Pat Martino Substitution?
Carlos deCastro
playing over changes?
thanks.
deca...@northlink.net
Trevor McConnell
> Could someone explain to me about Pat Martino's substitutions
> he uses playing over changes?
Carlos:
Pat uses all the standard substitutions. His way of explaining and
relating them, though, is non-standard and highly personal.
And since there are so many possible substitutions, it would be much
easier to respond to your question if you narrowed it down a bit.
Moreover, concepts/ideas like "minor conversions," "diminished parental
forms," and others are best discussed in small bits.
It might be helpful if you told the group what you already know about
this topic. This way respondents needn't write non-applicable,
open-ended, or redundant replies.
What do you already know? What are you having trouble with?
Trevor
Keith Ganz
>Could someone explain to me about Pat Martino's substitutions he uses
>playing over changes?
>thanks.
>deca...@northlink.net
>
I haven't checked PM out as extensively as some of these guys but I
just hear him playing the standard bebop/chromatic/altered dominant
stuff. Not really any unusual substitutions. One unusual thing he does
though, is play a line and displace various notice in the by an
octave. It gives the line a very bizarre effect even though it's still
a bop line.
Keith Ganz
Jack A. Zucker
Pat Martino approaches everything with minor.
He uses Amin and Emin over Cmaj7, Dm7, Fm7, Abm7, (sometimes bm7) over
G7, and even Fm7 over Dm7.
I could get more elaborate but I think you get the idea.
-Jaz
Carlos deCastro wrote:
>
> Could someone explain to me about Pat Martino's substitutions he uses
> playing over changes?
> thanks.
> deca...@northlink.net
--
Jack A. Zucker
Cleveland, OH US
Check out my jazz guitar page at:
http://w3.gwis.com/~jaz
sleepy
>
> I haven't checked PM out as extensively as some of these guys but I
> just hear him playing the standard bebop/chromatic/altered dominant
> stuff. Not really any unusual substitutions. One unusual thing he does
> though, is play a line and displace various notice in the by an
> octave. It gives the line a very bizarre effect even though it's still
> a bop line.
yeah, that's right, the minor substitution idea yields pretty much the
same notes over the same chords that any other be-bop approach would.
It's just a convenient way of thinking.
The octave displaced stuff he does tends to be more pattern-based than
bepop-line-based, although he blends it seamlessly into his bop stuff.
Some of the licks are just built from finger patterns, but he has this
other thing built on octave-displaced chromatic scales.
Dunno if he's ever published his "12 Chromatic Forms", it's a series of
octave displaced chromatic patterns that descend or ascend the
fingerboard -- some aren't symmetrical so each iteration of the pattern
starts on a different note, pretty interesting to play around with.
Clay Moore
Hmm... Since I have transcribed and studied Pat quite a bit I'd tend to
disagree with some of this. Whose "standard bebop/chromatic/altered
dominant" stuff are you talking about? Obviously there is a certain
amount of shared vocabulary in playing changes, but I think Pat's take
on it is unique. Check out his solo on "Oleo" for example, and name
another guitar player who was playing this way in 1970.
--
Clay Moore
Never knock on Death's door; ring the doorbell and run like hell (he
hates that).
Clay Moore
> well, the "standard bebop" etc. bit isn't mine, it's from the previous
> post, but I can see how someone might hear Martino that way -- he's very
> much more in the bebop mold than someone like, say, Metheny. Agreeing
> with that is not the same thing as dismissing Martino, I'm a huge fan,
> I've transcribed quite a bit of his stuff myself, including that Oleo
> solo -- take that solo, it IS mostly bebop, it's also uniquely Martino
> -- I don't see those qualities as contradictory.
I did realize that you didn't write that line, but you were in
agreement, so I was commenting on the general tone of the discussion. If
I were to describe Martino's approach I'd say he was rooted but not
stuck in the bebop language. I hear more chromaticism and wider
intervals than in yer average "jazz" guitarist. To me his approach
bridges what a lot of the "older" guys like Wes, Kessel, Burrell, and
others were doing and the next generation of Metheny, Sco, etc. Since I
started transcribing Metheny a few years ago I've noticed that he plays
some similar things as Martino when playing standard changes. Could be
just a coincidence, but I would imagine Pat M2 borrowed from Pat M1.
>
> My only point was that the "minor conversion" thing (what I'm guessing
> the original poster means by "Pat Martino Substitution") doesn't, in
> itself, lead to any "unusual substitutions", it's just a handy trick for
> thinking about whatever material you have at hand, bebop or whatever.
Well, I've brought this up before, but I'll do it again. In "Along Came
Betty" there is a descending chord passage that goes as follows:
|Cm7b5 |F7alt |Bbm7b5 |Eb7alt |
Pat Martino plays this as:
|Ebm7 |Ab7alt (Am) |Dbm7 |Eb7alt (Em)| It works out to an unusual
substitution in my book.
sleepy
>
> I did realize that you didn't write that line, but you were in
> agreement, so I was commenting on the general tone of the discussion. If
> I were to describe Martino's approach I'd say he was rooted but not
> stuck in the bebop language. I hear more chromaticism and wider
> intervals than in yer average "jazz" guitarist. To me his approach
> bridges what a lot of the "older" guys like Wes, Kessel, Burrell, and
> others were doing and the next generation of Metheny, Sco, etc. Since I
> started transcribing Metheny a few years ago I've noticed that he plays
> some similar things as Martino when playing standard changes. Could be
> just a coincidence, but I would imagine Pat M2 borrowed from Pat M1.
>
yeah, we don't really have any argument there, I hear Martino pretty
much the same way. I don't share the previous poster's implicit
_attitude_ about Martino, but didn't see any harm in being agreeable
about the "bebop" thing.
> Well, I've brought this up before, but I'll do it again. In "Along Came
> Betty" there is a descending chord passage that goes as follows:
>
> |Cm7b5 |F7alt |Bbm7b5 |Eb7alt |
>
> Pat Martino plays this as:
>
> |Ebm7 |Ab7alt (Am) |Dbm7 |Eb7alt (Em)| It works out to an unusual
> substitution in my book.
>
ok, here's where we might disagree, but OTOH it seems more a matter of
semantics than substance. To me, playing a major ii-V a minor third
above a minor ii-V isn't "unusual", it's just a normal upper-structure
equivalence, which is basically what "minor conversion" is. Playing
minor a half-step above the root of a dominant seems pretty "usual",
too.
Which says nothing about how I feel about Martino's playing, "reverence"
might be one word that touches on how I feel about his playing. It just
doesn't bother me that much if someone else doesn't share that reverence
(hey, I'd make a lousy evangelist)
Paul Kirk
>
(cut lots of good stuff)
>
> |Cm7b5 |F7alt |Bbm7b5 |Eb7alt |
>
> Pat Martino plays this as:
>
> |Ebm7 |Ab7alt (Am) |Dbm7 |Eb7alt (Em)| It works out to an unusual
> substitution in my book.
Not that I'm in any position to assert whether or not martino uses
unusual substitutions, is this really a good example? One of the most
common subs at least in my mind is to use a chord up or down a 3rd in
whatever diatonic scale you use(eg. Cmaj7=Ami7=Emi7). so Ebmi7=Cm7b5 and
Dbmi7=Bbmi7b5 (in fact this is a really useful sub, since the minor 3rd
of say Ebmi7, a strong tone, equals the b5 of the Cm7b5, a strong tone
in that chord). the other two bars could be analyzed this way if you
think of altered dominants as close to diminished chords,or,
alternatively, if you split a tritone in 2 you get a minor 3rd, so at
least for altered dominants it is not uncommon to think of
C7=Eb7=Gb7=A7.
Maybe I dont know what "common substitutions" means.
Paul
Clay Moore
>
> Clay Moore wrote:
> > Well, I've brought this up before, but I'll do it again. In "Along Came
> > Betty" there is a descending chord passage that goes as follows:
> >
> > |Cm7b5 |F7alt |Bbm7b5 |Eb7alt |
> >
> > Pat Martino plays this as:
> >
> > |Ebm7 |Ab7alt (Am) |Dbm7 |Eb7alt (Em)| It works out to an unusual
> > substitution in my book.
> >
>
> ok, here's where we might disagree, but OTOH it seems more a matter of
> semantics than substance. To me, playing a major ii-V a minor third
> above a minor ii-V isn't "unusual", it's just a normal upper-structure
> equivalence, which is basically what "minor conversion" is. Playing
> minor a half-step above the root of a dominant seems pretty "usual",
> too.
Well, it seemed unusual to me when I first examined it, because over the
F7 there were E naturals, but the line still made sense and resolved
beautifully. He also does something of the same thing on "How
Insensitive," where he treats the G7/B or Bm7b5 as a Bm7, which puts F#
notes over the G7. I'd never heard anyone else do that before, at least
not on purpose.
Doug3A
There is a small publication that I received as a handout at a Pat Martino
workshop at NTSU that would probably answer any of your questions. Its 17
pages, entitled "The Nature of Guitar", copyrighted 1972 Kitai Music/Martino.
It may be available at www.patmartino.com. Pat's whole exegesis is a little
opaque to me, as an overwhelmingly ear-oriented player, and it is definitely
not traditional.
Some of the principal features of his system are the organization of string
groups (charts of all possible combinations of 6,5,4,3,2 strings at a given
fret; the 64 hexagrams (as in I Qing) related to the 64 combinations; the
primacy of the augmented and diminished forms as roots ("automatic factors")
versus the piano system based on major and pentatonic structures; various
dodecahedrons and other geometric figures which represent something or other,
culminating in the "12 Point Star". That's the first 4 pages!
I actually think I see what he's getting at, not so much from his rap as from
the playing - I'm sure if you transcribed "The Great Stream" and filled in all
the hexagrams and everything it might make perfect sense.
However, this brings up an interesting if controversial point. I would be
interested know if most players who attain an individual and "valid" style
(like PM) do so through transcribing and mastering a lot of previously
improvised material, or if they just play a whole lot and assimilate a variety
of influences, creatively mangling / reinterpreting these influences?
Kevin Van Sant
>However, this brings up an interesting if controversial point. I would be
>interested know if most players who attain an individual and "valid" style
>(like PM) do so through transcribing and mastering a lot of previously
>improvised material, or if they just play a whole lot and assimilate a variety
>of influences, creatively mangling / reinterpreting these influences?
I don't think your two options present an either/or scenario. That
is to say that one can master a lot of previously improvised material
and do a lot of transcribing, but without also playing a whole lot and
creatively mangling / reinterpreting those influences a player will
not develop a unique voice. I suppose it is easily possible to
develop one's own voice by merely playing a lot, but in my view that
isn't necessarily a "valid" _jazz_ voice unless one has put the time
into listening to and studying the masters, and generally becoming
knowledgeable about _jazz_. (which would include either transcribing
and/or mastering previously improvised material).
So I guess the answer is...yes
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
Jazz Guitar
Check out the new CD from my trio, "J'Azure" !
http://www.mindspring.com/~jazure/music.html
For a comprehensive index of internet jazz resources:
http://www.pobox.com/~onestopjazz
_________________________________________
Clay Moore
>
> Clay Moore wrote:
> >
> (cut lots of good stuff)
> >
> >
> > Pat Martino plays this as:
> >
> > |Ebm7 |Ab7alt (Am) |Dbm7 |Eb7alt (Em)| It works out to an unusual
> > substitution in my book.
>
> unusual substitutions, is this really a good example? One of the most
> common subs at least in my mind is to use a chord up or down a 3rd in
> whatever diatonic scale you use(eg. Cmaj7=Ami7=Emi7). so Ebmi7=Cm7b5 and
> Dbmi7=Bbmi7b5 (in fact this is a really useful sub, since the minor 3rd
> of say Ebmi7, a strong tone, equals the b5 of the Cm7b5, a strong tone
> in that chord). the other two bars could be analyzed this way if you
> think of altered dominants as close to diminished chords,or,
> alternatively, if you split a tritone in 2 you get a minor 3rd, so at
> least for altered dominants it is not uncommon to think of
> C7=Eb7=Gb7=A7.
>
> Maybe I dont know what "common substitutions" means.
Well, it seems you and sleep-deprived are in agreement on this one. I
realize moving chords in m3rds is not an especially novel sub, but I was
excited to learn what he was doing, since I'd listened to this solo
quite intently before ever analyzing it. Also, perhaps I'm just being a
little starstruck by Pat, but a lot of the stuff we take for granted
these days was not such common knowledge when I started playing guitar.
Pat, to my ears, uses a lot of chromatic vocabulary that is
non-traditional to mainstream jazz and was certainly not being used by
other guitar players in the late '60s, early '70s, except for maybe Joe
Diorio and a handful of others. With 30 years of new players and
widespread dispersion of concepts and techniques it's maybe a bit less
amazing.
sleepy
>
>
> Well, it seemed unusual to me when I first examined it, because over the
> F7 there were E naturals, but the line still made sense and resolved
> beautifully. He also does something of the same thing on "How
> Insensitive," where he treats the G7/B or Bm7b5 as a Bm7, which puts F#
> notes over the G7. I'd never heard anyone else do that before, at least
> not on purpose.
>
yeah, I see your point, if it were "usual" I should be able to come up
with several counter-examples off the top of my head, I can't. I'd
guess I could find lots of examples where a maj7 appears over a dominant
as a passing tone, but maybe not in the way you're describing here.
On "How Insensitive", take that first lick over the "G7" (we are talking
about the 4th bar of the form, right?), out of context what it most
sounds like to me is E7 (not making a point here, just a subjective
observation). I suppose the case could be made that this is a m3
substitution for G7, but in the sense you're talking about it's also
unusual -- hey, it's just my day to be agreeable, what can I say.
Out of curiosity, I dug out the Chopin prelude (no. 4 in Em) the tune is
based on, the changes are different than either Jobim or Martino, worth
a listen if you're interested.
sleepy
>
>
> On "How Insensitive", take that first lick over the "G7" (we are talking
> about the 4th bar of the form, right?),
oops, make that 4th chord, not 4th bar -- well, I guess you would've
known what I meant anyway
Altchord
charlie christian,and clifford brown are two artist that used a major 7th ovre
a dominant seven,very common device to add a major 7 passing tone to a
mixolydian scale descending.
gentelman there are only 12 notes that i know of and i think its pretty hard
to come up with patterns that where never played before,
you can analyze something to death ,call it 100 different things,
what matters is the melodic tendancies the line generates,and how that line
relates to the melody of the tune,the chord changes are secondary,,,,id love
correspondence with jazz players,feel free to write and tell me what your up
too,and how i can be a great player,,
JFR
> Clay Moore
>
> Never knock on Death's door; ring the doorbell and run like hell (he
> hates that).
I agree, I don't think anyone has played the lines that Pat plays.
Especially his use of chromaticism for a guitar player. It is the
closest thing to a horn player's capability that I have heard from a
jazz guitarist. I have studied a few of his books with the lines in
them and I fail to hear how these are "standard" approaches to playing
over changes for a guitar player. Maybe the guide tones are, but the
chromaticism is where it is really happening IMHO.
John R>
Bob Valentine
>>
>> > yeah, that's right, the minor substitution idea yields pretty much the
>> > same notes over the same chords that any other be-bop approach would.
>> > It's just a convenient way of thinking.
>> >
I got the Creative Force books and found I was too far along in my ways
to make much use of it. But it does explain a bit where some of his chromaticism
comes from.
The 'trick' is that after you do the minor substitution, is that
you add blue-notes to the minor that you end up playing in, basically adding
the flat five.
So for instance, if you are playing Em over Cmaj7, the Eblues stuff brings in
the Bb.
If you are playing Dm over G7, the Dblues stuff brings in the Ab, which gives
your lines interesting flow across the flat nine and natural nine.
Works great.
Bob Valentine
Joey Goldstein
> My only point was that the "minor conversion" thing (what I'm guessing
> the original poster means by "Pat Martino Substitution") doesn't, in
> itself, lead to any "unusual substitutions", it's just a handy trick for
> thinking about whatever material you have at hand, bebop or whatever.
What's "the minor conversion thing"?
I have not been following this group lately so indulge me if this has been
covered already in another post please.
--
Regards:
Joey Goldstein
Jazz Guitarist/Composer/Bandleader/Teacher
Check out my homepage at:
http://home.ican.net/~joegold/
Reply To: joegoldATicanDOTnet
Joey Goldstein
>
> Clay Moore wrote:
> >
> > sleepy wrote:
> > >
> > > Keith Ganz wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I haven't checked PM out as extensively as some of these guys but I
> > > > just hear him playing the standard bebop/chromatic/altered dominant
> > > > stuff. Not really any unusual substitutions.
> > Hmm... Since I have transcribed and studied Pat quite a bit I'd tend to
> > disagree with some of this. Whose "standard bebop/chromatic/altered
> > dominant" stuff are you talking about? Obviously there is a certain
> > amount of shared vocabulary in playing changes, but I think Pat's take
> > on it is unique. Check out his solo on "Oleo" for example, and name
> > another guitar player who was playing this way in 1970.
> I agree, I don't think anyone has played the lines that Pat plays.
> Especially his use of chromaticism for a guitar player.
As I watch this thread unfold I can't help thinking that the types of ideas we
are talking about here were really invented by other earlier players on
instruments other than the guitar.
Bird, Trane and Hancock are the 3 who come to mind.
Not to take anything away from Martino, who is one of my favorite musicians
period, but I can't see that he actually initiated this vocabulary. He is
perhaps one of the first players to apply this multi-tonal pallette to jazz on
the guitar, and he does a damn good job of it.
This is not to say that his music is rehash, or unoriginal or in any way
inferior. All I am saying is that I can not see that the harmonic/melodic
techniques that he is using actually originated with him.
Certainly there are substitutes he uses that are his personal signature
favorites that you don't hear other musicians use very often but the concepts
behind them have been around at least as long as Coltrane.
sleepy
>
>
> What's "the minor conversion thing"?
>
> I have not been following this group lately so indulge me if this has been
> covered already in another post please.
>
> --
well, pretty much what you'd think -- treating all chords in terms of
their equivalent minor scales, so that Cmaj = Am or Em, G7 = Dm or Abm,
etc, with the distinction among various flavors of minor and chord
function being handled (or blurred) with chromatics. I don't think the
idea originates with Martino, but he does seem to use it quite a bit.
Clay Moore
>
> Clay Moore wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, it seemed unusual to me when I first examined it, because over the
> > F7 there were E naturals, but the line still made sense and resolved
> > beautifully. He also does something of the same thing on "How
> > Insensitive," where he treats the G7/B or Bm7b5 as a Bm7, which puts F#
> > notes over the G7. I'd never heard anyone else do that before, at least
> > not on purpose.
> >
>
> yeah, I see your point, if it were "usual" I should be able to come up
> with several counter-examples off the top of my head, I can't. I'd
> guess I could find lots of examples where a maj7 appears over a dominant
> as a passing tone, but maybe not in the way you're describing here.
It works out to be more like a substitute progression than isolated
chords.
>
> On "How Insensitive", take that first lick over the "G7" (we are talking
> about the 4th bar of the form, right?), out of context what it most
> sounds like to me is E7 (not making a point here, just a subjective
> observation). I suppose the case could be made that this is a m3
> substitution for G7, but in the sense you're talking about it's also
> unusual -- hey, it's just my day to be agreeable, what can I say.
It moves from the Cm or F7 to the Bm or E7 (instead of G7). Again,
there's nothing spectacular about this concept, but it does lend and
interesting slant to the lines.
Keith Ganz
My first tip is to pay closer attention. They whole point of what they
are talking about is playing a major7 on a dom7 which specifically
IS NOT a chromatic passing tone, like a Bminor 7 arpeggio over G7. You
don't have to look any further than Cheech and Chong's music to find R
7 b7.
Keith Ganz
JFR
Good response. I think a healthy amount of transcribing is good, but
obviously if someone just does that and focusses on one player, it could
be pretty anti-productive toward finding a personal voice.
I transcribe, but never write it down, partly because I am lazy and
partly because my reading/writing skills are not that good. But that
has worked out to be a healthy balance - for me - because it develops my
ear, but I do not play a lot of lines verbatim from any one player, and
hopefully don't sound too close to any one person.
What is interesting is Marc Sabatella's no transcription philosophy.
Hopefully he will see this and chime in. Judging from his first cd,
this has worked well for him.....
John R>
Robert Irwin
rules that one could read and analize, i.e.
"A root position major 6th is equivalent to a root position minor 7 with
the base note of the 6th a minor 3rd lower than the base note of the
7th."
Joey Goldstein
>
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> >
> >
> > What's "the minor conversion thing"?
>
> well, pretty much what you'd think -- treating all chords in terms of
> their equivalent minor scales, so that Cmaj = Am or Em, G7 = Dm or Abm,
> etc, with the distinction among various flavors of minor and chord
> function being handled (or blurred) with chromatics. I don't think the
> idea originates with Martino, but he does seem to use it quite a bit.
So, with regards to chord scales; on Cmaj7 using E Phrygian or E Aeolian or E
Dorian or E Harm Min or E Jazz Minor, etc.? This brings in some logical
sounding chromaticism into a stale old Cmaj7?
Is that the idea?
I suppose this also implies treating the substitute minor chord as a ii chord
within a ii V, which therefore leads to using some chord scales associated
with the V7 chord.
On Cmaj7 using some A7 or D7 related chord scales?:
A Mixolydian, A 1/2 whole, A Alt, etc. ?
D Mix, D 1/2 whole etc. ?
Interesting. I've used some of these sounds before but I've never thought
about it quite this methodically.
Thanks.
I'll have to experiment with this a bit.
This is quite similar to the technique of tonicization that David Liebman
describes in A Chromatic Appraoch To Jazz Harmony And Melody. He suggests
treating different chord tones, or even prominent tensions, within a structure
as being used for the tonic of it's own chord scale. Things like B Lydian/E
Major on a G7 chord (one of my favorites lately) result from this type of
thinking. This is essentially a bi-tonal concept.
JFR
> Regards:
>
> Joey Goldstein
> Jazz Guitarist/Composer/Bandleader/Teacher
> Check out my homepage at:
> http://home.ican.net/~joegold/
>
> Reply To: joegoldATicanDOTnet
True, he did not originate it, but I do think he built on it and stamped
it in his "guitaristic" way. Plus he has added that organ grinder soul
aspect to some heavy bebop-based lines, kind-of like what we discussed
awhile back as "post bop".
I guess my thought though is that no one has really managed to do this
as effective as Pat, including the soulful aspect. I just do not hear
as strong of a chromatic "horn-like" approach in other players and
instead hear more built on traditional "guitar-based jazz" (i.e. the
originals). The exceptions are Jim Hall, who has a pretty unorthodox
approach to harmonizing and the entire new school that followed, but
Martino and these guys are just about the only thing that does it for me
now, except going back to the originals.
JohN R>
sleepy
>
> So, with regards to chord scales; on Cmaj7 using E Phrygian or E Aeolian or E
> Dorian or E Harm Min or E Jazz Minor, etc.? This brings in some logical
> sounding chromaticism into a stale old Cmaj7?
>
> Is that the idea?
well, it certainly could be applied that way. In the particular case of
Martino it's usually a little simpler than that, most of what he plays
over a maj7 can be seen as phrygian from the third with chromatic
passing tones (or, from another angle, what he plays over Cmaj7 tends to
look like Cmaj7 with chromatic passing tones). So I think maybe it more
typically serves as a conceptual device for organizing and applying
vocabulary, rather than as a device for stretching tonality. OTOH, over
ii-V's, things can get "stretched" a bit, as Clay pointed out.
> This is quite similar to the technique of tonicization that David Liebman
> describes in A Chromatic Appraoch To Jazz Harmony And Melody. He suggests
> treating different chord tones, or even prominent tensions, within a structure
> as being used for the tonic of it's own chord scale. Things like B Lydian/E
> Major on a G7 chord (one of my favorites lately) result from this type of
> thinking. This is essentially a bi-tonal concept.
>
yeah, they are similar in that they both can be seen as "tonicising"
chord tones other than the root. I think maybe the distinction can be
made that, in practice, the "minor conversion" idea serves to simplify,
and is easy to use on the fly, where the Dave Liebman idea might better
serve to expand and develop new vocabulary.
just my two cents, of course -- I just read a post up-topic from Bob
Valentine who has actually heard Martino's own explanation (I haven't,
my own take on this just evolved from transcribing him, and a brief
explanation from a teacher).
yo, Bob, anything to add / clarify / correct here?
Bob Valentine
>typically serves as a conceptual device for organizing and applying
>vocabulary, rather than as a device for stretching tonality. OTOH, over
>ii-V's, things can get "stretched" a bit, as Clay pointed out.
>
>>
I left in what I see as the relevant points from the way his
books explain it, these being "conceptual device" and "bi-tonal".
Take a sort of bluesy-jazzy minor lick like
(go up) 1 b3 4 #4 5 1 (now down) 6 4 (now up) b7 (now down) 5 b3
[where directions refer to the pitch change of the notes
following (I hope this encoding is understandable)].
Now if this lick were played from the 3 over a major 7 chord it would be
3 5 6 b7 7 3 #1 6 2 7 5
which adds some interesting tones over the major seven chord, while
still having the "melodic integrity" from its minor roots.
Similarly, from the fifth over a dominant chord the same lick is
5 b7 1 b2 2 5 3 1 4 2 b7
which also has some interesting motion with both 'nines' and the
sus sound.
It did seem to be an interesting 'key' into where some of PMs playing
is coming from. I guess I'll just have to go crack the books open
again.
Bob
sleepy
>
>
> Take a sort of bluesy-jazzy minor lick like
>
> (go up) 1 b3 4 #4 5 1 (now down) 6 4 (now up) b7 (now down) 5 b3
>
> [where directions refer to the pitch change of the notes
> following (I hope this encoding is understandable)].
>
yeah, the "encoding" is great! Much easier to see than the standard
ASCII tab.
It's interesting, I can see that lick as proceeding from Martino's
ideas, but without knowing that it's from his book I don't know that I
would have recognized it as "Martino", it's not quite like anything I've
transcribed of his, especially over a maj7 -- the ascending blues scale
from the third seems pretty typical, but where the triads are I'd expect
more chromaticism, and wouldn't expect the b9 (dorian 6) except maybe as
a passing tone. (Not saying he doesn't use this sort of thing, just that
I haven't seen it.)
BTW, I'm glad that you used the dreaded "lick" word, I've been using the
euphemism "vocabulary" hoping to avoid the whole "licks are evil" jihad
(anybody who cares can guess for themselves what I think about that
straw man). It's really awkward, and not particularly enlightening, to
talk about what Martino (or name your player here) is doing in terms of
"what scale on what chord" -- take this lick, we could call it "dorian
from the third, no 2, add flat five" -- what useful information does
that convey? It's a lick, not an abstract collection of scale degrees.
Nick Naffin
> <sniparoo>
> ... Martino and these guys are just about the only thing that does it for me
> now, except going back to the originals.
>
> JohN R>
Which reminds me that I wanted to share with y'all (and I'm not
making it up; Joey Goldstein can back me up on this) that the headline
of Allan Fotheringam's column in this week's edition of Canadian
McLean's magazine is:
"Fear and loathing in an era of the retread"
NN
--
*********************************************************
NICK NAFFIN
acoustic guitarist
Toronto, Canada
http://www.interlog.com/~takenote/nicknaffin.htm
The new project:
http://www.interlog.com/~takenote/naffinwright.htm
______________________________________
"Mr.Mulder, someone is ALWAYS listening."
'Max' in the "X-Files."
********************************************************
Bob Valentine
>Bob Valentine wrote:
>>
>It's interesting, I can see that lick as proceeding from Martino's
>ideas, but without knowing that it's from his book I don't know that I
Well... I admit it. I made it up to just illustrate the concept and
I wanted to make sure I got in all the information I needed.
I could post one of the "real" lines from his book, but I think
my understanding of the concept is pretty clear now, and at least
the blues part of it was sort-of Martino like.
>
>BTW, I'm glad that you used the dreaded "lick" word, I've been using the
> ...
>"what scale on what chord" -- take this lick, we could call it "dorian
>from the third, no 2, add flat five" -- what useful information does
>that convey? It's a lick, not an abstract collection of scale degrees.
Well, I'll sit firmly on the fence on this one. I use a lot of chord-scale
analysis 'rules', and probably rely on them when soloing on a tune that
is both difficult and new (where I have not internalized the changes).
On the other hand, there are some things that
chord-scale-analysis just makes mud of. For instance, if someone
'goes outside' over Cmaj by playing in Emaj,
then analysis of specific tensions they are using is of
secondary usefulness, if usefull at all.
The thing thats nice in the technique being discussed is it DOES
function about equally on both levels, that there are interesting
tensions to be seen in a scale-analysis, and it has a 'logic' from
bringing in 'blues vacabulary'.
Another example that came up on this list was a person who was playing
a ii-V and found there was something cool about just "going down a
halfstep" with whatever scale they used on the ii chord. The resulting
SCALE had some interesting altered-dominant tensions, as well as the
major 7 on the 5 chord. But it also had the internal logic of "go
down a half step".
Bob
sleepy
>
>
> Well... I admit it. I made it up to just illustrate the concept and
> I wanted to make sure I got in all the information I needed.
>
hehe, had me wondering. My curiosity was sort of piqued, thought I knew
Martino's playing pretty well but had never heard him play anything like
that. Thanks for the "confession", I was thinking about ordering the
book to solve the mystery.
> Well, I'll sit firmly on the fence on this one. I use a lot of chord-scale
> analysis 'rules', and probably rely on them when soloing on a tune that
> is both difficult and new (where I have not internalized the changes).
>
oh yeah, didn't mean to imply that chord-scale analysis is a bad thing,
at all -- but you don't see too many idiotic flame wars break out over
the term "chord-scale analysis", either. "Lick", OTOH, well, nuff said.
:)
John Sheehy
>(go up) 1 b3 4 #4 5 1 (now down) 6 4 (now up) b7 (now down) 5 b3
>
>[where directions refer to the pitch change of the notes
>following (I hope this encoding is understandable)].
How about using slashes, such as / \, meaning up an octave, and down an
octave. From root to 7, you don't use slashes, just when you change the
octave. Going up a major 7 arpeggio for 2 measures would be:
R 3 5 7 / R 3 5 7 / R \ 7 5 3 R \ 7 5 3 R
You could cover 2 octaves without a slash by using 8 to 15 also.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
JFR
What is this magazine and what was the article about?
Thanks.
John R>
Nick Naffin
> Nick Naffin wrote:
>
> > Which reminds me that I wanted to share with y'all (and I'm not
> > making it up; Joey Goldstein can back me up on this) that the headline
> > of Allan Fotheringam's column in this week's edition of Canadian
> > McLean's magazine is:
> >
> > "Fear and loathing in an era of the retread"
>
>
> What is this magazine and what was the article about?
>
> Thanks.
> John R>
Morning John,
thought I might hear from you. ;-) How've you been?
McLean's is a weekly Canadian news magazine (maybe somewhat comparable to Time
Magazine, at least in appearance). The article I referred to starts quoting the
jingle "The cat came back...," and its first paragraph says: "There is something
seriously wrong with our world ... Where has invention gone? Innovation? New ideas?
New faces? It's the Era of the Retread, a used-car lot of personalities. All very
puzzling." Fotheringham then writes about the public return of Canadian conservative
Joe Clark, Paula Jones, John Glenn, Gennifer Flowers, Fergie ("The Duchess of Pork")
and others (Don Cherry, Pierre Trudeau) whom he considered good riddance, but who
for some reason keep appearing or reincarnating throughout the media.
So you could say he uses the 'r-word' loosely in the same sense as you do. I'd
sue him.
Take care,
Nick
--
*********************************************************
NICK NAFFIN
acoustic guitarist
Toronto, Canada
http://www.interlog.com/~takenote/nicknaffin.htm
The new project:
http://www.interlog.com/~takenote/naffinwright.htm
********************************************************
Keith Erskine
: bv...@iil.intel.com (Bob Valentine) writes:
: >(go up) 1 b3 4 #4 5 1 (now down) 6 4 (now up) b7 (now down) 5 b3
: >
: >[where directions refer to the pitch change of the notes
: >following (I hope this encoding is understandable)].
: How about using slashes, such as / \, meaning up an octave, and down an
: octave. From root to 7, you don't use slashes, just when you change the
: octave. Going up a major 7 arpeggio for 2 measures would be:
: R 3 5 7 / R 3 5 7 / R \ 7 5 3 R \ 7 5 3 R
: You could cover 2 octaves without a slash by using 8 to 15 also.
: --
I think a better convention, derived from classical music of India,
is to use prefix of underbar (_3) or two underbars (__3) for notes down
one or two octaves, and a suffix of ' (3') or " (3") for notes
up one or two octaves. This way there is no hysteresis, as in the
system described above. A scale would read
__1 __2 __3 ... __7 _1 _2 ... _7 1 2 ... 7 1' 2' ... 7' 1" 2" ...
Keith Erskine
I _don"t speak for HP, and vice-versa.
Altchord
you follow that b minor seven with an e 7 flat 9 arpeggio,?you can then land on
f natrual and well all feel a little safer...lol
f sharp over g7 also makes me think that the tonic c chord is lydian,sort of
an anticipation,
again melodic flow,and phraseing are things very crucial to making this work.