Chord Tones on the Down Beat?

[jordanklemons]

I'd say 1357 of SOMETHING Is a good starting point. Ligon uses a lot of 3579 sub examples, especially with certain outlines. That also covers your 6th chords as well and some other subs.

When you say it also covers your 6th chords, do you mean that the 1357 or 3579 are the chord tones for 6th chords also for you Matt? Or that you change the 1357 to 1356 or 3569?

[MarkRhodes]

How about we take a half dozen great jazz solos that have been accurately transcribed (-so that we're all reading off the same page) and look at them to see what we see.

I nominate:
"Seven Come Eleven"--- Charlie Christian's solo
"Now's The Time" (-the first one) by Charlie Parker
"Mr. PC" by John Coltrane
"Doxy"---Miles' solo
"On The Sunny Side of the Street" Sonny Stitt solo
"Have You Met Miss Jones" Joe Pass solo

[mr. beaumont]

Is the question "does it happen?" Or "do players actually think about it?"

[matt.guitarteacher]

When you say it also covers your 6th chords, do you mean that the 1357 or 3579 are the chord tones for 6th chords also for you Matt? Or that you change the 1357 to 1356 or 3569?

Yeah. I was just saying that up or down a third is a pretty common sub. Especially 3579 I guess. Anyway, rootless 9th... Likewise, 1357 DOWN a third is a sixth chord inverted.

[Richard Luther]

They better not be thinking about anything on the bandstand but getting milk on the way home.

Here's another analogy regarding language. My first wife was Japanese and spoke English well.

However, it was off. Not because of the accent, well partially, but it was because she never immersed herself in the language as we native speakers speak it.

That was after I came back from Iraq and before we divorced.

Fast forward to last month. We spoke after 13 years and after she went to an English coach to correct little nuances.

She's now completely fluent. Shockingly so.

I'm light years from fluency in the jazz language. I also am a firm advocate for letting go of convention and taking risks. Seeing where an idea takes you.

But for me, like my ex, there are real issues with my syntax, accent, etc, that requires a good language coach.

I'm confident should anyone dig into Galper's intro to forward motion you'll come away a little closer to Harmonic Specificity to the point you can shed it briefly as a device.

Of course, if you're already there then your probably on to other battles.

I remember sitting across that little room with Joe Diorio and man he was in the stratosphere, yet, I could always hear the changes.

Jazz is the ultimate science. Love this thread and forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drapte]

Firstly the question is do players think about it, my original post is pretty clear. The problem is, when I jump into the actual solos, not examples from books based around the topic. There seems to be a lot of ignoring this rule going on. Funny that Bert Ligon was brought up because going through his book connecting chords, I noticed so many of the examples ignoring this concept yet still sounds cool. I also find it strange someone has claimed the "physiology of the ear" hears music this way and then provides absolutely no scientific evidence to back up such a claim.

My problem really is this, firstly, read my original post because I can tell lots of people haven't.

Secondly, players I actually like listening too, e.g. Cannonball Adderely, Jonathan Kreisberg seemingly always go against this "rule".

My question again was Do you think this is something pros actually think about?

Now let's just unpack some maths quickly:
1. There are 7 notes in the most popular scales players use around 95% of the time if not more.
2. There are 4 chord tones available to you anytime you play a corresponding scale with the chord. e.g. Playing a lydian scale over a major 7 chord will give you 4 chord tones, however playing a dorian scale would only give you 2. So we're going to assume that you are playing scales that contain the 4 chord tones. This means if you were completely guessing what you are doing you will still be hitting chord tones 57% of the time.
3. Now take into consideration Jazz musicians actively target chord tones and arpeggios. Say you play a minor 7 arpeggio up to the 7th then descend down the corresponding scale. This is something jazz musicians do a lot, and if you hit that 7th on the beat which is also common, this means you will be playing a line with chord tones on the beat descending without even thinking about it.

My question / argument here is that it would seem to me taking all this into consideration about 80% of your lines are going to primarily contain chord tones on the beat, and when I analyse solos by great players this seems to be about the same percentage that they are actually doing it. Which leads me to ask, does this correlation imply causation?

I appreciate the responses thanks.

[MarkRhodes]

One source to consider for thought about this is David Baker. His three-volume "How to Play Bebop" series has been influential for a long time now, with all sorts of jazz musicians.

Part of the rationale for the 'bebop" scales is that they place chord tones on the downbeat. That's one of the first points made in the first volume of the series.

It is something that bebop players did a lot. (Baker takes the lines he provides from jazz recordings.) And it is something that a long-heralded teacher of 'how to play bebop' taught.

That seems to me beyond question.

[mr. beaumont]

So there's only 4 chord tones? I'm out, I cant hear things that way, never will.

[Richard Luther]

I read your post twice.

The "physiology of the ear" is Hal Galper's thesis about this music not mine.

I do think pros think about this in the shed and don't think about too much except for that hot chick at bar while on the bandstand.

Did you actually want other opinions to your question or where you looking for the self congratulating society.

I provided you, as empirical as one can find in this music, evidence from an established pianist, educator, author, recording artist veteran who put together most consider a masterpiece in the form of Forward Motion.

Read the reviews: Amazon

Why the angst? This is a forum for people to share ideas. Different ideas. So we all can grow.

This music is too precious and there are far too few of us to spend emotions taking things personal.

Vibing is bad for jazz on the bandstand and on this forum.

Why "Vibing" is Bad for Jazz - Learn Jazz Standards





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Richard Luther]

Lengthy 5 star review from a verified Amazon purchase. Here's an answer to your question. Or there's the other version (it's all bullshit).

I gave this book 5 stars for one simple reason. The book presents authoritative information I have never encountered before in any of the countless jazz improv and theory books I own. I would say "the one ring to bind them all" but that is too cliche at this point. I say "authoritative" because, while many books offer a "new approach to learning improvisation," this author has learned from and played with many of the greats. His approach is steeped in trying to formulate an approach to strong jazz lines based on what past greats have emphasized in their own words. I think a good way of saying this is that Galper is trying understand how the greats heard the solo in their own head, rather than how an academic later analyzed the notes over the assumed chord changes. He wants the reader to hear and imagine in the same way as the greats. This book isn't necessarily an alternative to scale/chord theory books, but stands above such books in offering a way to turn all that practice and theory into something that actually sounds like good jazz. That being said, it isn't just a motivational book of "play with more energy" or "use more anticipation and syncopation" or "make your lines sing." This book is full of concrete application and theory, just at a different level than we are used to in jazz books.

As another reviewer said, this is one of the only jazz books I read cover to cover, and am now reading cover to cover again. While technical and full of examples, it feels more like a course lecture or a private music lesson, not a technical manual. I appreciate that Galper can back up what his says with historical and personal anecdotes from the creators of this music. He isn't trying to present a "new and improved" way, but seems to be trying to get into the head of these greats to understand how they approached and heard this music. It clearly wasn't merely applying certain scales over certain chords.

This is not a book of scales and arpeggios or even rules about how to use them over chords. To paraphrase guitarist Barney Kessel's analogy to boxing, those are the equivalent of shadow boxing and heavy bag and speed bag work. They are the preparation, but not the thing itself. Instead this is a book of how to make those things actually come out as jazz instead of the altogether too common experience of sounding like etudes and practice exercises. Much of this has to do with how we hear and envision the lines we want to play. This book is subtitled "a corrective approach to jazz phrasing" and is about adjusting our hearing from the simplistic childish way we all retain from the way we practiced as kids (and mostly still do). Galper attempts to guide us to a more mature way of "hearing a line." In that sense, this is a "users manual" for all that theory you already know. This is not "what to play over what chord" and is instead "how to produce strong lines with momentum from the notes under your fingers." It really does require a big adjustment in how we hear and "frame" the notes we hear.

How do you take a line like "rea llygo odja zz" and have the listener comprehend is as "really good jazz"? Succinctly, that is the point of this book.

Today's academic jazz pedagogy approaches improvisation through learning scales and arpeggios along with rules of application over various chords. Couple that with always starting ideas from beat 1 and 3, and you have a recipe for static boredom. Galper offers an alternative approach to arrive at strong lines, and this approach seems deeply rooted in the historical development of jazz from the 20's onward even to teaching at Berklee in the 60's when Galper attended. Both methods can lead to the same outcome, but Galper's approach is a refreshing alternate perspective that we know has a historical basis.

Despite what one reviewer said, this book is NOT basically one concept rehashed over and over. I found numerous important ideas (some new, some familiar) that coalesced to give me a different approach to improv. Here are a few of those concepts, all from only the first few chapters:

1) Every strong line holds within it a strong convincing half note melody, and this is what makes a good solo sound so "right." This half note melody is built of guide tones that sufficiently outline the changes and do so at a sonic speed (half note melodies) that the human ear can subconsciously follow within all the other chromatic stuff going on.
2) For any one tune one can construct (even on the fly) a huge variety of half note melodies (guide tone lines) as skeletons to improvise around. These melodies, based off the chord changes or superimposed chords, are more important than the embellishments used to fill in the line; they are what the ear actually picks out. Surprisingly, the other notes can be diatonic to the key or can be derived completely of notes outside the key, and the solo will still hang together if the half note melody is logical.
3) We now can start to see the "other" notes in the solo as being preparatory to or embellishing this half note melody. One historically relevant method is the use of appoggiaturas, various ways to bracket the important notes and voice lead into them from above and below. One can create endless convincing bebop lines with merely these two elements of half note melody and embellishment.

OK, so maybe you already knew all of that. But now things really start to get interesting:
4) According to Galper, most of us retain a childish way of hearing music. Our early musical training and practice focused on hearing and playing musical ideas starting on beats "1" or "3" of the measure.The author shows how a mature jazz ear hears ideas COMPLETING on "1" and "3". Beats 1 and 3 are the release points of what came before. A mature improviser hears lines pointing to these notes, not lines starting on these notes and leading away. Imagine a typical 8th note arpeggio exercise from a lesson book. These are typically presented as starting on beat 1 bared in groups of four eighth notes so what one hears in ones mind is "ONE and two and THREE and four and/ ONE and two and THREE and four and"...... Now imagine if we simply play three preparatory notes before the first bar; the 4 note frame has shifted and our mind hears the melody as very different 4 note groupings: "and four and ONE" "and two and THREE" "and four and ONE". Try repeating each version over several times before switching; you will quickly hear and feel a big difference.

Suddenly the melody we hear is different, what Galper calls the "true melody," and it has forward momentum. The point is: the strong beats, the notes of our half note melody, come at the end of phrases. This is a very important difference. In today's scale-oriented approach we are trained to think like this: the first two beats (one and two) are the ii chord so we should outline that chord for two beats, the next two beats (three and four) are the V7 chord so we should outline that for the next to beats and then finally switch to outlining the tonic chord on beats 1 through 4 of the next measure. In essence each chord idea starts on 1 or 3. Galper asks us to revise this way of hearing so that the beats preceding 1 and 3 are the ideas, the tension, that points forward to release on important notes on beats 1 and 3. In other words we want our ideas to END on 1 and 3, rather than start on 1 and 3 the way practice exercises do. Envisioning musical ideas as starting on 1 and 3 is static, while framing them to end on 1 and 3 is dynamic. In a sense, the mature improviser hears his lines moving TO 1 and 3 or, if you are Charlie Parker, heading to even more distant destinations. Galper even shows how a monotonous static arpeggio exercise can be "reframed" in this way so we hear it very differently without actually changing the notes, just the way the mind groups the notes. Its really quite mind blowing how the melody changes when preparatory notes are added to shift the 4 note frame by which we hear a phrase. The experience is similar to looking at one of those black and white silhouettes that is a vase or a face depending on whether you focus on the black or white.

So, if one pays close attention, this book can provide a way forward to stronger more cohesive improv lines. It also offers an excellent alternative tool for analysis of solos, and Galper encourages the reader to go back and re-analyze famous solos from this different perspective. How do the notes stack up if we look at them as pointing to certain future notes rather than merely looking at them in the vertical context of the chord listed for that beat or measure? That Parker solo with complex chromatic alterations on each chord, might actually be one long line headed for a target note 2 measures in the future! No wonder Parker was known to tell his pianists "don't follow me, just stay with the changes, and it will come together."

To sum this up simply, I would say that Galper asks us to think of improvisation the way it was historically applied: Melody plus Embellishment. He shows us a modern twist where we derive our own strong half note melodies using the guide tones from the changes (or from superimposed chords) and then embellish them with varying degrees of chromaticism. He then shows us how to change our hearing so that we present our embellishment lines pointing strongly TO those future target notes, rather than crafting lines that merely trail AWAY from target notes in consonance with whatever chord of the moment. The more I think about this stuff in relation to the solos of the bebop greats, the more I think that Galper really is presenting a more realistic version of how bebop evolved into being and how it really worked in the minds of the greats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[radiofm74]

QUOTE:

I nominate:
"Seven Come Eleven"--- Charlie Christian's solo
"Now's The Time" (-the first one) by Charlie Parker
"Mr. PC" by John Coltrane
"Doxy"---Miles' solo
"On The Sunny Side of the Street" Sonny Stitt solo
"Have You Met Miss Jones" Joe Pass solo

UNQUOTE

Very interesting little list. Forgive the noob question: which versions of “Seven come eleven” and “Have you met miss Jones?” among the several that Charlie Christian and Joe Pass have recorded?

PS: I think there’s the Galper book in my near future anyway…

[MarkRhodes]

So there's only 4 chord tones? I'm out, I cant hear things that way, never will.

Depends on the chord. For a simple triad, there are only three.
For altered chords, there may be five or six.

When making the changes, 3rds and 7ths are most important. (This isn't controversial, is it?)

[MarkRhodes]

Very interesting little list. Forgive the noob question: which versions of “Seven come eleven” and “Have you met miss Jones?” among the several that Charlie Christian and Joe Pass have recorded?

PS: I think there’s the Galper book in my near future anyway…

I was thinking of the master take of "Seven Come Eleven" with the Benny Goodman Sextet. As for Joe and "Have You Met Miss Jones," I was thinking of the one from "Chops", but any version whose transcription is available to all would be fine.

[mr. beaumont]

Depends on the chord. For a simple triad, there are only three.
For altered chords, there may be five or six.

When making the changes, 3rds and 7ths are most important. (This isn't controversial, is it?)

I hear everything as a possible 13th chord

[ColinO]

Honest question. Why is it that "chord tones" only include 1-3-5-7? Why are the 9-11-13 not considered chord tones?

[M-ster]

I think it's more about making resolutions, moreso than just placing chord tones, on strong parts of the bar. And, while lines often resolve into a chord's 3rd or 5th, they also can resolve into a 9th or 6th (13th) as well as a root or 7th.

We often get too carried away with making and interpreting "the rules."

[jordanklemons]

Depends on the chord. For a simple triad, there are only three.
For altered chords, there may be five or six.

When making the changes, 3rds and 7ths are most important. (This isn't controversial, is it?)

I wouldn't say controversial, no. But I'm glad I asked, as it does seem like different people are offering slight variations on the definition. And it's a bit tough to talk about whether or not we must be able to hit chord tones on down beats if we haven't all come to a unified agreement in definition on what a chord tone is and what a down beat is (I assume we all probably have the same feelings on the latter...)

That said, I don't necessarily agree that 3rds and 7ths are the end all to be all solution for everything. There are many other notes that can clearly define a harmony. And there are many times where I find that the 3rd and/or the 7th actually gets in the way and muddies up the tonality. Especially if we're simply talking about a stagnant chord not moving anywhere.

2 quick examples to try and show with sound what I'm getting at

First, vamp on a G- (G-9 ideally, but G- or G-7 is fine too)

Either comp for yourself leaving pockets or space or use a looper. Now improvise over this with D minor blues. Not simply D min pentatonic. Put the b5/#11 blues note in there. Most of us will probably recognize this tonality. There's nothing controversial about this sound. It's pretty old school... super hip. You might notice though that the lines have a tendency to lean towards 'D' as feeling like the tonic. And you might also notice that 'G' doesn't feel like a strong resolution point.

This probably won't work if you're playing over a loop, but if you're just comping for yourself... once you've done this for a few minutes and got the sound in your head... try to move the 'A' note of the scale up to the Bb and put more emphasis on the 'G' note. This is the root and 3rd of a minor chord. In theory it should sound perfect. And it will. But it will also sound like you've just gone to the iv chord in a minor blues. Right? That should be enough to freak any of us out. How can shifting from the 9th of a minor chord to the 3rd of that same chord make it sound like we just moved to an entirely different chord? Anybody want to give that a try and chime in as to whether or not they hear this too? So then which is the chord tone? The 9 or the m3? Obviously theory tells us the m3. But what about the ear and the practical application?

If you want to go one more step, try the same thing but this time play an actual minor blues. Play a D minor blues scale over the G chord, and a G minor blues scale over the C minor chord... then do your thing over the turnaround. Would love to hear from anyone else who gives this one a shot. If you do, can you hear how 'in' that 9 is? What happens if you play the m3? Does it sound 'in'? Does it clash?

That's more about altering chord tones in a somewhat stagnant or modal context. Here's a 2nd example that has more to do with applying that type of thing into a moving situation.

Here's just a few ideas for 3 note movements (each note placed melodically over a single chord in a ii V I) that helps "outline" the changes.

ii - V - I
9-b13-9
11-b9-13
R-#11-9
13-#9-13
b5-R-#11
5-#9-7
9-b7-#11

I was intentionally trying to squeeze in some "extensions"... but to me all of these are chord tones and clearly outline the changes. If I play the root note of each chord and the "chord tone" that corresponds to it respectively... that's all I need to hear a clear ii V I happen. These go far beyond the basic 1-3-5-7... but still are pretty tame in my opinion. We could get weirder if we wanted and put #9's or #5's over the Maj7 chord and still hear the same definition.

11-9-#5
3-13-#9*

*This one might sound like a minor chord to anyone who hasn't spent much time with the Maj7#9 sound... but if you fill in some other tones, you can start to hear it as a Maj chord...
Try playing
X5356X
3X345X
X3244X

For me, more notes can potentially serve as chord tones than not. That's why I asked what I asked earlier. I think the 1-3-5-7 and the 3rds and 7ths is a great entrance into the idea. No doubt. But depending on how we choose to apply different notes, they can function in very strange ways. The root note can function as a melodic tension note (non-chord tone) if I want it to. An upper extension can serve as a resolution point (chord tone) if I want it to. I think it has a lot to do with context.

I think a beneficial exercise could be to take a simple 3 note guide tone line, and compose like 10 or 15 riffs from it. Just insert a few passing/neighbor notes, a leap, or an arpeggio here or there... decorate it up... and it will sound beautiful. For me, this is where I find a lot of improvisation freedom.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Okay. I'll be the idiot here. Honestly, I'm not a player . Not in jazz anyway. I just hear tension and release as being the basic principle . Tensions sound good on the downbeat , and they're all throughout the heads to the heads we play as standards . Aren't they? I'm out, not looking at music or holding an instrument etc. . So, maybe I'm just remembering wrong , but it just seems like so many tunes have a basic tension and release, with a tension being on the downbeat and the resolution being on the and the beat etc.

Anyway, I know that putting chord tones on the beat is something you SHOULD be able to do, be able to hear , understand melodically etc. . I just don't know that I understand exactly what we're talking about in all of this. If MELODY of tunes is the REFERENCE , how do we arrive at the idea that we don't want tensions on downbeats? Maybe I'm remembering wrong, and need to go look at some music. Thoughts appreciated.

[MarkRhodes]

I hear everything as a possible 13th chord

That's fine. But when you're playing with others---or for others---it helps to give some thought to how they tend to hear things. This is why 3rds and 7ths are crucial to improvising well over standard changes--those are the most telling tones.

A series of not-wrong notes that imply no definite direction is what me mean by "noodling" or "drifting." It's not wrong, it's just not good. (Unless you want to sound that way on a certain tune, perhaps a long, dreamy intro, and when that is what you want to achieve, that is how you do it.)

[mr. beaumont]

That's fine. But when you're playing with others---or for others---it helps to give some thought to how they tend to hear things. This is why 3rds and 7ths are crucial to improvising well over standard changes--those are the most telling tones.

A series of not-wrong notes that imply no definite direction is what me mean by "noodling" or "drifting." It's not wrong, it's just not good. (Unless you want to sound that way on a certain tune, perhaps a long, dreamy intro, and when that is what you want to achieve, that is how you do it.)

You realize that was a joke right? What's a 13th chord arpeggio...

[matt.guitarteacher]

Okay. Looking at it on my phone . So, it's crappy , but to me, basically, Duke Ellington's "I got it bad" looks like a purposeful reversal of the rule we're discussing in this thread. Tensions on strong beats and resolutions on weak. I'm sure it's a major classical melodic motif as well.

Back to Duke, this is the kind of tune I always thought about when I started looking at Jimmy Amadie and his ideas of tension and release. His contention was that the RESOLUTION is the more important aspect, as opposed to what beat things are on etc. Duke Ellington seems to be working this idea pretty heavily in this tune. Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts.

[Richard Luther]

Bert Ligon. "Connecting Chords with Linear Harmony".

The following examples start on page 18.

The following lines are consecutive downbeats.

Charlie Parker (CP) 3R375
CP. 3R3(95)3 enclosure
Tom Harrell (TH) 3R37
TH 39R3R3
CP 3R3(b9)to R ghost note
Hubbard 33RR3
Stitt 535375
TH. 3R5b9 parallel minor
Bill Evans 3(9)35 triplet down to 3
Clifford Brown 33
Dexter Gordon 9R3R3 (93 to R) melodic motif
Hubbard 3(9)3753R3 enclosure
Stitt R35575375
Blue Mitchell 35953
TH 3R3R36
TH 39R635
Fats Navarro R33(b9)5 enclosure
CP R(9)73 passing
Clark Terry 3R(4b3)3 enclosure
Donald Byrd 575373(97)R53R7
Clifford Brown (43)b3R73

Ok. Enough. Page after page of the above. 9ths occur in the context of voice leading to a strong chord tone on the downbeat.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jordanklemons]

Okay. Looking at it on my phone . So, it's crappy , but to me, basically, Duke Ellington's "I got it bad" looks like a purposeful reversal of the rule we're discussing in this thread. Tensions on strong beats and resolutions on weak. I'm sure it's a major classical melodic motif as well.

Back to Duke, this is the kind of tune I always thought about when I started looking at Jimmy Amadie and his ideas of tension and release. His contention was that the RESOLUTION is the more important aspect, as opposed to what beat things are on etc. Duke Ellington seems to be working this idea pretty heavily in this tune. Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts.

Great tune choice Matt... I need to spend some more time on this one no doubt. So beautiful.

My first few thoughts without digging in too much is first few thoughts are this. First, perhaps we should ask what we all mean when we say "the down beats". I personally am not just talking strictly talking about beat one, or even beats 1 and 3. In a more generic sense, I just mean an quarter note pulse. That said, even that can be altered intentionally. If we're playing a sequence made up of 3 8th notes, we can create the sensation of "down beats", or beats with emphasis on the & of every other beat. Anyways... all this stuff can be messed with. But in the most generic sense, I personally am just thinking about any note that falls on a quarter note pulse as down, and any note that falls on the & is up. But I do recognize it can sometimes just be referring to beat 1 and sometimes to beats 1 and 3.

I don't recall there really being any 8th notes in the melody of this tune, unless liberties are taken with phrasing... so I don't really feel like it's a tune that begs for much debate in terms of this rule.

That said, if we want to think of it in a tradition sense as beat 1 and 3 vs 2 and 4... there's still some interesting things happening. I would agree in the first phrase that it feels like tension on 1 and 3 and resolution on 2 and 4. But interestingly, the final resolution to the 9th of the II7 chord... I hear that as a resolution point. Even though it's a 9th. It doesn't sound like it wants to go anywhere. That might just be a subjective opinion. Others might hear it and want to get off of it. But I could sit on that thing all day. That is, until the chords begin to move again... and then we're back where you were talking about... again, until the final note where he hits the root note on the tonic chord. It's got a beautiful symmetry to it. The sort of 1,3/2,4 tension resolution for the first few bars... and then a nice strong chord tone resolution on beat one to wrap it up. An 'iffy' resolution for the first few bars, and very final root note resolution for the next few bars.

I'd have to pick up my guitar and mess with it a bit more. For me, a lot of the chord tone idea and which notes we're picking really have a lot to do with phrasing. There's a good amount of liberties we can take when phrasing the melody (regarding rhythmic placement, dynamics, etc) that can have a pretty drastic affect on which notes feel like the chord tone... at least for my ear.

[Richard Luther]

Can't resist.

Clifford Brown R55777R5R763RR63R
Bill Evans R5375R3R576373
Clifford Brown R765R733

It's safer to say 90% versus my earlier claim of 80% of downbeats are chord tones.

I don't have Parkers Omnibook and would be very thankful if someone could map out a chorus with just downbeats.

Once again, I love this forum. It forced me to dig back into basics of this language.

I just hope the newbie players read deep into posts before they dismiss issues as bullshit because they read it from a seasoned forum member.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matt.guitarteacher]

Bert Ligon. "Connecting Chords with Linear Harmony".

The following examples start on page 18.

The following lines are consecutive downbeats.

Charlie Parker (CP) 3R375
CP. 3R3(95)3 enclosure
Tom Harrell (TH) 3R37
TH 39R3R3
CP 3R3(b9)to R ghost note
Hubbard 33RR3
Stitt 535375
TH. 3R5b9 parallel minor
Bill Evans 3(9)35 triplet down to 3
Clifford Brown 33
Dexter Gordon 9R3R3 (93 to R) melodic motif
Hubbard 3(9)3753R3 enclosure
Stitt R35575375
Blue Mitchell 35953
TH 3R3R36
TH 39R635
Fats Navarro R33(b9)5 enclosure
CP R(9)73 passing
Clark Terry 3R(4b3)3 enclosure
Donald Byrd 575373(97)R53R7
Clifford Brown (43)b3R73

Ok. Enough. Page after page of the above. 9ths occur in the context of voice leading to a strong chord tone on the downbeat.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a lot of respect for Ligon. I have all his books I think. "Connecting chords..." is merely one specific aspect of what he presents in his material. That book began as a single chapter of his superb two-volume jazz theory book. In the process of developing that CHAPTER, he became really fascinated with all of the examples he ended up finding for source material and just ended up making it its own book , and actually published it BEFORE the volumes of which it was originally a part.

It deals with harmonic specificity , and to be fair, all of the examples in that book are examples of the outlines he's talking about. That's not to say there are many other devices commonly found in solos as well , but you're not going to include numerous examples of what something is NOT in a book like that.

Anyway, check out his other theory volumes they are all excellent. a lot of stuff on rhythmic displacement compositionally and improvisationally. Huge tenet of Ligon's teaching on learning vocabulary, transcribed or otherwise developed , is to practice all material "on, before and after" the beat.