The chord scale thing
Joe Finn
chord/scale thing has obvious limitations. The concept itself is basic; like
associating a C major scale with a C6 chord, but when taken to the extreme
this idea can become needlessly [and endlessly] complex quickly.
It's a good idea to know scales; but there are an awfull lot of scales. Just
ask Slominsky. My concept at this point is to teach a lot of applications
for a few general purpose scales rather than to try to teach a great number
of relatively specialized or exotic scales that are specific to certain
special harmonic settings.
Beyond the repertoire that features modal forms or other longer harmonic
rhythms, the chord scale idea breaks down. It's hard to think as fast as
you'd need to think to use the idea in a bop context for instance. My
preference is to teach chord tones and transcription. I've had kids that get
everything they need to get up to level VI an beyond by studying
transcriptions, listening and spelling chords. When you put this stuff in
the context of the repertoire, satisfying results seem to come pretty
quickly.
I had this sax teacher for my son a couple of years ago. He is a fine player
with a couple cds as leader to his credit. His approach was very
chord/scale. He had the kid practicing scales and patterns for about three
years. They never played any tunes. Finally the guy calls me to say that the
kid's attitude has been a problem and that he's ready for a little break.
This is another pitfall of the concept.
Music is actually a temporal thing. It begins and it ends. It goes from left
to right on the page. In a way the chord scale thing tries to stop time and
isolate the harmonies and the related scalar material. This can be seen as
little more than an intellectual abstraction.
At this point I'm a lot more satisfied as an instructor teaching repertoire
and transcriptions than I am teaching the chord/scale perspective. The
students are happier and more productive too. .....joe
--
Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net
juru...@aol.com
concept the same way.
I look at the major scale's tertian seventh chords the same way I'd
look at the foundation of a building.
The same chords are in the same place and sound the same, but most
importantly they are building sites.
What you build over these sites in dominants and minors is where the
classical, pop and jazz music is.
You can also think of it as the trunk of a tree that has branches
growing from each of the scale chords, or at least I do.
It doesn't change the other approach in the slightest. It just gives
you a consistent place where everything is, so all songs are understood
as being built the same way, making it harder to lose your place. Not
what, just where.
I wouldn't go with all that scale and pattern practice either. I did
too much of it before I knew better and it didn't help much of
anything.
But in my case at least, it has nothing to do with what I call
chord/scale theory. I only really need one scale, the major and I build
everything from that so it's a lot easier.
Clif
Joey Goldstein
Joe Finn wrote:
>
> I've been finding in my work with high school age players that the
> chord/scale thing has obvious limitations. The concept itself is basic; like
> associating a C major scale with a C6 chord, but when taken to the extreme
> this idea can become needlessly [and endlessly] complex quickly.
>
> It's a good idea to know scales; but there are an awfull lot of scales. Just
> ask Slominsky. My concept at this point is to teach a lot of applications
> for a few general purpose scales rather than to try to teach a great number
> of relatively specialized or exotic scales that are specific to certain
> special harmonic settings.
>
> Beyond the repertoire that features modal forms or other longer harmonic
> rhythms, the chord scale idea breaks down. It's hard to think as fast as
> you'd need to think to use the idea in a bop context for instance.
Not for me. But then I've worked on that. Eg. On Confirmation or sim I
most definitely *do* have a default chord-scale in mind for each and
every chord. I'm not limited to just playing my defaults but I could.
There's lots of other things I might do also on this tune.
Barry Harris says there's too many chords in a tune like that to be able
to navigate each chord. He prefers to look at several chords all under a
single scale. The "chord is all that matters" guys here believe Barry's
wrong about this. I do too, because I know I can navigate each chord if
I want to. But that can get cumbersome, and I see BH's point.
When people say "It's hard to think that fast" I say "Practice."
> My
> preference is to teach chord tones and transcription. I've had kids that get
> everything they need to get up to level VI an beyond
Level VI of what?
> by studying
> transcriptions, listening and spelling chords. When you put this stuff in
> the context of the repertoire, satisfying results seem to come pretty
> quickly.
If a student is not already capable of doing some lifting when he starts
studying jazz he should be strongly urged to begin learning how as soon
as possible. People who don't already have the ability to play by ear
don't have the requisite skills yet to know what learning and practicing
scales is for in the jazz world. IMO. Still learning the major scale and
some tunes can help to get their ears ready for some lifting too. Too
many students like this are just scared to try and lift stuff.
> I had this sax teacher for my son a couple of years ago. He is a fine player
> with a couple cds as leader to his credit. His approach was very
> chord/scale. He had the kid practicing scales and patterns for about three
> years. They never played any tunes.
Bad way to teach.
> Finally the guy calls me to say that the
> kid's attitude has been a problem and that he's ready for a little break.
>
> This is another pitfall of the concept.
That's not a pitfall of the concept. It's a pitfall of the teacher.
> Music is actually a temporal thing. It begins and it ends. It goes from left
> to right on the page. In a way the chord scale thing tries to stop time and
> isolate the harmonies and the related scalar material. This can be seen as
> little more than an intellectual abstraction.
Music is a holistic thing. Still we use reductionist methods to study
it. There is no way I know of to study the whole all the time. Anything
you do to study and break down melody to its components will involve
freezing it in time to some degree.
> At this point I'm a lot more satisfied as an instructor teaching repertoire
> and transcriptions than I am teaching the chord/scale perspective. The
> students are happier and more productive too. .....joe
I've already been over what i teach and the order in which I do it. I'll
spare you from me going into it again.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
charles robinson
Beyond the repertoire that features modal forms or other longer harmonic
> rhythms, the chord scale idea breaks down. It's hard to think as fast as
> you'd need to think to use the idea in a bop context for instance.
One way to get around those limitatations is is to play tunes out of tempo
and then insert the scales lingering on each one as long as you wish. A good
example of someone doing this is found on the original Joe Pass "Virtuoso"
recording. This trains your ear to hear the scales in terms of the
underlying harmony but you don't have the pressure of trying to get them to
fit in time. Barney Kessell once said that playing scales is similar to a
rancher driving around his spead and viewing everything that is available.
But he believed that it is melodic invention that is the most important
saying that you could play an F scale over an Fmaj.7 for many years before
you ever hit on something as profound as the first 4 bars of "Bye Bye
Blackbird".
Charlie
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:421ECCCC...@nowhere.net...
Paul Kirk
question: I'll have to play Wayne shorter's "Iris" tonight on a gig.
I've just started practicing the tune but at the moment I dont see a lot
of structure to the harmony: (realbook changes)
Fm11/%/Emaj7#11/Gbmaj7#11/
Bbaug/Db7#11/ Abmaj7#5/ %/
Cm7/ %/ Db7#11/%/
Db7#11/Dbm(b6)/Db7#11
then repeat at twice the harmonic rhythm
Not much standard harmonic snippets, what I see so far is
I could think of bars 5,6, as a V-I in Cmaj, and 7,8 as a V-i
in Cmi, but honestly, the only way I can make anything resembling music
over this is to think of appropriate scales for each chord and think
about common or neighbor tones from one to the next.
So, it seems to me the "chord-scale" approach, as I understand it, is
almost all I have going right now. What is the alternative? I suppose
embellishing the melody, but even that is going to involve some rather
quick chord/scale thinking to get the embellishments right. At the
moment I have not internalized the changes sufficiently to fell them
going by.
any suggestions woudl be welcome, as well as a discussion of
approaches to this tune.
Paul K.
Paul Kirk
> in Cmi,
oops, I mean 8,9 as a I-i (Cmaj/Cm)
pmfan57
Leibman tunes, are the places where chord/scale approach may be the
best way to approach it. Each chord kind of stands alone and the
sequence of chords doesn't define a key.
Pat Martino plays nicely over Nefertiti and Fall on Starbright using
his chord/minor approach, which is kind of a different way to approach
it.
But Jimmy Bruno played with Bireli over Wayne Shorter songs when they
jammed, and Jimmy doesn't use this approach. Who knows what Bireli
uses?
Jimmy, how do you approach a Wayne Shorter type progression?
Jimmy Bruno
is not that difficult. I hear lines through those changes. The chords
make shapes tome on the guitar and that tells me where to put my fingers.
Basically I would see what tonal center the chords and melody suggest
and see what notes change from chord to chord an example might be(and
there are many)
Bb7+5 could be Gb pitch collection, and if one wanted to address the
chord I would use the note D natural as an inside tone , although in the
context of the progression Db sounds better to me. Why? I don't know.
But the point is to try both notes and find which one "YOU " like. Try
both together. this how one finds a "voice"
Next chord is Db7#11 That's the same pitch collection but now the note G
is an inside sound. You can go through the whole tune like that.
AbMa7#11 is an eb pitch collection. So what I hear are the notes that
are different between the previous tonal center. I learned how to hear
this way from horn players. It is easier to show you this than it is to
explain it
To me these pitch collection occur five times visually on the guitar.
You can play horizontally across the neck by connecting the 5 pictures
by moving up or down one or two frets on any string.
After you do this for a while you start to develop an ear. If you get
an ear, my belief is that the only reason to practice scales and arp
studies s to be able to play what you hear, not to put a particular
scale over a particular chord. Same as typing.. you need a fingering for
the sounds and notes, just as you need a fingering for where the letters
are on the keyboard, a skill , obviously, I have not mastered, but I'm
working on it. Look at the melody of that tune, in it is the pitch
collections.
However, this is NOT the only way to do it. At this stage, for me, I
just hear it. What I am trying to explain is "how" I hear it.
Any method, approach that makes music will work. you may need several
ways to get it. Once you have it in your ear, only your imagination
will dictate what to play
Best way to learn this tune is to solo over it for about two hours every
day for about a month. You'd be surprised what you may find. After that
, label the shit(technical term for what you have observed) anyway you
like. Call it scales, pictures, grips, geometric shapes, whatever.
Great tune by the way. I think I will start playing it again, maybe put
it on the next solo CD
ken
pmfan57 wrote:
> It seems like this kind of tune, among others of Shorter, and some
> Leibman tunes, are the places where chord/scale approach may be the
> best way to approach it.
Hmm... I don't agree with that. I think these tunes sound the worst
when approached that way.
I think the key to playing these tunes is to really play off of the
harmonic motion; check out the possible voice-leading combinations of
the progression and play off that. (On Iris, there's interesting
triadic motion going on that you can play off of).
You don't see 'scale' playing by Shorter on these tunes.
If you asked Shorter how to play these tunes, I would bet you that he
would say do anything BUT applying chord/scale...
(I've read interviews with him where he did say part of his writing
style is based on getting people OUT of their habitual playing
methods).
Ken
bob r
kubo...@yahoo.com wrote on 2/25/05 10:49 AM:
> Hmm... I don't agree with that. I think these tunes sound the worst
> when approached that way.
>
> I think the key to playing these tunes is to really play off of the
> harmonic motion; check out the possible voice-leading combinations of
> the progression and play off that. (On Iris, there's interesting
> triadic motion going on that you can play off of).
I agree. I like to play Shorter tunes, and that's basically how I think
about them. On first glance, the root movement in some of his tunes seems
almost random, but when you listen to what's going on in the voice leading,
you start to hear all sorts of possibilities.
--
Bob Russell
http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CD, "Watch This!", available at:
http://www.cdbaby.com/bobrussell
pmfan57
Thanks Jimmy. That's very interesting. I know Metheny does that also,
that is, practices every day for weeks and weeks on a song until he
internalizes it. I guess that's the way to really hear it, certainly a
great way.
Joe Finn
news:1109311130.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Joe, in reading what you wrote on chord scales, we don't view the
> concept the same way.
Hey Clif: Just for the sake of clarification I'm referring to the chord
scale idea the way Aebersold presents it. The Aebersold materials show the
student a little tune and then a series of chord symbols with related scales
underneath. The chord tones are black and the scale tones are white. The
idea is then for the student to play along with the cd while looking at the
chord scale material and to use this as the basis for improvisation.
I'd also like to add that this is not the only thing Aebersold presents.
He's got a wealth of very beneficial teaching material available. Playing
along with an Aebersold cd has been a big part of the development of an
entire generation of students.
I don't condemn this approach. For certain kids at a certain point in their
development this way of learning is very beneficial. It's a good approach as
far as it goes but advanced players are well beyond thinking in these terms.
>
> I look at the major scale's tertian seventh chords the same way I'd
> look at the foundation of a building.
>
> The same chords are in the same place and sound the same, but most
> importantly they are building sites.
>
> What you build over these sites in dominants and minors is where the
> classical, pop and jazz music is.
>
> You can also think of it as the trunk of a tree that has branches
> growing from each of the scale chords, or at least I do.
>
> It doesn't change the other approach in the slightest. It just gives
> you a consistent place where everything is, so all songs are understood
> as being built the same way, making it harder to lose your place. Not
> what, just where.
>
> I wouldn't go with all that scale and pattern practice either. I did
> too much of it before I knew better and it didn't help much of
> anything.
I certainly agree with that. Beyond a certain point practicing scales is not
helpful. ......joe
David Raleigh Arnold
> I'm always puzzled by why this is so controversial, but I have a question:
> I'll have to play Wayne shorter's "Iris" tonight on a gig. I've just
> started practicing the tune but at the moment I dont see a lot of
> structure to the harmony: (realbook changes)
>
> Fm11/%/Emaj7#11/Gbmaj7#11/
> Bbaug/Db7#11/ Abmaj7#5/ %/
> Cm7/ %/ Db7#11/%/
> Db7#11/Dbm(b6)/Db7#11
>
> then repeat at twice the harmonic rhythm
>
> Not much standard harmonic snippets, what I see so far is I could think of
> bars 5,6, as a V-I in Cmaj, and 7,8 as a V-i in Cmi, but honestly, the
> only way I can make anything resembling music over this is to think of
> appropriate scales for each chord and think about common or neighbor tones
> from one to the next.
>
> So, it seems to me the "chord-scale" approach, as I understand it, is
> almost all I have going right now. What is the alternative? I suppose
> embellishing the melody,
Or embellishing the arpeggios.
> quick chord/scale thinking to get the embellishments right.
Use safe chromatic embellishments and chromatic passing tones. Too easy
to be good, right? A chromatic approach couldn't be good with all
those diatonic chords, right? What was I thinking? daveA
--
When practicing tech: Don't practice the scale, practice each note.
When practicing music: Don't practice each note, practice the music.
When practicing an etude: Practice the music and each note too.
The only technical exercises for all guitarists worth a lifetime
of practice: "Dynamic Guitar Technique". Nothing else is close.
Free download: http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html
daveA David Raleigh Arnold dra..at..openguitar.com
Joey Goldstein
how Wayne et al actually approached this tune, but if it were me working
off of that chart here are some things that come to mind:
1. I don't trust all those "#11" chords. The melody and the harmonic
progression tend to tell my ear in a few places that #5/b13 might sound
better than the P5th from time to time, so I would tend to hear these as
b5 chords rather than as #11 chords, sometimes. I.e. I might go ether
way depending on what I'm feeling at the time.
2. I would try to determine which vertical tensions I might add
effectively to each chord and then I would play more or less
chromatically off of the "chord-sound" (the sum of all chord tones plus
the available tensions) as target notes.
Those Cm7 chords are as close to being in a key as this tune comes. I
just hear them as tonic minor chords and would treat them as Cm with all
the Im chord choices normally used, Im, Im7, Im6, Im(maj7), etc.
Fm7(9,11,13) | |Emaj7(9,#11,13) or Emaj7b5(9,b13 or 13)
|Gbmaj7b5(9,b13 or 13) |
Bb7#5(b9,#9,#11) |Db7(9,#11,13) |Abmaj7#5(9,#11,13) | |
Cm(b7 or maj7,9,11,13) |Db7(9,#11,13) |Cm(b7 or maj7,9,11, 13) |
Db7(9,#11,13) |Amaj7(9,#11,13)/C# |Db7(9,#11,13) |
I'd be a little bit cautious how I use the maj 13th on the Cm chords.
There's other things I might do too depending on what I'm
feeling/hearing but those would tend to be my default note choices.
--
Paul Kirk
"David Raleigh Arnold" <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:30:59 +0000, Paul Kirk wrote:
>
>> I'm always puzzled by why this is so controversial, but I have a question:
>> I'll have to play Wayne shorter's "Iris" tonight on a gig. I've just
>> started practicing the tune but at the moment I dont see a lot of
>> structure to the harmony: (realbook changes)
>>
>> Fm11/%/Emaj7#11/Gbmaj7#11/
>> Bbaug/Db7#11/ Abmaj7#5/ %/
>> Cm7/ %/ Db7#11/%/
>> Db7#11/Dbm(b6)/Db7#11
>>
>> then repeat at twice the harmonic rhythm
>>
>> Not much standard harmonic snippets, what I see so far is I could think of
>> bars 5,6, as a V-I in Cmaj, and 7,8 as a V-i in Cmi, but honestly, the
>> only way I can make anything resembling music over this is to think of
>> appropriate scales for each chord and think about common or neighbor tones
>> from one to the next.
>>
>> So, it seems to me the "chord-scale" approach, as I understand it, is
>> almost all I have going right now. What is the alternative? I suppose
>> embellishing the melody,
>
> Or embellishing the arpeggios.
>
>> quick chord/scale thinking to get the embellishments right.
>
> Use safe chromatic embellishments and chromatic passing tones. Too easy
> to be good, right? A chromatic approach couldn't be good with all
> those diatonic chords, right? What was I thinking? daveA
Dave: every post you have ever posted since appearing on this NG gives the
impression you donšt know much (if anything) about jazz. Your Web site seems
to identify you as a classical player, and dogma is often an important
aspect of classical training: there is a "right way" do do everything in
classical music. Classical musicians often have the mistaken impression that
what works in classical music must work everywhere else. Maybe that's where
you are coming from.
My guess is that you have no idea who Wayne Shorter is and you could not
improvise over Misty in any way that sounds like jazz as it is practiced.
(Not that these are important, but this is a jazz NG.)
Unless you post a clip, I can't know for sure. But if you if you actually
believe your position has any merit, you might tone down your delivery. At
the moment you just come off as a troll.
Paul Kirk
Joe Finn
>
> Not for me. But then I've worked on that. Eg. On Confirmation or sim I
> most definitely *do* have a default chord-scale in mind for each and
> every chord. I'm not limited to just playing my defaults but I could.
> There's lots of other things I might do also on this tune.
That's because you learned your scales a long time ago. An experienced
player like you is no longer thinking in terms of default chord-scales. I'm
saying that while this chord scale thinking is an obvious part of how we
teach kids to improvise it's really only the beginning. It's only the
foundation. Players like you are way past that stuff.
> Barry Harris says there's too many chords in a tune like that to be able
> to navigate each chord. He prefers to look at several chords all under a
> single scale. The "chord is all that matters" guys here believe Barry's
> wrong about this. I do too, because I know I can navigate each chord if
> I want to. But that can get cumbersome, and I see BH's point.
>
> When people say "It's hard to think that fast" I say "Practice."
Well maybe "navigating each chord" might end up sounding like "navigating
each chord". It might sound like an academic exercise rather than music.
That kind of analysis is fine and dandy but like you say it can get
cumbersome. I've got to stop myself here before I go into my "paralysis of
analysis" schpeil. 8-)
>
>> My
>> preference is to teach chord tones and transcription. I've had kids that
>> get
>> everything they need to get up to level VI an beyond
>
> Level VI of what?
When you order music for your student ensembles it's always marked according
to level of difficulty. This way you can avoid putting advanced music in
front of the middle school band or beginners music in front of the all state
band, etc. Level VI is music that features all 16th note rhythms including
triplets, all accidentals, articulation, dynamics, intervals, and keys over
the full range of the instruments. It's the highest student level.
>
> If a student is not already capable of doing some lifting when he starts
> studying jazz he should be strongly urged to begin learning how as soon
> as possible. People who don't already have the ability to play by ear
> don't have the requisite skills yet to know what learning and practicing
> scales is for in the jazz world. IMO. Still learning the major scale and
> some tunes can help to get their ears ready for some lifting too. Too
> many students like this are just scared to try and lift stuff.
That's a good point. I think as instructors we need to emphasize listening
and playing by ear more strenuously. ......joe
Joe Finn
"charles robinson" <robins...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> One way to get around those limitatations is is to play tunes out of tempo
> and then insert the scales lingering on each one as long as you wish. A
> good example of someone doing this is found on the original Joe Pass
> "Virtuoso" recording. This trains your ear to hear the scales in terms of
> the underlying harmony but you don't have the pressure of trying to get
> them to fit in time. Barney Kessell once said that playing scales is
> similar to a rancher driving around his spead and viewing everything that
> is available. But he believed that it is melodic invention that is the
> most important saying that you could play an F scale over an Fmaj.7 for
> many years before you ever hit on something as profound as the first 4
> bars of "Bye Bye Blackbird".
>
> Charlie
That's a great approach. I taught a couple kids [trombone and clarinet] how
to do that recently. They had a lot of fun with it and it was very
enlightening for them too. .....joe
Frets
or you don't agree with it, call them a "troll." If you don't want to
be repetitious you might also try the phrase, "that's the way God wants
it." That works great too.
Frets
Paul Kirk
<fr...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Great approach Paul, if you don't understand that the person is saying
> or you don't agree with it, call them a "troll." If you don't want to
> be repetitious you might also try the phrase, "that's the way God wants
> it." That works great too.
>
> Frets
Thanks for the advice.
Paul
Five Sharp
#####
"Frets" <fr...@dslextreme.com> schreef in bericht
news:111up9q...@corp.supernews.com...
Jimmy Bruno
as #11ths. But not hearing them play it, I wouldn't know that either. I
guess if I had never heard the tune I would listen to the piano player
and play whatever he plays in the right hand. This is one of those tunes
where you need a piano player.
Check out the Dbmb6. On the record they play a chord with Ab and A nat
in it. Seems like it's just for effect.
My ear would play from the db7#11.
To me that makes a picture 5 times on the neck.
If I write down what I play it would come out like a Gb pitch collection
with no emphasis on the Gb. I use the term pitch collection so as to not
imply playing an entire scale or go up and down all the notes. I may
still play it though.
I'm doing this by associating sounds with the visual aspect of the guitar.
That's the big difference in the way you and I see things. In many ways
they are the same.
I started doing that out of necessity. The chord/scale thing did not
work for me so I found another way. Doesn't mean I think it is wrong or
invalid. I am making no judgments on either approach. either approach?
boy is that wrong... there are over a hundred ways to do this.
I once told you I thought you were a very highly educated musician..
that still is true. Please don't take any offense if we see things
differently.
There is no point in trying to convert each other to our individual
pedagogy. Great word!
All you can do is put the information out there and leave it to the
individual to make up his own mind. If he really has his shit together,
he will find his own way of doing/hearing/playing.
I think it is real important for all of this info to be put out there,
otherwise this music will not be around 50 years from now.
On another note, I played at St Francis xavier college in Antigonish,
Nova Scotia.
Great faculty and great players. There's a guitarist up there Kevin
Brunkhorst who is just a real MF. You would love his playing.
I guess that place is about 2 hours from Toronto?
Joe Finn
> So, it seems to me the "chord-scale" approach, as I understand it, is
> almost all I have going right now. What is the alternative? I suppose
> embellishing the melody, but even that is going to involve some rather
> quick chord/scale thinking to get the embellishments right. At the moment
> I have not internalized the changes sufficiently to fell them going by.
What I suggest is that you listen closely to Wayne Shorter's recordings.
Listen to the way he himself handles the harmonic material. Try to cop some
of his licks. Play along with the recordings as part of your practice
routine. I know this advice may not help you with the tune you need to have
ready for the gig tonight but in the long run this is the way to go.
The great thing about Wayne's career is that he's been around forever and
has recorded prolifically for many years. He's been a real hero of mine ever
since his old Blue Note days.
You may be interested to know that I have recorded some of Shorter's
material on each of my last two cds including ESP, Fall and Pinocchio.
Have a listen for free:
http://www.joefinn.net/html/sounds.htm
Wayne's compositions are amoung the greatest we have in modern jazz. I'm
glad you are playing his stuff. .......joe
Joey Goldstein
OK. Thanks.
> But not hearing them play it, I wouldn't know that either. I
> guess if I had never heard the tune I would listen to the piano player
> and play whatever he plays in the right hand. This is one of those tunes
> where you need a piano player.
Hmm. I'd be happier in a piano-less trio myself on that one. Very often
I have melodic ideas that are different from the things a piano player
might be feeding me. Unless the piano player knows me very well he'll
often just be getting in the way.
> Check out the Dbmb6. On the record they play a chord with Ab and A nat
> in it. Seems like it's just for effect.
> My ear would play from the db7#11.
You mean it sounds like a voicing of Db7 still rather than Dbm?
Db7#9b13?
> To me that makes a picture 5 times on the neck.
> If I write down what I play it would come out like a Gb pitch collection
> with no emphasis on the Gb.
So you'd just ignore the Ab and play off of it as if it is a regular Db7 chord?
Your past posts here here you talked about treating everything as being
derived from the major scale have hit a note with me. There is merit to
that. In my words that comes out like "diatonicism is at the heart of
all of Western music". The fact that you see everything you might want
to play as related to a small handfull of major scale fingerings on the
fretboard is probably a good organizing principle for you and many
others. I learned the fingering possibilities on the fretboard a
different way and that's what works for me.
> I use the term pitch collection so as to not
> imply playing an entire scale or go up and down all the notes.
Yes. I understand that. It's a good term. I've been using it myself a
lot these days too.
> I may
> still play it though.
>
> I'm doing this by associating sounds with the visual aspect of the guitar.
> That's the big difference in the way you and I see things.
Not really. I have visual fretboard concepts too. Usually they relate to
the fretboard position of a chord's root or of a scale's tonic. The
other intervals involved in the scale or arpeggio's formula are fingered
according their proximity to the root/tonic.
> In many ways
> they are the same.
Yes, they are.
> I started doing that out of necessity. The chord/scale thing did not
> work for me so I found another way. Doesn't mean I think it is wrong or
> invalid. I am making no judgments on either approach. either approach?
> boy is that wrong... there are over a hundred ways to do this.
>
> I once told you I thought you were a very highly educated musician..
> that still is true. Please don't take any offense if we see things
> differently.
> There is no point in trying to convert each other to our individual
> pedagogy. Great word!
> All you can do is put the information out there and leave it to the
> individual to make up his own mind. If he really has his shit together,
> he will find his own way of doing/hearing/playing.
>
> I think it is real important for all of this info to be put out there,
> otherwise this music will not be around 50 years from now.
> On another note, I played at St Francis xavier college in Antigonish,
> Nova Scotia.
> Great faculty and great players. There's a guitarist up there Kevin
> Brunkhorst who is just a real MF. You would love his playing.
> I guess that place is about 2 hours from Toronto?
You're joking, right?
I once drove to Frederickton NS from Toronto. It was more like a 48 hr, drive.
I've that St. FX is a good school. There's a guy named Hughy Brown out
there who I met many years ago. He was good bebop player. Halifax has a
little bit of a jazz scene but most of the better Maritimer jazzers find
their way to Toronto to live.
Joey Goldstein
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>
> > Check out the Dbmb6. On the record they play a chord with Ab and A nat
> > in it. Seems like it's just for effect.
> > My ear would play from the db7#11.
>
> You mean it sounds like a voicing of Db7 still rather than Dbm?
> Db7#9b13?
>
> > To me that makes a picture 5 times on the neck.
> > If I write down what I play it would come out like a Gb pitch collection
> > with no emphasis on the Gb.
>
> So you'd just ignore the Ab and play off of it as if it is a regular Db7 chord?
Sorry I meant the A not the Ab.
Paul Kirk
<d.on...@chello.nl> wrote:
A troll, as I understand the term, is someone who posts to USENET for the
purpose of stirring up arguments. Looking over the entire exchange between
Joey and DaveA, what I see from daveA are dogmatic statements, imprecise
statements, undefined jargon, peppered with mostly sarcastic or meaningless
obscure 1-liners.
I posted something about Iris and daveA writes a condescending and unhelpful
response. Contrast that with the useful responses that Jimmy Bruno and Joey
wrote. Joey's posts are probably the most informative for me on this NG
when it comes to learning new melodic ideas.
While I'm not crazy about Joey's penchant for taking people to task in this
NG when they make statements about jazz improv that he finds uninformed,
(he's pissed on me a few times) and perhaps daveA just got sucked into a
debate with Joey before he knew what he was in for (as a new poster it is
easy to underestimate the fact that a lot of people here know a lot, and the
anonymity of typing at a computer combines badly with a challenge to one's
ego), I just donšt find condescention tolerable without at least some
evidence that the person knows more than me. DaveA's comment:
>>>> Use safe chromatic embellishments and chromatic passing tones. Too easy
>>>> to be good, right? A chromatic approach couldn't be good with all
>>>> those diatonic chords, right? What was I thinking? daveA
>>>
Tells me nothing I didnšt know 25 years ago, is completely useless in the
question I raised (how to improvise over Iris? Use safe chromatic
embellishments and passing tones!!!! gee, is that all there is to jazz?),
but as in all his other posts oozes of self-righteousness, not to mention
ignorance of anything related to jazz.
OK, people do this when they start out in USENET. It happens a lot on this
group. I'm just suggesting daveA either loses the attitude until he knows
what the participants here contribute and know, or risk being known as a
dogmatic novice.
I'm surprized you reacted this way to my post, Dick. There was no low blow
intended. But in contrast to the prevailing NG etiquette, I'm not one who
accepts the "asking for clips is rude" rule. If daveA posts something that
shows me he's a decent jazz improvisor, I'll conclude that he may have
something to contribute to technical discussions on improvising, even if he
has not yet been not terribly articulate in describing his approach.
Plus, the Harmonic convergence ended at 3am when Mercury's alignment with
Venus was interupted by Sedona's crystal effluence.
Paul Kirk
Kurt Shapiro
Goldstein by asking about the Brecker Brothers.
I knew it was too good to last. I was starting to miss the drama anyways.
"Paul Kirk" <pk...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:BE44E391.14F27%pk...@indiana.edu...
Five Sharp
in detail but your demanding clips and assuming that DRA was an incompetent
jazz improvisor struck me as kind of irrelevant. So that's what caused my
reply.
Maybe it was not meant that bad but you must admit you used pretty strong
words ...
#####
"Paul Kirk" <pk...@indiana.edu> schreef in bericht
news:BE44E391.14F27%pk...@indiana.edu...
Max Leggett
>On 2/25/05 1:01 PM, in article 3897g5F...@individual.net, "Five Sharp"
><d.on...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>A troll, as I understand the term, is someone who posts to USENET for the
>purpose of stirring up arguments. Looking over the entire exchange between
>Joey and DaveA, what I see from daveA are dogmatic statements, imprecise
>statements, undefined jargon, peppered with mostly sarcastic or meaningless
>obscure 1-liners.
I'm with you on this. Regardless of his ideas, DRA comes across as an
arrogant, sneering jerk. Jimmy Bruno can make a case against
chord/scale thinking and make cogent points. DRA can sneer. Whoop de
do. Personally I could care less if some elf princess gets a love song
or a tin whistle, but I guess someone's got to worry about that kind
of thing, and DRA evidently does.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"If the gods wanted us to twist our spines about
while we played guitar, they would have given us
rubber bands rather than vertebrae. And then where
would humanity be? Propelling cornflakes box
submarines in some alien bathtub in an ungodly
time dimension where the music of the spheres
consisted of Kenny G."
Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------
Five Sharp
watching on your video player ... Have we ever held that aginst you?
#####
"Max Leggett" <hepkatre...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:421f825d...@News.sprint.ca...
Max Leggett
wrote:
>We must learn to be tolerant Max. I mean ... we ALL know what you are
>watching on your video player ... Have we ever held that aginst you?
No, and neither has Kate Moss. There ain't no stinkin justice.
Jimmy Bruno
are good to begin with.
>
>
>>Check out the Dbmb6. On the record they play a chord with Ab and A nat
>>in it. Seems like it's just for effect.
>>My ear would play from the db7#11.
>
>
> You mean it sounds like a voicing of Db7 still rather than Dbm?
> Db7#9b13?
nat thru not over each chord. If you have a good piano player he won't
be banging out all the notes all the time .
That chord db7#9b13 I night still play thru it from the line before as
if were in Gb but with no Gb . And e triad sticks out to me as well.
The chord makes this picture to me on the top 4 strings
from bottom to top here are the notes. F-B-E-G#. An F/E. I use that on
Abmin as well a line like this descending in 8th notes:
Bb-G Ab-E-F-D-Eb-Cb-Bb-Ab-G-E
or ascending B-c# D-E C# B an e pitch collection.
Dissonant but the chord is out there too
Jimmy Bruno
>
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>Check out the Dbmb6. On the record they play a chord with Ab and A nat
>>>in it. Seems like it's just for effect.
>>>My ear would play from the db7#11.
>>
>>You mean it sounds like a voicing of Db7 still rather than Dbm?
>>Db7#9b13?
>>
>>
>>>To me that makes a picture 5 times on the neck.
>>>If I write down what I play it would come out like a Gb pitch collection
>>>with no emphasis on the Gb.
>>
>>So you'd just ignore the Ab and play off of it as if it is a regular Db7 chord?
>
>
> Sorry I meant the A not the Ab.
>
and sustain it. But in reality even with a piano, he's going to comp
the chord and play a rhythmic figure. even with the sustain it doesn't
bother me.
In the previous post I put a midi file of the lines very slow to
accentuate the rubs.
Jimmy Bruno
thread... got here too late.
I usually avoid theory threads because I'm not on the same wavelength
when it comes to that(not meant in a condescending manner).
That tune stirred up my interest and I got sucked in. It's fine though
because I enjoyed the exchange.
Usenet is a strange place. A newbie is not likely to understand how to
go about things... Look who's talking. Remember my 1st posts? They
will haunt me like a bad solo. I have a few of those on CD too
Joey Goldstein
Kurt Shapiro wrote:
>
> That must have been right about when I stirred up trouble with Bruno and
> Goldstein by asking about the Brecker Brothers.
Man, if you don't think those two guys have studied scales and their
applications to jazz melody then you're deaf.
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> >
> > Jimmy Bruno wrote:
> >
> >>Joey Goldstein wrote:
> >>
> >>But not hearing them play it, I wouldn't know that either. I
> >>guess if I had never heard the tune I would listen to the piano player
> >>and play whatever he plays in the right hand. This is one of those tunes
> >>where you need a piano player.
> >
> >
> > Hmm. I'd be happier in a piano-less trio myself on that one. Very often
> > I have melodic ideas that are different from the things a piano player
> > might be feeding me. Unless the piano player knows me very well he'll
> > often just be getting in the way.
> Doesn't matter what he plays, you lines will still sound good if they
> are good to begin with.
Hmm. I've tried playing the changes straight behind Pat Metheny's solo
on All The Things. It don't sound so good. When there's a piano player
there I *have* to listen to him and I *hope* he's listening to me. When
it's just me and a bass player there are about a zillion more liberties
I take.
On the other hand, with a tune like Iris in a piano-less band, if I'm
not real careful about spelling out the harmony in my own lines things
can get dicey and/or vague too.
> >>Check out the Dbmb6. On the record they play a chord with Ab and A nat
> >>in it. Seems like it's just for effect.
> >>My ear would play from the db7#11.
> >
> >
> > You mean it sounds like a voicing of Db7 still rather than Dbm?
> > Db7#9b13?
> Db7 +9 and db min are very close in sound. I would play the Ab and the G
> nat thru not over each chord. If you have a good piano player he won't
> be banging out all the notes all the time .
> That chord db7#9b13 I night still play thru it from the line before as
> if were in Gb but with no Gb . And e triad sticks out to me as well.
> The chord makes this picture to me on the top 4 strings
> from bottom to top here are the notes. F-B-E-G#. An F/E. I use that on
> Abmin as well a line like this descending in 8th notes:
> Bb-G Ab-E-F-D-Eb-Cb-Bb-Ab-G-E
> or ascending B-c# D-E C# B an e pitch collection.
> Dissonant but the chord is out there too
I'd have to hear it. Seems like the RB chord symbol isn't really cutting it.
Marc Sabatella
> > Leibman tunes, are the places where chord/scale approach may be the
> > best way to approach it.
>
> Hmm... I don't agree with that. I think these tunes sound the worst
> when approached that way.
>
> I think the key to playing these tunes is to really play off of the
> harmonic motion; check out the possible voice-leading combinations of
> the progression and play off that.
I'm not sure why you see this as mutually exclusive. They aren't. Of
course, it should be a given that you are doing what you say, pretty
much regardless of the nature of the tune. The only question is when
faced with chords where there is doubt about what non-chord tones might
work well, if you by default go with ones associated with the "usual"
scale, or if you choose them on a more ad hoc basis. Given that either
can work well from a voice leading perspective, the difference is
actuallyu pretty minimal, but certainly, being comfortbale with scale
choices removes some of the doubt that typically plaguyes people faced
with such tunes and reduces them to arpeggiating chords rather than
forming melodies.
> You don't see 'scale' playing by Shorter on these tunes.
I have no idea how you'd come to that conclusion unless you have
transcriptions that show him consistently not using the passing tones
predicted by the usual scale choices. Do you?
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
ken
Marc Sabatella wrote:
> I'm not sure why you see this as mutually exclusive. They aren't.
I didn't say it was... I am firmly in the chord/scale camp. That's
what I was taught, that's what my favorite players learned and teach
etc... so don't worry.
> > You don't see 'scale' playing by Shorter on these tunes.
>
> I have no idea how you'd come to that conclusion unless you have
> transcriptions that show him consistently not using the passing tones
> predicted by the usual scale choices. Do you?
Yes I do have some transcriptions. There are plenty of examples that
are obvious where you don't even need transcriptions.
But then again, you are also right that I really have no idea what
Wayne was thinking when blowing on his own tunes.
But he has said that he is not into the 'which scale over which chord'
thing, and he has said that he doesn't want people to approach playing
his tunes that way.
Many of the modern writers today say the same thing. Some won't even
use chord symbols because they think it comes with too much baggage (if
you write Dmin7 on a chart, too many people default to playing their
dorian licks...) etc...
It's also a reason why many people don't want to write II-V-I tunes
anymore because if you hire a jazz guy to play over it, they will come
with their bag of stock II-V-I licks... and many composers don't want
to hear that stuff anymore (sort of similar reason why Metheny writes
the way he writes, and why he finds it hard to find horn players to
play with...)
Anyway, I am not dead-set against chord-scale. I am deep into it
myself, but I am also aware of the serious traps of this 'concept'.
Ken
juru...@aol.com
approaches to this tune.
Paul K.
Paul, I don't know the song and I might disagree completely after
hearing the melody, but think tritone sub of standard changes in Eb and
you'll have most of what's there.
That was my first impression from reading the chords. I'll go chord by
chord for anyone else who may be interested, but in fairness, ymmv and
rightly so. This is just a gestalt way to organize the tones so you
can recall them more easily.
Fm11/%/Emaj7#11
2 to tt sub of 5
/Gbmaj7#11/
tt sub for 6 or xt of 5 - can be either
Bbaug
5 chord
/Db7#11
Same sound as 4 minor maj7 or 3 dom7b9
Abmaj7#5/ %/
4 chord
Cm7/ %/
unadorned 6 chord
Db7#11/%/
Db7#11/
sub for 3 dominant or 4 minor
Dbm(b6)/
A surprise chord of indeterminate relationship to the rest other than
being an interesting backcycle of Fmi11. The preceding only really
leaves you with this 'partial' enigma, which sounded good voice leading
to Fmi11.
With the preceding identities, one could make some sense thinking about
it as a progression in Eb, but just knowing that for orientation and
distorting the chordal concept when actually playing would probably be
indicated for me since I have some ways I like to do that.
I don't know if this would be helpful or just seem like crap to you,
but in doing a song from somebody like Shorter, I find that relating
back to movement that's similar to stuff in standard progressions is a
good way for me to recall the changes, remember where the inevitable
bumps in the road will be, and think of some good bases on which to
reharmonize stuff.
I read Jimmy's post about pitch collections, or sets, and I also prefer
to refer to a scale or similarly related tones as a useable 'toneset'
rather than a scale, since that implies more than one use for the
resource, as is the actual case.
To Joe, I didn't realize you were discussing a specific Aebersold
concept. I expect it would work on some level, but unless the chords
were somehow integrated into a progression, that's not really a
complete concept, and I understand your wariness of it. It could
certainly be abused, as in the pattern practice example you cited.
Clif
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
>
> > You mean it sounds like a voicing of Db7 still rather than Dbm?
> > Db7#9b13?
> Db7 +9 and db min are very close in sound. I would play the Ab and the G
> nat thru not over each chord. If you have a good piano player he won't
> be banging out all the notes all the time .
> That chord db7#9b13 I night still play thru it from the line before as
> if were in Gb but with no Gb . And e triad sticks out to me as well.
> The chord makes this picture to me on the top 4 strings
> from bottom to top here are the notes. F-B-E-G#. An F/E. I use that on
> Abmin as well a line like this descending in 8th notes:
> Bb-G Ab-E-F-D-Eb-Cb-Bb-Ab-G-E
> or ascending B-c# D-E C# B an e pitch collection.
> Dissonant but the chord is out there too
OK. I just saw the midi file.
You don't have an A nat at all in your voicing. If you did that first Bb
might not sound so good to you, or to me. I'm not wild about the Eb
you've got on a strong beat, beat 3, either. It sounds unresolved to me.
Maybe that's the effect you were after. And I'd have to hear that line
in context, at least with the 2 surrounding chords.
Your line was actually this:
Bb-G-Ab-E-F-D-Eb-Cb-Bb-Cb-G-E btw
Note the 2 Cbs.
One way to modify that line so that it reflects your chord stronger
would be:
Bb-G-Ab-E-F-Eb-E-Cb-Bb-Cb-G-E
That's for a chord that doesn't have the A nat in it of course.
Without the presence of that Eb both your lines could be seen as being
derived from the dim scale. This is true whether you were actually
thinking that way yourself or not btw. And of course the Eb *is* there
so that's *not* what you were thinking. I'm not saying that an
emphasized maj 9th on a dom7#9 chord is "wrong", just that it's a little
bit exotic. It's used all the time on the I7#9 chord of a blues, but I
don't hear this Db7 as functioning much like that. Still, to each his own.
With the Eb being used the way I've done it, as an approach note to E,
the entire line *can* be seen as being based on the dim scale
throughout, which gives it a certain amount of familiarity. Probably not
the effect you were looking for though.
And with all due respect Jimmy, that line sounds like "crap". Of course
I'm using "crap" in the way you Philly guys use it, as a term of
endearment, like how you used it on me that one time. <g>
For a chord like Db F Cb E A I might hear something more like:
Bb-G#-A-E-F-Eb-E-Cb-Bb-Cb-G-E
Which can be seen as deriving from the Db altered dominant (aka D mel
minor) scale.
It can also be seen as being derived from an A chord. Many lines lines
can be seen from many angles.
I can still see how you see those lines as coming from a Gb major "pitch
collection" but it's a bit of a stretch IMO and doesn't really help to
keep things all that simple, conceptually speaking, as far as I can see.
I really should try to get the recording of this to hear what they're
doing because, right now, Amaj7/C# sounds better to me here than all of
this Db7 "crap".
juru...@aol.com
or you don't agree with it, call them a "troll."
Paul answered an ascerbic, perhaps bitter commentary with the same
sarcasm it offered. He may or may not be right, but I'll have to say
the guy's posts rub me the same way, and there's more than just a whiff
of the kind of pedantry that's all too common in the 'canonical'
musical community, put whatever boundaries you want on that. So his
guess as to this gent's background would be about the same as mine
after reading what he says, and more importantly, how he says it.
For somebody who's never heard me play a damn thing or for that matter
is even aware of my existence to dismiss whatever I take it is 'my
kind of person' may do because he thinks first that he knows what I'm
thinking, and second that his approach is somehow superior, and that my
approach by itself will negate anything I actually play is a crock if
he's over sixteen.
There is no such authority on the planet, and unless certain religious
rumors are true, there never has been. Go ahead on, Paul.
Clif
Paul Kirk
me, at least partially. I can hang with the Cm7/Db thing by thinking of
it as a V-i in CM. the Emaj as a tritone V and the Bb as a V in Eb was
helpful. I just ignore the Gbmaj except as a partial (outside the
harmony) chord. I still have trouble with the Abmaj#5, this is a chord I
see (and use a lot) but usually in a tonic situation: it goes by pretty
fast here.
Paul
Joey Goldstein
"juru...@aol.com" wrote:
>
> > There is no such authority on the planet, and unless certain religious
> rumors are true, there never has been.
lol
Jimmy Bruno
Cb F A nat
A simple dom chord with an A nat on top. Amazing. And you called my
line "crap".
Why do you think there is an A in that chord of that tune anyway. I put
it there cause you said it was a b13 and you didn't hear it on the TOP.
I'm surprised. in reality the chord should be Db9#11
If you open it with a midi program and put the tempo at around 150 you
see what it sounds like. I got the line from the record by the way
Jimmy Bruno
I don't like the way that last post came off. no offense meant. you
have a right to not like the line, no matter who played it.
Jimmy Bruno
Db9#11 in this file.
To listen to it properly, they way I heard it is to have the tempo at
around 150 or 165. I don't know why the midi program is playing it at a
slow tempo. but you can hear by rasing it an oct , out of the piano 's
chord range, the rubs are less. I still like the line. Over both
chords. Ilike it over any type Db7 or G7 for that matter. Haven't
tried it but I bet Bb7 and E7 would work too
noisyjazzman
every one is so rudely & blithely dismissive of his interlocuters that
either he has a general interpersonal relations problem, or he's
deliberately stirring for whatever odd reason people do these things.
I killfiled him a few days ago in the hope of rescuing an appearance of
civility during my usenet reading. This has nothing to do with the
particular theoretical barrow being pushed. I'm far too much of a
novice to have a strong position on the "chord/scale" thing.
Shame that the google interface doesn't have a killfile equivalent.
Kurt Shapiro
But I didn't say a durned thing about whether the Brecker Bros. studied
scales or not. I just noted that both you and Bruno had them on your lists.
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:421F8FEE...@nowhere.net...
Joey Goldstein
You said it was F B E G#. Then you called it F/E. It's really E/F but I
let that slide.
"The chord makes this picture to me on the top 4 strings
from bottom to top here are the notes. F-B-E-G#. An F/E."
That's what you said.
The voicing in your midi file is so muddy I couldn't really hear it too
well on my little eMac's speakers. I just opened it up in Logic and I
can see the voicing now. It's Db7b13, including the perf 5th.
Db Ab Cb F A
Why didn't you just say so?
Is that what they play on the orig?
> A simple dom chord with an A nat on top. Amazing. And you called my
> line "crap".
I still do. That 1st Bb sucks. In Toronto that's what we say when we
really like something. <g>
> Why do you think there is an A in that chord of that tune anyway.
Again. All i'm doing is going by what it says in the Real Book. I don't
trust it, but that's what it says . "Dbm(addb6)". I call that A/C#.
> I put
> it there cause you said it was a b13 and you didn't hear it on the TOP.
> I'm surprised. in reality the chord should be Db9#11
> If you open it with a midi program and put the tempo at around 150 you
> see what it sounds like. I got the line from the record by the way
Again. I'd have to hear it in context. And I'd need to know what that
chord really is. I like that line better ove A/C# than I do over Db7b13.
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
>
> Here's the same line with the chord on the cd.
> Db9#11
Ah. That does sound good. *And* it doesn't line up vertically all the
time with the chord in the typical way.
Nice. Thanks for the lesson.
I'd have to say that from my perspective I see that as a line based on
"chord-sound" of Db7, even though there are some vertical rubs with the
actual voicing of Db7. All of the accented notes are either chord tones
or available tensions on an unadorned Db7. Of course I don't know what
he (Wayne?) was actually thinking or not thinking but in the unlikely
event that I came up with a line that nice on the fly it would mostly be
as a result of me practicing and thinking about stuff like that, i.e.
working on playing off of chord-sound.
Let's see. The notes that are weird against Db9#11 are the low E nat in
the first phrase and both the D nat and the E nat in the 2nd phrase. I'd
naturally play a #9, the E, on a dom9 chord all the time, in a blues
setting, so that's not that weird a note to my ear. But the 2nd little
phrase I'd normally associate more with Db7b9 or Db7#9. The D nat is
accented a bit, by virtue of it being on a relatively stong beat, beat
2. b9 on a dom9 chord is not a sound I normally try to emphasize like
that, but then I'm not Wayne Shorter. He is one of those guys who is
continually pushing the limits of what it means to be in a key or in a
tonal center, so you sort of expect stuff like that from him.
....But the chord in question only lasts for 1 bar. That line is 3 bars long.
From bar 9 the RB (yeah, I know the RB sucks) has this:
Cm7 | |Db7#11 |Cm7 |
Db7#11 |Dbm(addb6) |Db7#11 | |
Are you saying that the last 4 bars are all just Db7#11 on the recording?
Joey Goldstein
Kurt Shapiro wrote:
>
> I'm certainly willing to accept that I may be deaf or close to it.
>
> But I didn't say a durned thing about whether the Brecker Bros. studied
> scales or not. I just noted that both you and Bruno had them on your lists.
When I said "you" I didn't mean you. I meant anybody/everybody.
juru...@aol.com
>When I said "you" I didn't mean you. I meant anybody/everybody
One of the things that seems to inflame lots of us unnecessarily is
when we don't realize that.
'You' in English means both you, second person singular, and more than
one person, or as they say in RDS territory youse, or in Texas Pete
territory, y'all.
'Like, everybody' - second person plural.
In hindsight, some really bitter exchanges have started and carried on
because we didn't back off enough to take that in.
I don't know if it's really true, but maybe this usenet /jazz musician
with computer experiment is getting into a more mature phase.
I've really enjoyed reading the recent posts of guys I've had heated
exchanges with, to the point that what's being said now is a lot more
important to me than the arguments. I get a sense that that's a good
thing.
I think it's also constructive that Rick suggested we direct one
another to photos. It's a little bit harder to go off on somebody with
a face.
Well, sometimes, anyway - I should never have bobbed for doughnuts, or
at least taken the Rite-Aid sunglasses off first..
Clif
Jimmy Bruno
>
> Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
>>
>>Here's the same line with the chord on the cd.
>>Db9#11
>
>
> Ah. That does sound good. *And* it doesn't line up vertically all the
> time with the chord in the typical way.
> Nice. Thanks for the lesson.
only sounds that way because it is in the same register and the same
timber. If one line was played by a horn against the piano chord, at a
slightly faster tempo (don't know why the midi file played so slow) the
rubs almost go away. If you have that midi program, speed up the tempo
and raise the line an octave or change the timber and see if you like it
little better. The 2nd line is Pat Martino line of any type Db7
>
> I'd have to say that from my perspective I see that as a line based on
> "chord-sound" of Db7, even though there are some vertical rubs with the
> actual voicing of Db7. All of the accented notes are either chord tones
> or available tensions on an unadorned Db7. Of course I don't know what
> he (Wayne?) was actually thinking or not thinking but in the unlikely
> event that I came up with a line that nice on the fly it would mostly be
> as a result of me practicing and thinking about stuff like that, i.e.
> working on playing off of chord-sound.
>
> Let's see. The notes that are weird against Db9#11 are the low E nat in
> the first phrase and both the D nat and the E nat in the 2nd phrase. I'd
> naturally play a #9, the E, on a dom9 chord all the time, in a blues
> setting, so that's not that weird a note to my ear. But the 2nd little
> phrase I'd normally associate more with Db7b9 or Db7#9. The D nat is
> accented a bit, by virtue of it being on a relatively stong beat, beat
> 2. b9 on a dom9 chord is not a sound I normally try to emphasize like
> that, but then I'm not Wayne Shorter. He is one of those guys who is
> continually pushing the limits of what it means to be in a key or in a
> tonal center, so you sort of expect stuff like that from him.
point I was trying to make was that it doesn't matter how one arrives at
a line or a sound. For me it is visual... doesn't make the other ways
wrong. Who knows how those guys got those lines. I can't say for
certain. But it was exactly this type of thing that turned me away from
the traditional approach.
>
> ....But the chord in question only lasts for 1 bar. That line is 3 bars long.
> From bar 9 the RB (yeah, I know the RB sucks) has this:
>
> Cm7 | |Db7#11 |Cm7 |
>
> Db7#11 |Dbm(addb6) |Db7#11 | |
>
> Are you saying that the last 4 bars are all just Db7#11 on the recording?
>
>
>
a live (bootleg?) tape I think that a student did a transcription. Both
versions sound like Db9#11 Dbm b6,
The 1st.
line is from the live recording played by wayne shorter over the
Db9#11, the 2nd line is from Pat Martino.
I should have pointed out that they are not together. In the 1st midi
file I changed the db7#11 to the Db7 with A on top and played both
lines. They both sound good to me but at the faster tempo.
The 2nd file has the Db9#11.
I'm glad you get my point.
Disonance means different things to diffeent people I guess. Music is
pretty surprising all the time.
Glad you're not pissed.
When I went to nova Scotia I did have to take a smaller plane to
Halifax. I just saw my old itinerary, so I guess it is really far from
Toronto. That's what happenes when you stay on the road too much, you
lose where the hell you are. Take care Joey, all the best.
Talk to you soon
Richard Bornman
<juru...@aol.com> wrote :
> Well, sometimes, anyway - I should never have bobbed for doughnuts, or
> at least taken the Rite-Aid sunglasses off first..
!!funny!!
Jimmy Bruno
write "you all" then everyone gets mad.
as groups go, this one is mild and very tame. with the occasional flare
ups. Not bad!
I do find this plave informative.
I find it very hard to talk about music without hearing it. Maybe there
should be a place to post small midi files , so when we are trying to
talk about a certain line, chord etc we have a place to hear it.
If a few more guys are interested in this type thing, I can buy some
more sapce and give anyone that asks for it a password. That way we
can keep out the spammers.
MAybe I should make this a separate post.
That thread with Joey and I could have gone on forever without the midi file
Richard Bornman
> MAybe I should make this a separate post.
> That thread with Joey and I could have gone on forever without the midi
file
Sorry to butt into youse guys thread...but JB,
do you have any fave gtr players out there
currently?
thom_j.
> MAybe I should make this a separate post.
Joey Goldstein
Well, looked at from my angle, "playing off of chord-sound" is not
theory, it's a technique. I suppose there is a certain amount of theory
in deciding what is chord-sound and what is not and it can actrually be
a fuzzy process. Is a b9 or a b16 an avoid note on maj7 chords.
sometimes it sounds pretty good. It's the next note in the series based
on alternating maj 3rds with min 3rds, the so-called superarpeggio:
1 3 5 7 9 #11 13 b16
So Db, if placed a certain way, can sound right at home on Cmaj7.
> The only
> point I was trying to make was that it doesn't matter how one arrives at
> a line or a sound.
Sure. But certain disciplines do have a certain amount of power to help
your ears arrive at what you want to hear.
> For me it is visual...
Hmm. For me it's aural first. Then I have to find out how to visualize
it. Ideally it all happens at the same time. When it doesn't I practice
more, or should. Actually, usually, unless I'm in the car doing ear
training, it's visual first, then I learn how to hear it by playing it,
and then I have to somewhat remember the visual thing so I can play it
when I hear it later.
> doesn't make the other ways
> wrong. Who knows how those guys got those lines. I can't say for
> certain. But it was exactly this type of thing that turned me away from
> the traditional approach.
Well I think you're talking about all these great sounding little snafus
that are out there. Things that don't line up vertically yet still sound
strong. Things like accented maj7th's on dom7 chords, b9's on dom9,
chords etc. Things that seem to confound the most well known theories
we've all seen. All I can say is that more I learn the more I realize
that there are theoretical ideas out there too that can help us to
understand these types of things, help us to see how they are organized.
IMO, for this type of "outside" playing to sound good it does need to be
organized in some way. Does every player need these theories? No. Just
the guys who feel they have relevance to what they want to do in music.
And it needs to be said again that just because you have studied the
sound of one particular chord-scale relationship you are not then
somehow obligated to only play off of that relationship when you play.
The chord-scale is just a study tool. It helps to keep things organized.
Part of what is going on in the lines you've supplied is using a scale
in a place where it "normally" wouldn't be used. There are still scalar
relationships involved.
> > ....But the chord in question only lasts for 1 bar. That line is 3 bars long.
> > From bar 9 the RB (yeah, I know the RB sucks) has this:
> >
> > Cm7 | |Db7#11 |Cm7 |
> >
> > Db7#11 |Dbm(addb6) |Db7#11 | |
> >
> > Are you saying that the last 4 bars are all just Db7#11 on the recording?
> >
> >
> >
> I have two recordings of the tune. One is from Miles Esp, the other is
> a live (bootleg?) tape I think that a student did a transcription. Both
> versions sound like Db9#11 Dbm b6,
So the Real Book was right?
> The 1st.
> line is from the live recording played by wayne shorter over the
> Db9#11, the 2nd line is from Pat Martino.
Pat Martino has all sorts of bi-tonal tricks for playing on dom7 chords.
Essentially these involve superimposing a another scale and/or
chord-tone melody onto the chord-of-the-moment. This is called
bi-tonality. Part of what makes it sound organized is that the two
tonalities involved are related somehow (eg. by symetrical division of
the octave). Another part of what keeps it organized is that both sounds
are already strong and familiar to the ear (eg. playing off of Bm7 E7
when the real change is G7).
> I should have pointed out that they are not together. In the 1st midi
> file I changed the db7#11 to the Db7 with A on top and played both
> lines. They both sound good to me but at the faster tempo.
> The 2nd file has the Db9#11.
> I'm glad you get my point.
> Disonance means different things to diffeent people I guess. Music is
> pretty surprising all the time.
> Glad you're not pissed.
No man. I honoured that you even talk me at all. Really.
> When I went to nova Scotia I did have to take a smaller plane to
> Halifax. I just saw my old itinerary, so I guess it is really far from
> Toronto. That's what happenes when you stay on the road too much, you
> lose where the hell you are. Take care Joey, all the best.
> Talk to you soon
Enjoy.
Jimmy Bruno
with the b6 with the notes Ab and A nat next to each other and there is
definetley a db in the Bass
>
>
>>The 1st.
>> line is from the live recording played by wayne shorter over the
>>Db9#11, the 2nd line is from Pat Martino.
>
>
> Pat Martino has all sorts of bi-tonal tricks for playing on dom7 chords.
> Essentially these involve superimposing a another scale and/or
> chord-tone melody onto the chord-of-the-moment. This is called
> bi-tonality. Part of what makes it sound organized is that the two
> tonalities involved are related somehow (eg. by symetrical division of
> the octave). Another part of what keeps it organized is that both sounds
> are already strong and familiar to the ear (eg. playing off of Bm7 E7
> when the real change is G7).
>
>>I should have pointed out that they are not together. In the 1st midi
>>file I changed the db7#11 to the Db7 with A on top and played both
>>lines. They both sound good to me but at the faster tempo.
>>The 2nd file has the Db9#11.
>>I'm glad you get my point.
>>Disonance means different things to diffeent people I guess. Music is
>>pretty surprising all the time.
>>Glad you're not pissed.
>
>
> No man. I honoured that you even talk me at all. Really.
never get mad or upset at you. You are very passionate about your
beliefs and musical aesthetic. that's a good thing. we need more of
that in all music.
Paul Kirk
to thank Joey, Jimmy and Cliff whose ideas were actually very helpful.
Cliff's suggestions got me through the first few bars of the form and
Joey/Jimmys furious crossposting gave me some material to work with on
the Db section. I'm still not feeling that damn Dbmi(b6)....
Unfortunately, I lost the form about the 3rd chorus, and things got ugly
at that point. The tricky thing is that the form (as our pianist
explained it)is 24 bard long: first the head is run and then repeated at
twice the harmonic speed (so 2 bars of 3/4 become one bar). With those
wierd chords coming that fast, and with only a little bit of practice I
lost it. But I'll keep working on it.
on the offchance that my bandmate gives me a copy of the gig that he
recorded on his ipod I'll post ti, but dont hold your breath.
Paul K.
Joey Goldstein
Paul Kirk wrote:
>
> Played Iris at the gig last night. I got some things happening and want
> to thank Joey, Jimmy and Cliff whose ideas were actually very helpful.
> Cliff's suggestions got me through the first few bars of the form and
> Joey/Jimmys furious crossposting gave me some material to work with on
> the Db section. I'm still not feeling that damn Dbmi(b6)....
It got lost in all of this, but again, try approaching that chord like Amaj7/C#.
> Unfortunately, I lost the form about the 3rd chorus, and things got ugly
> at that point. The tricky thing is that the form (as our pianist
> explained it)is 24 bard long: first the head is run and then repeated at
> twice the harmonic speed (so 2 bars of 3/4 become one bar). With those
> wierd chords coming that fast, and with only a little bit of practice I
> lost it. But I'll keep working on it.
>
> on the offchance that my bandmate gives me a copy of the gig that he
> recorded on his ipod I'll post ti, but dont hold your breath.
>
> Paul K.
--
Paul Kirk
>
> Paul Kirk wrote:
>
>>Played Iris at the gig last night. I got some things happening and want
>>to thank Joey, Jimmy and Cliff whose ideas were actually very helpful.
>>Cliff's suggestions got me through the first few bars of the form and
>>Joey/Jimmys furious crossposting gave me some material to work with on
>>the Db section. I'm still not feeling that damn Dbmi(b6)....
>
>
> It got lost in all of this, but again, try approaching that chord like Amaj7/C#.
>
OK Ill try that. I wonder if you are implying something by spelling it
C# that I'm not gettign (other than C# is diatonic to Amaj). are you
saying "try Amaj"?
PK
Max Leggett
Amaj7/C# means the C# is in the bass
Enharmonically, playing Amaj7/C# vs Dbmin b6 gives you:
Dbmin b6: Db Fb Ab Bbb
Amaj7/C#: C# E G# A
So it's just another, perhaps easier, way of looking at it and getting
it under your fingers.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"If the gods wanted us to twist our spines about
while we played guitar, they would have given us
rubber bands rather than vertebrae. And then where
would humanity be? Propelling cornflakes box
submarines in some alien bathtub in an ungodly
time dimension where the music of the spheres
consisted of Kenny G."
Spinoza
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joey Goldstein
Dbm(addb6) = Db Fb Ab Bbb = C# E G# A
Amaj7/Db, Amaj7/C#, same difference.
A lyd is what I've been messing around with. I don't know if that's the
sound on the recording but it does fit the lead sheet.
On the double time there's not much time to play that sound and it's
hardly even noticeable. You might not want to bother addressing it on
the double time at all. I.e. Just play Db7 for 2 full bars.
It's a hard tune to make melodic melodies on. I've been fooling around
with it all night. I might post something, might not.
Joe Finn
"Paul Kirk" <no...@noplace.net> wrote
> Unfortunately, I lost the form about the 3rd chorus, and things got ugly
> at that point. The tricky thing is that the form (as our pianist explained
> it)is 24 bard long: first the head is run and then repeated at twice the
> harmonic speed (so 2 bars of 3/4 become one bar). With those wierd chords
> coming that fast, and with only a little bit of practice I lost it. But
> I'll keep working on it.
HHHmmm....... I had a teacher as a kid who had a favorite expression. "Play
your own time." he said.
That advice is golden. Never rely on anybody else. Always count it for
yourself. That way you'll know exactly where you are and you'll never get
lost again. ....joe
--
Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net
Joey Goldstein
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>
> It's a hard tune to make melodic melodies on. I've been fooling around
> with it all night. I might post something, might not.
Here's a first draft:
<http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/joeygoldstein2music.htm>
I am most definitely thinking about chord-scales both in the melody and
the comping, and here's what they are:
F dorian E lydian Gb lydian
Fm11 | |Emaj7#11 |Gbmaj7#11 |
Bb alt
or Bb mixb6 Db lyd b7 Ab lyd aug
Bb7#5 |Db7#11 |Abmaj7#5 | |
C aeol Db lyd b7 C aeol
Cm7 | |Db7#11 |Cm7 |
Db lyd b7 A lyd Db lyd b7
Db7#11 |Amaj7/Db |Db7#11 | |
F dor E lyd Gb lyd Bb mixb2 Db lyd b7 Ab lyd aug
Fm11 |Emaj7#11 Gbmaj7#11 |Bb7#5 Db7#11 |Abmaj7#5 |
C aeol Db lyd b7 C aeol Db lyd b7 A lyd Db lyd b7
Cm7 |Db7#11 Cm7 |Db7#11 Amaj7/Db |Db7#11 |
Those are my *default* scale choices. I don't *have* to use them all the
time but I did this time. I can still use the remaining notes of the
chromatic scale to target the notes I wish to within these scales. The
default scale is just a set of more or less strong notes I can choose to
target on each chord.
Again. I don't know the original. I should but I don't. Guilty, guilty, guilty.
I've based this arrangement on what Paul and Jimmy have told me about
the tune and on the chart in the Real Book.
Comments welcome, but be nice. I'm sensitive to criticism.
Joey Goldstein
Joe Finn wrote:
>
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote
> >
> > Not for me. But then I've worked on that. Eg. On Confirmation or sim I
> > most definitely *do* have a default chord-scale in mind for each and
> > every chord. I'm not limited to just playing my defaults but I could.
> > There's lots of other things I might do also on this tune.
>
> That's because you learned your scales a long time ago. An experienced
> player like you is no longer thinking in terms of default chord-scales. I'm
> saying that while this chord scale thinking is an obvious part of how we
> teach kids to improvise it's really only the beginning. It's only the
> foundation. Players like you are way past that stuff.
If only that were true. Let's just say that I'm partly past that. I
still think in terms of default scales choices but now:
• I know what they sound like better
• I've got more ways to take liberties with the basic material
• I also know how to play chord-tone melodies and IU can follow guide
tone lines
• I also have know other scale relationships that will work
• I also have a bag of other tricks too, including bitonal pedulums and
superimposition
And when it's going well, I hear all this stuff on the fly as I'm
playing it. If it's not going and I'm struggling thewn it's time to
practice more. Simple as that.
> > Barry Harris says there's too many chords in a tune like that to be able
> > to navigate each chord. He prefers to look at several chords all under a
> > single scale. The "chord is all that matters" guys here believe Barry's
> > wrong about this. I do too, because I know I can navigate each chord if
> > I want to. But that can get cumbersome, and I see BH's point.
> >
> > When people say "It's hard to think that fast" I say "Practice."
>
> Well maybe "navigating each chord" might end up sounding like "navigating
> each chord". It might sound like an academic exercise rather than music.
Anything will sound like an exercise if it's not done well.
> That kind of analysis is fine and dandy but like you say it can get
> cumbersome. I've got to stop myself here before I go into my "paralysis of
> analysis" schpeil. 8-)
>
> >
> >> My
> >> preference is to teach chord tones and transcription. I've had kids that
> >> get
> >> everything they need to get up to level VI an beyond
> >
> > Level VI of what?
>
> When you order music for your student ensembles it's always marked according
> to level of difficulty. This way you can avoid putting advanced music in
> front of the middle school band or beginners music in front of the all state
> band, etc. Level VI is music that features all 16th note rhythms including
> triplets, all accidentals, articulation, dynamics, intervals, and keys over
> the full range of the instruments. It's the highest student level.
Who do you order this music from Joe? Do they have a web site? Is it
jazz oriented or classical?
> > If a student is not already capable of doing some lifting when he starts
> > studying jazz he should be strongly urged to begin learning how as soon
> > as possible. People who don't already have the ability to play by ear
> > don't have the requisite skills yet to know what learning and practicing
> > scales is for in the jazz world. IMO. Still learning the major scale and
> > some tunes can help to get their ears ready for some lifting too. Too
> > many students like this are just scared to try and lift stuff.
>
> That's a good point. I think as instructors we need to emphasize listening
> and playing by ear more strenuously. ......joe
I really need some sort of an audio playback machine (preferably with a
1/2 speed function) for my room at Mohawk. I've been putting this off
for too long. Most of these kids don't do any lifts until 3rd year when
they are required to in another class. Some of them have never lifted a
rock solo by ear. They all grew up on TAB. When I was a boy......
Paul Kirk
clear on the Gbmaj (4rth bar), which I find effective. I had been
basically playing the Emaj then faking my way to the Bb7 without
referring explicitly to the Gbmaj. Musically speaking, the few times
you did double stops and chord runs stood out.
Paul
Joey Goldstein
Paul Kirk wrote:
>
>
> Thanks. I did hear the A maj. Also, I think several times you were very
> clear on the Gbmaj (4rth bar), which I find effective. I had been
> basically playing the Emaj then faking my way to the Bb7 without
> referring explicitly to the Gbmaj. Musically speaking, the few times
> you did double stops and chord runs stood out.
Is my tempo anything like the original? I'm at 120BPM.
Joey Goldstein
Paul Kirk wrote:
>
>
> Thanks. I did hear the A maj. Also, I think several times you were very
> clear on the Gbmaj (4rth bar), which I find effective. I had been
> basically playing the Emaj then faking my way to the Bb7 without
> referring explicitly to the Gbmaj. Musically speaking, the few times
> you did double stops and chord runs stood out.
I sometimes find it easier to approcah lydian major chords as if they
are dorian min7 chords. Eg. Emaj7(9,#11,13) is treated as if it's
C#m7(9,11,13), Gbmaj7(9,#11,13) is treated as if it's Ebm7(9,11,13).
Sometimes I like to dip into the related V7...C#m7-F#7, Ebm7-Ab7.
Paul Kirk
>
> Paul Kirk wrote:
>
>>
>>Thanks. I did hear the A maj. Also, I think several times you were very
>>clear on the Gbmaj (4rth bar), which I find effective. I had been
>>basically playing the Emaj then faking my way to the Bb7 without
>>referring explicitly to the Gbmaj. Musically speaking, the few times
>>you did double stops and chord runs stood out.
>
>
> Is my tempo anything like the original? I'm at 120BPM.
>
this http://www.soundflavor.com/Pages/Buy.aspx?trackID=94882&hs=True
got me there, but there may be a cookie thing going on.
Paul K.
Joey Goldstein
Ah. Thanks.
Those Bb7#5 chords all seem to have a suggestion of #9 as well so that
mix b6 scale choice I made is not such a good fit. Closer to Bb mix b2b6
with the #9 added as well.
The Abmaj7#5 chords seem to also have the P5th included somewhat
routinely by the soloists and in the comping. I have to listen to it a
bit more but lyd aug would not be my default choice on that sound. It
sounds somewhat like C7#5#9/Ab. I'll have to listen some more. They play
this chord pretty loosely. At one point, Herbie, upon hearing Miles play
a high Eb plays these 2 bars as if he's already on Cm7.
The Dbm(b6) is approached just like I said, like Amaj7#11/Db. I suppose
some folks would rather see this as some sort of Db nat min scale and
that's cool too. But the strong notes on this change are all in the A chord.
The blowing form has an extra chord and an extra bar at the end of the
double time:
Fm9 | |Emaj7#11 |Gbmaj7#11 |
Bb7#5#9 |Db7#11 |Abmaj7#5 | |
Cm7 | |Db7#11 |Cm7 |
Db7#11 |Amaj7#11/Db |Db7#11 |Ebdim(maj7)/Db |
Fm9 |Emaj7#11 Gbmaj7#11 |Bb7#5#9 Db7#11 |Abmaj7#5 |
Cm7 |Db7#11 Cm7 |Db7#11 Amaj7#11/Db |Db7#11 Ebdim(maj7)/Db |
Ebdim(maj7)/Db |
Wayne stops his solo in the middle of a chorus, before the double timed
section. Herbie seems a little bit miffed for the first part of his solo
probably because of this. Herbie adds an extra bar of either
Ebdim(maj7)Db or of Fm9 (depending on how you look at it) at the top of
his last solo chorus. Picky, picky, picky.
By and large they are all (except for Herbie who really stretches the
harmony at places) accenting a similar set of tones from the ones in my
default chord-scales (except where noted) but they all have command of
chromatic approaches in and out of these tones and they all *hear* the
tune way better than I do at this point.
Marc Sabatella
> >
> > I have no idea how you'd come to that conclusion unless you have
> > transcriptions that show him consistently not using the passing
tones
> > predicted by the usual scale choices. Do you?
>
> Yes I do have some transcriptions. There are plenty of examples that
> are obvious where you don't even need transcriptions.
Well, of course, you could find a few phrases easily enough where he is
clearly not using any sort of chord/scale thinking. But to prove he
isn't using it at all, you'd need a transcription of the entire solo,
and then you'd have to go to the trouble of analyzing it measure by
measure to show that at no time is he using the pitch set of any
particular scale. Somehow, it just seems incredibly unlikely that you'd
really have done this. But still...
> But he has said that he is not into the 'which scale over which chord'
> thing, and he has said that he doesn't want people to approach playing
> his tunes that way.
That much is believable enough. I'm not saying Shorter was definitely
into this approach much - just that this isn't a conclusion that could
reasonably be made just from a casual (or even somewhat more than
casual) listen. Some people seem to think if they don't hear actual
scales, they aren't hearing the result of chord/scale thinking, and of
course, this isn't even close to being the case. Nothing about the
chord/scale approach should have anyone playing lines that are
inherently any more scalar than the lines that would tend to result from
any other approach. Nothing except a failure to understand the
approach, that is.
> Many of the modern writers today say the same thing. Some won't even
> use chord symbols because they think it comes with too much baggage
(if
> you write Dmin7 on a chart, too many people default to playing their
> dorian licks...) etc...
I certainly know composers who do not tend to use chord symbols, but
their reaosn is that they honestly don't hear specific chords as the
underpinnings of their compositions, not that they are worried about
what scale someone would or would not choose.
> It's also a reason why many people don't want to write II-V-I tunes
> anymore because if you hire a jazz guy to play over it, they will come
> with their bag of stock II-V-I licks...
This also has *nothing* to do with any failings of chord/scale
relationships. It is simple failure to take improvisation seriously.
That happens to some players whether using the chord/scale approachy,
the key centered approach, the chord-tones-plus-passing-tone approach,
or any other approach.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
ken
Marc Sabatella wrote:
> Well, of course, you could find a few phrases easily enough where he
is
> clearly not using any sort of chord/scale thinking. But to prove he
> isn't using it at all, you'd need a transcription of the entire solo,
> and then you'd have to go to the trouble of analyzing it measure by
> measure to show that at no time is he using the pitch set of any
> particular scale. Somehow, it just seems incredibly unlikely that
you'd
> really have done this. But still...
I did. I tried to decode his solos from a chord/scale perspective to
confirm that what I was doing (chord/scale) was the right way to go
about it.
Needless to say, I was frustrated that nothing 'fit' any of what I was
taught. Maybe others will be able to make sense of it from that
perspective, but it was not obvious to me when I tried.
> casual) listen. Some people seem to think if they don't hear actual
> scales, they aren't hearing the result of chord/scale thinking, and
of
> course, this isn't even close to being the case.
I understand that, of course. I got into trouble arguing about this
too with someone because someone insisted that scales are specifically
to be played step-wise from the root up. I disagreed and got myself in
trouble...
> I certainly know composers who do not tend to use chord symbols, but
> their reaosn is that they honestly don't hear specific chords as the
> underpinnings of their compositions, not that they are worried about
> what scale someone would or would not choose.
Yes, of course there are. And I have come across many who HAVE done it
to GET AWAY from all this stuff; I've personally heard a several very
well-known modern composers (in 'jazz') say that.
> > It's also a reason why many people don't want to write II-V-I tunes
> > anymore because if you hire a jazz guy to play over it, they will
come
> > with their bag of stock II-V-I licks...
>
> This also has *nothing* to do with any failings of chord/scale
> relationships.
You're right. I'm mixing up all sorts of issues, but I think they are
strongly related though...
But again, like I keep saying, I am not against chord/scale at all. I
learned that way and I would probably teach that way.
I am just trying to point out some of the pitfalls of the concept, even
if it's not the concepts fault! (guns don't kill people, people do!
right? or am I suddenly on the wrong side of the aisle?)
Ken
ken
Marc Sabatella wrote:
> Well, of course, you could find a few phrases easily enough where he
is
> clearly not using any sort of chord/scale thinking. But to prove he
> isn't using it at all, you'd need a transcription of the entire solo,
> and then you'd have to go to the trouble of analyzing it measure by
> measure to show that at no time is he using the pitch set of any
> particular scale.
By the way, there are plenty of other players that it is just very
obvious even without detailed analysis that it is not based off of any
chord/scale approach.
The most obvious example is Trane. You listen to Giant Steps,
Countdown or any of those mid-period tunes and almost at no time do you
ever wonder what scale he is using.
A lot of the modern guys are like that too; Brecker, Garrett, Potter,
Coleman, Osby...
So much of their things is based on quickly changing tonalities that
most of it is just obviously not based on chord/scale.
That's the whole point of a lot of the post-Trane playing. They are
tetra-chordal, cellular playing with fast harmonic activity so as to
not sit too long in any single 'tonality', 'key','scale' or anything
else.
Of course guys like Liebman, Beirach, Wheeler, Abercrombie (who told me
personally that he actually doesn't like that chord/scale approach) and
a lot of those guys DO play very chord/scaley things too... (and I DO
love that stuff too).
Ken
Joey Goldstein
ken wrote:
>
> Marc Sabatella wrote:
>
> > Well, of course, you could find a few phrases easily enough where he
> is
> > clearly not using any sort of chord/scale thinking. But to prove he
> > isn't using it at all, you'd need a transcription of the entire solo,
> > and then you'd have to go to the trouble of analyzing it measure by
> > measure to show that at no time is he using the pitch set of any
> > particular scale.
>
> By the way, there are plenty of other players that it is just very
> obvious even without detailed analysis that it is not based off of any
> chord/scale approach.
>
> The most obvious example is Trane. You listen to Giant Steps,
> Countdown or any of those mid-period tunes and almost at no time do you
> ever wonder what scale he is using.
That solo is almost completely diatonic. He might not have been thinking
about dor mix and ion in those terms but the result is the same. He's
playing diatonic melodies in the 3 keys of the song with only occasional
chromatic passing tones. Much of the time he bigins his line on the root
of the chord and runs up the current major scale from that note. To me,
that's the text book example of the most basic application of
chord-scale type thinking. It's Coltrane's solos from this period that
lead to the whole chord-scale pedagogy.
> A lot of the modern guys are like that too; Brecker, Garrett, Potter,
> Coleman, Osby...
To suggest that these guys have not studied very closely the
relationship between chords and scales ... well it's just beyond me.
> So much of their things is based on quickly changing tonalities that
> most of it is just obviously not based on chord/scale.
Right. they've got vother things they do too. Chord-scales are really
just supposed to be a tool to get beginners started. People really seem
toascribe way to much meaning to them. They are not supposed to be some
ultimate music making oracle.
> That's the whole point of a lot of the post-Trane playing. They are
> tetra-chordal, cellular playing with fast harmonic activity so as to
> not sit too long in any single 'tonality', 'key','scale' or anything
> else.
That's just one thing these guys do. You can't reduce them to just one
thing. Why even try?
> Of course guys like Liebman, Beirach, Wheeler, Abercrombie (who told me
> personally that he actually doesn't like that chord/scale approach) and
> a lot of those guys DO play very chord/scaley things too... (and I DO
> love that stuff too).
Abercrombie said that? Wow, if there was ever a well known jazz guitar
player who sounded like he was playing chord-scales, to me he's the guy.
I'm looking at a tune he played of Richie Beirach's (Nightlake in the
NRB) and every chord, combined with the melody, implies a chord-scale
relationship. Maybe that's Chuck Sher's doing more than RB's or JA's.
I guess I can only speak for me. Chord-scales have been good for me.
Again, to me, a chord-scale is just an extended arpeggio. I haven't seen
anyone really suggest that studying extended arpeggios is a bad thing
yet, have I?
ken
Joey Goldstein wrote:
> > Of course guys like Liebman, Beirach, Wheeler, Abercrombie (who
told me
> > personally that he actually doesn't like that chord/scale approach)
and
> > a lot of those guys DO play very chord/scaley things too... (and I
DO
> > love that stuff too).
>
> Abercrombie said that? Wow, if there was ever a well known jazz
guitar
> player who sounded like he was playing chord-scales, to me he's the
guy.
> I'm looking at a tune he played of Richie Beirach's (Nightlake in the
> NRB) and every chord, combined with the melody, implies a chord-scale
> relationship. Maybe that's Chuck Sher's doing more than RB's or JA's.
He did say that... I was up at his house a couple of years ago and he
did say 'don't think like that'.
He also said that when he did his instructional video, he told the guy
playing rhythm guitar that if he gets through the taping without using
the word 'mode', then he would consider it a success.
He has been through that chord/scale training and seems not to like it
too much...
Ken
Jimmy Bruno
ken
Joey Goldstein wrote:
> Again, to me, a chord-scale is just an extended arpeggio. I haven't
seen
> anyone really suggest that studying extended arpeggios is a bad thing
> yet, have I?
I'm not saying that studying these things are bad.
At the end of the day, it's just a couple of mother scales and the
chords that can be derived from them.
I don't know what the big deal is. You write out the major scale,
melmin and harmonic minor scales and build tertian chords up from each
root and see what chords come out of it... These modes can be used over
those chords.
It's less than one page of information, so I don't know why there is so
much resistance to learning this stuff sometimes...
On the other hand, there are pitfalls with this too like I mention in
the other thread.
Also, when someone says *none* of this is necessary *if* you go back
and learn a lot of tunes and solos strictly by *ear* and master them
then you don't need *any* of that stuff, well, I agree with that too!
How can I not when all this great jazz was being created before Berklee
ever came into existence. (and schools do have their place so I am not
dissing schools)
What irks me the most are the people that will do neither... They don't
want to learn theory (because they want to play from the heart and by
ear), and they don't want to learn other people's solos (because they
don't want to be a clone). Many of these types sound the worst to me
(I can be more specific, but who knows who is reading this stuff...).
(but then again, as usual there are probably some exceptions to this;
guys who did neither and sound great).
Ken
bob r
kubo...@yahoo.com wrote on 2/28/05 11:00 AM:
> What irks me the most are the people that will do neither... They don't
> want to learn theory (because they want to play from the heart and by
> ear), and they don't want to learn other people's solos (because they
> don't want to be a clone). Many of these types sound the worst to me
> (I can be more specific, but who knows who is reading this stuff...).
If most of the people I run across would spend as much time and energy
LEARNING STUFF as they spent worrying about what they don't need to learn,
there'd be a whole lot of better playing going on!
--
Bob Russell
http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CD, "Watch This!", available at:
http://www.cdbaby.com/bobrussell
Joey Goldstein
--
Gerry
<what...@anyway.com> wrote:
> > What irks me the most are the people that will do neither... They don't
> > want to learn theory (because they want to play from the heart and by
> > ear), and they don't want to learn other people's solos (because they
> > don't want to be a clone). Many of these types sound the worst to me
> > (I can be more specific, but who knows who is reading this stuff...).
>
> If most of the people I run across would spend as much time and energy
> LEARNING STUFF as they spent worrying about what they don't need to learn,
> there'd be a whole lot of better playing going on!
Agreed. I've spent a lot time and energy on approaches to improv that
in the end I've rejected. Were they useful? Valid? Critical? Who
knows? Who cares--I'm done with them and thinking another way...
--
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.
-- Henry David Thoreau
Bob Agnew
> Plus, the Harmonic convergence ended at 3am when Mercury's alignment with
> Venus was interupted by Sedona's crystal effluence.
>
> Paul Kirk
>
Paul -- Does the above mean that you are an amatuer astronomer living in
Sedona?
"Paul Kirk" <pk...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:BE44E391.14F27%pk...@indiana.edu...
> On 2/25/05 1:01 PM, in article 3897g5F...@individual.net, "Five
> Sharp"
> <d.on...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> A troll, as I understand the term, is someone who posts to USENET for the
> purpose of stirring up arguments. Looking over the entire exchange between
> Joey and DaveA, what I see from daveA are dogmatic statements, imprecise
> statements, undefined jargon, peppered with mostly sarcastic or
> meaningless
> obscure 1-liners.
>
> I posted something about Iris and daveA writes a condescending and
> unhelpful
> response. Contrast that with the useful responses that Jimmy Bruno and
> Joey
> wrote. Joey's posts are probably the most informative for me on this NG
> when it comes to learning new melodic ideas.
>
>
> While I'm not crazy about Joey's penchant for taking people to task in
> this
> NG when they make statements about jazz improv that he finds uninformed,
> (he's pissed on me a few times) and perhaps daveA just got sucked into a
> debate with Joey before he knew what he was in for (as a new poster it is
> easy to underestimate the fact that a lot of people here know a lot, and
> the
> anonymity of typing at a computer combines badly with a challenge to one's
> ego), I just donšt find condescention tolerable without at least some
> evidence that the person knows more than me. DaveA's comment:
>
>>>>> Use safe chromatic embellishments and chromatic passing tones. Too
>>>>> easy
>>>>> to be good, right? A chromatic approach couldn't be good with all
>>>>> those diatonic chords, right? What was I thinking? daveA
>>>>
> Tells me nothing I didnšt know 25 years ago, is completely useless in the
> question I raised (how to improvise over Iris? Use safe chromatic
> embellishments and passing tones!!!! gee, is that all there is to jazz?),
> but as in all his other posts oozes of self-righteousness, not to mention
> ignorance of anything related to jazz.
>
>
> OK, people do this when they start out in USENET. It happens a lot on this
> group. I'm just suggesting daveA either loses the attitude until he knows
> what the participants here contribute and know, or risk being known as a
> dogmatic novice.
>
> I'm surprized you reacted this way to my post, Dick. There was no low blow
> intended. But in contrast to the prevailing NG etiquette, I'm not one who
> accepts the "asking for clips is rude" rule. If daveA posts something
> that
> shows me he's a decent jazz improvisor, I'll conclude that he may have
> something to contribute to technical discussions on improvising, even if
> he
> has not yet been not terribly articulate in describing his approach.
>
> Plus, the Harmonic convergence ended at 3am when Mercury's alignment with
> Venus was interupted by Sedona's crystal effluence.
>
> Paul Kirk
>
>> Yeah, Paul's post struck me as a very low blow too.
>>
>> #####
>>
>> "Frets" <fr...@dslextreme.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:111up9q...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Great approach Paul, if you don't understand that the person is saying
>>> or
>>> you don't agree with it, call them a "troll." If you don't want to be
>>> repetitious you might also try the phrase, "that's the way God wants
>>> it."
>>> That works great too.
>>>
>>> Frets
>>>
>>> Paul Kirk wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/05 12:02 PM, in article pan.2005.02.25....@cox.net,
>>>> "David Raleigh Arnold" <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:30:59 +0000, Paul Kirk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm always puzzled by why this is so controversial, but I have a
>>>>>> question:
>>>>>> I'll have to play Wayne shorter's "Iris" tonight on a gig. I've just
>>>>>> started practicing the tune but at the moment I dont see a lot of
>>>>>> structure to the harmony: (realbook changes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fm11/%/Emaj7#11/Gbmaj7#11/
>>>>>> Bbaug/Db7#11/ Abmaj7#5/ %/
>>>>>> Cm7/ %/ Db7#11/%/
>>>>>> Db7#11/Dbm(b6)/Db7#11
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then repeat at twice the harmonic rhythm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not much standard harmonic snippets, what I see so far is I could
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> bars 5,6, as a V-I in Cmaj, and 7,8 as a V-i in Cmi, but honestly,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> only way I can make anything resembling music over this is to think
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> appropriate scales for each chord and think about common or neighbor
>>>>>> tones
>>>>>> from one to the next.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, it seems to me the "chord-scale" approach, as I understand it, is
>>>>>> almost all I have going right now. What is the alternative? I suppose
>>>>>> embellishing the melody,
>>>>>
>>>>> Or embellishing the arpeggios.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> quick chord/scale thinking to get the embellishments right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Use safe chromatic embellishments and chromatic passing tones. Too
>>>>> easy
>>>>> to be good, right? A chromatic approach couldn't be good with all
>>>>> those diatonic chords, right? What was I thinking? daveA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave: every post you have ever posted since appearing on this NG gives
>>>> the
>>>> impression you donšt know much (if anything) about jazz. Your Web site
>>>> seems
>>>> to identify you as a classical player, and dogma is often an important
>>>> aspect of classical training: there is a "right way" do do everything
>>>> in
>>>> classical music. Classical musicians often have the mistaken impression
>>>> that
>>>> what works in classical music must work everywhere else. Maybe that's
>>>> where
>>>> you are coming from.
>>>>
>>>> My guess is that you have no idea who Wayne Shorter is and you could
>>>> not
>>>> improvise over Misty in any way that sounds like jazz as it is
>>>> practiced.
>>>> (Not that these are important, but this is a jazz NG.)
>>>> Unless you post a clip, I can't know for sure. But if you if you
>>>> actually
>>>> believe your position has any merit, you might tone down your delivery.
>>>> At
>>>> the moment you just come off as a troll.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Kirk
>>
>>
>
>
Bob Agnew
Thanks Joey for the reference to Nettles & "Graf. Chord Scale Theory".
Arrived yesterday from Jazzutopia in Tarzana. Now if these 65 year old eyes
could only make out that fine print!
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:4221F6D0...@nowhere.net...
>
>
> Joe Finn wrote:
>>
>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote
>> >
>> > Not for me. But then I've worked on that. Eg. On Confirmation or sim I
>> > most definitely *do* have a default chord-scale in mind for each and
>> > every chord. I'm not limited to just playing my defaults but I could.
>> > There's lots of other things I might do also on this tune.
>>
>> That's because you learned your scales a long time ago. An experienced
>> player like you is no longer thinking in terms of default chord-scales.
>> I'm
>> saying that while this chord scale thinking is an obvious part of how we
>> teach kids to improvise it's really only the beginning. It's only the
>> foundation. Players like you are way past that stuff.
>
> If only that were true. Let's just say that I'm partly past that. I
> still think in terms of default scales choices but now:
> . I know what they sound like better
> . I've got more ways to take liberties with the basic material
> . I also know how to play chord-tone melodies and IU can follow guide
> tone lines
> . I also have know other scale relationships that will work
> . I also have a bag of other tricks too, including bitonal pedulums and
Joey Goldstein
Bob Agnew wrote:
>
> Slightly off topic:
>
> Thanks Joey for the reference to Nettles & "Graf. Chord Scale Theory".
> Arrived yesterday from Jazzutopia in Tarzana. Now if these 65 year old eyes
> could only make out that fine print!
That book can be a little bit confusing at times. Even a bit self
contradictory. Still, it's pretty thorough and gives you a good idea of
jazz harmony ala Berklee. If you can't make something out I'd be glad to
try and help.
Bob Agnew
into some decent lighting, it is quite readable. The font is probably 8 pt
or larger. It's just that the large pages and dim lighting gave me the
impression that it was smaller. I don't want to discourage anyone from
buying it.
I'm enjoying the historical material in the introduction.
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:42352BBC...@nowhere.net...