Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
Jack A. Zucker
There's of course the obvious such as 3rd mode of melodic minor over the
maj7#5 and 6th mode of harmonic minor over the maj7#9#11 chord...
I've also been fooling around with a pentatonic scale: C E F# G# B over
Cmaj7#5
And (F# G B D D#) over Cmaj7#9#11
I also like to think of maj7#5 chords as Dom13#11 chords with the 7th in the
root and the maj7#9#11 chords can be treated as dom7 chords with b9 in the
bass which makes me think of a C dim scale over Cmaj7#9#11.
Anyone else interested in this stuff ?
Jaz
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
Eisenbeil
I dig these concepts which can lead to uncommon sounds. An 11th chord is
easily identified by considering the formation a combination of 2 triads a
major or minor third apart. So for instance, Cmaj7# 9 # 11 has the notes: C,
E, G, B, D#, F#. The 2 triads C and B . To explore this sound try to keep the
B a major 3rd from the G.
It's a lot of fun to alternate between the notes of the 2 triads. I like these
7th chords(no 5th) also:
ECB
GED#
BGF#
D#BC
F#D#E
Check out this chord: C, D, G, B, D#, F#
Add blue notes too.
Peace and back to practice,
BE
Joe Finn
news:Jaqs8.6338$Tf4.3101751@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> Just curious (Especially Joey Goldstein)...What do you guys play over
this?
>
> There's of course the obvious such as 3rd mode of melodic minor over the
> maj7#5 and 6th mode of harmonic minor over the maj7#9#11 chord...
>
> I've also been fooling around with a pentatonic scale: C E F# G# B over
> Cmaj7#5
>
> And (F# G B D D#) over Cmaj7#9#11
>
> I also like to think of maj7#5 chords as Dom13#11 chords with the 7th in
the
> root and the maj7#9#11 chords can be treated as dom7 chords with b9 in the
> bass which makes me think of a C dim scale over Cmaj7#9#11.
>
1-3-5-7-#9-#11
is CEGBD#F# which is just a C triad and a B triad. This way of looking at it
really seems to open up the intervallic relationships within the chord
structure nicely.
The tension in the gypsy minor [1 b2 3 4 5 b6 7 8 ] works with the
Cmaj7#5. The voicing suggests a composite C scale with #4 and #5 to me
also.
It's always fun to experiment with chords like this because they can evoke
some unusual dissonances.
Your pentatonic example is a good one. ....joe
--
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Joey Goldstein
"Jack A. Zucker" wrote:
>
> Just curious (Especially Joey Goldstein)...What do you guys play over this?
Your stuff along with the triad pair, C & B, that Eisenbeil has
suggested pretty much uses up my bag of tricks. <g>
I will say this though. These types of chords by their very nature tend
to cloud the major/minor key feeling of classical tonality so almost
anything goes. They open up the door to using interesting intervallic
relationships for their own sake.
Let's see now. Cmaj7b5#9 is very B7-ish so I might play off of many of
the B7 (or F7 or D7 or Ab7) types of sounds that I would use on B7.
> There's of course the obvious such as 3rd mode of melodic minor over the
> maj7#5 and 6th mode of harmonic minor over the maj7#9#11 chord...
>
> I've also been fooling around with a pentatonic scale: C E F# G# B over
> Cmaj7#5
What's the matter, scared of a little old C# on a Cmaj7? Try a real E
major pent too!
Liebman talks about tonicizing other chord tones besides the root and
using scalar/key relationships of that tone. So on Cmaj7 try some E-ish
scales, or G-ish scales or B-ish, etc.
> And (F# G B D D#) over Cmaj7#9#11
Well you're one tone away from the symmetrical augmented scale there,
why not finish it up?
G Bb B D Eb F# G
#13 or b14 is one of my favorite sounds on maj7 chords.
> I also like to think of maj7#5 chords as Dom13#11 chords with the 7th in the
> root
Right. Try D7-ish things on Cmaj7b5.
> and the maj7#9#11 chords can be treated as dom7 chords with b9 in the
> bass which makes me think of a C dim scale over Cmaj7#9#11.
Right. See above.
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
Jack A. Zucker
For example: Cmaj7#5 (E/C) going to Db is really just an Ab7#5#9/C and a
Cmaj7#9#11 B/C resolving to E is really just a B7b9 chord. When the chords
go elsewhere, it suggests different aproaches...
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
"Joe Finn" <J...@joefinn.net> wrote in message
news:3cb23...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Bob Russell
j...@jackzucker.com wrote on 4/8/02 8:00 PM:
In addition to the stuff you mentioned, there's the augmented scale.
C D# E G G# B
That first pentatonic scale you mentioned is found in the Bergonzi book and
can be derived by lowering the root of a minor pentatonic scale 1/2 step
above the root of the maj7#5 chord. Another pentatonic that'll work is the
minor 6 pentatonic 1/2 step below the chord's root, B D E F# G# for Cmaj7#5.
-- Bob Russell
http://www.uncwil.edu/people/russellr
Joe Finn
> The other thing is to figure out how the chord is functioning of course...
>
> For example: Cmaj7#5 (E/C) going to Db is really just an Ab7#5#9/C and a
> Cmaj7#9#11 B/C resolving to E is really just a B7b9 chord. When the chords
> go elsewhere, it suggests different aproaches...
>
This is the main thing really. Since we experience music horizontally
everything is ultimately dependent on where you are headed harmonically.
When I taught my son how to ski I used to tell him, "It's not the jump, it's
the landing." I subsequently found myself telling music students the same
thing.
When you have a chord with a lot of tension in it at a certain point in a
progression [like your excellent examples] you can do a lot of wild things
to emphasize the tension. It's as if you are suddenly free from the concern
of hitting a wrong note. You are like a skier who just launched himself off
a mogul into a couple of improvised moves in the air. This must be how
Ornette does it. He just throws it out there over the edge.
Silly me, still worried about the landing and seeing the ground rushing up
at me, I quickly gather it
in: C E A D F#.
Home sweet home. ....joe
Tom Walls
snip
> #13 or b14 is one of my favorite sounds on maj7 chords.
>
Flat 14 is my middle name.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Mark Kleinhaut
Tom Walls <tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu> wrote:
>
>Flat 14 is my middle name.
>--
>Tom Walls
I just make it a point never to count that high. Besides, if you play fast
enough nobody can tell what the notes are anyway:)
--------------------Mark Kleinhaut
markkl...@hotmail.com
Info and soundclips about:
"Chasing Tales":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Chasing%20Tales.html
"Amphora":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
"Secrets of Three": http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/SO3.html
Tom Walls
markkl...@hotmail.com says...
>
> Tom Walls <tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Flat 14 is my middle name.
> >--
> >Tom Walls
>
> I just make it a point never to count that high. Besides, if you play fast
> enough nobody can tell what the notes are anyway:)
>
> --------------------Mark Kleinhaut
> markkl...@hotmail.com
Ha! Good point!
Jack A. Zucker
scale. Yes, it's got the b3 but it really works. In fact, the first
time I heard this was the at the end of the Dolphin Dance where the
chords go | Eb9Sus | Bmaj7#5/Eb | Abmaj7#5/Eb | Dm7b5 G7 | (Don't tell
me what the real-book says. It's wrong)
Herbie uses descending Bb13b9 arpeggios (B dim scale) over the
Bmaj7#5. Very cool.
If you take a listen to that era Wayne Shorter, Herbie was "the cat".
He was really making the changes and not BS'ing them like Hubbard was.
I assume Herbie was just sight-reading the charts too!
Jaz
Paul Sanwald
<j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
>Just curious (Especially Joey Goldstein)...What do you guys play over this?
>
>There's of course the obvious such as 3rd mode of melodic minor over the
>maj7#5 and 6th mode of harmonic minor over the maj7#9#11 chord...
>
>I've also been fooling around with a pentatonic scale: C E F# G# B over
>Cmaj7#5
that's a cool pentatonic. also, what about E F# G# A B? the A provides
a little tension/resolution action if you want it.
--paul
Ted Vieira
nicely... great sound.
Ted Vieira
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
http://TedVieira.com
Free Online Guitar Instruction,
Instructional Books, hear my CDs and more...
--
Essential Concepts: A Comprehensive Guide for the
Contemporary Guitarist:
http://tedvieira.com/essentialconcepts/concepts.html
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
Jurupari
Cmaj7#5 under some circumstances. Those aren't the same melodic and harmonic
minor scales that were previously mentioned, but they can sound good anyway.
Clif Kuplen
Charlie Robinson
nicely... great sound.
Ted Vieira >>
--------------------------------
You can also alternate Cmaj. and Emaj. arpeggios for a polytonal sound.
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear me online at: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
or: <A HREF="http://rmmgj.iuma.com">http://rmmgj.iuma.com</A>
Jack A. Zucker
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
"Ted Vieira" <con...@tedvieira.com> wrote in message
news:B8D88BEC.4A347%con...@tedvieira.com...
Jimmy Bruno
missing something but jazz just doesn't work like that. Chord/ scale chord
/ scale etc etc...it has to be in a context. I might play "You stepped out
of a Dream" and raise the 5th of the two major 7th chords in the beginning
of the tune; doesn't mean I will have to solo that way. The other side of
this is that if someone is altering the Maj7th with a #5 doesn't mean I have
to address it in a line. I think it sounds better when you don't. That
stuff only works when you "freeze" the harmony ... in reality the harmony
moves along and supports a melody which lies above it.
Jack A. Zucker
listen to some Ritchie Beirach tunes for examples of polychordal harmony
where the alterations are not merely decorations upon a standard chord
progression but are actual parts of the tonality.
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
"Jimmy Bruno" <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote in message
news:B8D9380E.1306%ji...@jimmybruno.com...
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> How can you talk about this without knowing what the context is? Maybe I 'm
> missing something but jazz just doesn't work like that. Chord/ scale chord
> / scale etc etc...it has to be in a context. I might play "You stepped out
> of a Dream" and raise the 5th of the two major 7th chords in the beginning
> of the tune; doesn't mean I will have to solo that way. The other side of
> this is that if someone is altering the Maj7th with a #5 doesn't mean I have
> to address it in a line. I think it sounds better when you don't. That
> stuff only works when you "freeze" the harmony ... in reality the harmony
> moves along and supports a melody which lies above it.
Unless a tune is written such that that vertical sound is thematic and
one musical avenue available is to play off of that sound.
If there are 8 or 16 bars (at a medium tempo) of Cmaj7b5#9 then any
horizontal considerations are drastically lessened.
In the type of tune you are describing, Jimmy, these types of chords are
colors/voicings of something simpler and of a functional nature, as in
functional harmony. Not all tunes are like that.
--
Jimmy Bruno
vertical All Music from Beethoven to Ritchie Beirach. it's the nature of
the beast
Jimmy Bruno
would still make melodies over a Cmaj7b5#9. I can make a melody that will
have none of the alterations or all of them or some or whatever. all music
is horizontal.... it only becomes vertical when you try to analyze it
Jimmy Bruno
take a vertical approach to any of it. Neither did the other soloists.
Jack A. Zucker
chord is E/C and you treat it as a regular Cmaj7 chord, it will sound like
you're not hearing the tonality just as sure as if you were landing in a
major 3rd in a minor key...
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
"Jimmy Bruno" <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote in message
news:B8D947B1.1317%ji...@jimmybruno.com...
Charlie Robinson
missing something but jazz just doesn't work like that. Chord/ scale chord
/ scale etc etc...it has to be in a context. I might play "You stepped out
of a Dream" and raise the 5th of the two major 7th chords in the beginning
of the tune; doesn't mean I will have to solo
that way. The other side of
this is that if someone is altering the Maj7th with a #5 doesn't mean I have
to address it in a line. I think it sounds better when you don't. That
stuff only works when you "freeze" the harmony ... in reality the harmony
to address it in a line. I think it sounds better when you don't. That
stuff only works when you "freeze" the harmony ... in reality the harmony
moves along and supports a melody which lies above it
I can't speak for the rest of them but I don't think about any of that stuff
when I'm solo and don't feel obligated to pay tribute to all of the different
chord extensions, as you have described. But when practicing I like to run
through things like that at times and see how they sound. Then hopefully some
of it is retained and pops out naturally during a solo much in the same way
that one suddenly decides on the spur of the moment to use a certain chord
voicing when comping. For me it is more of an ear training exercise. Even when
soloing over chord changes on a chart that I've never played before my
inclination is to reduce the symbol to the basic (i.e., C7 b5#9 = C7). and let
my ear do the rest.
Jack A. Zucker
> every tune on my new CD is filled with polychords.... and I never have to
> take a vertical approach to any of it. Neither did the other soloists.
That's *YOUR* approach. Other solists have other approaches. Herbie Hancock
does one thing, Chick Corea does another, Dave Liebman yet another. Who's
right? They all are. Whatever sounds good works. What's so wrong with
studying the possibilities? Coltrane spent a career investigating vertical
playing. Was he wrong?
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
Wound3rd
>soloing over chord changes on a chart that I've never played before my
>inclination is to reduce the symbol to the basic (i.e., C7 b5#9 = C7). and
>let
>my ear do the rest.
>
>Charlie Robinson
Yeah, it goes like this:
Buy scale book.
Be intimidated.
Play anyway.
Learn scale.
Realize that this is what you've been already playing because it sounds good.
Now discover (as Jimmy has pointed out) all thes scales consist of a difference
(for the most part) of one note.
Golly! This is easier than I thought.
Well, sort of, but listening to fine musicians is really what develops your
instinct for "what is right."
Bob
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> All Music is horizontal...
That's funny. I've been playing my whole life as if both horizontal and
vertical considerations were very important in music. I must be wrong.
Joe Finn
> All Music is horizontal... the vertical approach is very one dimensional.
I
> would still make melodies over a Cmaj7b5#9. I can make a melody that
will
> have none of the alterations or all of them or some or whatever. all
music
> is horizontal.... it only becomes vertical when you try to analyze it
>
It's so tempting in life to say it's one or the other. It's "this" or it's
"that". It simplifies our lives enormously when we can put things into nice
neat little boxes, doesn't it? Jimmy, you said it yourself: it [music]
becomes vertical when we analyze it. I don't know about anybody else but I'm
analyzing it as I listen to it and as I play my written part or improvise my
solo.
Music obviously has it's horizontal aspect to the extent that we experience
it as such; with a beginning, a middle and an end. Yet we also experience
each and every beat and can think of them separately if we like. Like so
many other beautiful and complex things, music is too varied and
multifaceted to be described as all "this" or all "that". It is both
horizontal and vertical simultaneously. That is the paradox that makes music
what it really is.
Sorry to disagree with you on this.
I continue to find inspiration in your recordings. .......joe
--
Jimmy Bruno
chords. The music is still horizontal. I would play something completely
different. If I play the same notes as the harmony.. it's like writing on a
white board with white chalk. My ear tells me just the opposite of what
you are saying
Jimmy Bruno
everyone has their own approach... wish I could stay and debate this with
you all but I gotta go back on the road for awhile
> From: "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:53:53 GMT
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
Jimmy Bruno
can convince you about the horizontal nature of music. It exists in time
and space. It only stops or freezes for analysis. My ear tells me I am
right.
> From: "Joe Finn" <J...@joefinn.net>
> Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 80,000+ UNCENSORED
> Newsgroups.
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 23:16:27 -0400
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
Jimmy Bruno
to me and that is what counts... what it sounds like. How do you know what
he was thinking when he was soloing?????? If you mean studying melodic
possibilities then i am with you. anyway, this isn't that important. wish I
could stay and debate this some more but I gotta go back to work. It is
always interesting around here
> From: "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:53:53 GMT
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
Joe Finn
> glad you like the recordings.... if I spent ten minutes with and a guitar
I
> can convince you about the horizontal nature of music. It exists in time
> and space. It only stops or freezes for analysis. My ear tells me I am
> right.
Many of us in music are very firm in our opinions. You are as entitled as
the next guy. Since I too have spent a lifetime delving into the "nature of
music" as you put it, I'll have to reserve the right to remain unconvinced
for the time being.
I'll always seek out your recordings. ........joe
Nazodesu
<ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote:
> All Music is horizontal... the vertical approach is very one dimensional.
Actually, since music is a temporal art the vertical approach is
horizontal as well. The continued resonance of a chord is what makes a
chord a chord, and it's real context is relative to what it is
preceeded and followed by. It's horizontal too if you think about it.
Charlie Robinson
Buy scale book.
Be intimidated.
Play anyway.
Learn scale.
Realize that this is what you've been already playing because it sounds good.
Now discover (as Jimmy has pointed out) all thes scales consist of a difference
(for the most part) of one note.
Golly! This is easier than I thought.
Well, sort of, but listening to fine musicians is really what develops your
instinct for "what is right."
Bob
>>
--------------------------------------------
There are similarities in my approach towards music and what Jimmy is doing but
there are also differences. I have studied chord scale relationships. I don't
see this as being any different from learning a lot of different chord
voicings, extensions and substitutions. These are all just groups of sounds
that may influence your music. Our approaches are similar in that concious
thought about these things doesn't play a part in our improvisations. I've been
playing for years, long enough to know that there is no right or wrong way to
play jazz. If you follow Don Cherry's approach you will use harmolodic and
multicultural resources, Cecil Taylor's (improvisations based on structures),
JoAnne Brackeen (polytonal improvisation similar to that which Jack Zucker
mentioned), Charlie Haden (your music is the culmination of everything that you
have experienced through playing), and on and on. I've never met two musicians
who approached music in exactly the same way. Compare Grant Green, Pat Martino,
Benson, Burrell, Joe Morris, Mc Glauphlin, Russell Malone and numerous
other well known jazz guitarists to each other. Once I was talking to Zoot Sims
at a bar and he said "We all are just doing what we think is right."
richard richards
music, seems too organic, spiritual, mystical, rife with
possibilities, to be dissected and analyzed with such sterile
precision. What makes it so rich is exactly that everyone comes at it
from their own experience and knowledge (or lack of it).
All the theory jockeys seem to be chasing their tails and missing the
point. Jazz can be learned, but not taught.
I'm pretty sure that about the only time Wes considered "horizontal
and vertical" was like "I'm awake...I'm asleep".
RR
...
Bob Russell
at jazz...@email.com wrote on 4/10/02 9:34 AM:
> I'm pretty sure that about the only time Wes considered "horizontal
> and vertical" was like "I'm awake...I'm asleep".
I always tell my students that the quickest way to wind up horizontal is to
start spouting BS about your "vertical approach" around real musicians!
-- Bob Russell
http://www.uncwil.edu/people/russellr
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> glad you like the recordings.... if I spent ten minutes with and a guitar I
> can convince you about the horizontal nature of music. It exists in time
> and space. It only stops or freezes for analysis. My ear tells me I am
> right.
Jimmy. Horizontal means in relation to the key. A horizontal melody is
one that stays very close to tones that are in the major or minor scales
of the overall key. Vertical means in relation to the chord of the
moment. A vertical melody is one that ignores key relationships in
favour of interesting vertical sonorities on the chord of the moment.
Music that uses harmonic progression, in any style, has, by its very
nature, both horizontal and vertical considerations. Tonal music, based
on the European classical notion of key, has by its very nature a bias
towards horizontal considerations. When tonal music loses its horizontal
focus it is no longer tonal music. It becomes something else.
Modern jazz musicians are notorious for grafting all sorts of
techniques, including atonal music and African folk music, onto an
essentially tonal framework, the standard progression. This has happened
as a result of the efforts of players like Bird, Trane, Dolphy and
Hancock in stretching the bounds of what can be played in the moment.
And the excursions that these folks have been taking have been for the
most part of a vertical nature. As soon as you start introducing
chromatic tones into a key based piece and do not resolve them as
expected you are dealing with vertical phemonema.
Cmaj7 / Am7 / |Dm7 / G7 / |Em9 / Am7 / |Dm7 / G7 / |
That F# on the Em7 is outside of the key and unless it is voice led to G
on the Am7 chord it sounds quite out of place in this key. It sounds
fine vertically on the chord of the moment but out of place
horizontally. It is especially out of place when played in the top
exposed voice and not resolved properly on the next chord. You can get
used to it to be sure but it still sounds out of place. If it IS
resolved properly on the next chord then it is being treated correctly
from a horizontal point of view and will not be noticed so much. If it
is buried in an inner voice, with the top voice containing a diatonic
tone, it will also not be noticed too much either.
Cmaj7 / Am7 / |Dm7 / G7 / |Em7b9 / Am7 / |Dm7 / G7 / |
Here the b9, F, sounds out of place vertically but is inside the key. If
the tempo is not too slow and it is resolved to E on the next chord it
will sound fine but if it is emphasized in the top voice, is held for a
long duration and is not resolved properly it will sound quite out of
place even though F is an important tone, from a horizontal perspective,
in this key.
C / Am / |Dm / G7 / |Em / Am / |Dm / G7 / |
Someone blowing over the Em above can decide to stay right inside the C
major scale or he can decide to make little excursions outside of the C
major scale based on vertical sonorities that sound good on Em, like E
Dorian for example which also has a C# which is way outside of the key.
He can also decide to play off of other sounds that ignore the
horizontal in favour of the vertical IF HE SO CHOOSES:
Lyd Mel min Dor B lyd mel min Dor mel min E Ion
Cmaj7 / Am / |Dm / G7 / |Em / Am / |Dm / G7 / |
A melody created with these scales may very well sound atonal without
the harmonic accompaniment but the sounding of the chords creates the
key feeling. The melody will probably sound atonal anyways with those
scale choices but the key feeling will be established by the harmony.
The intervals in the melody will hopefully be based on interesting
vertical coincidences with the chord of the moment, if treated
sensitively of course.
Now a progression like the one obove is essentially horizontal, key
based, from the start. Any amount of outside vertical meandering will
not change this one whit. But all progressions in modern jazz are not
typical tonal progressions. Not anymore.
Bbm/C / / / | / / / / | / / / / | / / / / |
Dmaj7b5#9 / / / | / / / / | / / / / | / / / / |
Fmaj7#5 / / / | / / / / | / / / / | / / / / |
B / / / |
Where's your key feeling there? What types of horizontal considerations
matter when blowing though something like that? Not many. Each chord
change is a little tonal center unto itself and it is a tonal center
that is not necessarily a key as "key" is conceived in classical harmony.
If you want to argue that that type of music isn't jazz then that's a
whole other thread.
Coltrane's harmonic cycle was both a horizontal key oriented effect as
well as an effect that creates unusual vertical sonorities. The great
players always have a handle on both.
You seem to be talking about the dynamic nature of music or how music
unfolds over time. Music IS dynamic to be sure. But music that uses
chords, chord progressions and keys is by definition both horizontal and
vertical in nature.
--
Joey Goldstein
richard richards wrote:
>
>
> All the theory jockeys seem to be chasing their tails and missing the
> point.
Maybe you've been exposed to the wrong "theory jockeys" or you simply do
not understand what it is that they are saying. That's cool. You don't
have to know a thing about theory to play decent music in the jazz
tradition. You just have to be able to play what you hear. How you go
about teaching yourself how to hear new and interesting stuff is really
based on your own personal theories of how what you like to hear works.
For me, I like the way lots of other people approach things so I check
out their theories too.
Jimmy's theory is that "all music is horizontal" when what he is really
saying is that all his music and all the music that he likes is
horizontal. It's still theory.
> Jazz can be learned, but not taught.
I'm so sick of these catch phrases. Nothing can be taught. A student has
to want to learn by any means necessary and then a teacher can help.
> I'm pretty sure that about the only time Wes considered "horizontal
> and vertical" was like "I'm awake...I'm asleep".
If you want to play like Wes then do only what you think Wes did but be
careful because this may close the door from you ever being able to play
like yourself.
Dan Adler
> Just curious (Especially Joey Goldstein)...What do you guys play over this?
>
> There's of course the obvious such as 3rd mode of melodic minor over the
> maj7#5 and 6th mode of harmonic minor over the maj7#9#11 chord...
>
Jack,
A great source of ideas is Joe Henderson's "Inner Urge". One of the
interesting things I find him doing is superimposing the old "swing"
improv approach over modern chords. He will take an arpeggio and use
approach notes into some wild tensions. I guess that's what Jimmy
Bruno means about horizontal. You play horizontal lines and aim for
some chord tones here and there on strong beats.
Another example from that tune is to use a C sus4 triad (C F G) over a
Dbmaj7#11 and then slide from C into Db or slide down from Db into C.
You can find similar triads for Maj7#5.
I learned sus triads from Peter Sprague (http://petersprague.com)
years ago. Saxophonists/pianists use them all the time, but because
they're pretty hard to execute on guitar, you don't hear guitarists
using them often.
I believe Pat Metheny wrote "Missouri Uncompromised" from Bright Size
Life(Exercise 3 in the real book) as an exercise in using sus triads
over non-sus chords.
Jimmy Bruno
to me as to you.... Nervertheless.... I still stand by my opinion. Even
music I don't like is horizontal... All music is horizontal in natur:
e. As far as your chord progression example in the previous post... number 1
I don't like it
number 2: I would use various melodic devices over those chords from several
tonal centers since the chords seem to occupy more than one key. if I had
to solo over them .As soon as I follow one note with another , it all
becomes horizontal. I gotta get off this now. I have my opinions and you
have yours.... let's keep it that way.
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:25:18 -0400
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
>
>
Paul Sanwald
>
>I learned sus triads from Peter Sprague (http://petersprague.com)
>years ago. Saxophonists/pianists use them all the time, but because
>they're pretty hard to execute on guitar, you don't hear guitarists
>using them often.
>
just out of curiosity, why are they hard to execute on guitar?
a sus2 triad on the first 3 string, say C D G, is easier to finger
than any major triad. sus4s are also really easy.
in a shameless plug, the tune on my website "Three" is based on moving
sus2 triads. the sound of a 4th and a major 2nd together is probably
one of my most favorite sounds.
--paul
Jimmy Bruno
it's a Db major scale.... the other five tones become the tension tones..
although the most of the progression is tense. ( PS I don't care for it
very much.) Also I might change to a B scale at the end. again only one
note changed. So that gives me all 12 tones to play with in a melodic way.
I can make sequences, super-impose a Cmajor over a Bbm triad. but this
progression leads nowhere except for the ending that goes to B so my C major
melody can resolve itself to B . Or how about this: I play these four
notes over the entire progression: C Db Eb F Eb Db. As 8ths like it was in
3/4. and then on the B Play B - C# P D# _ F# or if I want to stay with the
flavor of the progression I can change the last four notes to B - C# _ D# -
F nat. You how I got this idea....? I heard it in my head from the first
chord C/Bbm. sound like Db to me. and I f I keep playin gthe thing over
and over again I would find several thousand more ideas to play. Alll by
ear. Now I'm starting to hear triads over top of it
Fmin to Bb min to Db to BbMin . this progression is in the tonal center of
Db or maybe Ab major depending on which way you hear the "G" natural.
All by ear... I know what sound is going to come out of the guitar before I
put my fingers down. And you know what? the more I fuck with it the more I
like it.....so I have to take out my PS at the beginning of my post.
Just to be clear.. My opinions in no way imply that I think the other
methods discussed hear are wrong.... I just think my way is better and a
whole lot easier
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
Tom Walls
says...
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
thomas
>
> I learned sus triads from Peter Sprague (http://petersprague.com)
> years ago. Saxophonists/pianists use them all the time, but because
> they're pretty hard to execute on guitar, you don't hear guitarists
> using them often.
>
> I believe Pat Metheny wrote "Missouri Uncompromised" from Bright Size
> Life(Exercise 3 in the real book) as an exercise in using sus triads
> over non-sus chords.
Sam Most wrote a great method book that explores sus triads
in depth:
Re: Sam Most's Metamorphosis.
CLAY MOORE ( cmo...@ix.netcom.com )
Mon, 30 Dec 1996 13:02:42 -0600
Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Previous message: Karl G Helmer: "Re:intros and endings"
Next message: Lawson G. Stone: "Re: intros and endings"
Maybe in reply to: CLAY MOORE: "Sam Most's Metamorphosis."
CLAY MOORE wrote:
> Question: Has anyone here seen or worked out of Sam Most's book
> "Metamorphosis- The Transformation Of The Jazz Solo"? IMHO this is
> one of the hippest books written on improv, because he has written
> solos based on familiar chord changes such as blues, rhythm changes,
> All The Things You Are, etc. Each set of changes has several solos,
> ranging from very simple diatonic lines to increasingly complex solos
> based on intervals, various chord subs, chromaticism, and so on. Part
> of the reason I'm asking is that this book has been out of print for
> some time, and my copy is falling apart. Does anyone know if SM has
> plans to reissue this book? Failing that, anyone know where some copies
> might be laying around?
Well, thanks for all the help! (kidding) Actually, I found this book a
few days ago re-issued as "Jazz Improvisation-The Best Way To Develop
Solos over Classic Changes" published by Warner Bros. You can tell
their creative marketing team worked feverishly on that title. The
price is up to a whopping $20 (double what I paid for my old one),
the opening chapter where Senor Most explains the theory behind the
book has been replaced by a one page synopsis, and they include a cd
play-a-long for the studies. The accompaniment is great on the cd, but
the last two tracks won't play on my cd-rom drive. All in all, this is
still a great resource for seeing how a great player thinks.
Clay
thomas
> I don't think you can speak for coltrane. His music doesn't sound vertical
> to me and that is what counts... what it sounds like. How do you know what
> he was thinking when he was soloing??????
On his solo on Giant Steps, it's pretty easy to hear what
he was thinking. In other tunes, maybe not...
Charlie Robinson
> to me and that is what counts... what it sounds like. How do you know what
> he was thinking when he was soloing??????
----------------------------
<< On his solo on Giant Steps, it's pretty easy to hear what
---------------------------------
I think that here Jimmy is right; what we may be hearing as a Bmaj. 7th arp.
Trane could have been hearing as part of an old riff that he played with
Bullmoose Jackson's band. There is no way to know for sure. It is hard enough
to figure out what we are thinking about on our own solo's much less what Trane
thought.
Paul Sanwald
implying at all that it's necessary for hearing all this stuff, it
would just make it a lot easier.
--paul
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:14:59 GMT, Jimmy Bruno <ji...@jimmybruno.com>
wrote:
Jack A. Zucker
Theory hounds? Give me a break. I think my playing stands on it's own and
your ignorance and unwillingness to learn "new tricks" is only hurting you.
I guess reading music is bad for you too?
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
"richard richards" <jazz...@email.com> wrote in message
news:6acf2c91.02041...@posting.google.com...
Paul Sanwald
wrote:
whoops, it's http://www.paulsanwald.com/
haven't changed it in a coupla months, but soon I am going to add some
more music we recorded last week and maybe some live stuff.
--paul
richard richards
> richard richards wrote:
> >
> >
> > All the theory jockeys seem to be chasing their tails and missing the
> > point.
> Maybe you've been exposed to the wrong "theory jockeys" or you simply do
> not understand what it is that they are saying.
errr, toes with that "jockey" remark. Actually I've been over-exposed
(I teach jz gtr at university level)
> You don't have to know a thing about theory to play decent music in the jazz
> tradition. You just have to be able to play what you hear. How you go
> about teaching yourself how to hear new and interesting stuff is really
> based on your own personal theories of how what you like to hear works.
> Jimmy's theory is that "all music is horizontal" when what he is really
> saying is that all his music and all the music that he likes is
> horizontal. It's still theory.
not pretending to know what Mr B is really saying, he might be an
example of what Charlie R was talking about. As you said, "all his
music...what he likes" …His experience . He's just "doing what he
thinks is right". Yes, it is still theory, but I can enjoy my evening
meal more by eating it, savoring each bite instead of analyzing and
quantifying the molecular composition of my pasta and salad.
> > Jazz can be learned, but not taught.
> I'm so sick of these catch phrases. Nothing can be taught.
since when?....math, science, english, etc...it's in the arts that it
gets dicier.
A student has to want to learn by any means necessary and then a
teacher can help.
agreed...but, key word...help
> > I'm pretty sure that about the only time Wes considered "horizontal
> > and vertical" was like "I'm awake...I'm asleep".
>
> If you want to play like Wes then do only what you think Wes did but be
> careful because this may close the door from you ever being able to play
> like yourself.
I got Wes, Grant, Kenny et.al. down, and damn, after a few decades I
found myself.
My aversion to "xtreme theory" is starting to feel like what I felt in
the 60's-70's when (young) guitarists would get together and seldom
discuss players and playing concepts, but almost always...gear,
strings, the new this or that gizmo or guitar. They missed the point
about the music. They shoulda been practicing instead of reading GP
and getting the hots for a pedal. Of course theory is important and
has its place, but is not an end in itself.
In college literature classes now, the critics and what they think and
write is given as much weight and elevated to the same level as the
real writers! Of course this is self serving, since many Profs are
critics too.
When theory is a learning tool, and being applied, it's all cool, but
I've encountered too many music theorists who can't play shit (I don't
mean Joey G...never heard him. I'm sure he's a fine player and a pro
guy) but they can explain it all. To me, an over emphasis in this
direction doesn't do justice to the beauty and magic and heart of the
music.
RR
Jack A. Zucker
I think it's sad that as a guitar instructor at the university level, you'd
buy into the idea that learning new techniques and analyzing music - no
matter how detailed - is chasing your own tail. I'm just glad that folks
like Coltrane, Brecker, Metheny, Beirach and Liebman have investigated and
studied what they did. What's important is the music of course. Theory is
just a way of explaining things after the fact. Nobody claimed that you
could analyze music "offline" and learn to play jazz. This thread of mine
was an attempt to establish a dialog about music as opposed to amplifiers,
strings and guitars. How ironic that in refuting the point of this thread,
you have served to reinforce the fact that discussions about music are out
of place in this group!
Jaz
--
Web: http://www.jackzucker.com
"richard richards" <jazz...@email.com> wrote in message
news:6acf2c91.02041...@posting.google.com...
> Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<3CB44B42...@nowhere.net>...
> > richard richards wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > All the theory jockeys seem to be chasing their tails and missing the
> > > point.
>
> > Maybe you've been exposed to the wrong "theory jockeys" or you simply do
> > not understand what it is that they are saying.
>
> And rounding the first turn..Ouch! Sorry if I stepped on any hoofs,
> errr, toes with that "jockey" remark. Actually I've been over-exposed
> (I teach jz gtr at university level)
>
> > You don't have to know a thing about theory to play decent music in the
jazz
> > tradition. You just have to be able to play what you hear. How you go
> > about teaching yourself how to hear new and interesting stuff is really
> > based on your own personal theories of how what you like to hear works.
>
> agreed, well said.
>
>
>
> > Jimmy's theory is that "all music is horizontal" when what he is really
> > saying is that all his music and all the music that he likes is
> > horizontal. It's still theory.
>
> not pretending to know what Mr B is really saying, he might be an
> example of what Charlie R was talking about. As you said, "all his
> music...what he likes" .His experience . He's just "doing what he
Mark Kleinhaut
"Jack A. Zucker" <jackz...@adelphia.net> wrote:
This thread of mine
>was an attempt to establish a dialog about music as opposed to amplifiers,
>strings and guitars. How ironic that in refuting the point of this thread,
>you have served to reinforce the fact that discussions about music are out
>of place in this group!
>
>Jaz
>
I don't think music discussions are out of place by any measure...they just
do sometimes unleash the great instinct vs. intellect debate. I kinda said
my piece on another thread about the Zone being horizontal, half in jest,
but it turned into something meaninful. I'm not really much for gear threads
or theory threads, when it comes down to it, and it seems there is plenty
else relating to music to still talk about.
So, what kind of f**kin strings do you use anyway?:)
--------------------Mark Kleinhaut
markkl...@hotmail.com
Info and soundclips about:
"Chasing Tales":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Chasing%20Tales.html
"Amphora":
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
"Secrets of Three": http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/SO3.html
Jimmy Bruno
keyboard was the Dma7b5#9. I could not hear that chord in my head. But the
rest of them were easy... so I went to the keyboard and played the chord.
Then I just pictured in my minds eye what I might play over that
progression... didn't need the guitar at all. The more I listened in my
mind, the more lines I heard moving over top of it. Even if you
super-impose arpeggios they still have horizontal implication... it can
never go away once you play one note followed by another. Stravinsky talked
about this phenomenon extensively. If you do something long enough , you
get good at it. If I use the guitar and actually play over the progression,
the amount of suggestions, and devices and approaches would go on forever
Jimmy Bruno
> From: "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:49:51 GMT
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
>
Jimmy Bruno
so much
> From: jazz...@email.com (richard richards)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: 10 Apr 2002 12:40:39 -0700
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
Jimmy Bruno
personally. nobody is saying theory is bad... My theory is a lot different
than most of you. Each of those people you mentioned with the exception of
Metheney and Beirach ( have never me them) all have a way of investigating
the sounds. Look at some of Leibman's books... very untraditional
appraoch... but it works great if you want to play like that. I talke to
Michael and Leib about this many times
> From: "Jack A. Zucker" <jackz...@adelphia.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 20:07:26 GMT
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
Jack A. Zucker
> again. that is not what he is saying. I think you are taking this
> personally. nobody is saying theory is bad... My theory is a lot
different
> than most of you. Each of those people you mentioned with the exception
of
> Metheney and Beirach ( have never me them) all have a way of investigating
> the sounds. Look at some of Leibman's books... very untraditional
> appraoch... but it works great if you want to play like that. I talke to
> Michael and Leib about this many times
That's fine. What you do obviously works and that's great. I just have a
problem with folks labeling someone as a theory-jockey without having heard
them play. Maybe Richard would label Liebman as a theory-jockey too...I
don't know. I just don't like name calling and that attitude is particularly
troubling coming from someone involved in teaching jazz at the University
level.
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
Dan Adler
> On 10 Apr 2002 07:56:54 -0700, d...@danadler.com (Dan Adler) wrote:
> >I learned sus triads from Peter Sprague (http://petersprague.com)
> >years ago. Saxophonists/pianists use them all the time, but because
> >they're pretty hard to execute on guitar, you don't hear guitarists
> >using them often.
>
> just out of curiosity, why are they hard to execute on guitar?
>
Paul,
They are hard to execute cleanly when you do multiple octaves,
especially starting from the 6th string. Peter Sprague uses pivot
fingerings for them (no barre) - that's how I learned them, but then
over time I've gone back to barre but sometimes I still use multiple
fingers - which gives a more even sound.
Steve Modica
>
> Jimmy Bruno wrote:
> >
> > All Music is horizontal...
>
> That's funny. I've been playing my whole life as if both horizontal and
> vertical considerations were very important in music. I must be wrong.
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
> Home Page: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
> Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
Think in terms of a verbal conversation. Those aren't "vertical". What
you say harkens back to things said earlier in the conversation and
perhaps even previous discussions.
Thinking vertically is akin to canning responses to various key words
people say. (EG if someone says "Monty Python" you should shout
"BURMA!" It might be funny once..)
Another way to consider it. If I were writing a program to play a
melody over a set of changes, it would have to start out thinking
vertically. Play these scales over these chords. That's
oversimplified. Any decent human player would recognize it was a
computer. It would not pass the turing test.
Steve
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> that's not true Joey... Vertical and horizontal doesn't mean the same thing
> to me as to you.... Nervertheless.... I still stand by my opinion. Even
> music I don't like is horizontal... All music is horizontal in natur:
Well if we mean different things by horizontal then please tell me what
you mean.
I've told you what I mean by horizontal and by vertical. I understand
that my meanings are not etched in stone and that there are several ways
in which these two terms might be used by musicians in an attempt to
describe certain things about music.
With my definitions then, do you still insist that music is horizontal
only or do you agree with me that it possesess qualities that are
vertical too? Vertical qualities that are worthy of consideration by a
serious musician?
> e. As far as your chord progression example in the previous post... number 1
> I don't like it
I don't like it either. It merely serves to illustrate my point.
> number 2: I would use various melodic devices over those chords from several
> tonal centers since the chords seem to occupy more than one key.
> if I had
> to solo over them .
That's exactly what I would do too.
But .... I hear tonal centers there but I don't really hear any "keys".
What key is implied by Bbm/C? Is that the only interpretation of key
that is possible? Might it also be seen as some other key? Maybe it's
possible to treat this as if it is in several keys at once or no key at
all? Maybe it's ambiguous on purpose and that ambiguity is intended as a
compositional device leading away from a key based approach?
Is there a key relation with the next chord? Yes? Are they the same key?
Or is this a modulation to a new key? Is this new key well defined or
is it also ambiguous?
If when I say "horizontal" I am speaking about key based phenomena but
the music being played is not in any particular key then in the sense in
which I am using the term "horizontal" there is nothing horizontal going on.
So what's the sense in which you are using the term "horizontal"?
> As soon as I follow one note with another , it all
> becomes horizontal.
In a sense, sure.
But if the important tones that need to be outlined in order to state
the tonal center are not those of a clearly defined scale of a major or
minor key then something other than horizontal key based music is going
on. If you do not take the vertical sounds implied by these chord
symbols also into account your playing will most likely sound as out of
place as Coltrane's style would in a Dixieland band.
Anytime you're playing with a chordal background the chord tones form a
temporary tonal center. Outlining a tonal center and outlining a key are
not necessarily the same thing. All 12 tones can be used on any chord.
The tones that are in the chord are going to have a certain amout of
gravity associated with them. By playing the chord tones the player
harmonizes with his accompaniment. If the music IS key based music then
the tones in the scale of the key have even more gravity and, even more
importantly, a whole load of tonal expectations associated with them.
> I gotta get off this now. I have my opinions and you
> have yours.... let's keep it that way.
I gotta tell ya Jimmy, it's sort of infuriating to me how you come out
here and make these blanket statements in those short little sentences
of yours and then take off when people ask you to explain yourself. I
know you express yourself better in music than you do in English but
come on man.
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> And you know what? the more I fuck with it the more I
> like it.....
Oh no. What have I done?! :)
Joey Goldstein
was not "thinking" about anything, he was just playing. We can infer
much of what he must have practiced and thought about when practicing
though from what came out on his recordings.
--
Adam Bravo
think we might be using different definitions, since what you describe seems
to describe vertical playing even more than horizontal playing.
"Steve Modica" <mod...@sgi.com> wrote in message
news:3CB4EA3A...@sgi.com...
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>
> Stravinsky talked
> about this phenomenon extensively.
One of the things I remember, although not word for word, that
Stravinsky said was somthing like: "When you strip away all the
trappings of tonailty, the diatonic scale, the 12 tone scale, regular
time signatures, etc. i.e. all the historical baggage of musical styles
from any era, past present or future, you will still be left with the
phenomenon of the strong and weak beats."
To me, that's it. Music is an art that is presented in time. Something
happens, then something else happens. Each thing that happens is
illuminated by the previous thing that happened and whatever happens
after that. The relations between things that have happened do not have
to be based on any notion of key or even of a tonal center. Keys and
tonal centers are mere effects of style. It's all about time.
Joe Finn
> I think that by the time that John coltrane went to record something he
> was not "thinking" about anything, he was just playing. We can infer
> much of what he must have practiced and thought about when practicing
> though from what came out on his recordings.
Good point. Joey, as you know the Giant Steps CD reissue contains the
"alternate takes" of Naima, Cousin Mary, Countdown, Syeeda, and Giant Steps.
It's interesting to hear the different approaches on the different dates.
Coltrane himself seems very well prepared and comfortable with what he is
playing. The concept he brought to the Giant Steps sessions was at a very
high level and I hear a lot of continuity in his playing from one date to
the next. My guess is that he woodshedded the hell out of that material.
That Countdown tempo is a killer. The rhythm section has all they can do to
hang with him. .........joe
Charlie Robinson
was not "thinking" about anything, he was just playing. We can infer
much of what he must have practiced and thought about when practicing
though from what came out on his recordings. >
<< Joey Goldstein >>
--------------------------------------------
This is what I was saying in one of my former posts. I'm not anti-theory as you
well know, or one who is trying to lead us back to the caves and darkness by
rejecting all that is intellectual in music. I've only been saying that when it
is time to solo you have to put the books away and rely on your ear and
intuition.
Joey Goldstein
Charlie Robinson wrote:
>
> << I think that by the time that John coltrane went to record something he
> was not "thinking" about anything, he was just playing. We can infer
> much of what he must have practiced and thought about when practicing
> though from what came out on his recordings. >
>
> << Joey Goldstein >>
> --------------------------------------------
> This is what I was saying in one of my former posts. I'm not anti-theory as you
> well know, or one who is trying to lead us back to the caves and darkness by
> rejecting all that is intellectual in music. I've only been saying that when it
> is time to solo you have to put the books away and rely on your ear and
> intuition.
No argument here.
But when encountering some new sound or device having some sort of
analytical chops can often lead your ears to some worthwhile sounds.
For instance, I would have a hard time "hearing" somthing to play if I
encountered the chord
Bb over B or C but by knowing the constituents of those 3 triads and
understanding some ways that those tones might be arranged (i.e. some
"theory") might give me a better foothold at negotiateing that sound
even thouigh I've never heard it before. Of course I would not want to
be performing in public or have a tape recorder running as I try to
learn to hear that sound. I would want to put off any performance until
I was somewhat comfortable with the material.
Jimmy Bruno
> From: Steve Modica <mod...@sgi.com>
> Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 20:43:22 -0500
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
Jimmy Bruno
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:17:09 -0400
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
>
>
Jimmy Bruno
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:17:09 -0400
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
>
>
Joey maybe you missed this reply
> From: pcsa...@pobox.com (Paul Sanwald)
> Reply-To: pcsa...@pobox.com
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:33:29 GMT
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
> just out of curiosity jimmy, do you have perfect pitch? I'm not
> implying at all that it's necessary for hearing all this stuff, it
> would just make it a lot easier.
>
> --paul
>
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:14:59 GMT, Jimmy Bruno <ji...@jimmybruno.com>
> wrote:
>
>
Jimmy Bruno
Joey I would use these 7 notes as the inside sounds Eb F Gb - Ab - Bb- C
>> it's a Db major scale.... the other five tones become the tension tones..
>> although the most of the progression is tense. ( PS I don't care for it
>> very much.) Also I might change to a B scale at the end. again only one
>> note changed. So that gives me all 12 tones to play with in a melodic way.
>> I can make sequences, super-impose a Cmajor over a Bbm triad. but this
>> progression leads nowhere except for the ending that goes to B so my C major
>> melody can resolve itself to B . Or how about this: I play these four
>> notes over the entire progression: C Db Eb F Eb Db. As 8ths like it was in
>> 3/4. and then on the B Play B - C# P D# _ F# or if I want to stay with the
>> flavor of the progression I can change the last four notes to B - C# _ D# -
>> F nat. You how I got this idea....? I heard it in my head from the first
>> chord C/Bbm. sound like Db to me. and I f I keep playin gthe thing over
>> and over again I would find several thousand more ideas to play. Alll by
>> ear. Now I'm starting to hear triads over top of it
>> Fmin to Bb min to Db to BbMin . this progression is in the tonal center of
>> Db or maybe Ab major depending on which way you hear the "G" natural.
>>
>> All by ear... I know what sound is going to come out of the guitar before I
>> put my fingers down. And you know what? the more I fuck with it the more I
>> like it.....so I have to take out my PS at the beginning of my post.
>> Just to be clear.. My opinions in no way imply that I think the other
>> methods discussed hear are wrong.... I just think my way is better and a
>> whole lot easier
>>
>>> Organization: Bell Sympatico
>>> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
>>> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
>>> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:01:50 -0400
>>> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jimmy Bruno wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>>>>>
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:17:09 -0400
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
>
>
Charlie Robinson
encountered the chord
Bb over B or C but by knowing the constituents of those 3 triads and
understanding some ways that those tones might be arranged (i.e. some
"theory") might give me a better foothold at negotiateing that sound
even thouigh I've never heard it before. Of course I would not want to
be performing in public or have a tape recorder running as I try to
learn to hear that sound. I would want to put off any performance until
I was somewhat comfortable with the material.
--
Joey Goldstein >>
-----------------------------------------------------
One of the peculiarities of polytonal improvisation is that it is not necessary
for everyone to be in the same harmonic place at the same time. Almost anything
that you played could sound good in the situations which you have described if
you were to rely on intuition. In fact one of the recommended exercises for
that type of playing is to have someone, even a non-pianist, to play random
groups of notes on a piano while you try to improvise over them.
Jack A. Zucker
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
Mark Kleinhaut
Steve Modica <mod...@sgi.com> wrote:
>Think in terms of a verbal conversation. Those aren't "vertical". What
>you say harkens back to things said earlier in the conversation and
>perhaps even previous discussions.
>
>Thinking vertically is akin to canning responses to various key words
>people say. (EG if someone says "Monty Python" you should shout
>"BURMA!" It might be funny once..)
>
>Another way to consider it. If I were writing a program to play a
>melody over a set of changes, it would have to start out thinking
>vertically. Play these scales over these chords. That's
>oversimplified. Any decent human player would recognize it was a
>computer. It would not pass the turing test.
>
>Steve
Steve, I think you hit the nail on the head with this analogy and made a
point clearly that I was trying to make before. However, thinking vertically
about complex subjects is essential to study,learning and growth, and it's
far more involved than mere "canned responses". That way, one has something
substantial to actually talk about when in the horizontal conversational
position. Frankly, I don't see how any of can move forward without both.
Also, I think that a fair bit of vertical thinking can occur during the horizontal
conversation, though articulate conversationalists don't often blurt out
everthing that may be going through their heads. In music performance, time
often flys by much faster than we are able to think conciously (vertically),
however, I don't think it's really that cut and dry, either-or, because there
is a lot of subconcious vertical (sort of) processing that is happening while
we play. Perhaps it's time to introduce the Diagonal?
Tom Walls
jackz...@adelphia.net says...
> How ironic that in refuting the point of this thread,
> you have served to reinforce the fact that discussions about music are out
> of place in this group!
>
> Jaz
>
>
>
topic, but not before there had been a good number of exchanges. Since
the topic has broadened there have been numerous meaningful and
enlightening posts on the subject of music. There is disagreement; that's
what dialogue is all about.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Mark Kleinhaut
I have to agree with Tom here. To me, the arguments about horizontal and
vertical is where this actually got interesting.
Paul Sanwald
>
>They are hard to execute cleanly when you do multiple octaves,
>especially starting from the 6th string. Peter Sprague uses pivot
>fingerings for them (no barre) - that's how I learned them, but then
>over time I've gone back to barre but sometimes I still use multiple
>fingers - which gives a more even sound.
>
do you mean doubling notes in multiple octaves, or spreading the notes
over multiple octaves?
I can understand what you're saying now I think, they're probably one
of the few chords that's easier to voice closed on the guitar.
--paul
Joey Goldstein
Charlie Robinson wrote:
>
> << For instance, I would have a hard time "hearing" somthing to play if I
> encountered the chord
> Bb over B or C but by knowing the constituents of those 3 triads and
> understanding some ways that those tones might be arranged (i.e. some
> "theory") might give me a better foothold at negotiateing that sound
> even thouigh I've never heard it before. Of course I would not want to
> be performing in public or have a tape recorder running as I try to
> learn to hear that sound. I would want to put off any performance until
> I was somewhat comfortable with the material.
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein >>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> One of the peculiarities of polytonal improvisation is that it is not necessary
> for everyone to be in the same harmonic place at the same time. Almost anything
> that you played could sound good in the situations which you have described if
> you were to rely on intuition.
True. But my muscal intuition today is much more developed today than it
was 20 years ago. And this is due just as much to some very hard work in
the area of thinking about music (i.e. theorizing) as it is to concrete
experience on the bandstand.
> In fact one of the recommended exercises for
> that type of playing is to have someone, even a non-pianist, to play random
> groups of notes on a piano while you try to improvise over them.
That's a great exercise. Mick Goodrick used to do that with me and I try
to do it with all of my students at some point. Improvising is very much
about reacting to what you hear yourself or your bandmates doing,
especially when you don't know beforehand what that will be.
Joey Goldstein
Mark Kleinhaut wrote:
>
> Perhaps it's time to introduce the Diagonal?
Now ya talkin'. <g>
Paul Sanwald
<jackz...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>strings and guitars. How ironic that in refuting the point of this thread,
>you have served to reinforce the fact that discussions about music are out
>of place in this group!
>
>
jack, we talk about music and theory all the time in this group.
barring rec.music.theory, we probably talk about theory more than any
other group. if you're going to make assertions like "discussions in
music are out of place in this group", then for anyone to take you
seriously you're going to have to back them up with at least
something.
but ultimately, why the cynicism/negativity? your playing is fantastic
and you contribute a lot of interesting things to this group. almost
any interesting/long thread on usenet eventually turns into an
argument of some kind, and clearly you've been on usenet long enough
to see that.
--paul
Eisenbeil
distinguished players POV.
Peace,
BE
Jack A. Zucker
> but ultimately, why the cynicism/negativity? your playing is fantastic
> and you contribute a lot of interesting things to this group. almost
> any interesting/long thread on usenet eventually turns into an
> argument of some kind, and clearly you've been on usenet long enough
> to see that.
You're right Paul. I was just disappointed to see folks labeling others as
theory-jockeys. People should stay away from name-calling. I'm sure that guy
didn't even mean it the way it sounded but I pride myself on practicing my
butt off and then closing my eyes and just playing when on the band-stand so
as several other folks have pointed out (including Jimmy Bruno), I was
taking it a little personally.
Please accept my apology. I'd like to see more advanced harmonic discussions
because I know there are a bunch of folks on this group who are beyond
II-V-I progressions and not that I mind those discussions but I think
there's room for more advanced concepts and it's exciting to me to have so
many accomplished players in the group these days.
My recommendation is that if you are not into tearing apart polychords,
scales and modes, please move onto a different discussion unless the
discussion is specifically aimed at whether the particular approach is
valid. In this thread, that was not the case.
Jaz
Pat Smith
agree with the things Mark says.
I tend to think of soloing (at it's best) as surfing on the time. I know
it sounds like I live in California (I do) but I do my best playing when
I can ride the time like a wave. Gotta have a good rhythm section. As
to scales, I am stinko at remembering all the million scales. So, I use
major scales ala what I learned from Joe Pass and I try to use my ear to
insert chromatics as I feel I need them.
There is certainly no wrong way to do this, and for me, the bottom line
is how does it feel. I am quite willing to pass "wrong" notes if the
over all feel is good.
Something I learned from listening to Janis Joplin is that great
improvisation is about spilling your guts out on the stage. Emotion is
so important.
So, I think, intelect for the practice room, heart for the performance.
Jimmy Bruno
What I mean by horizontal is that the chord never lines up with a particular
melody note unless you freeze a beat of music. Take any Bach Fugue...and
freeze the music on a beat. chances are that sooner or later you will find
a minor 2nd. when you freeze that beat it sounds dissonant, but when it
goes by in the piece you don't hear the rub at all. In Jazz and all music
this is happening all the time. Just because a chord is G13 doesn't not
meant that I can't play and Eb... I don't mean as a passing note either. I
can make that dom7th any alteration or extension I want or I hear at the
moment and it will not clash with the harmony unless you stop the forward
motion of the music... therefore horizontal. Another term for this vertical
type analysis is "snapshot' analysis". I can even solo over a different
set of changes and still not clash. The harmony has it's role and lines
have theirs. Joe Pass once told me that to him there were only min , dom
and major chords... this is what he meant. It is very academic to think
that someone will comp and play exactly what you are used to. When you
comp, you improvise on the harmony as well. The only time this would not
work is the last chord of a tune when it is being held... therefore
"frozen". So to me a discussion about what to play over this or that chord
is meaningless unless it is taken in the context of the harmony or lack of
it, the rhythm, the tempo. The slower the tempo the more dissonant those
tension tones become. I can't make it any clearer than that. And it
applies to all music... it is the nature of the thing itself. It's how we
hear... one note after the next....
> From: "Mark Kleinhaut" <markkl...@hotmail.com>
> Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 73,000+ UNCENSORED
> Newsgroups.
> Reply-To: "Mark Kleinhaut" <markkl...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: 11 Apr 2002 07:44:01 -0500
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
>
Paul Sanwald
the beginning! I've been messing with triad pairs a lot lately, and
B-C is one I hadn't tried. I would also like to see more threads like
this.
--paul
Nazodesu
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Jimmy Bruno wrote:
> >
> > And you know what? the more I fuck with it the more I like it.....
>
> Oh no. What have I done?! :)
See? See what you've done? Jeez, Joey, there are impressionable minds
about. These are *jazz* players, they get distracted easily...
Joey Goldstein
All true. But ....
As soon as you start talking about the possibilty of an intervallic
"rub" with the chord of the moment YOU are talking about a vertical
relationship. Players study these types of vertical relationships with
the chord of the moment so that they can learn to hear better which
tones are best EMPHASIZED in any given harmonic setting. The truth is
that in talking about a 13th on a G7 chord and the fact that there is a
potential for a rub with an Eb YOU are talking about vertical
realtionships. The fact that rubs can be resolved is another matter entirely.
And speaking from a key centered definition of the term horizontal and a
chord of the moment definition of the term vertical (my definitions not
yours) your example above is totally unrelated to the considerations of
key. You are just dealing with the chord of the moment and resolving a
dissonant vertical relationship.
Resolution of vertical dissonances may be local on the chord of the
moment or it may occur on the next chord and it may involve an even
longer drawn out process. There's a guy in the theory ng who likes to
talk about how Wagner resolved some appoggiatura in the early pages of
The Ring Cycle 3 days later! <g> He thinks that this is a good thing
btw. Go figure. And in some styles of music these types of "rubs" are
ignored completely.
In strict classical tonal style even simple diatonic intervals on what
we consider simple consonant chords are heard as horizontal dissonances
and resolution is required or at least expected. There are "up" notes
like the leading tone that are treated as if they have a "tendency", in
this case a tendency to rise to the tonic. There are "down" notes too,
like the subdominant that has a tendency to resolve down to the mediant.
Tonality itself is based on these horizontal relationships and
expectations. These tendencies exist, for the most part, regardless of
the vertical relationships these tones have with the chord of the
moment. These types of dissonances are key based, i.e. horizontal considerations.
For example: In the key of C major, on Db7 the tone B (aka Cb) "wants"
to go up to C because it is the leading tone in the key. This is why the
classical guys call and spell this chord "Db augmented 6th" (Db F Ab B)
rather than Db7 (Db F Ab Cb). In this key a true Cb, something that is
highly unlikely in the key of C btw, would have a tendency to resolve
down to Bb.
[FYI An instance of a proper spelling of Cb in the key of C major might
occur if the harmony were Bb (bVII borrowed from the parallel minor)
with a melodic line C Cb Bb.]
This same tone in the same key but on Eb7#5 will have this same upwards
tendency, although slightly less markedly. It is an "up" note in the key
and will be felt that way unless the key is either obscured by
chromaticism or until a key change has occured.
On a Db major chord in the key of Db major the tone F has no tendency.
It is a consituent of the tonic triad. In the key of C major the F in a
Db major triad has a tendency to resolve to E.
A firm unambiguous sense of "key" is dependent on whether or not these
types of expectations are met.
For what you are describing as "horizontal" I use the term "dynamic" as
in something that unfolds and changes over time. (Yes, I realize that
the term dynamic has other meanings in relation to music as well and
that there is lots of room for confusion.) Where you say "All music is
horizontal." I would say "All music is dynamic". And we would be
expressing the exact same thought.
Vertical dissonance is heard in time and can be resolved in the course
of time. All sorts of vertical dissonances can occur in a musical style
that is very very consonant in nature as long as the vertical
dissonances are not EMPHASIZED too much. We study these vertical
relationships so that we can learn to hear them and be able to treat
them musically with sensitivity and with creativity.
By and large, most jazz musicians have concerned themselves much more
with vertical relationships than with the types of horizontal (i.e. key
based) relationships I have discussed above (even Jimmy apparently),
which is a shame because most jazz is key based music. Hal Crook has one
of the only jazz books I have ever seen (How To Improvise) that
discusses these types of things.
Just because you are aware of what the G mixolydian scale sounds like as
an entity on G7 does not mean that you have to use it in any particular
way or confine yourself to those 7 tones, and to those 7 tones only,
when you are improvising on G7. That's one thing you might do but you
don't have to. In some ways it's a pretty safe bet though. For a novice
it might be just the ticket to get something happening that fits.
All you really have to do is harmonize with the other musicians on the
bandstand and try to make the form feel like it is moving along as
expected (and sometimes you don't even have to do that <g>). Hell you
don't even have to use the chord tones of G7 if you don't want to, but
you should know what they sound like, VERTICALLY, as a chord, for a start.
Jimmy Bruno
> From: Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
> Organization: Bell Sympatico
> Reply-To: joegoldATsympaticoDOTca
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:08:49 -0400
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
>
>
No I am saying there is no rub.. you are still looking at it too
academically. I do it all by ear. My ear got trained from listening and
learning theory. Now I can hear most of the things I want to play and no
longer need to ever analyze things. You are still missing the point.
>
> And speaking from a key centered definition of the term horizontal and a
> chord of the moment definition of the term vertical (my definitions not
> yours) your example above is totally unrelated to the considerations of
> key. You are just dealing with the chord of the moment and resolving a
> dissonant vertical relationship.
Key has nothing to do with horizontal. even atonal music is horizontal.
This is going nowhere. I am ready to put it to rest. I've explained what I
think is going on and that's all I wanted to do. I have after 20 years of
playing that most theory is BS and just makes it hard to play. I don't
think about any of this stuff like you do. I am not saying your thinking is
wrong... it is only wrong for me. I wanted to point out how easy it is to
learn to hear melodies.
Joey that is all very interesting but it has nothing to do with sound and
feel or how to make music... all of what you say is true... after the music
has been played. I don't get off analyzing things anymore. I think it is
very hard to talk about music. I'd rather let my guitar playing speak
rather than my words about music... most of the time my own solos get
analyzed as well and every analysis was wrong from my point of view.
anyway, this was interesting but I have no more to say on the subject.
Joey Goldstein
Jimmy, you said there was a rub. If now you are saying there is no rub
you've got some more 'splaining to do.
> you are still looking at it too
> academically. I do it all by ear.
Sorry man, but all I'm doing is explaining myself better than you. I'm
just explaining what *I* hear.
> My ear got trained from listening and
> learning theory. Now I can hear most of the things I want to play and no
> longer need to ever analyze things.
Neither do I. But sometimes it is very usefull for the way that *I* play
to have a different understanding of things than you do for the way that
you play, or so it seems.
> You are still missing the point.
Well here I thought we were saying the same thing with different words
but you think I'm missing your point. Well if that's the case then you
haven't explained your point very well because I still think we're
saying the same thing. But it seems to me like I DO understand what
you're saying and you just don't understand what I'm saying.
If I am missing your point I'd sure as hell like to learn something so
please make the attempt to steer me right.
> > And speaking from a key centered definition of the term horizontal and a
> > chord of the moment definition of the term vertical (my definitions not
> > yours) your example above is totally unrelated to the considerations of
> > key. You are just dealing with the chord of the moment and resolving a
> > dissonant vertical relationship.
> Key has nothing to do with horizontal.
OK. I can see now that you're not even listening to what I'm saying, so
forget it.
Key may not have anything to do with what YOU call horizontal but it
sure as Hell has something to do with tonal music and it sure as Hell
has something to do with jazz and it sure as Hell has something to do
with the concepts that *I* have been talking about and it sure as Hell
has nothing to with what you've been talking about because what you've
been talking about is the resolution of VERTICAL dissonances between a
melodic line and the surrounding harmony as a piece of music proceeds in
time. And it most likely has a Hell of a lot to do with why YOU hear
things the way that you do but you just don't seem to be aware of it.
That's cool. You don't necessarily have to be aware of any of this shit
to be able to draw upon it. It in the air. We've inherited all this
stuff and it's basically all a part of our collective unconscious now.
But you can make much of it conscious again if you spend some time
examining things, especially where things came from, more closely. Bach
didn't come out of a vacuum y'know. Harmonic progression did not always
exist. This stuff came from somewhere and it came along a particular path.
> even atonal music is horizontal.
Fine you can say horizontal if you want and I'll say dynamic. Sheesh. At
least I know what *you* mean.
Dan Adler
> Another way to consider it. If I were writing a program to play a
> melody over a set of changes, it would have to start out thinking
> vertically. Play these scales over these chords. That's
> oversimplified. Any decent human player would recognize it was a
> computer. It would not pass the turing test.
Steve,
As I have mentioned before, check out the jazz soloist module in
Band-In-A-Box. That produces solos over changes that are better than
most intermediate players I know can produce by a longshot, and it
most certainly would pass the turing test if performed by a great
player note-for-note. That module always amazes me, because its very
existence proves that jazz soloing can be codified to a much larger
extent than we care to admit. In fact, that module can produce solos
that NO human can play, because it has no problems creating strings of
32nd note flurries over mm300 tunes.
But, what amazes me most about it is its ability to create
across-the-barline and across-the-changes phrasing - something that I
struggle with all the time.
Joe Finn
news:820e87.020412...@posting.google.com...
>
> As I have mentioned before, check out the jazz soloist module in
> Band-In-A-Box. That produces solos over changes that are better than
> most intermediate players I know can produce by a longshot, and it
> most certainly would pass the turing test if performed by a great
> player note-for-note. That module always amazes me, because its very
> existence proves that jazz soloing can be codified to a much larger
> extent than we care to admit. In fact, that module can produce solos
> that NO human can play, because it has no problems creating strings of
> 32nd note flurries over mm300 tunes.
>
> But, what amazes me most about it is its ability to create
> across-the-barline and across-the-changes phrasing - something that I
> struggle with all the time.
>
amazed me that musical concepts like various styles of accompaniment could
be reduced to their bare essentials and coded into a piece of software. Over
the years Peter Gammons has added some other significant features like the
harmonizer and the soloist. Without arguing about how good or bad it sounds
it is still a remarkable piece of programming.
One of the big things it demonstrates is that the building blocks of music:
harmony, melody and time can be described in terms that are quantifiable.
This is [I suppose] what engineers do. As a non engineer this is amazing to
me and as a musician it gives me a fresh and thought provoking perspective.
Gammons might be less interested in whether music is vertical or horizontal.
He just takes it for what it is and writes the code. ....joe
Visit me on the web. www.JoeFinn.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jack A. Zucker
the style of Coltrane, Bird and Martino and thought they were awful. I
think it's ghastly that anyone would attempt to study these as if they
were authenticly improvised solos. I think it's fine as a study in
advanced artificial intelligence or electronic composition but the
solos BIAB produces are literally laughable compared to the real
thing.
I think they make good sight-reading material though...
Jaz
Charlie Robinson
> > that in talking about a 13th on a G7 chord and the fact that there is a
> > potential for a rub with an Eb YOU are talking about vertical
> > realtionships >>
--------------------------------
<< > No I am saying there is no rub..
>>
--------------------------------
I think these statements illustrate the differing perspectives concerning this
question of vertically vs. horizontalism in improvised music. You could go the
easy route and point out that dissonance in music is a relative concept; things
that were once considered to be dissonant are not now heard that way. But Jimmy
offered a better view of his type of thinking with the rhythm guitar analogy
that he gave a while back: If you see the symbol G7 on a chart and are
playing 4 beats to the bar rhythm guitar you could play G7b5/G7/G7#5/G13 or
D-7/D-9/G7#5/G7, both would be correct. Although it is beneficial to know the
chord scale relationship of each of these chords it would be impractical to
plug them into each "frozen in time beat". Also as you can see from the example
there are any number of moving harmonic schemes that fit this chord which make
ideas of dissonances or rubs moot. Everything else that is being said while
interesting bears little relationship to this specific problem. Seen in that
light neither of you are wrong, it is just a matter of differing perspectives
and the fact that things are drifting too far away from the basic idea which
was restated above.
Jimmy Bruno
> From: robins...@aol.com (Charlie Robinson)
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz
> Date: 12 Apr 2002 18:43:51 GMT
> Subject: Re: Maj7#5 and Maj7#9#11 chords
>
Joe Finn
news:2f33c43f.02041...@posting.google.com...
> Wow! You guys are really generous. I tried generating some solos in
> the style of Coltrane, Bird and Martino and thought they were awful. I
> think it's ghastly that anyone would attempt to study these as if they
> were authenticly improvised solos. I think it's fine as a study in
> advanced artificial intelligence or electronic composition but the
> solos BIAB produces are literally laughable compared to the real
> thing.
>
the software was what I thought to be more interesting. Somehow the
engineering of a set of "rules" that could be used to generate a polka beat,
a cha-cha or a shuffle complete with bass, piano and guitar is amazing to
me. The concept carries over fairly well into the harmonizer but breaks down
in the soloist feature. From a perspective of sound quality the soloist is
the least satisfying.
You've done some programming haven't you Jack? My guess as a musician is
that since the "rules" of an improvised jazz solo are so much more
complicated than the rules of three part diatonic harmony or the difference
between samba style and swing that the engineering problem becomes enormous
or insurmountable.
I'd also have to agree that it would not be very instructive to spend time
analyzing a BIAB generated solo. Going directly to the source is the way to
do it. The fact that the "rules" can be coded into the program is still
intriguing to me though. .........joe
--
Jack A. Zucker
>
> I'd also have to agree that it would not be very instructive to spend time
> analyzing a BIAB generated solo. Going directly to the source is the way
to
> do it. The fact that the "rules" can be coded into the program is still
> intriguing to me though. .........joe
Once when I called to talk about some BIAB problems, Peter Gannon explained
that they using the solist feature in jazz schools to study ...
Max Leggett
Yet another example of jobs for people being displaced by automation.
They could just as easily hire me to play, and say, "Now, class -
never play dreck like that." But noooo - they gotta have a stinking
computer put me out of work.
Dan Adler
> Once when I called to talk about some BIAB problems, Peter Gannon explained
> that they using the solist feature in jazz schools to study ...
I'm in that camp - the soloist feature is amazing and fascinating to
me. Maybe because I'm also a programmer and have done work in AI, but
mostly, because I know that I've spent my life trying to understand
jazz, and the fact that Peter Gannon can write simple rules to make a
program generate solos that sound like Gary Burton just floors me. Can
you write such rules? I know I can't, and I don't know anyone else who
can. That's what makes it fascinating as a jazz learning tool.
Of course, it's not as good as Gary Burton or Bill Evans - it's just a
program, but it's way better than what I could do if I were trying to
create a Gary Burton or Bill Evans solo myself. So somehow, he found a
way to codify many different styles of jazz soloing in what appears to
be very small configuration files. To me, that's the pudding that
proves that his rules are correct (I wish I knew what they are!).
Jack A. Zucker
"neat" they are. They are devoid of the life that exemplifies the genious of
a Charlie Parker, John Coltrane etc.
As a former student of Martino and someone who feverishly studied the music
of Coltrane, I laughed when I heard Gannon's renditions. Sure, from an
engineering point of view it's admirable but why bother when you can listen
to the real thing?
--
web: www.jackzucker.com
"Dan Adler" <d...@danadler.com> wrote in message
news:820e87.02041...@posting.google.com...