Busting a myth about note-selection in real-time...

[JonnyPac]

Greetings y'all,

This might be very controversial, but I'd like to see it discussed as deeply as possible. I have my own opinions that I will share, but I am open other possibilities. Post away once you think it over and read/watch the suggested material!

Here's the detrimental myth (as I think of it) that gets told to many beginning improvisors regarding intuitive note-selection and playing (mostly) by ear, etc. I hope this sums it up in my own words:

If you miss the note you were going for, don't worry, you are never more than a step away from a "right note"! Therefore you can play the "right note" immediately after the the "wrong note" and resolve (or "save") the line successfully.

Supposedly bassist Victor Wooten has a lesson promoting this and dazzles the class with his examples. There are many other educators who also subscribe to the idea.

I am guarded in using the terms right/wrong; of course, they are subjective. I am assuming we can agree that a fully unintentional (not what the performer was going for in any way whatsoever) note falling into the place of a target-note can be called "wrong" (regardless of the harmonic stability of the given note).

Here's what I think is the huge oversight of this "method": When you finally play the right note it is probably going to be on a weak beat (de-emphasized by the meter itself!).

When is as important as what, if not more so!

From the intro to Forward Motion by Hal Galper:

Rhythmic Forward Motion introduces the basic concept of Forward Motion, starting with how my study of it began and how music is almost universally taught "backwards" from the way it really functions. It describes the functions of Tension and Release patterns rhythmically and melodically and how they can be played to create strong melodies that "spell" the changes out. This chapter also includes a discussion of playing in half time and its effect upon a player's conception of playing in tempo ending with a short treatise on Rhythmic Syncopation.


Scalar Forward Motion applies Forward Motion techniques to scale lines and how "Key Scales" can be transformed into "Chord Scales." Three categories of scales lines are discussed: scale lines that descend for chords of two beats duration, scale lines that ascend for chords of two beat's duration, and scale lines that ascend and descend for chords of four or more beats duration. The chapter illustrates the almost infinite ways that chord tones can be synchronized with the strong beats of the bar to clearly "spell" out chord changes. The use of Inner Guide Tone Melodies is also discussed.

(Emphasis mine)

Read full intro here on Hal's site:
Hal Galper - Forward Motion
(And buy the book asap! It is one of the best book on the market for jazz self-education, IMHO!)

From Forward Motion Chapter 2:

What defines a definitive line?

Answer: A Line that is strong.

What defines a strong line?

Answer: A line that spells out the chord changes (either basic or superimposed) so clearly that you can hear the harmony without a chord being played behind it.

How do melodic lines spell out chord changes?

Using the system of Tension and Release analysis the obvious became clear:

Answer: By synchronizing the strong beats of the bar with the strong tones of a chord and the weak beasts of the bar with the weak tones.

He describes "on beats" 1 & 3 as "release beats" and "off beasts" 2 & 4 in 4/4 time (swung or otherwise).

This concept is corroborated by the "linear harmony" concepts polarized by Bert Ligon and others. Bert's books contain hundreds of real excerpts from (mostly jazz) masters with clear analyses (they too, are some of the finest books on the jazz education market). The proof is in the pudding; from Bach to Bird.

Also this would not be an acceptable way for say, a singer-songwriter to compose a good "timeless" melody. Imagine, John Lennon (no pun intended), John Denver, Hank Williams, Joni, or the like hitting wrong notes where right ones were intended with the lyrical emphasis still intact! The strong words, notes, and beats need to line up- the complexity is on three levels.

So, my conclusion (based on theory and the personal experience seeing many student improvisors not be able to "save" their lines to a degree that I am impressed with) is that you must have the creative foresight and control to not make this mistake and see it as a viable method for improvisation. What it is is trial and error (something for the shed, not stage) and a lack of ear connection to your instrument. Creative control, and clear vision and intention are should be some goals for a great artist (or musician) to be. Only once you can fully control the basic lining-up of these elements can you successfully syncopate, displace, superimpose, anticipate, delay the resolution successfully, IMHO.

Bill Evans is very inspirational and sincere in this interview on jazz self-education: The Universal Mind Of Bill Evans - YouTube
He demonstrates that you should never approximate the sound of sophistication, you should play what is honest and true from within, even if it comes across as "simple" or "without pizazz".

Your thoughts...

(Also, I may remove the Galper quotes if he does not approve of my use of them in this thread- we are FB friends and sometime I go too far with my enthusiasm for his work. )

[brwnhornet59]

Interesting postulation Jonny. I am starting Hal's book. I will let you know what I think upon some reflection.

Cool Topic!

[matelski]

I am in absolute agreement with the main ideas of your post. There is nothing sexy about ingraining 'patterned hearing,' that is continuous linear passages that line up chord tones with strong beats...it is a painstaking, long term, project.

But as you've pointed out, if you can't do this on the most basic metric interpretation of a tune, with the most basic (unembellished) harmony, and the most inside scale choices, then your chances of pulling off clear, intentional, improvised, lines using more elaborate choices are probably not very good at all.

It 'hit me' after many years (8ish?) of quasi-successful jazz playing. What ISN'T happening that is causing me to feel so 'hit or miss' about my playing? Why is it that I find the thought of blowing on medium tempo rhythm changes a capella, with human witnesses, so distressing? I have always been very critical of myself, but for all of the work i'd put in, there had to be some inconsistency or flaw in my very approach.

These realizations imply the need for a great deal of discipline and prioritization in practicing. I have faith that there will ultimately be a high pay off for taking this common sense, although less traveled, path.

Peace

[Shadow of the Sun]

Jonny: I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I do think you need to take Wooten's stuff in context with his musical ideas.

Victor tends to focus on the stuff other than note choices- tone, rhythm, dynamics and the like, because he believes that a lot of musical pedagogy is focused on note choice to the detriment of the other things.

One of the things that Wooten advocates is that you should develop a groove or get it to swing and then never deviate from that. As such, his "never more than one semitone away from a right note" idea could be thought of as a means to facilitate that- I know that when I've been in a groove and I've messed up, I falter, lose my place, and just suck overall. By using his thing about being able to go back to "right notes" easily, you can keep focused on the groove and keep it and still sound reasonably okay, if that makes sense.

If you listen to his playing with the Flecktones, he always has the right note in the right place- his note choice is always perfect and appropriate. As such, I see his advice here as a sort of "safety net" for aspiring musicians so that they don't completely lose their shit after a single mistake and instead just go on and keep playing, keeping the groove.

[Kman]

Someone can have great feel and good tone, but if they are playing wrong notes on beats 1 & 3 the ears are not going to enjoy it for very long.

[AlsoRan]

I tested your theory by humming some nice passages while tapping my foot. Sure enough many fo the chord tones fall on the strong beats, almost like a person raising their voice for emphasis.

Still, is there not a place for putting a chord tone on a weak beat to create some variety?

[Kman]

You can think dominant (V7) on weak beats. If there are two measures of a chord, you can think tonic on beat one and dominant on beat three, leading back to tonic on beat one of the next measure. In general you're thinking tension, resolution, or tonic, dominant, even if it's only one measure.

[bako]

Link to Victor speaking for himself:
Victor Wooten -bass clinic - wrong notes...(must see!) part 6/7 - YouTube

To me he's talking about basic ear training awareness of the chromatic scale at all times,
the human inevitability of stumbling into the unintended, (Ex. you play a "right note" but the band alters the harmony)
and the ability to "rebound". I like his presentation very much. I have no argument with becoming familiar with
chromatic sounds and making the musical world a safer place or the importance
of a good time feel. Victor keeps a subject that others present as complicated, simple.

Every note collection has it's negative space partner. Every major scale has a pentatonic one a b5 away covering the remaining tones.
On the piano C major/Gb pentatonic made obvious by white and black notes.

On the idea of chord tones on downbeats I often wonder what is the difference between a downbeat and a beat that you put emphasis on which can fall anywhere you choose. To me to "syncopate, displace, superimpose, anticipate, delay the resolution successfully" are basic building blocks of making a motif and a phrase. I probably listen to too much highly syncopated music and wouldn't recognize a downbeat if it hit me over the head.

I do understand the idea of using controls within the learning laboratory and the idea that a skilled musician can even achieve profundity within that simplicity. Anyway, good topic, well presented.

[bako]

I read the full Hal Galper intro now and it is very rich in thought. The one liner "play chord tones on downbeats" less so without it's context.
The moral of the story is go direct to the source when possible.

[brwnhornet59]

Originally Posted by bako

I read the full Hal Galper intro now and it is very rich in thought. The one liner "play chord tones on downbeats" less so without it's context.
The moral of the story is go direct to the source when possible.

I am reading from the Horses mouth at the moment. Very cool ideas and presentation. It was worth the $16.98 d/l cost.

[JakeAcci]

I have Forward Motion and I think it's a great book.

It is a book, though, and not the book. Just as Hal himself is a powerful educator with great wisdom, one could see him as an authority rather than the authority.

I agree with you, Jonny, that it's good (essential) to have foresight when improvising, but mistakes do happen. I don't disagree with your conclusion, but when we look at this statement:

"If you miss the note you were going for, don't worry, you are never more than a step away from a "right note"! Therefore you can play the "right note" immediately after the the "wrong note" and resolve (or "save") the line successfully."

I don't think that's a widely taught method. I think of more as an afterthought for consideration to use when you f*** up. I haven't heard of anybody really teaching it as a method, more so just a way to recover and maybe undo some potential damage.

As for chord tones on beats 1 and 3, it's a very important concept, but intentional delays and syncopations are inarguably important as well - perhaps being a more advanced concept than lining up the chord tones on beats 1 and 3.

And of the songwriters you mention, plenty of them, in their songs, have extensions, rather than chord tones, in their melodies on strong beats.

Here's an interesting (to me) thought: Say, on a Bbmaj7 you accidentally hit an Ab on beat 1. The premise of your post says that it is not within the parameters of Galper and Lignon to simply say "ok, let's creep up to an A on the 'and of 1' and everything will be fine!" I agree with this premise.

However, there's a middle ground that works within Galper's terms, which is that once you accidentally hit that Ab you could play a line that superimposes perhaps an F7#9, Ab7, B13, etc, to then resolve to Bbmaj7. You hit an accidental note, but instead of resolving it by a half step right away as the 'myth' advises, you then treat it as one or two beats of a superimposed chord.

I do this often and intentionally.

Perhaps simplistic, but I think a middle ground here is to say that it's important to practice, but you can recover from a mistake with class. Additionally, sometimes that mistake can lead to an idea much more interesting than what you might have originally intended. "I hate to use the word 'mistakes,' as mistakes can be beautiful" - John Lockwood

[MatthiasYoung]

Here's another controversial thought - there is no such thing as improvisation...

Any melodic pattern will be the result of what we know how to play. So we're not really doing anything new...

[onetruevibe]

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

Here's an interesting (to me) thought: Say, on a Bbmaj7 you accidentally hit an Ab on beat 1. The premise of your post says that it is not within the parameters of Galper and Lignon to simply say "ok, let's creep up to an A on the 'and of 1' and everything will be fine!" I agree with this premise.

As long as you're not doing this all night long, would your "average" audience even be able to identify this as a mistake?

[keith]

It can go many ways in my mind but I'd agree with JP's premise that it won't sound great either because it's off beat or you move the wrong direction and hit a scalar nonchord tone, both not dissonant but fall flat. I could see if you emphasized and repeated it you could make it into a motif or as Jake mentioned incorporate it into a progression that resolves where you wish to be ( but this gets you even further away from the point at which you wished to resolve initially) And if you do it too often it starts to sound like you're really hunting. It brings up the idea for me though to practice ideas for getting out of a jam ( that I haven't done ) might be something worthwhile in common progressions!

[JakeAcci]

Originally Posted by onetruevibe

As long as you're not doing this all night long, would your "average" audience even be able to identify this as a mistake?

Sorry, rereading that quoted part of my text I wasn't clear. By saying "I agree with this premise" I am saying that I agree that fixing the Ab mistake by sliding up a half step is not congruent with the parameters Jonny mentioned.

I'm not saying it will sound bad, nor that it will sound good. That issue is dependent on too many factors, most of which are subjective.

As for average audience members, I generally don't concern myself with what they will or won't notice in the context of performing jazz.

[onetruevibe]

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

Sorry, rereading that quoted part of my text I wasn't clear. By saying "I agree with this premise" I am saying that I agree that fixing the Ab mistake by sliding up a half step is not congruent with the parameters Jonny mentioned.

I'm not saying it will sound bad, nor that it will sound good. That issue is dependent on too many factors, most of which are subjective.

As for average audience members, I generally don't concern myself with what they will or won't notice in the context of performing jazz.

No need to apologize, Jake - my comment wasn't directed at your words, specifically. I just wasn't sure what perspective the group was approaching this topic from. I ask because it will help me (noob) follow the discussion.

So, assuming* that this approach is wrong, we should avoid it because:

1. The audience will cringe, drop their drinks, and head for the door
2. It's is not congruent with theory
3. In our pursuit of excellence, this is a cop-out
4. All of the above

I was looking at this from the 1st perspective (apparently the noob "default" setting).

Maybe I should just go back to the Getting Started sub-forum.

[brwnhornet59]

I have noticed when I make mistakes like this it is a crap shoot as to which beat I will land on, simply because I got flustered for a sec and lost my place, then automatic takes over trying to correct it. I would love to have the presence of mind to know where I am at at ALL times under all circumstances, rhythmically. It seems to me that practice and constant awareness is needed to do this well, just like any other aspect of the discipline.

So far I am really digging Hal's ideas. It has me looking at things in a way I never gave much thought to. So in this aspect the book is doing it's job.

[JazzReggie]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

Here's the detrimental myth (as I think of it) that gets told to many beginning improvisors regarding intuitive note-selection and playing (mostly) by ear, etc. I hope this sums it up in my own words:

Supposedly bassist Victor Wooten has a lesson promoting this and dazzles the class with his examples. There are many other educators who also subscribe to the idea.

I've read the book in question - "The Music Lesson", by Victor Wooten. I think your summary is close enough, although he doesn't really approach it from a resolution perspective in a theory sense, more so just that a "right" note is only a half step away. That said, I think that by quoting it out of context, you've entirely missed his real message.

He breaks down music into 10 elements - groove, notes, articulation / duration, technique, emotion / feel, dynamics, rhythm / tempo, tone, phrasing, and space / rest. One of his main points is that these elements are all important, and we'll produce better music by incorporating all of them. The chapter on notes isn't so much saying we shouldn't care about whether the notes are right or not, but rather that we spend too much time focusing on it to the exclusion of the other elements. To put that into an obvious jazz context - what good are the right notes without any sense of swing?

The quote is also part of a message advocating freedom to experiment and learn what sounds good to your ear, not feeling constrained by rules and theory. It's more an illustration that the worst case scenario if you pick a "wrong" note isn't a complete disaster, not a free pass to ignore whether the notes work in context. It also gets into some more practical discussion. For example, play a chord, then a "wrong" note over it in the same octave range, then play the same "wrong" note, but up an octave - it doesn't sound nearly as bad.

I would agree that the quote, taken out of context, could be quite harmful. As part of the overarching messages Victor Wooten is trying to share with us though, I think it is incredibly helpful.

[princeplanet]

The fact is that 99% of us cannot make up fast melodies on the spot to the point where every single new idea we go for is going to be perfectly played. In fact, if you are not hitting mistakes from time to time, I'd be suspicious that the lines are too worked out, and not fully improvised at all!

I say search for new and fresh ideas every time you play, and really go for it. You have to make mistakes, that's how you learn, even on the bandstand! It makes for fearless and rewarding playing for both the player and the listener. I get excited when I hear a little mistake sometimes, it means the player is going for it!. A late resolution can indeed be a give away that the player missed his intended note, but knowing that that safety net is there will make players take more exciting chances. Dunno about you guys, but I want my Jazz stars to live dangerously, like a tight rope walker....

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by bako

Link to Victor speaking for himself:
Victor Wooten -bass clinic - wrong notes...(must see!) part 6/7 - YouTube

To me he's talking about basic ear training awareness of the chromatic scale at all times,
the human inevitability of stumbling into the unintended, (Ex. you play a "right note" but the band alters the harmony)
and the ability to "rebound". I like his presentation very much. I have no argument with becoming familiar with
chromatic sounds and making the musical world a safer place or the importance
of a good time feel. Victor keeps a subject that others present as complicated, simple.

On the idea of chord tones on downbeats I often wonder what is the difference between a downbeat and a beat that you put emphasis on which can fall anywhere you choose. To me to "syncopate, displace, superimpose, anticipate, delay the resolution successfully" are basic building blocks of making a motif and a phrase. I probably listen to too much highly syncopated music and wouldn't recognize a downbeat if it hit me over the head.

(Emphasis mine) I am with you there! That's where creative control comes in. The ability to hear where the line "wants" to go and facilitating it in real-time is a sign of mastery, IMHO. There is inherent complexity to jazz rhythm and this is always in the forefront of good comping and soloing; jazz is polyrhythmic. period. By moving the goal around (displacement/syncopation) we can call non-1 and 3 beats "release" beats. What is fully intact is where you end up (the given target note). It's a matter of how you get there, not so much a fumbling around trying to decide where there is. You must have some foresight to improvise good music.

I fully agree with the rest of your post. Thanks for finding the video (I really should have done that myself).

I will point out that it did not actually sound that "good" the few times he played the "out" notes on the strong beats against the rhythm track (most of the time he phrased them as passing tones between two stable tones or as LNTs or UNTs. He inadvertently proved the inverse of his point to my ear.

Also the repetitiousness of the backing vs the faster siren-like chromatic runs he played were just examples of typical inside-outside-inside quasi-modal jazz-fusion; though "good" in its own way, not the "good" or "strong" I think we are aiming to discuss. There is a lot of great classic jazz that uses "outside" notes, or as Hal defines them "superimposed" notes.

Originally Posted by bako

I read the full Hal Galper intro now and it is very rich in thought. The one liner "play chord tones on downbeats" less so without it's context.
The moral of the story is go direct to the source when possible.

Hal's book is loaded with good stuff, yes, don't just assume that the selections I posted are representative or conclusive of his FM ideas. His section on superimposition deals with the eloquent use of "outside" harmonies and how to be in control of them. It's golden.

Originally Posted by brwnhornet59

I am reading from the Horses mouth at the moment. Very cool ideas and presentation. It was worth the $16.98 d/l cost.

Bingo. I'd buy it over again any day.

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

I don't think that's a widely taught method. I think of more as an afterthought for consideration to use when you f*** up. I haven't heard of anybody really teaching it as a method, more so just a way to recover and maybe undo some potential damage.

As for chord tones on beats 1 and 3, it's a very important concept, but intentional delays and syncopations are inarguably important as well - perhaps being a more advanced concept than lining up the chord tones on beats 1 and 3.

And of the songwriters you mention, plenty of them, in their songs, have extensions, rather than chord tones, in their melodies on strong beats.

Extensions are chord-tones. Superimposed "outside" chord-tones are chord tones too. They get targeted and emphasized. They also get moved around by superimposed meters, displacement, and all that good stuff... Foresight, intention and control make it happen.

As far as widely-taught, perhaps not, though it is widely quoted (or paraphrased, apparently). Enough to bother me.

Accidents are acceptable, some (though surprisingly few) lead to new "better" ideas, but they can derail the original ideas. You are either forced to "make it work" like Herbie could always do (making the wrong into a right by musical devices or convincing repetition), or just letting it go and moving on to better things. I'd rather just say, "oops" and keep to my idea that was underway.

Originally Posted by MatthiasYoung

Here's another controversial thought - there is no such thing as improvisation...

Any melodic pattern will be the result of what we know how to play. So we're not really doing anything new...

Improvisation can be thought of as the spontaneous reorganization of mailable musical ideas (that have been worked into your on-demand vocabulary). Original thought is quite a thing to aim for; standing on the shoulders of giants is good enough!

Originally Posted by onetruevibe

So, assuming* that this approach is wrong, we should avoid it because:

1. The audience will cringe, drop their drinks, and head for the door
2. It's is not congruent with theory
3. In our pursuit of excellence, this is a cop-out
4. All of the above

I was looking at this from the 1st perspective (apparently the noob "default" setting).

I'd agree after a chuckle.

If you hear everything (like Victor and other masters can do) it is easy as pie to work inside/outside and resolve your ideas into the meter ("groove" in this case).

Originally Posted by JazzReggie

I've read the book in question - "The Music Lesson", by Victor Wooten. I think your summary is close enough, although he doesn't really approach it from a resolution perspective in a theory sense, more so just that a "right" note is only a half step away. That said, I think that by quoting it out of context, you've entirely missed his real message.

He breaks down music into 10 elements - groove, notes, articulation / duration, technique, emotion / feel, dynamics, rhythm / tempo, tone, phrasing, and space / rest. One of his main points is that these elements are all important, and we'll produce better music by incorporating all of them. The chapter on notes isn't so much saying we shouldn't care about whether the notes are right or not, but rather that we spend too much time focusing on it to the exclusion of the other elements. To put that into an obvious jazz context - what good are the right notes without any sense of swing?

The quote is also part of a message advocating freedom to experiment and learn what sounds good to your ear, not feeling constrained by rules and theory. It's more an illustration that the worst case scenario if you pick a "wrong" note isn't a complete disaster, not a free pass to ignore whether the notes work in context. It also gets into some more practical discussion. For example, play a chord, then a "wrong" note over it in the same octave range, then play the same "wrong" note, but up an octave - it doesn't sound nearly as bad.

I would agree that the quote, taken out of context, could be quite harmful. As part of the overarching messages Victor Wooten is trying to share with us though, I think it is incredibly helpful.

His overarching lesson and positive outlook is pretty good, agreed. Freedom to experiment is great for ear-training, etc. I just don't like hearing student improvisers (jazz or other genres) "noodling" around without any disgression and fixing their flow of mistakes by snaking up or down a fret.

I did not know Victor was the man behind the "method" if we dare call it that- in fact, I have heard it echoed over and over again in my 15 years of playing and didn't have a source whatsoever. It was brought up in my MM thread last week and by my new bass student on last Wed afternoon.

I'm still not convinced that letting go of the reigns and resolving things on the fly is a viable way to improvise. It is a recovery tactic at best, IMHO.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by princeplanet

The fact is that 99% of us cannot make up fast melodies on the spot to the point where every single new idea we go for is going to be perfectly played. In fact, if you are not hitting mistakes from time to time, I'd be suspicious that the lines are too worked out, and not fully improvised at all!

I say search for new and fresh ideas every time you play, and really go for it. You have to make mistakes, that's how you learn, even on the bandstand! It makes for fearless and rewarding playing for both the player and the listener. I get excited when I hear a little mistake sometimes, it means the player is going for it!. A late resolution can indeed be a give away that the player missed his intended note, but knowing that that safety net is there will make players take more exciting chances. Dunno about you guys, but I want my Jazz stars to live dangerously, like a tight rope walker....

If you cannot make up fast lines on the spot, that's just a lack of vocabulary. Nothing too hard to overcome. By knowing your destination, all there is left to do is creativity fill in the space. Bert Ligon is my hero for compiling analyzing how many many of the jazz greats got from point A to B in astoundingly logical and interesting ways.

And, yes, high-risk playing is very fun to listen to. Especially when the players pull it off!

[Billnc]

My short little insight, from experience.

If you are a semi tone from the correct note you have played the wrong note.

[phdmerrill]

Yes, you can hit a semitone away from your destination, even on a strong beat, regardless of the chord type.

Give this a try. On a Bb Rhythm Changes, bang away continuous 8th notes on the D (which fits all the changes). Sure, it's bland, but it fits harmonically. Now, slide or hammer into the D from a Db played on the 1 and 3 of the bar. It'll sound like Dya-na-na-na-Dya-na-na-na. Conceptually, it's: TENSE-relaxed-relaxed-relaxed-TENSE-relaxed-relaxed-relaxed. You may think it's a bit trite, but it absolutely works. The tonality is still strongly planted on the D, even if we accent the Db and put it on a downbeat.

It doesn't sound wrong or clashing or mistaken, simply because it's so clearly intentional and it's executed cleanly. This is universally true: suspending or dipping out of a tonality is not only legal, but can actually sound good if the logic of your melody connotes it's deliberateness. Hal Galper does have that one thing completely right: melody trumps harmony. But a good melody may conform to its own logic while not strictly obeying the logic of the changes.

You can even experiment improvising on just Db and D over the A section of Rhythm Changes, toggling between tension and release at your own discretion. It's embarrassingly elementary, but if nothing else, it'll dismiss any kind of prescriptive rule about when and where tension and release are "allowed."

[phdmerrill]

Addendum: The reason hitting the "wrong" note--a semitone away from the intended note--sounds bad is that the we wanted to hear a resolution (because a resolution seemed logical given the perceived pattern of tension and release) and instead we got a tension. In that way, it was wrong. But it wasn't simply that the tone came at the wrong place in the measure.

A good melody has tension where you want it (wherever you want it) and release where you want it--and generally at the end, to make the phrase a conclusive thought. It may be as simple as that.

[bobby d]

I thought that quickly resolving 'wrong' notes was a major part of Jazz. Making rules is OK, but rules can be broken especially in something as free as Jazz. Using guidelines or guide tones is good practice, but let's not get too inhibited to create something on the spot (improv).

OTOH, some music is more pleasurable to listen to than others. All dissonance without resolve becomes non-easy listening music.

What if the offending note is changed into something acceptable so quickly that it isn't noticed? i.e. a grace note. I tend to hang on a note longer when it's a resolution (3rd, 5th, root etc.). Getting there is where the fun is!

[phdmerrill]

I've just been playing around with my own idea regarding the Db to D thing on Rhythm Changes. It's fun to come up with licks that hit a good hard tensions on the downbeats. It's as simple as landing approach tones (Db to D is a safe bet on any chord) on the downbeats. You can resolve immediately, or drag out the tension--for an entire measure even, especially over the V chord as a #5.

Intersperse this with your other melodic devices; it'll sound great. Yes, it's dead simple, but it will change your thinking from chord- or key-oriented to a real "in/out" tonal awareness.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Originally Posted by phdmerrill

I've just been playing around with my own idea regarding the Db to D thing on Rhythm Changes. It's fun to come up with licks that hit a good hard tensions on the downbeats. It's as simple as landing approach tones (Db to D is a safe bet on any chord) on the downbeats. You can resolve immediately, or drag out the tension--for an entire measure even, especially over the V chord as a #5.

Intersperse this with your other melodic devices; it'll sound great. Yes, it's dead simple, but it will change your thinking from chord- or key-oriented to a real "in/out" tonal awareness.

I agree. I think of landing on a chord tone on beats 1 & 3 as "stage 1". As a starting off phase -- something to play off. Then you can do things like:

1. Anticipate the chord change and emphasize a chord tone just before the chord change: like on the & of 4 and starting the new measure with some rests.

2. Syncopating -- then the emphasis is off the beat anyway.

[timscarey]

I agree that finding ways of internalizing the sound of chord tones on the strong beats is good practice, it's how you spell harmony in 2nds.

However, the treatment of non chord tones is as old as harmony itself (ish) if we resign ourselves to only chord tones on strong beats we never get to experience the beauty of chromatic melody, the amount of tension we have to resolve is greatly depleted.

I think both approaches mentioned are valid, I think Hal's point of view is much more "academic" and while MORE important IMO, it will not help as many people because Victor's language is much easier to understand for most musicians.

I would advise reading a 2nd year tonal harmony text on non chord tones. anyone ever heard of a chromatic appogiatura? very common, I would also like to point to measure 3 of "the boy next door" as a Jazz example.

great thread.

[pauln]

I imagine every guitarist at every point in their playing life has a boundary before which everything they conceive and execute is "flawless" and beyond which "mistakes" begin to appear.

The appearance of mistakes is simply the confirmation that one is playing past one's boundary outside the safety area.

The expansion of that boundary occurs when you practice, improve conceptual skills, improve execution skills, and when you learn ways to gracefully recover an apparent mistake with those conceptual/execution skills - or when you really learn something new by taking a chance and accidentally change the mistake into something that works.

I doesn't hurt to experiment with identifying all the individual "wrong" notes over chords in progressions and trying different ways to make them work - that is the development of a "meta-vocabulary" of repairs to use in addition to all the foundational vocabulary.

Isn't that really what is being discussed here? And does this not expand the guitarist's conceptual/execution boundary?

[jayx123]

I have a question to you guys when you improv do you think of chord tones or do you hear the chord tones. Do you play a phrase and think i will finish the phrase on the 3rd of the targeted chord or do you hear the note you want to target in your head and know intuitively that that note will be a good note to resolve the phrase