Archive footage of Jimmy Bruno breaking down his theory
ArtistWorks
of his own theory on making music on the guitar, he uncovered this
archive footage from JBGI that covers the topic. I post it here
because its just a really great explanation that might be helpful to
anyone interested in better understanding where Jimmy's head is,
especially when he improvises:
http://www.youtube.com/user/JimmyBrunoJazz#p/u/6/8XlEXkb9ufc
He's putting up 2 vids in a series.
Patricia
Maj6th
"licks" for the sake of the lick; just listening to each other and playing
and experimenting within the harmonic context. Every guitarist should also
listen to what Jimmy has to say in, "Improvisation One" about modes.
Maj6th
"ArtistWorks" <artistw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1a4fa6c-01f2-4e94...@g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
pmfan57
Part II is there too. Thanks.
335
I have a huge amount of respect for Jimmy and what he's accomplished
in music. And I think it's great that he's willing to post here and
share his experience with the group. But I have to respectfully
disagree that music students shouldn't learn modes and chord scales.
If I understand his point, Jimmy is advising people to learn the white
notes as they would occur on the piano ( major scale) and use them as
a tonal center for making melodies over the chords. Fair enough. I
learned this way too, initially, and I sounded like a meandering
plain vanilla player. It wasn't until I got my arpeggios and approach
notes together, learned to place them on specific beats and became
very concious about how to use passing tones that I started to sound
like I was sort of playing jazz. Learning this stuff entails knowing
something about chord scales even if you don't think that way when you
play.
There are probably a lot of guys out there with much better ears and
time than me who can make music off of the tonal center approach, but
in my experience it just didn't take me very far. I would listen to
real jazz solos and wonder why my playing didn't sound like that.
Anyway, I don't think students should be discouraged from obtaining
more knowledge about how to play this music. btw...Jimmy, if you are
reading, this is not meant to be any kind of personal attack, just a
difference of opinion based on my own experience.
jimmybruno
335, no offense taken. But that little clip is not the entire method-
it is just the tip of the iceberg.
JoeJazz2000
mode studies anyway so Jimmy's approach was appealing in its
simplicity and effectiveness. The white-keys approach to making
melodies was a bit troublesome to me at the outset because I felt like
I was noodling and only occasionally finding a musical line. However,
I did adopt, with pretty good discipline, his scale forms (oops, I
mean shapes) and now I ALWAYS have a shape in mind when I touch the
fingerboard. It's like the home position for touch typists I guess.
The fingerings are then laid out, the exit points to new fingerings
are visible, as are the inside and outside notes. I've annotated
exercises from many books of lines and figures with the shape
indicated by the authors' fingerings or tabs. Because the fingerboard
is opened up to me from the shapes studies, I'm inspired to play the
exercises in all five shapes and in every feasible octave. I do the
same thing practicing heads. My ears have definitely improved. After
playing melodies in the shapes forms, making melodies now makes more
sense to me.
As to the modes, I think his focus on arps including their inversions
and extensions, goes a long way to replacing modes as optimal tones to
use in improvising against chords. Considering how little time one
has, over the course of a bar or two, to switch mentally to a mode,
this approach works in real time. An inquiring player will eventually
check out modes and other scales and will likely benefit from them,
but he shouldn't have to wait until then to effectively play over
changes.
Joey Goldstein
+1
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
lukejazz
Are you sure that's what he said, because I recall, perhaps
mistakenly, that learning those things made him a better player, but
that's not how he thinks when he's improvising.
Lukejazz
btw - somewhat unrelated - I enrolled and studied with JBGI materials
for only a few months, and it made a big difference in my playing and
understanding of guitar. The little knowledge I picked up in that
time helps me tremendously in my playing today.
L
Keith Freeman
play with and get to know the sounds of the 12 chromatic notes over every
chord.
-Keith
Clips, Portable Changes, tips etc.: www.keithfreemantrio.nl
e-mail: info AT keithfreemantrio DOT nl
pmfan57
Jimmy says in the video (part 2) that the black keys are the tensions
(when you're in C). Obviously he's going to get around to talking
about how to use those in a more advanced lesson.
hw
"pmfan57" <jwra...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ee55d6f6-d998-4af1...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Jimmy says in the video (part 2) that the black keys are the tensions
> (when you're in C). Obviously he's going to get around to talking
> about how to use those in a more advanced lesson.
but as soon as you call the black keys "tensions" your outlook is vertical.
btw the white key F is a "tension" on the C chord and the white key C a
"tension" on the G7. if you look at the horizontal line, you are dealing
with passing and leading tones, rather than tensions. if you want to master
all twelve notes you'll have to study voice leading, where to place the
chord notes, the leading and passing tones, and master the common voice
leading cliches, like 4-3, 3-b9, etc. as well as all the decorations
(chromatic enclosure, double chromatic, scalar, etc.).
pmfan57
> "pmfan57" <jwrag...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:ee55d6f6-d998-4af1...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
True enough, but Stan Getz and Lester Young appear to be thinking in
terms of finding melodies in the current key center, with the
occasional odd change of note to fit, say, a VIdom7 chord (where, for
example, the C in the C major scale might be sometimes be replaced
with a C# if they wanted to address the A7 (or C#dim) heading to
Dm7). Obviously their ears lead them to find melodies that sounded
great (and I'm pretty sure Lester Young often ignored what I just
mentioned and just kept playing melodies in C).
But as Jimmy mentions in the video, the "rules" for "avoid" notes
don't account for things like the overall context of the line, i.e.,
what has come before and what comes after. If you only go by that,
you might "avoid" what could have been a perfectly nice sounding line
in context.
Charlie X
'the mode method'. He even had pins made up for one of the guitar
shows that said 'NO MODES'...i loved it. I went to Berklee and they
did do a lot of drilling on the modes and chord scales. It happens to
be a very methodical and easy way to aproach jazz improv....but I also
got the 'vanilla effect'.
After I basically mastered all of that theory, i understood that i can
play, let' s say a mixolydian scale on a V chord and that i should
avoid playing the 4th which does not go well on a V chord...So, I had
all of these note choices and my first questions was, "SO which ones
SHOULD i play?' I knew what i Could play...but like the other poster,
it didnt give me a clue what to actually play or how to sound like a
jazz guitarist.
I threw away all of that knowledge ...(and money and time wasted on
all that theory) and started to transcribe Wes, Barney, Tal..and now
sometimes even Jimmy.
I learned how to phrase, which notes sound like what and when, and
also got my tones happening and my EARS WORKING...for me thats all i
need to enjoy playing.
One of the other great quotes from Jimmy Bruno that i will never
forget him saying at a guitar show clinic was "If you NEVER want to
develop your ears, go get a Real Book".
From what I know about JB, he learned it from the ground up without a
lot, if any, shortcuts and he used his EARS.
I think thats the only way to do it.....picking a scale from a book
or playing a mode on my favorite tune never got me anywhere that felt
good.
Just my 2c.
charliex.com
Maj6th
know is, what mode should I play against a specific chord. It is very
difficult to change their thinking. I saw it this kind of thinking develop
when G.I.T. became all the rage in the seventies even though Howard Roberts
didn't teach or play using this method.
Maj6th
"Charlie X" <diym...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:5524090b-5832-4245...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
335
> As to the modes, I think his focus on arps including their inversions
> and extensions, goes a long way to replacing modes as optimal tones to
> use in improvising against chords.
The modes and chord scales contain the arpeggios and the available
tensions ( "tones"), they aren't replaced by them. If a player finds
it more intuitive to think from the angle of arpeggios and tensions as
opposed to chord scales, that's fine too. Do what works for you. The
issue I had with relying primarily on arps, which I did for a very
long time, is that my playing sounded choppy and too third-
oriented...I couldn't play smooth lines that stated the sound of the
chord.
I'm just saying, don't take chord scales and modes off the table; you
can learn a lot if you study and apply them... the key word being
apply. In my own experience working through modes and chord scales
has had a positive impact on ear training, guitar technique and
ability to improvise. I've also played for a long time, done some
transcribing and listened to a lot of music so I can't say that the
progess I've made is soley because of chord scales, but they have been
very helpful on a few different levels.
JoeJazz2000
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fair enough, 335. Good comments and a good discussion.
335
I think there's a misconception that knowing theory means you know how
to play. They are two different things. Learning modes and chord
scales gives you a framework for understanding something about the
music. But you still have to learn the tunes, transcribe, learn the
idiom, practice and apply. You don't get a pass on all that stuff
because you took a couple of courses in music school.
335
> But as Jimmy mentions in the video, the "rules" for "avoid" notes
> don't account for things like the overall context of the line, i.e.,
> what has come before and what comes after. If you only go by that,
> you might "avoid" what could have been a perfectly nice sounding line
> in context.
I think that rule may have come about from writing chord voicings for
horns when you want to avoid a dissonance in a sustained voicing. I'm
not entirely sure why that "rule" has been taken literally in the area
of single note linear improvisation.
Tim McNamara
<3f0984bd-f86c-41fd...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
335 <335p...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jimmy does teach the tonal center method, which per his report is how
the musicians he learned jazz from actually played. He also teaches
arpeggios, passing tones, choosing and contrasting chord tones... and
phrasing so that one plays music instead of scales. What he points out
is that modes add no new notes. D dorian has the same notes as C major.
And, given how he plays, his notions would seem to work fairly well and
"sound like jazz."
On most jazz tunes there are too many chords going by too fast to try to
play by chord scale theory or modal theory. Using tonal centers
(generally) allows you to think in two to eight bar time spaces instead
of two to four beat time spaces.
My experience with Jimmy's method is that it quickly gets down to
playing musical phrases rather than trying to remember the 2nd mode of
the harmonic minor scale when faced with two beats of Dmin7b5. If you
can think that quickly about chord scales and all that, more power to
you. My brain is just not fast enough for that, I guess. Fortunately
the audience and other musicians grade on what you actually play and not
what thought process you use to arrive there.
When I watch instructional videos by guy like Joe Pass or Tal Farlow,
they rarely talk about modes and the like. When they describe their
thought processes, it tends to sound nothing like the discussions we
have here about theory. Pat Martino tends to be the exception in this,
among the videos I have seen.
An awful lot of the jazz theory we discuss here is fascinating, but
seems far too complex to be useful prospectively on the bandstand. Too
much brain processing power required. Someone smarter than me might
have less trouble. I find it easier to think "G7#11... C major scale,
maybe toss in a C# for accent" or "Dmin7b5 = vii or Eb" rather than
trying to remember the 2nd mode of C harmonic minor scale fingerings.
YMMV.
--
Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
-Mark Twain
hw
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:timmcn-5AE9A1....@news-2.mpls.iphouse.net...
judging from your last paragraph it seems that you're somehow trapped in the
same concept you're criticising. you can't isolate a chord and determine
what to play over it. if you want to know what to play over Dm7b5 you need
to know it's function. it might be a II chord in Cm, a VII in Eb, a sub for
III or I in Bb, a sub for I in Ab, and many more. so over Dm7b5 you can play
ideas based on all kinds of sounds, dominant, minor, major, diminished and
augmented.
there are only two aggregate states in music. all those fancy chord
progressions are only meant to obscure this fact in an entertaining matter.
the ideal is to eventually not bother anymore if a chord is called Dm7b5,
Fm6, Bb9, Abj7b5, or whatever but what harmonic situation it *represents*.
fortunately (or not) there are not very many harmonic situations or rather
cliches. playing over changes is no rocket science. (it's the rhythmic part
that is really tricky ;))
Joey Goldstein
Good point.
I'm gonna try and resist getting into this conversation out of respect
for Jimmy.
But essentially I disagree with a great many things he says in those 2
videos.
335
> D dorian has the same notes as C major.
Yes, the notes are the same. The question is which notes do you want
to accentuate in your line and on which beats. B natural is in the C
major scale but you would handle that note differently on Dm7 or F
major then you would on G7. The point of working on the chord scale is
to focus on the strongest notes ( the chord tones and the passing
tones related to the key) and be able to work them into a line. Chord
scales can help you do this if you work on them and train your ear.
I'm not saying it's the only way, just that it can help if you
practice them the right way.
If a player gives all the notes in the C scale equal weight on every
chord that's diatonic to C major, then he's probably not going to be
stating the sound of each chord as it's being played. He'll be playing
mostly correct notes over the chords but not really playing inside the
chord changes.
Joe Pass may not have thought in chord scales, although I think he did
at times, but he was an absolute master at stating the sound of the
chord of the moment within his line. He wasn't just running the parent
scale.
>
> On most jazz tunes there are too many chords going by too fast to try to
> play by chord scale theory or modal theory. Using tonal centers
> (generally) allows you to think in two to eight bar time spaces instead
> of two to four beat time spaces.
Yes, it's a very useful concept to know; as long as you're not
watering down your line by arbitrarily throwing in scale tones with
out enough attention being paid to the placement of chord tones. That
was the trap I fell into with tonal center playing. If I'd been a
better player then, maybe it would have worked for me, but actually it
made me kind of lazy, and my ears weren't improving. Playing through
the chord scales and applying them to tunes really helped my ears to
identify the chord tones and tensions and to place chord tones on
strong beats. It just helped me focus. Before I did the cs stuff I was
kind of running the parent scale a lot and I pretty much sucked.
>
>
> An awful lot of the jazz theory we discuss here is fascinating, but
> seems far too complex to be useful prospectively on the bandstand. Too
> much brain processing power required. Someone smarter than me might
> have less trouble. I find it easier to think "G7#11... C major scale,
> maybe toss in a C# for accent" or "Dmin7b5 = vii or Eb" rather than
> trying to remember the 2nd mode of C harmonic minor scale fingerings.
> YMMV.
>
a lot depends on how much you've practiced. Whatever concept or
method you use is going to require quite a bit of practice to get it
to the point where you can really improvise with it. A lot of guys
know this stuff cold and don't think about it when they are playing.
After awhile it becomes sound, not a thought process of " which scale
goes with this chord." But it takes a lot of practice and experience
to get there. If something else works for you, that's great. I was
making the point that the knowledge can be useful if studied and
applied, and that it shouldn't just be dismissed.
Bg
So, when I blow, I feel the need indicate the Harmony of the Chord as
well as a good time feel in my blowing, therefore Chord Scales and a
less adventurous time feel is what I do.
When I have the luxury of playing with drums and a Piano as well, then
I can loosen up and then I tend to go outside a bit more, as well as
applying the Getz/like tonal center approach. It's a real treat to do
that nce in while, but it doesn't happen often.
Bg
335
and btw...Tim, this is just based on my personal experience. I don't
mean to pass judgment on what Jimmy is teaching... he's a better
guitarist than I'll ever be. I wish I'd had a resource like the JBGI
when I first learned about tonal centers decades ago. I'd probably be
a much better player now.
Joe Finn
news:199a7450-90f5-4706...@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
In all fairness I would say that the clip does not really do Jimmy's
approach justice. He has a comprehensive system of instruction from what
I've seen. The clip just scratches the surface. ...joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
Charlie X
my Prince will come' by MILES...During Miles' solo, he purposely plays
4 on the maj 7 chords and some of the dom 7 chords..he just LAYS on
them!! .its as if he just heard the lecture that ur 'not supposed to
do that'
LOL
Maj6th
state an opinion on this subject, why are you afraid to give your honest and
educated opinion. One of the problems here is some people start a hate
campaign when another states an opinion and backs it up with facts. Jimmy
is a big boy, he can take a debate and his world won't fall apart. I'm sure
it won't disintegrate into "show me your clips," like so many others debates
do, so why not give an opposing view; you already have by your posting.
Maj6th
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:dc230$4ba16c0e$adceef0e$50...@PRIMUS.CA...
335
I think that's probably right. I only called attention to one
particular statement in the clip that I didn't agree with and I gave
some reasons why based on my own experience. I wasn't trying to
minimize Jimmy's teaching method. It may have been interpreted that
way but that was not the intent.
Tim McNamara
wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:timmcn-5AE9A1....@news-2.mpls.iphouse.net...
> > In article
> > <3f0984bd-f86c-41fd...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
> > 335 <335p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 16, 5:56 pm, ArtistWorks <artistworks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > As Jimmy's gotten more requests from new students, for the
> >> > explanation of his own theory on making music on the guitar, he
> >> > uncovered this archive footage from JBGI that covers the topic.
> >> > I post it here because its just a really great explanation that
> >> > might be helpful to anyone interested in better understanding
> >> > where Jimmy's head is, especially when he
> >> > improvises:http://www.youtube.com/user/JimmyBrunoJazz#p/u/6/8XlEX
> >> > kb9 ufc
Apparently my explanation was not effective. Sorry. Happens more often
than not.
My personal approach is that I don't isolate chords and play over them.
It is a rare song where a chord is isolated and not related closely to
those that came before and those that follow. I (generally) play to the
tonal center the chords suggest with optional notes.
> there are only two aggregate states in music. all those fancy chord
> progressions are only meant to obscure this fact in an entertaining
> matter. the ideal is to eventually not bother anymore if a chord is
> called Dm7b5, Fm6, Bb9, Abj7b5, or whatever but what harmonic
> situation it *represents*. fortunately (or not) there are not very
> many harmonic situations or rather cliches. playing over changes is
> no rocket science. (it's the rhythmic part that is really tricky ;))
The other aggregate state being...?
pmfan57
> In article
> <3f0984bd-f86c-41fd-bab0-6d6cc31f9...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
Pass definitely plays scales and has lots of melodic minor stuff
worked out. But thinks of changes in a simplified fashion and will
ignore the ii in a ii V7 I.
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:dc230$4ba16c0e$adceef0e$50...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> 335 wrote:
>>> On Mar 17, 2:48 pm, pmfan57 <jwrag...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But as Jimmy mentions in the video, the "rules" for "avoid" notes
>>>> don't account for things like the overall context of the line, i.e.,
>>>> what has come before and what comes after. If you only go by that,
>>>> you might "avoid" what could have been a perfectly nice sounding line
>>>> in context.
>>>
>>> I think that rule may have come about from writing chord voicings for
>>> horns when you want to avoid a dissonance in a sustained voicing. I'm
>>> not entirely sure why that "rule" has been taken literally in the area
>>> of single note linear improvisation.
>>
>> Good point.
>>
>> I'm gonna try and resist getting into this conversation out of respect
>> for Jimmy.
>> But essentially I disagree with a great many things he says in those 2
>> videos.
> I don't understand this, you certainly are probably the best person here
> to state an opinion on this subject, why are you afraid to give your
> honest and educated opinion. One of the problems here is some people
> start a hate campaign when another states an opinion and backs it up
> with facts. Jimmy is a big boy, he can take a debate and his world
> won't fall apart. I'm sure it won't disintegrate into "show me your
> clips," like so many others debates do, so why not give an opposing
> view; you already have by your posting.
I'm not afraid of anything.
I'm just weary.
I've had this same fight here at least 10 times over the years, at least
2 of those times with Jimmy.
Most folks here already know my thoughts on the utility of chord-scale
theory.
Those that don't can search the archives at GoogleGroups.
richard bornman
could invoke the GEEZER argument, but I shall refrain, and instead
say
this:
We dont really play jazz the way those guys played anymore.It makes
no
sense to hold that way of playing up as the "yardstick". The music
has
moved on a WHOLE lot since then. Functional harmony is still a part
of
music, but it's hegemony has been declining for ages and the old 2-5
schtick is pretty old and lame by now. Melody and harmony in jazz is
like 50 years past what this group is droning on and on about.
Nobody plays like that anymore, and the leading musicians in jazz
certainly dont/shouldn't be. It sounds old fashioned and hackneyed,
and mostly lame, especially when it is a retread of an earlier master
(as it just about always is). Jimmy is probably mostly is teaching
beginners/intermediates, so the basics he is covering makes sense for
them, but for those aiming higher, you better be all over chord
scales, meters, and DISTORTION boxes ;-)
hw
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:timmcn-50F0F2....@news-1.mpls.iphouse.net...
> The other aggregate state being...?
the two aggregate states are tension and release.
hw
"richard bornman" <richardmic...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:6928a078-183c-4029...@b9g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
so bring back the 70s? yay!
esiegel
> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:timmcn-50F0F2....@news-1.mpls.iphouse.net...
>
> > The other aggregate state being...?
>
> the two aggregate states are tension and release.
While I don't agree with the tone and dismissiveness of richard
bornmann's post, I do agree that more modern jazz, from coltrane and
miles forward (like 40-50 years) requires more integration of modal
thinking to manage. For better or worse, I taught myself how to play
jazz piano starting with the miles davis second quintet repertoire.
There was no way to think about that music as a beginner without
trying to address the mode/chord relationship of each chord, or in
some instances each sequence of chords. In the instance of that
particular band, each of the musicians handle the harmonies
differently. Miles had an incredible ear, and probably could not tell
you anything about the modes involved, herbie was very technical and
very into the workings of the music, and wayne...who the hell knows
what wayne does.
I have had to walk the dog back in my playing to get away from that
literal relationship. I like hal galpers forward motion approach for
simplifying improvising over jazz standards and bebop (at least
simplifying it in a harmonic sense) and making the playing more
musical and less technical. So like some others here, I have gone
from vertical to horizontal (and don't we all in the long run).
E
jimmybruno
> "pmfan57" <jwrag...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:ee55d6f6-d998-4af1...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Jimmy says in the video (part 2) that the black keys are the tensions
> > (when you're in C). Obviously he's going to get around to talking
> > about how to use those in a more advanced lesson.
>
> but as soon as you call the black keys "tensions" your outlook is vertical.
> btw the white key F is a "tension" on the C chord and the white key C a
> "tension" on the G7. if you look at the horizontal line, you are dealing
> with passing and leading tones, rather than tensions. if you want to master
> all twelve notes you'll have to study voice leading, where to place the
> chord notes, the leading and passing tones, and master the common voice
> leading cliches, like 4-3, 3-b9, etc. as well as all the decorations
> (chromatic enclosure, double chromatic, scalar, etc.).
Not vertical at all. There are no avoid notes. You are thinking of
the harmony as being static. It is not ; the harmony is in constant
motion. So the idea of the note "F" THROUGH a C major chord as being
tension is not correct. Study BAch , Mozart, Trane, Shorter, Bird
Chick... etc.
t. Notice I said through. Once you get the idea of lines not going
over the chord of the moment you'll see that F is not a tension note
but a melodic 'syllable. If it sounds bad to you, you are doing it
wrong.
jimmybruno
> On Mar 17, 3:23 pm, "hw" <nob...@home.net> wrote:
>
> > "pmfan57" <jwrag...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:ee55d6f6-d998-4af1...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Jimmy says in the video (part 2) that the black keys are the tensions
> > > (when you're in C). Obviously he's going to get around to talking
> > > about how to use those in a more advanced lesson.
>
> > but as soon as you call the black keys "tensions" your outlook is vertical.
> > btw the white key F is a "tension" on the C chord and the white key C a
> > "tension" on the G7. if you look at the horizontal line, you are dealing
> > with passing and leading tones, rather than tensions. if you want to master
> > all twelve notes you'll have to study voice leading, where to place the
> > chord notes, the leading and passing tones, and master the common voice
> > leading cliches, like 4-3, 3-b9, etc. as well as all the decorations
> > (chromatic enclosure, double chromatic, scalar, etc.).
>
> terms of finding melodies in the current key center, with the
> occasional odd change of note to fit, say, a VIdom7 chord (where, for
> example, the C in the C major scale might be sometimes be replaced
> with a C# if they wanted to address the A7 (or C#dim) heading to
> Dm7). Obviously their ears lead them to find melodies that sounded
> great (and I'm pretty sure Lester Young often ignored what I just
> mentioned and just kept playing melodies in C).
>
> But as Jimmy mentions in the video, the "rules" for "avoid" notes
> don't account for things like the overall context of the line, i.e.,
> what has come before and what comes after. If you only go by that,
> you might "avoid" what could have been a perfectly nice sounding line
> in context.
You are right on the money
Joey Goldstein
> So like some others here, I have gone
> from vertical to horizontal (and don't we all in the long run).
For me, it's the balance between the two that is my focus.
I think that you have to be able to navigate both in order to play this
music well whether you're conscious of it or not.
Joey Goldstein
Oiy.
There are very few ways to make C D E G A or B sound bad on a C chord.
It's much easier to make F sound bad. It's much more likely that an
emphasized F will sound bad on this chord.
The F is qualitatively different than the other notes in the C scale
while this chord is sounding.
By identifying F an "avoid note" all you're doing is recognizing this
fact and hopefully also becoming cognisant of the reasons why it sticks
out on this chord.
The term "avoid note" is perhaps an unfortunate one, because *obviously*
these notes are not to be avoided completely. But that's the term that
has stuck within the community.
Kevin Van Sant
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
<5ae61$4ba24f82$adceef0e$23...@PRIMUS.CA> :
>
>For me, it's the balance between the two that is my focus.
>I think that you have to be able to navigate both in order to play this
>music well whether you're conscious of it or not.
Striking the balance is where it's at. And that balance is constantly
shifting in the course of improvising. I like to explore and practice
the options so I know what I gain and what I sacrifice by making one
choice or another, then depending on what I'm going for in a phrase or
a longer segment I am making informed choices on the fly. Not that
this is a highly analytical process on the fly, hopefully it manifests
more intuitively based on having put in the shed time and internalized
everything.
I think that the mistake people make when they say they have gone
entirely horizontal is that in fact they have just internalized the
vertical to a large degree where they don't have to be thinking
through it all on the fly, but a great melodicists like Wes or Getz
who we think of as a horizontal players certainly have a strong
intuitive sense of the vertical and the strong sounds that can be
derived from a vertical approach are present in their playing.
________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
all my CDs in Mp3 form at:
http://www.kevinvansant.com
Tim McNamara
<6928a078-183c-4029...@b9g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
richard bornman <richardmic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I keep reading names like Farlow, Pass, Wes etc etc in this thread. I
> could invoke the GEEZER argument, but I shall refrain, and instead
> say this: We dont really play jazz the way those guys played anymore.
"We?" Is that the royal we?
> It makes no sense to hold that way of playing up as the "yardstick".
> The music has moved on a WHOLE lot since then. Functional harmony is
> still a part of music, but it's hegemony has been declining for ages
> and the old 2-5 schtick is pretty old and lame by now. Melody and
> harmony in jazz is like 50 years past what this group is droning on
> and on about.
Oddly enough, everywhere I go to listen to or play jazz, standards are
played. With that old ii-V schtick you so disparage.
> Nobody plays like that anymore, and the leading musicians in jazz
> certainly dont/shouldn't be. It sounds old fashioned and hackneyed,
> and mostly lame, especially when it is a retread of an earlier master
> (as it just about always is).
Yeah. Hey, listen, would you do me a favor and give Jim Hall a phone
call to let him know? Maybe you should call up Pat Metheny and Pat
Martino, too, and give them a heads up. Clearly they are lagging behind
you in the jazz sweepstakes.
> Jimmy is probably mostly is teaching beginners/intermediates, so the
> basics he is covering makes sense for them, but for those aiming
> higher, you better be all over chord scales, meters, and DISTORTION
> boxes ;-)
Yeah, I'll get right on that, thanks. Ought to go well with my nylon
string guitar in particular. A new form of music: distorta nova.
Tim McNamara
wrote:
Actually, that's one aggregate state.
jimmybruno
> In article <hnt29i$vft$0...@news.t-online.com>, "hw" <nob...@home.net>
Talking about all this music without playing it quickly turn into a
waste of time. IF you find a way that works for you, that is all that
is necessary. Music speaks for itself
335
wrote:
Yeah, why play Beethoven's 6th?...it' so OLD and NOBODY writes and
plays that tweety crap anymore except geezers and luddites. Heck it's
not even that much fun to listen to because Hayden already did it
better.
The music has moved on past Mahler and Stravinsky to Steve Reich. So
who needs that old crap? It's SO old fashioned. While we're at it, to
hell with acoustic instruments too. Burn 'em. Concertmaster, put a
pickup and distortion pedal on your stradivarius, please, and stop it
already with those tired plagal cadences...they are SUCH a bore. ;-)
Greger Hoel
<tim...@bitstream.net>:
> "We?" Is that the royal we?
Richard's an obvious contender for any eventual rmmgj royal title :P
>> for those aiming
>> higher, you better be all over chord scales, meters, and DISTORTION
>> boxes ;-)
>
> Yeah, I'll get right on that, thanks. Ought to go well with my nylon
> string guitar in particular. A new form of music: distorta nova.
Hey, you might be onto something here! Seriously though, Willie Nelson's
nylon string sound great through a guitar amp with a hint of breakup.
--
Always cross a vampire; never moon a werewolf
drthoma...@gmail.com
Great post. My problem is that I'm over 50, I don't text message, and
I like good old 4/4 and don't want to hear much else. But you make
some crucial points.
guitarannie
> Talking about all this music without playing it quickly turn into a
> waste of time. IF you find a way that works for you, that is all that
> is necessary. Music speaks for itself
So my take on all this is - notes go up - notes go down. Sometimes
they remain the same.
Oh yeah then there is that rhythm thing.
I get you Jimmy
SAS
Tim McNamara
"Greger Hoel" <gre...@blowme.com> wrote:
His sound is quirky to match his playing, and somehow I have always
found it appealing.
I've been trying to find a sound I like with my nylon string and found
that using at ART Tube MP helped warm things up. Nate suggested a Baggs
Para DI, which I just got and have been experimenting with running the
signal into the Baggs and then into the Tube MP and from there to the
amp. I could drive the 12AX7 in the Tube MP harder and try some tube
distortion, I suppose.
rpjazzguitar
On the other hand, I don't always behave rationally.
My take is that chord/scale/mode theory is a tool that can be
overused. It has the mixed blessing of being a very attractive and
useful tool, but can also lead to an abyss. If you're not careful, it
can become the only tool you think about, endless in its depth. So,
it's possible to be sucked into an abyss -- endless things to work on
that may not actually improve your playing by an amount commensurate
with the effort expended.
Beyond that, it isn't, I don't think, even the best tool for analyzing
certain commonly played kinds of lines. When somebody plays a lick in
Cmixo over a Cdom chord, and then plays the same line a half step up,
you can analyze all the intervals against Cdom, but, IMO, it misses
the point. Thinking "oh, that was a b9" may make sense when analyzing,
say, Jimmy Raney's playing, but may not be quite the same thing when
analyzing, say, Chico Pinheiro's lines.
I think Jack's recent excellent videos on playing outside the changes
made this point really well (with apologies if I've misunderstood
him). Jimmy Bruno has an excellent one on JBGI making a similar point
without going outside -- playing the same lines over different parts
of the ii V I and sounding great throughout.
As far as the point that a Dm7b5 can come from several different
scales, well, sure. As I understand Joe Pass' approach, he'd think
about the chord tones, and then add other notes by ear.
It seems to me that even if you've spent enough time in the abyss to
master all the math, in the end, you are going to have to be able to
hear a Dm7b5 in a song and pretty much do it Joe Pass' way. The
players who don't do it that way risk sounding like they're plugging
numbers into an equation.
Now, some time in the abyss may be a useful way to train one's ear.
But, going simply by my own experience, it takes a while to
incorporate a single new sound into my playing. A short piece on chord/
scale/mode theory always seems to have an overwhelming number of
options. That's why transcription is so important. You get to work on
the sounds you like and you're not distracted by a zillion other
possiblities.
I end up, like others have pointed out, trying to think of X scale
against Y chord. Time and again, that's exactly the point where my
solo starts to crash.
Rick
Joey Goldstein
> I end up, like others have pointed out, trying to think of X scale
> against Y chord. Time and again, that's exactly the point where my
> solo starts to crash.
If you haven't figured that stuff out and internalized it real well
before you decided to perform that tune, then of course you're going to
crash.
rpjazzguitar
read something cold that I've never heard before -- and the solo
changes don't run in a well traveled route. It's a way of going beyond
the chord tones while still playing it safe as far as avoiding clams.
But, in the earlier post, I was referring to situations where, for
some reason, I start thinking about the math during a solo. Usually
it's because of some theoretical point I've read which pops up in my
mind as I'm playing. And I coudn't agree more. It's usually because I
don't have the idea internalized. You can't really use it until you
can create melody on the spot using those harmonic ideas.
Rick
JonD
Echoing Jimmy's sentiment (although I may disagree in part with his
particular method), I propose my own method (as yet to be personally
fulfilled, you understand) :
1. Spend time playing - there is no way out. The amount of time spent
on their instruments by the greats is, I think, almost comically
underestimated by students and not-greats the world over. If you want
to play like them, it has to be your life - your whole life. It
mustn't bore you - ever. You must do it all the time. Or else you
won't get there, whichever theory you pick. There are no shortcuts
around this step.
2. There is no one "right theory". Wes's was different to Django's,
to Christian's, to Pass's, to Hall's, to Rainey's, to Benson's, to
Scofields, to Metheny's, to Sterns, to Rosenwinkel's, to Monder's, to
Bruno's, to Goldstein's. The thing that unites them all, is that
whatever road you take, you have to walk it so many hours a day than
everybody else, until you kick arse. Theories can make you sound a
little different - but practice and (practical) study make you sound
GOOD.
The amount of practice and real playing all these guys have done is
incomprehensible to everyone who isn't in their league, precisely
because no-one who has done that much practice is not in their
league. It's more work than most of us can even imagine doing.
This is born out in my teaching experience - those who work a lot
always get somewhere, even if they disagree and sometimes disregard my
particular plan for them (arpeggios then available tensions learned
one by one with reference to functional harmony, if you're
interested). Practice works - nothing else does. Except singing.
Jon
Joey Goldstein
+1
Tim McNamara
<0dc47279-c8ed-4458...@b9g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
JonD <delan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The amount of time spent on their instruments by the greats is, I
> think, almost comically underestimated by students and not-greats the
> world over.
I was just reading some history of jazz stuff and the author pointed out
that in the 1940s, at the height of the jam session culture, jazz
musicians commonly spent 60 hours a week playing on the bandstand plus
whatever practice time they put in. There are some estimates in various
pieces of literature than mastery of any activity takes about 10,000
hours.
Also, when reading biographies, most highly talented and skilled
musicians started playing very young- usually before the age of 13- and
played quite obsessively even then. There may actually be some
neurological-developmental processes here. I started learning guitar at
20 which is a bit late- I really should have started in 4th grade when I
wanted to (my parents made me play cello instead because that was what
was available at school- no guitar lessons; I still think the cello is
the most beautiful orchestral voice). Oh well, I have had a tremendous
amount of satisfaction from playing guitar over the past 30 years and
keep getting a little better all the time. By the time I'm 90 I might
just be able to play this thing!
Bryce
The mastery of any activity means making every mistake that is
possible to make in a very narrow field of study; and learning from
it. In my case, a life time.
What ever happened to key signatures? One key one scale. I learned
modes at CUNY with respect to music history and not music theory. We
learned key signatures when we studied music theory. I'm thinking
chord changes and key signatures when I play, not Greek music history.
What's with the modes. I'm lost. Is it because rock players play on
one minor triad bar chord and space out on playing a minor seventh
scale while fiddling with tons of effects? Jimmy is not talking to me
in his video. I'd rather him talk about complex harmonies like using a
dom9sus4 resolving the sus4 with a very slight pause to a minor-maj7th
tonic arpeggio .... ah... the good ole days..... maybe I should start
wearing a shirt and tie again... just to be different. I feel like a
dinosaur ......
rpjazzguitar
etc. Warren was irritated by the concept of modes, even though he
could play all of them. I know that the argument in favor of thinking
Greek is that it gets your lines more consistent with the chord of the
moment. But, if you know the chord tones and you know the sounds of
the various non-chord tones and you know the fingerboard by notes, not
visual patterns, then I don't see how thinking Greek is of much value
for a great many standard tunes. And, I can see why it can be
cumbersome.
However, it occurs to me that this approach breaks down for
bitonality. That is, if you're playing, say, against a G7 and you
outline an Emajor triad, basically, you're creating the sound of a
G13b9. You're creating a more complex sound. This goes back to the bop
guys, if not further.
But, if you're playing over a G7 and you outline an Ab7 briefly, it
doesn't make much sense to think of G7susb9b13addmaj7 or whatever,
because that's not what the ear is doing. Rather, the ear is hearing
two things at once. I think it's a very distinctive experience. So, I
think that certain juxtapositions need to be learned that way. That
is, not as chord extensions but as different bitonal sounds. Warren's
approach doesn't work like that, and he didn't play like that. Same
thing for the modal approach. It just doesn't go there, IMO.
There may be a similar argument for modal tunes, but I'll leave that
alone for the moment.
pmfan57
Even if you don't like the concepts of modes/chord scales in handling
chords in "tonal" chord progressions, there is some music that was
clearly written with that in mind. If you have a piece that
alternates between C/F# and D/F# in a blowing section, it would be
pretty clear the composer was hinting at F# lochrian rather than G
major.
And tunes like Inner Urge each chord really stands alone, more than as
a part of a tonal progression. You obviously can think of the related
major scales for each of the chords, or try to devine what "key"
you're in at any given time, but for those types of tunes, it's got to
be easier to think modally.
rpjazzguitar
I left the modal thing alone in my last post for exactly this reason.
I'm still working out my thinking on this subject.
Let's take Inner Urge as an example. It starts with 4 bars of Fm7b5.
The melody includes root, 4 b5. How does thinking modally help? This
is a real question -- a request for info, not an argument.
If I think F#loc or Gmaj, I'm going to end up with the same pool of
notes. When the chord changes, I can think Flyd or Cmaj and end up
with the same notes.
So, the usual advantage that is attributed to thinking loc and lyd is
that it makes it easier to remember the actual root and avoid playing,
say, G major licks that don't fit the harmony so well.
But, my thinking (and I just played this tune on Sunday) is that I can
hear the sound of the chord and I know the chord tones. So I'm going
to start from that. Since I like the sound of the 9 rather than b9,
I'd reach for the G# (and maybe realize later that I was playing
Amelmin or F#loc#2). When the chord changes, I'd probably think chord
tones and Cmaj. And after that, Ebmaj7#11 and Bb major. I'd be
thinking key, even if the concept isn't exactly right theoretically,
and ending up with the same notes. Since I start with chord tones, I'm
not going to forget what root I'm playing on. What does thinking Greek
add to that?
I scuffled through the quick ones at bar 20 using mostly chord tones
and/or licks going inside and out. I'd be interested in any advice on
playing through those.
Tim McNamara
<1e965dc0-71e7-4c33...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
pmfan57 <jwra...@aol.com> wrote:
Modal tunes often have very sparse harmonic structures with 8-10-24 bars
of one chord. I sometimes think of these in sort of reverse modes. For
example, Dm7 can be the ii, iii or vi so I might shift between C, Bb or
F major just to get a different sound. In that process I am not
thinking in terms of the Dorian, Phrygian or Aeolian modes but someone
with way too much time on there hands (which would have to be the case
to be wasting it listening to me) might very well analyze my playing as
being based on those modes.
I have a hard time finding anything to say over one chord for that long
and, while modes might give you a vocabulary, they don't give you
anything to say. And there are a lot of people playing jazz with great
vocabularies and nothing to say.
The takeaway from Jimmy's jazz course over the year I did it was to find
something to say. Pick a note, make a phrase; make another phrase; make
another phrase; etc.
I hear people emphasize the "wrong" stuff in jazz often- e.g., the
angularity of the melody of "Round Midnight" and not its romantic,
sultry exquisite misery. ("Wrong" to my ears, or course; someone else
would probably find it brilliant)
pmfan57
In some sense your analysis is modal despite it not wanting to be,
although you are avoiding using the greek names. The same pitch
collection idea might be true, but you definitely play different stuff
over that lochrian vamp I mentioned before than you would over a Gmaj7
chord.
rpjazzguitar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, maybe it amounts to the same thing. If I'm thinking modally, so
be it.
I would certainly not play my I Remember April opening over Inner
Urge ... hmmm or should I?
But that's because the chord tones are different. I'm not going to
lean on G B D and F# when the chord is F# A C E.
And, even if you learn F# loc as a different thing from Gmaj, you
still need to know the chord tones.
It seems to me that there isn't much difference after you've actually
mastered the material. But, maybe it's not the most efficient thing to
think about 7 modes plus chord tones, when you can get to the same
place by thinking one key signature plus chord tones.
Might it be because some players don't actually know the names of the
notes in each scale and chord and instead are thinking about the
guitar based on visual patterns? That is, if you don't know right away
that F#m7b5 is F# A C E and where to find those tones on the
fingerboard, then maybe having a memorized fingering for locrian mode
will be helpful. But, if you know the notes in the chord and you know
the tonal center, the worst that can happen is you adjust a couple of
things by ear. That, as I understand it, is Joe Pass's approach.
pmfan57
> all this modal vs. non-modal talk seems more akin to thinking about
> what shoes you're wearing rather than looking out for the obstacles in
> the road 5 feet ahead of you.
>
> myles
What does that mean? People can be concerned about more than one
thing. Just because you can posit a situation in which that would be
foolhardy does not mean that this is foolhardy.
rpjazzguitar
What this is about, for me, anyway, is putting my thinking up to
scrutiny -- with the hope that I'll find out if I'm missing something
that might help my playing.
pmfan57
I was responding to myles.
rpjazzguitar
>
> - Show quoted text -
That was clear. So was I.
Tim McNamara
<b7fb38be-2700-4fe5...@w9g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
rpjazzguitar <rpjazz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> loc and lyd
The new battle cry for jazz: "Loc and Lyd!"
Dan Adler
wrote:
> I keep reading names like Farlow, Pass, Wes etc etc in this thread. I
> could invoke the GEEZER argument, but I shall refrain, and instead
> say
> this:
> We dont really play jazz the way those guys played anymore.It makes
> no
> sense to hold that way of playing up as the "yardstick". The music
> has
> moved on a WHOLE lot since then. Functional harmony is still a part
> of
> music, but it's hegemony has been declining for ages and the old 2-5
> schtick is pretty old and lame by now. Melody and harmony in jazz is
> like 50 years past what this group is droning on and on about.
> Nobody plays like that anymore, and the leading musicians in jazz
> certainly dont/shouldn't be. It sounds old fashioned and hackneyed,
> and mostly lame, especially when it is a retread of an earlier master
> (as it just about always is). Jimmy is probably mostly is teaching
> beginners/intermediates, so the basics he is covering makes sense for
> scales, meters, and DISTORTION boxes ;-)
It's scary to think, but distortion and odd meters in jazz are also
just about 40 years old...
rpjazzguitar
that? That's 50 years. Have Brubeck or Desmond mentioned where they
got the ideas?
Distortion, meaning intentionally added distortion, probably started
in the late 60's with the first Jazzrock guys. I remember Larry
Coryell from that period, but I don't recall if he was using
distortion.
Bg
Les Paul had a couple of tunes with Fuzz guitar too on some of Les
Paul and Mary Ford stuff.
Bg
hw
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:timmcn-D048BF....@news-1.mpls.iphouse.net...
> In article <hnt29i$vft$03$1...@news.t-online.com>, "hw" <nob...@home.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:timmcn-50F0F2....@news-1.mpls.iphouse.net...
>> > The other aggregate state being...?
>>
>> the two aggregate states are tension and release.
>
> Actually, that's one aggregate state.
wooooooosh
Steve Knight
What do you mean by singing? Singing what you hear on a recording?
Singing what you want to play over a tune/progression, then figuring
out how to play it on guitar?
SK
Dan Adler
The point being most of what we consider "modern" is also 40-50 years
old, and therefore in the same geezer category as bebop.
Still, I do agree that the "post modern" era of jazz is pretty much
over - especially in NYC in the last 5 years or so, and getting much
more intense in the last year. Young guys are going out to hear jazz
again, but it's not bebop. I think these years will go down in history
as the emergence of a new style that is growing out of 60's Miles'
rhythm section concepts and incorporating all the good elements of
fusion without the overt backbeat.
andy-uk
here is an example:
2 5 1 in C ... Dm , G7, C.....the non modal approach is to say this
all is C major scale. Is that correct?
so I play a B note on G7 right... do you refer to that as "the third"?
pmfan57
I agree. You were clear. And perfectly consistent. And I didn't
think what you were saying was anything like looking at your shoes etc.
Tim McNamara
wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:timmcn-D048BF....@news-1.mpls.iphouse.net...
> > In article <hnt29i$vft$03$1...@news.t-online.com>, "hw" <nob...@home.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> news:timmcn-50F0F2....@news-1.mpls.iphouse.net...
> >> > The other aggregate state being...?
> >>
> >> the two aggregate states are tension and release.
> >
> > Actually, that's one aggregate state.
>
>
> wooooooosh
Hardly. Think about it.
rpjazzguitar
mixolydian, C Ionian. They believe that thinking this way helps them
nail the sound of each chord better than if they just thought of it
all as "C tonal center".
B is the third of G7, if that's what you're asking.
andy-uk
> B is the third of G7, if that's what you're asking.
>
so by the definition of the third as being the 3rd note of the major
scale (is this correct?) the root is G on the G7, the intervals are
derived from the root.
Keith Freeman
> all is C major scale. Is that correct?
If you just play C major over all three chords you're playing modally. If
you play Dm over Dm, G7 over G7 and C over C you're playing chord-scale.
You might want to have a look at my article on Arpeggios and Scales.
-Keith
Clips, Portable Changes, tips etc.: www.keithfreemantrio.nl
e-mail: info AT keithfreemantrio DOT nl
rpjazzguitar
I guess this is nomenclature, but I would like to get it right ...
I thought that the player who uses modes over a non-modal tune is the
one who thinks about the specific mode of the current key. So for a ii
V I in C, this player thinks D Dorian G mixo and C Ionian (which I'm
thinking is not the same as Dm G7 C, which, to me, implies arps, not
scales or modes).
The player who just thinks in tonal center (meaning just playing the
notes in C major without thinking about modes of the C major scale) is
the non-modal player.
Or is that backwards?
Joey Goldstein
Oiy.
If you focus on just the C major scale while blowing over Dm7 G7 Cmaj7,
without paying any attention to the individual chords, then you are
using what is generally known as the horizontal (aka key-based) approach
to improvising.
If you focus more on the individual chords in the progression you are
using what is generally called a vertical approach.
One way to study the vertical aspects of this progression is to gain
familiarity with all the various notes that stack up well,
vertically-speaking, on each of the chords.
This will generally *initially* involve enumerating the various possible
intervals above the root of the chord.
Once those intervals have been studied and enumerated some of us like to
conceive of them in what is known as a "chord-scale relationship". This
generally involves enumerating and listing the intervals above the root
of the chord.
Eg.
Expressed as a chord voicing from the root, the intervals that are most
closely associated with a V7 chord are:
1 3 5 b7 9 11 13
The reason we generally focus on 9 11 and 13 on a V7 chord in a major
key is because these three notes diatonic to that key.
I.e. This vertical structure is predicated on a *horizontal* approach.
Expressed as a scale the same notes are:
1 2 3 4 5 6 b7
The old timers had no problem calling this the "dom7 scale" or "the V7
scale".
What some of the people in the neo-classic jazz community object to, as
far as I can see, is calling the scale by its Greek name, Mixolydian.
There is no "modal approach" to playing over Dm7 G7 Cmaj7.
Anybody who tells you otherwise doesn't know what he's talking about.
There is no modal tonal centre involved here.
The music that this progression creates is in a key, not a mode.
Just because a player uses the mnemonic "D Dorian" for Dm7(9,11,13) does
not mean that he is playing "modally" over this chord.
All it means is that he is aware of the vertical implications of the
pitch collection, also known as "the C major scale", while Dm7 is being
used as IIm7. And it means he like to use the word "Dorian" to help him
remember these relationships.
And that's *all* it means.
It's not supposed to mean anything more than that.
Having this knowledge is not supposed to be able to unlock all the
secrets of jazz melody or jazz harmony. It's just something you study to
gain familiarity with the sounds you will be using on this chord.
It's not the *only* thing you're supposed to know about this harmonic
situation. It's just *one thing*.
But you have to start somewhere.
Generally speaking, with my novice students, when first approaching this
progression, I'll first tell them to try the horizontal approach.
Once they have some facility with that we will then turn our attention
to the individual chords and at this point it may also involve using
some ancient Greek names to help remember the chord-scale relationships.
Whether or not we use ancient Greek names, the process is still the same.
I really don't get what all the fuss is about.
On the other hand, in a tune that has a Dm7 chord lasting for a long
duration, where there is no cadence to a C chord involved, then the
music is most likely not correctly identified as being "in the key of C".
In a case like this it does not make sense to tell yourself that you're
improvising with the C major scale, because that's not what you're doing.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Keith Freeman
> notes in C major
Joey's right, the first is vertical, the second horizontal.
rpjazzguitar
Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Tim McNamara
<46d13054-ac3b-450a...@a31g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
rpjazzguitar <rpjazz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 5:19 pm, Keith Freeman <x...@x.net> wrote:
> > > V I in C, this player thinks D Dorian G mixo and C Ionian just
> > > playing the notes in C major
> >
> > Joey's right, the first is vertical, the second horizontal.
>
> Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
And well-clarified. Whether playing chord-scale or modal or whatever,
all jazz musicians should be aware of both the horizontal and vertical
possibilities in any harmony structure. My own playing is inadequate in
the vertical, as I noticed today at the jazz jam, and I need to pay more
attention to chord structure and arpeggios to hopefully avoid boring
myself to death. It was a near thing today.
rpjazzguitar
> In article
> <46d13054-ac3b-450a-8da3-6a3da31ac...@a31g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Lately, I've been working on outside ideas similar to what Jack Zucker
posted in those 4 lessons (thanks again, Jack).
I started with half-step-up (which turned out to be a little easier to
hear than I would have imagined) and I'm now working on moving simple
ideas thru different intervals. I haven't really figured it out, but
it seems that, if my idea is strong enough, and I play it with some
zip, the changes don't matter much for a couple of bars. That is, I
could move the idea a minor third, a major third or something else and
it will still create bitonality and work. You have to throw the
listener a bread crumb eventually, but while you're up there it feels
like flying.
Is that horizontal, vertical or zigzag?
andy-uk
1) The key centered way is an ear based method .. the CAGED shapes are
visualised and heard intervallically. So you get "lost in the music "
as your ears dictate your playing as you improvise.
2) However if the solo is then written down it makes total sense to
analyse the improvisation in terms of seeing each chord as the root
(and hence modally if we build up the chord tones from root,
2,3,4,5,6,7,).
Keith Freeman
who famously said 'I play moods, not modes'). For vertical listen to John
Coltrane.
The vertical approach gives you more 'forward motion' (Hal Galper's term)
as it pushes you on from one chord to the next. It's easier to play
lyrically using a horizontal approach.
Bryce
> On Mar 19, 2:33 pm, rpjazzguitar <rpjazzgui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I learned from Warren Nunes that C is C, not C is C ionian, D dorian
> > etc. Warren was irritated by the concept of modes, even though he
> > could play all of them. I know that the argument in favor of thinking
> > Greek is that it gets your lines more consistent with the chord of the
> > moment. But, if you know the chord tones and you know the sounds of
> > the various non-chord tones and you know the fingerboard by notes, not
> > visual patterns, then I don't see how thinking Greek is of much value
> > for a great many standard tunes. And, I can see why it can be
> > cumbersome.
>
> > However, it occurs to me that this approach breaks down for
> > bitonality. That is, if you're playing, say, against a G7 and you
> > outline an Emajor triad, basically, you're creating the sound of a
> > G13b9. You're creating a more complex sound. This goes back to the bop
> > guys, if not further.
>
> > But, if you're playing over a G7 and you outline an Ab7 briefly, it
> > doesn't make much sense to think of G7susb9b13addmaj7 or whatever,
> > because that's not what the ear is doing. Rather, the ear is hearing
> > two things at once. I think it's a very distinctive experience. So, I
> > think that certain juxtapositions need to be learned that way. That
> > is, not as chord extensions but as different bitonal sounds. Warren's
> > approach doesn't work like that, and he didn't play like that. Same
> > thing for the modal approach. It just doesn't go there, IMO.
>
> > There may be a similar argument for modal tunes, but I'll leave that
> > alone for the moment.
>
> Even if you don't like the concepts of modes/chord scales in handling
> chords in "tonal" chord progressions, there is some music that was
> clearly written with that in mind. If you have a piece that
> alternates between C/F# and D/F# in a blowing section, it would be
> pretty clear the composer was hinting at F# lochrian rather than G
> major.
>
> And tunes like Inner Urge each chord really stands alone, more than as
> a part of a tonal progression. You obviously can think of the related
> major scales for each of the chords, or try to devine what "key"
> you're in at any given time, but for those types of tunes, it's got to
> be easier to think modally.
I don't know a thing about using modes to improv. I'm learning stuff
from this thread. I'll probably never get off the bop vamped stuff
because it is overwhelming and I'm a geezer that falls in love then
stays loyal. Nevertheless, it sounds like, IMO, that there is a strong
desire to play off scales, hence modes or key shifting. My approach is
contrary to that. Scales are indeed a rich source of notes to play and
rich to create melodic lines but cannot stand alone. I'm thinking
chord changes all the time, on every bar most of the time. To me the
idea is to create beautiful lines in auto-mode. Meaning: play from the
heart and explore the space without thinking at all. So I memorize the
changes. There is no shortage of notes by not playing scales. For
example: if the comp is hanging on an Ebmi7 for a few bars and I'm
bored with the arpeggio, I'll insert my own changes inside derived
from the song itself. I call this playing inside, I was taught chord
substitution which is along these lines. The idea is to dig into the
complex harmony at the moment and stay in context. I also find that
the more rules I find in harmony, the more freedom there is in
playing. Not knowing the secrets of harmony makes me bored playing.
And to break the rules, I've got to know them. Same ole story. Sorry
for the rant. You guys are deep thinkers.. I like that.
Bryce
...
Joey Goldstein
Sorry. But I don't think you do 'see'.
No matter how you play, if you're doing it well, it's 'ear-based'.
This discussion has nothing to do with writing anything down really.
As far as melodic analysis goes the most common methods do involve a
system where chord tones are essentially free and require no labelling
or consideration. It's the various uses of the non-chord-tones that get
labelled. Eg. As passing tones, appoggiature, etc.
But that's only one type of melodic analysis.
Another analyst might consider how the notes are functioning in the
key(s). Eg. As Mediant, Dominant, Sub Mediant, etc.
Another type of melodic analysis might consider aspects of the contour
of the line. When does it go up? How far does it go up? Where is the
climax? How are the tendency notes handled? Etc.
No matter how you analyse the music, it's still all about how it sounds,
so the ear has to be involved at every stage.
It's impossible to play well using a horizontal approach if you don't
hear anything that sounds good when using that approach.
It's impossible to play well using a vertical approach if you don't hear
anything that sounds good when using that approach.
It's as impossible to play strictly horizontally as it is to play
strictly vertically. There's always some overlap even if the player
isn't aware of it.
At the very least, if you're mostly a horizontal player you'll have to
keep track of the individual chords or the form of the music so that you
don't get lost and so that you know when the keys are modulating. A
strong horizontal player will have studied how each note in the key
scale(s) sounds and operates on each of the individual chords.
If you're mostly a vertical player, if you don't want to sound totally
exotic all the time, you'll choose your non-chord-tones mostly from the
key-scale.
No matter how you practice or conceptualize your music, when it comes
time to actually make music it's *all* 'ear-based'.
Tim McNamara
Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
<snip>
> No matter how you analyse the music, it's still all about how it
> sounds, so the ear has to be involved at every stage.
<snip>
This is a point that quickly gets lost in verbal discussions about
music, which may be unavoidable in a forum such as this. In a classroom
setting, for example, an instructor can play examples on an instrument
or from a recording to illustrate the analysis; that's hard to do here
and I think that contributes to the sometimes contentious nature of
these discussions.
> At the very least, if you're mostly a horizontal player you'll have to
> keep track of the individual chords or the form of the music so that you
> don't get lost and so that you know when the keys are modulating. A
> strong horizontal player will have studied how each note in the key
> scale(s) sounds and operates on each of the individual chords.
Gene Bertoncini speaks of this in his book and instructional video and
in the latter gives examples over the m7b5 chord. Others address it as
well, of course; Gene was just quite explicit about it.
andy-uk
horizontal ...vertical .....twighlight zone?
Joey Goldstein
Sorry I'm being so anal about this.
But somebody's got to do it.
It's just the way I am.
RB
With the way this thread has gone, I think an appropriate follow up
thread might be titled exactly like this one - sans the last two
words. I know I am.
andy-uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
lol...at least no one has gone beyond "equal temperement tuning".....
hey it was the "outer limits" we conrol the horizontal we control the
vertical...great show..twas in black and white though! No worries
Joey.
rpjazzguitar
There was a certain sound I was hearing a lot (different players, with
Jeff Buenz leaping to mind) that I couldn't get. I transcribed some
stuff and tried to analyze it the usual way, finding that the passages
I liked usually involved the most extreme "avoid" notes, like major
seven against a dominant chord, a minor third against a major
chord ... like that. I couldn't figure out how they made it sound
good. When I played the same thing (or so I thought) it sounded bad.
Then, a couple of weeks ago, I searched youtube for playing outside
the changes, or something like that, and found a video in Spanish. My
high school Spanish was sufficient because the music was so clear.
Then, by coincidence, Jack Zucker posted his four lessons.
The first thing was simply playing a strong idea a half step up,
preferably starting on an upbeat. As soon as I did that, I heard one
of the sounds that had been so elusive. I then reread Mark Levine's
Jazz Theory, which has a chapter which covers several related
techniques. Generally cycling an idea through different keys.
My previous exposure to theory had all been based on extending the
chord-of-the-moment, e.g. making a dom7 into a dom13 or a 13b9 or
whatever. That is, melding the solo and the comp together to extend
the harmony.
But, playing "outside" is, apparently, about superimposing another
harmony -- which would be inside in some other context -- and making
the ear hear two things at once.
Levine's treatment was very brief. Can anyone recommend a more
complete treatment -- with CD?
Rick
ES175_Player
but It's improved my playing about 200%. A lot of wholes in the
fretboard have disappeared, and my ears have been opened a lot more.
My son takes lessons over at the Oberg site..(Chord/Scale/Mode)..He's
made progress as well.
You can talk this stuff to death. But whatever method you choose,
You've got to put the time in and develop your ear..
Same old, same old..
"How do you get to Carnegie Hall??" LOL..
Stan Fong
I've been on the site since the beginning. It has helped me as my
friends are taking notice. One thing I might add is being able to
watch the masterclasses and other lessons over and over, 24/7. If you
miss or forget something you can always watch it again. That's a big
plus for me.
Stan
PaulS
> On Mar 18, 2:35 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> In article <hnt29i$vft$0...@news.t-online.com>, "hw" <nob...@home.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>> news:timmcn-50F0F2....@news-1.mpls.iphouse.net...
>>>> The other aggregate state being...?
>>> the two aggregate states are tension and release.
>> Actually, that's one aggregate state.
>>
>> Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
>> -Mark Twain
>
> waste of time. IF you find a way that works for you, that is all that
> is necessary. Music speaks for itself
All I know is this:
I've played a lot of rock and pop guitar over the years, and every time
I started to try to get into the complexities of Jazz via books I never
really got anywhere - at most I picked up a few licks here and there, maybe.
After listening to (and, most importantly, enjoying) a lot of Jazz in
recent years I decided to have another go and bought Jimmy's DVDs on the
recommendation of a guitar teacher friend here in the UK.
I've finally started to get somewhere with these DVDs. Finally, a
method that *starts* with the idea of *making music* rather than trying
to pack in all the dry complex theory first, and *then* (by some
mysterious process) turning that theory into actual, listenable music!
I may never be a world-class Jazz guitarist, but my musical vocabulary
has expanded to the point where I'm going to sit in at a Jazz jam
session next week for the first time in front of a public audience.
Thanks Jimmy. Keep up the good work.
--
Paul