George Benson's approach to playing chord changes

[princeplanet]

Bensons approach to playing changes. | The Gear Page

The above link is to an old Gear Page thread started by member "Tag". A couple of you guys may have even participated. It is very long- 667 posts I think, but it's as engaging as any jazz thread I've read anywhere, despite the inevitable clashing of heads. For those willing to read through most of it, what are your own thoughts?

[mr. beaumont]

It's a pretty good read. I also think a "macro" approach, in this case, really just thinking "tension and resolution" is NOT beginner stuff. But it IS kinda where all good players end up...I'm seeing glimpses of it...maybe another 20 years or so!

I think jazz beginners should start as micro as possible...what notes are in the chord? what are the strong notes? how do different tensions/alterations sound?

There's a thread here going on about a dissection of "Body and Soul" right now...I think this is the kind of stuff one needs to do in order to eventually get "free." It's not overanalysis...it's teaching your ear to hear every possible combination...

[princeplanet]

It's a pretty good read. I also think a "macro" approach, in this case, really just thinking "tension and resolution" is NOT beginner stuff. But it IS kinda where all good players end up...I'm seeing glimpses of it...maybe another 20 years or so!...

Yeah good point Mr B, I guess it must seem obvious to a veteran to break things down like that, but maybe they forgot the path they took to come to that reductive coalescence of their "method". You just can't put an old head on young shoulders, but Tag sounded so insistent that you really could be taught this approach and save yourself years of finding it out for yourself the hard way....

Personally, I think I found it out for myself, and yes, it was the "hard" way, making me feel like I wasted years trying to arm myself with tools that would help me meet every change like it was a game or something. Thinking Dominant vs Tonic- once you've prepared yourself enough, is really liberating, engaging the right brain more than the left or something (have i got that right?)... It's not gonna be for everyone, but I wonder if this approach would have resonated with me 15 years ago if I'd known about it....

[mr. beaumont]

I'm wondering that too. Part of me thinks you have to do the legwork...but maybe I'm just thinking that because I want to believe what I've spent a decade doing is "worth it."

[MarkRhodes]

Thanks for posting this. I read the OP and will read the ensuing discussion later.

[dasein]

i didn't read the whole thread, but i also worked with Richie Hart, and it feels like the OP didn't really do justice to his teaching approach

but what do i know. after all, Tag KNOWS tone.

[MarkRhodes]

i didn't read the whole thread, but i also worked with Richie Hart, and it feels like the OP didn't really do justice to his teaching approach

Knowing what you know about Richie Hart's teaching, how would supplement the OP of that thread?

[dasein]

Knowing what you know about Richie Hart's teaching, how would supplement the OP of that thread?

it's true that he tended to label chords as either "tonic" or "dominant" but that wasn't something you could necessarily determine by the chord quality

the most obvious example is a blues. bar 1 of a blues in F would be F7. yes, it's a dominant chord, but at that instance it would be a tonic chord. but in bar 4, the same F7 would be a dominant chord (going to Bb7 in bar 5).

the real question would be, does this chord feel like home or does it feel like it's trying going to resolve somewhere else? that's how you determine tonic/dominant.tonic 7th chords used more vanilla note coices, dominant 7th chords could use more tension

that was just one part of his teaching, though. if i could summarize the other important parts, they would be:

- learn tunes, learn tunes, and learn more tunes. the most important part of a tune: the melody, followed by the melody.

- sing everything

- play tunes with very simple chord melodies: root, 3rd, 7th, with melody in the top. be able to sing all of these voices as they move through the harmony.

- for every tune you learn, come up with a chord melody arrangement of it. this will not only give you a nice repertoire for solo gigs, but will give you ideas for soloing

- for soloing, everything came from chords. first you learned the "Charlie Christian" shapes. then it was chord substitution. for him, there was no such thing as a "rootless" chord. it was all chord substitution.

- lots of listening and learning solos by ear

there was quite a bit of other stuff, but those were the basics. he also had very specific ideas about technique.

he HATED modes, hated chord scales, really was not a big fan of scales in general. despised the Real Book. and he made no secret that he did not care for Metheny, Scofield, or any "modern" guys, for lack of a better word. he was an unapologetic Wes/Benson acolyte that paid his dues playing countless gigs on the chitlin-circuit. even if i didn't agree with his uncompromising aesthetics, it was certainly a unique perspective.

[Flyin' Brian]

Thank you dasein for that wonderful summary. I remember that thread and it's one of the threads that got Tag banned from TGP. Tag's a good player and as I understand a nice guy in person but he was pretty opinionated and argumentative back in the day.

The last paragraph reminded me very much of Henry Johnson. I took some lessons with Henry and he felt very much the same way about the "modern" players...even told me I couldn't possibly play jazz on the strat that I owned at the time. But my goodness what a player! Henry always said that the modern guys didn't know "the language" and wasn't interested when I suggested that most languages have many dialects.

He sure taught me a lot though and I'm forever grateful for that.

[destinytot]

I think good self-taught players intuitively gravitate towards this simple tension-resolution concept. (I've also heard it called dark-light; personally, I like stable-unstable.) Pragmatics over morphology.

I think it's significant that such ideas are still taught and elaborated on an almost 'street'/'grass-roots' level. The internet may enhance the transference of culture, but the latter ultimately thrives on human contact.

My own and several of my musician friends' lives have been touched by spending time learning directly from accomplished players who were passing through. I've seen this in several countries, and I still see this going on for a younger generation coming up today.

And it's heartening to see collaboration and cooperation today, to witness the emergence of an infrastructure that supports exchange and dissemination of information and contact across cultural boundaries. (Valencia's remarkable for that.)

But what is sad is that many brilliant players couldn't get teaching gigs at music schools where their improvisational craft was most coveted. Had they managed to do so, it may have changed their life chances. Obviously, I'm not thinking so much about the wonderful Barry Harris - being the self-reliant, intrepid and unstoppable globe-trotting educator that he is - as I am about amazing young musicians whom he taught but whose careers didn't thrive. Some of them aren't even alive today.

Here are just three examples, of which I'll only name only two (both sadly deceased): Sean Levitt and Bheki Mseleku.

The third has been my friend for thirty-odd years, and he's a saxophonist. All I can say is that he studied (a lot) with Bheki, with Kenny Garrett, with Ralph Moore, and with others. Jerry Bergonzi has encouraged him to go into teaching full-time. The problem? Lack of formal teaching qualifications. His way around this is to get qualified by first taking a jazz studies degree run by musicians with a background in classical background. Proprietary, protective... and preposterous.

But there's the rub. When my friend was applying for a place as a mature student, he would talk about little devices such as the ones in the OP only to have them scoffed at - until, that is, he started playing...

I may not have been there, but I can almost see them squirm and feel them ache for what they want but can't have - and will probably never get. Because, basically, they believe that their academic background entitles them to have it.

But my friend remains kind, modest and humble. When Bheki talked, my friend and I both listened - but my friend practised and applied it. He sounds - sublime.

So with respect to the OP, and for what it's worth to anyone who reads this long post, Bheki Mseleku - who was self-taught and thought in simple terms - used to say, "Play minor-major sounds." And that's verbatim.

Some nice footage of Bheki to close:

[MarkRhodes]

Thanks, Dasien.

I was unfamiliar with Richie Hart----this is guy, right?

[princeplanet]

How great would it be to have GB himself chime in with the last word ? Always wanted to pick his brain and ask stuff like, "So George, this 3 bar line that bears no resemblance to the chord, nor any of the usual subs we all know about, what the hell were you thinking there?"

[destinytot]

The last paragraph reminded me very much of Henry Johnson. I took some lessons with Henry and he felt very much the same way about the "modern" players...even told me I couldn't possibly play jazz on the strat that I owned at the time. But my goodness what a player! Henry always said that the modern guys didn't know "the language" and wasn't interested when I suggested that most languages have many dialects.

He sure taught me a lot though and I'm forever grateful for that.

Reading that makes me want to take a trip to the US just to get some lessons. Hmm...

[christianm77]

Thanks for posting.

This is basically the way I have come to understand harmony from studying solos and heads. For instance I noticed it is very common for players to play IIm-I, IV-I or VIIm7b5 (II-6)-I over V7-I, for instance. You can also put the chromatic variations (most commonly with a b6 of the key, such as IVm) as well.

I think that understanding makes life a lot easier - however, I am still working it out in the course of my playing....

[christianm77]

@destinytot - great post. I feel 'street' level knowledge is often sidelined by the institutions because they actually have a vested interest in making things complicated.

When I went for an audition at a jazz college (the only one I have ever gone for) there were a lot of questions about music theory. Because my first degree is not in music they questioned whether I would have the academic background to deal with music education at degree level.

Privately, and I hope I don't come across as arrogant, I found this hilarious. My first degree is a Master's in Astrophysics. I have studied general relativity and quantum mechanics at US graduate school level.

As a result, I do feel the jazz education system is disappearing up it's own fundament, in part because they are DESPERATE for respect. They are going the wrong way about it.

Perhaps I am being harsh. I don't really hold it against them, and have no chip on my shoulder regarding not getting in. I have to say for my own development, the issue is certainly not one of not being academic enough, but probably of thinking TOO much, perhaps of not being a truly fluent and capable musician in the way that many of my colleagues are... I don't think I struggle being academic about things.

Because of this I am skeptical about what I would get from pursuing jazz education formally, and haven't applied again, although I guess it could be good for contacts. Expensive though...

[christianm77]

I also wanted to add that Bensons very simple approach, resembles a scientific truth far more than all the endless combinations of scales and modes that some feel it's important to master. Benson (like Barry - or Pat Martino) basically went to the music, looked for patterns, found them, devised an elegant and overreaching theory that explained what he saw, and then applied it to his own playing. Which is what I like to try to do, probably because of my background. And, of course, we can't argue with the result in Benson's case.

When scientists want to solve a non-linear second order partial differential equation, which is often, they will do it the simplest possible way. They have no interest in making things more complicated.

Music is obviously not a science, but the theoretical aspects of it can become a barrier. Good theory serves the player, not itself, right? There is no value in doing things 'properly' if it doesn't actually help.

[christianm77]

How great would it be to have GB himself chime in with the last word ? Always wanted to pick his brain and ask stuff like, "So George, this 3 bar line that bears no resemblance to the chord, nor any of the usual subs we all know about, what the hell were you thinking there?"

Probably wasn't thinking? ;-)

[destinytot]

Thanks, christianm77, but this one's close to home.

I can sublimate my feelings through writing lyrics, but sometimes what I read on this forum is disturbing and alarming. There's only so much one can 'ignore'.

But I learn from it. 'Now He Sings, Now He Sobs'...Enantiodromia...Wave Hands Like Clouds...Record With Friend .

[destinytot]

Probably wasn't thinking? ;-)

Somewhere in that thread there's an anecdote about GB performing at a major music school where his hosts seemed to want to see him stumble over tricky charts. I bet he was thinking then... but not about the music.
(Though maybe about the money - just like Liberace, who 'cried all the way to the bank'!)

[princeplanet]

Probably wasn't thinking? ;-)

You know what I mean, what's the methodology behind some of his superimpositions.... he obviously road tested many, if not all his concepts off the band stand. But yeah, maybe some things, when you're at this level, can just come from the ether, and you force it to work through sheer will.

Let's face it, GB is a freak, he sounds as though he can play anything against anything and somehow, not just make it resolve, but make it sound hipper than hell...

[whiskey02]

I am perhaps a little proud and very embarrassed to admit that several years back I figured this "system" out for myself. I couldn't wait to meet with my teacher and explain that…" there are only TWO chords", everything is a I or a V. That makes me proud to think that if only for a moment I was thinking on the same plane as George!!! But in actual practice, it hasn't done me all that much good, as I haven't kept up "thinking" in that simplified way. I think this "method" is probably put to best use by players who play very much by ear. Not that Wes and George were ignorant of the theory involved, they just didn't need to reference it while playing. They both HEAR it all on such a higher level. Their playing is very intuitive to them. Hacks like me are forced to be much more cerebral about it. It sort of similar to people (perhaps Astrophysicists) who do Nasa level math in their heads. Some of these folks can't write it down, or "show their work" when teacher asks to see it; they just DO IT, they KNOW IT. George and Wes just do it, very intuitively without analyzing every little piece (chord). I think for them, having such big ears, the very simple idea of "it's I or V", is all the thought they need to put into it.

[dasein]

How great would it be to have GB himself chime in with the last word ? Always wanted to pick his brain and ask stuff like, "So George, this 3 bar line that bears no resemblance to the chord, nor any of the usual subs we all know about, what the hell were you thinking there?"

well, here's a story that might be illuminating

Richie Hart went to go study with Benson back in the 70's. Hart had just finished up at Berklee, winning their award for best graduating guitarist (the year after Scofield won it). very good reader, very knowledgeable theoretically -- maybe not the best guitar player in the universe, but definitely no slouch.

so he starts his lesson with Benson by running through a tune. and in Hart's own words, "Benson destroyed me." but that was OK -- after all, Benson was one of his heroes.

after they run through the tune, Benson starts showing him different chord voicings and asking him to name them. he figures that Benson is just quizzing him. but after a while, it becomes apparent that this is not the case: Benson is not testing his knowledge, he's asking the name of these chord voicings because he genuinely did not know what they are.

so a roundabout way to answer your question: if you asked Benson what he was doing, there's a good chance he wouldn't be able to explain it that well. if you watch his instructional video, he says as much (he also says he stopped giving lessons because he was learning more from his students than they were from him, a quip that always made me smile in light of the above story).

he's not completely ignorant of theory. if you watch his video, he talks about ii-Vs, and pretty clearly explains tri-tone subs (even if he doesn't call it that).

so where does he come up with his subs? Hart said that Benson told him he would look at a chord voicing, and find the other chords within them.

so you'd have a voicing like this for A7:

E: 6
B: 7
G: 6
D: 5
A: X
E: 5

Benson would play that, and see the F#major triad on the top three strings. whammo, you can play F#major over A7.

this is why coming up with chord-melodies for tune can be so beneficial. you come up with all these neat chords, get it sounding as good as possible... now you can actually uses these ideas in your soloing. and you know they'll work with that tune, because by coming up with a chord-melody, you already hear how they work with the melody.

[christianm77]

You know what I mean, what's the methodology behind some of his superimpositions.... he obviously road tested many, if not all his concepts off the band stand. But yeah, maybe some things, when you're at this level, can just come from the ether, and you force it to work through sheer will.

Let's face it, GB is a freak, he sounds as though he can play anything against anything and somehow, not just make it resolve, but make it sound hipper than hell...

Well there is the very obvious fact that GB is just ridiculously talented at music! Perhaps it is true that what works for him won't work for us.

But I have to say from my own day to day playing, this basic approach works great and means one can focus on making up melodies on songs and not worry...

[kirk95]

I think I remember a Benson quote something like this...

There is only Major, Minor, Augmented and Diminished.

Having started as a pure ear player, then studying at Berklee, and then practicing, playing and studying for another 30 years, this is my take.

Has anyone here ever studied classical counterpoint?

The hard rules:
1) For every note of the cantus firmus there is one note in the counterpoint
2) No accidentals may be used (except rule 5)
3) All harmonies must be consonant (a perfect fourth is considered a dissonance)
4) The first interval must be any perfect harmony and the last an octave or unison
5) The last interval must be approached by motion of a minor second upwards (note rule 7 may not be broken)
6) All perfect intervals must be approached by contrary motion
7) Motion can proceed by step or leap but steps and leaps of augmented and diminished intervals and leaps of any seventh are forbidden. Leaps greater than an sixth are forbidden except for leaps of an octave which should be rare
8) The counterpoint may not outline an interval of a tritone or seventh except for an augmented fourth that is fully, stepwise outlined and precedes an inwards step
The soft rules:
1) No note may be repeated successively more than three times
2) No two successive leaps in the same direction may total more than an octave
3) While ascending, in the case of two successive steps or leaps, the larger one should precede the smaller; while descending the smaller should precede the larger
4) No successive leaps in opposite directions; leaps should be followed by inward, stepwise motion
5) The same harmonic interval should not repeat more than three times
6) There should be no more than two successive leaps
7) The range of the counterpoint should be limited to a tenth and all notes in the chosen mode should appear in the counterpoint

Really, this is what Bach was thinking when he wrote all his amazing compositions. No way!!

This is exactly what happened in Jazz education. First came the master players. Then came the analyzers (Dave Baker- Lee Berk) who came up with all these rules and complicated names for everything to try and explain what the masters were doing.

You really think Charlie Parker ever thought Dorian to Mixolydian to Ionian on a II V ever in his life? No way!!

Music does not have to be that complicated. It can be if you want it be, but it doesn't have to be.

The greatest leaps I ever made musically always came from the masters. Learning the language from transcribing their lines and subs. I have always had a hard time making Dorian to Altered/ Diminished/ Augmented to Lydian/Ionian SCALES sound musical even though that's what I'm playing very much of the time.... But it's the lines with chord tones on strong beats, creative approach notes, creative subs, and logical tension resolution that make it the Language!!

Just my 2 cents....

[kirk95]

FYI, I have a group over on Facebook where we talk about "Jazz Lines You Can Use in the Blues." We're talking about this stuff all the time and sharing lines, concepts, and approaches. Not to mention, the famous TAG, hangs and contributes with us over there.

Please join us, if you are interested. :-)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/jazzblueslines/