves." Pretty
sorry stuff. Just because your famous doesn't mean you can play jazz.
> My "trepidation" comes from that I suspect you're going to explain these
> guys away through that vague escape hatch you opened for yourself with that
> qualification, "I'm guessing that we probably will disagree on what it means
> to be "untrained in music" as well." Very "legal-ezed". I'm guessing we
> probably will.
"Training" in music doesn't necessarily mean going to music school. For
jazz, that's a very recent development. Most of the legendary players
didn't do this, but that doesn't mean they didn't study and understand
the music. If they came through the big-bands, the ALL had to learn to
read, and guys would share information about chords/scales, and how to
get different sounds. Go read Dizzy's book "To Be Or Not To Bop." It's
interesting to get some perspective on how jazz musicians learned their
craft in the 30s and 40s.
> Once again, Joey, my hat's off to you as a player and a teacher. I'm not
> anywhere in your league and shouldn't be in this debate. Thanks for the
> exchange. We'll talk again.
--
Carl
paragraphs earlier. With all due respect to you, if you choose to use a
pronoun, most readers will apply it to the last person you wrote about.
Language is not a guessing game and we (at least, I) don't know who you know
or what your professional experience has been. You seem to have a more
exacting standard with your musical language than your written one. That's
fine with me, but don't blame the victim.
A couple of you guys really personalize things. Why is that?
Carl
the most recently mentioned one? I get it now, but it's grammatically a crap
shoot.
Keith Freeman
> who you know or what your professional experience has been.
lukejazz
Tony I was just checking out a video clip of you from your website -
so many ideas so fluidly - one of the things I really like about good
players. Fantastic.
Lukejazz
lukejazz
Tony, I just ordered your book from Amazon - endorsements from Jimmy
Bruno and Lee Ritenour are pretty darn convincing. I've enjoyed over
the years investigating (if not incorporating) the amazing variety of
approaches to guitar playing conjured up by those infatuated with the
subject.
Am looking forward to checking it out.
L
Joey Goldstein
>
> this particular question of yours, the one that surprised me a little. As
> examples of technically untrained "good players", I'll toss out (with
> trepidation, mind you) the names Charlie Christian, Django Reinhardt, and
> Wes Montgomery as jazz players representing both the pre- and post- bebop
> areas. I believe that Johnny Smith self-taught while working for free,
> tuning guitars in music stores and had almost zero exposure to theory.
>
> To my knowledge, none of them had formal music training and none of them
> could name any of the scales they were playing over any of the chords.
I don't believe that you qualified it before as *formal* music training.
That's another matter entirely.
From my way of thinking all 4 of the men mentioned above have had lots
of musical training in that they have all studied music very intimately.
You can not become an advanced musician without studying music very
deeply in some manner.
And whether those guys knew any names for the scales they were playing
they were still using those scales in their playing.
You can't play this music if you don't hear your major and minor scales.
How we all go about learning to hear those scales is different for
everybody, but the goal is the same.
The goal is to advance your ears to the point where you hear interesting
music in your head and you have the ability to play what you hear on
your instrument.
If the types of Jazz-Ed tools that we've been discussing here had been
available in Wes' era then he would have been foolish to not take
advantage of them, IMO.
They weren't available then.
But they are available now.
> Jimi
> Hendrix, while not yet a "jazz" guitarist, though many feel moving towards
> it, falls in the same category.
As much as I love Jimi's music it has nowhere near the harmonic
sophistication of the music of say, Pat Metheny or Jonathan Kreisberg.
If Jimi had ever decided to move into a more harmonically challenging
musical bag he would have had to study harmony more deeply.
> BB King, one of the most reknowned blues
> artists is also musically illiterate.
BB King is an example of someone milking the most music from the
smallest musical palette.
It's beautiful music. "Great" music even.
But he's operating in a musical world where the types of concepts that
we've been discussing are essentially irrelevant.
> Then, as TD points out, there's Paul
> McCartney, or any of the the three guitar-playing Beatles,
Great musician, but not a jazz improviser.
> and Eric Clapton,
> who couldn't explain anything they did from a theoretical standpoint.
Same comments as for BB.
> I'm
> sorry that I don't really know the musical educational level of most of the
> contemporary jazz guitarists.
>
> My "trepidation" comes from that I suspect you're going to explain these
> guys away through that vague escape hatch you opened for yourself with that
> qualification, "I'm guessing that we probably will disagree on what it means
> to be "untrained in music" as well." Very "legal-ezed". I'm guessing we
> probably will.
>
> Once again, Joey, my hat's off to you as a player and a teacher. I'm not
> anywhere in your league and shouldn't be in this debate. Thanks for the
> exchange. We'll talk again.
>
>
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -
My choice of being exact and non-exact is with purpose. In addition I
hold nothing personal against you. You just read it that way. Your
"most readers" idea, at least here, is really "some readers." But you
should know this, no? You have an optonline account. Isn't that here
on the east coast? What are ya from, Jersey?
Hey Tom, you see what you started?
-TD
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kisses, Luke.
-TD
Joey Goldstein
>
> Now I really must brag.
>
> Guess who taught him that as a remedy for a problem he was facing at
> the time.
>
> -TD
Hey Tony....
Care to share a bit more with us about this interaction you had with Al
Dimeola?
TD
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not in public, no. We had a falling out some 20 years ago and I carry
no continued grudge what-so-ever. I wish him well.
-TD
Paul K
Carl
When I read this (recurring) debate about "do you need know theory"; as
a math prof it reminds me a lot of similar comments I hear from my
students.
But here is how I look at it. 90% of the music theory that is used in
jazz and discussed here isn't hard to understand.
The ideas are *rich*, in the sense that every idea has infinitely many
practical musical variations, because of all the permutations of each
idea available, and communicating the idea can be *technical* in that a
lot of terminology (eg names of scales, chords, chord function, etc.)
may be needed to get the idea across. Internalizing the
terminology/language is rather quick once you get going. This is true
even of "advanced" jazz theory.
Moreover, even simple ideas can be tedious to explain. It may take
many words to outline how broad reaching or useful an idea is even if
the idea is simple. But the number of words it takes to explain
something is not proportional to how difficult it is, but rather how
difficult it is to translate the idea into words. This is true for any
human intellectual activity. In general the human mind is great at
synthesizing and unifying concepts, but language is not always up to the
task of getting a concept across quickly. (Every semester I teach
classes that from my perpective contain only a couple of simple ideas,
but it takes 4 months to get through them)
If you don't put a little work in it, it can appear like you have to be
a talented scholar to "get it." But if you read every theory post on
this NG, slowly, deliberately, and with a guitar or piano nearby to try
it, you'll see that the ideas aren't rocket science. You dont need
"formal training", just a few weeks with a book like Mark Levine's. You
can reject a theory idea as not to your taste, but without knowing what
it is what's the point of rejecting it?
What *is* infinitely harder is taking this information and using it when
you play. But the more you know, the more cool stuff you can try out
My guess is one reason why people like Wes/Django/Christian probably are
great is because they can incorporate new ideas very quickly, and don't
need a lot of language to understand an idea. But these guys most
certainly understood what they are doing. Whether or not they could use
the standard *terminology* of music theory to explain it is a separate
issue from whether they understood it.
--
Paul K
http://www.youtube.com/user/fibrationboy
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=240975
http://mypage.iu.edu/~pkirk/
Joey Goldstein
Fair enough.
Paul
I would leave out Hendrix on that list. Even he said that he
didn't
want to play straight Blues. I wouldn't call "Little Wing" a strict
Blues
tune.
And check out his beautiful A#13add9 chord at 1:18 at
Woodstock during "Villanova Junction":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DpmTQoUNdw
Again, it's blues based, as are many, many jazz
tunes, but it's hardly simple pentatonic blues. In fact,
he goes to a flatted 6th chord as well, which is not a
simple 1-4-5.
Even Stanley Jordan said that Hendrix was overlapping
into Jazz.
pmfan57
I seem recall that Johnny Smith taught himself theory from books and
from scores. He could certainly read music.
Self taught doesn't mean "not taught".
Paul
Wikipedia says about Wes:
"Although he was not skilled at reading music, he could
learn
complex melodies and riffs by ear. Montgomery started learning guitar
relatively late, at the age of 19, by listening to and learning the
recordings
of his idol, guitarist Charlie Christian. He was known for his
ability to play
Christian solos note for note. He did not know scales or modes, let
alone
musical theory. He used mostly superimposed triads and arpeggios as
the main source for his soloing ideas and sounds."
I don't know how accurate this statement is, but I think the
crux of
the matter is that there is no ONE way of learning Jazz.
I would agree that memorizing someone else's jazz licks
is a form of education, even if you don't know all the myriad
ways you can name the same scale. Hell, to some visually
oriented people like me, an Altered dominant of the melodic
minor scale, or super Locrian, is easier to think of as a shape
surrounding a chord on the fretboard.
And a damn good sounding shape at that!
Don't let semantics weigh you down.
If Stanley Jordon has his own nomenclature for
chords, I can have my own for scale shapes. MY name
for the "super locrian" shape will be the Beelzebub Scale.
We will see if this catches on......
Keith Freeman
> relatively late, at the age of 19, by listening to and learning the
> recordings
> of his idol, guitarist Charlie Christian. He was known for his
> ability to play
> Christian solos note for note. He did not know scales or modes, let
> alone
> musical theory.
He knew scales and modes, he just didn't have any names for them.
Let's not forget that he developed his own sophisticated harmonic and
melodic language going way beyond those learned-by-ear CC solos.