-
In terms of learning a tune I would always advise a student to start simple and build up - play 1 3 5 triads through everything and then running simple, diatonic scales before exploring more complicated options.
However not all chords are born equal. In bebop, it's the setting up of the resolutions into static minor and major chords which is where the action is, so once you are out of the stage of learning the triads through the progression you are going to start looking into some more interesting movements into the static chords. When I say movement this includes melodic contour, rhythm and harmony.
In general I would describe my functional/bebop playing like this:
ii V I
Where V is a big harmonic sandpit - basically any of the arpeggios of the related scales (including ii, IV, VIIm7b5, bII7 etc etc, but could be almost anything), and the resolution to the I chord is done very simply usually to a triad note, although also to a 9th or 6th or an upper structure triad of the I chord.
The target/I chord can be barely expressed - just one note is enough.
Bebop language can be described as moving into a target chord in forward motion. That's what I tend to hear - the destination point.
-
11-22-2017 06:56 AM
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
Aahh... that's better!
-
Interesting post, I haven't thought about this in a while. Sometimes, when I'm practicing improvisation over a tune, I might play something I think is cool and then transcribe that to have it in my vocabulary. In that way, I incorporate some elements from (a) into my playing, but almost all of my playing is (b). I usually sing my lines as I play them, which makes it easier for me to come up with more original ideas. I also don't focus too much on the harmony. Of course, I know the chords and follow them, but I try to think more in line with coming up with a melody, regardless of whether I'm hitting chord tones or upper extensions. Perhaps it's not the greatest bebop approach, but it works for me :-)
-
Thanks for very interesting responses so far. Although I think the thread is taking a more generalized direction than what I originally intended to ask I am enjoying following the discussions. I realize now that I was a bit vague in the original post. For clarification I would say that (feel free to disagree):
o Melodic solos are lines that are generalizations of the the underlying harmony. It could be blues generalizations or diatonic. Notes can even contradict with the immediate harmony but the listener is locked in with the melodic continuity and moreover dissonances often resolve vertically down the line adding to the melodic effect.
o Playing the changes outline chords by embellishments and chromatic connections. Harder to have good melodic content outside of motives and quotes.
o Rhythmic solos often have simple pitch variations but polyrhythmic ideas off of the other instruments, syncopations, rhythmic tensions and resolutions make the line interesting.
What I originally intended to ask was specifically about "playing the changes". I now realize that this wasn't very clear in my post. If I am thinking chords, I find my playing can get too patternistic and mechanical or I get too many "stolen" content in the lines. If I am not thinking chords than I fear I am slipping too much into the "melodic solo" domain. How does one overcome this?
-
IMO there's nothing to overcome - just decide if you wanna be biased toward either the horizontal, the vertical or to both approaches. Many fine players across all styles and eras could take either extreme, witness Pres vs Bean from 1939, not a question of what's best, just a matter of personal preference. Just try to be compelling, whatever your bag is. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Ditto. There's no such thing as falling too far into any kind of style as long as you dig it. Mess around with a bit of everything, see what you like, mix it up. Almost all of the great jazz musicians have elements of melody, rhythm, and playing the changes, but they all use more or less of each element than others, you dig? Don't be afraid to experiment in your playing. Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
We control the horizontal and the vertical. Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
Yes, most likely you need to make some changes in the rhythm department rather than in the harmonic, to make it more excited, less stale or predictable.
-
Yours is not the first comparison any of us have ever heard between music and language, and that's because it is perfectly apt. And to extend that comparison a little bit, think about this: when we converse with another person in our native tongue, it's very rare that we grope for the next word. We speak seamlessly. Of course, there are the fillers ("uh", "like", "I mean", and so on) -- which compare pretty directly to our connecting musical phrases/stock licks when we're improvising. We speak with fluency because we are constantly practicing. Originally Posted by princeplanet
I think that's a key thing for developing players to accept when considering the brain vs ears vs fingers. I often wonder if there are players who's soloing is an exact mirror of their "scatting" mind, i.e, their solos are the same whether they can sing them or just play them. Then there's a distinction b/n singing something vs "hearing" it. Some of my rapid patterns and devices I can pre hear, but they are too complicated or quick for me to sing. Then there are devices or lines that are newer concepts that I don't pre hear as well, yet still manage to control them well enough to introduce and resolve at will - once I dare to bring them into my playing. But if I try to introduce material that is not ready, then I stumble over my thoughts...
So musical intuition on the fly is certainly not the same thing as thinking about what to play. To some this may be a subtle distinction, and I'm happy to accept that some people, particularly on other instruments, may be able to play only ideas they have never practiced. But even Bird fell back on the usage of his favourite musical "words" which he weaved ingeniously into new sentences. If these words were coming from the autonomic brain/nervous system, then an over arching sense of taste simultaneously would come into play to form sentences from these words. This is a kind of creative thinking, and is what we're all striving to improve ourselves at.
It's a complex symbiosis and I don't think it's yet been codified. For one, I'd love to know of any distinction or overlap between creativity and intuition (destinytot?). Not out of pedantic interest, but because there may be ways to strengthen these relationships. Still, I think the best way we know of is to just play the shit out of your instrument and respond to what you're hearing. In much the way that anthropology shows human evolution to be a product of the way language influences thought which in turn influences language which in turn influences thought etc etc, these symbiotic "loops" are key to the fascinating way that our creativity seems to evolve. We may think it's based in our software, but it may even make it's way into our hardware, even our DNA if the Neo Lamarckists are right...
I break this fingers vs ears discussion down to this - it's not the fingers, but it's not entirely the ears either, it's a symbiotic loop where one influences the other. Fingears! The more you work the loop, the better you get. Of course, YMMV....
In my own experience, going from a shy youth to a business manager expected to lead meetings, give training, and so on, I've found that my linguistic skills have over the years improved, and continue to do so. I have no doubt that the same holds true with musical vocabulary and syntax, to the point that, just as with spoken words, when we are in an area of expertise, we are able to give voice to ideas succinctly, with little or no filler -- should we want to. And if we decide instead to give detail onto a finer point, that too is accessible.
To put it shortly ... how do you get to Carnegie Hall?
It ain't rocket science. Practice speaking, or scatting, or playing, off the cuff. Improvisation is certainly a skill that can be cultivated.
-
For me absolutely YES.
I play all over the Fingerboard Rhythmically and force the Improv to land in different harmonic regions by pre hearing while Playing the current line .
I often Practice an opening line that is obviously for example a B b Major type line and then force it into other harmonic regions by adding notes and using what I call Melodic Cadences which are always chord tones and or extensions to force it into another Harmonic Region ( new COM ).
This is where simple no thinking advanced alternate picking helps me because I can play lines and cross strings without 'shifting gears' so my Brain can keep Playing the current line while ' prehearing' the destination.
This is IMO a very good way to accomplish advanced
Polished Improv.
As I pointed out on Another Thread CST is too vague to accomplish this and useless for this ( not too many people 'Got' it )-
You MUST 'HEAR ' mentally and nail the exact Tones in Rhythm ( your choice but will probably be longer note Values - what I mean HERE is that the Melodic Cadences which finish each line will usually be longer Note Values ) to accomplish this..
And it is one of the MOST IMPORTANT and USEFUL SKILLS to develop for Improv. IMO.
I have a feeling ( but have not interviewed 4067 top improvisers to be sure nor do I need to lol)
THIS is exactly what People who really KNOW what they are talking about when they say 'Playing by Ear".Last edited by Robertkoa; 02-07-2018 at 10:32 AM.
-
Originally Posted by destinytot
Here you go
:
Attachment 47912
And here's Bloom's Taxonomy - revised, with Creativity at the top:
Attachment 47911
-
-
Wow... I think I'm gonna keep to my favorite little part of JGF -- the Ear Training section and stay there...
Anyone else is welcome to join, the water is fine and the sounds are divine... that was a horrible rhyme... but I'll get better
IN TIME
-
Attachment 47890
Thanks for sending the analysis for Donna Lee. I had a chance to look at it more carefully. I am not sure if I find some of the scales to be the simplest explanation.
Most obvious example is bar 5. What's played is B minor 11 over B minor 7 chord (playing upper extensions was common in Bebop). The analysis says Eb bebop scale for that chord.
Theory should explain what is heard. I hear and see outlining of the subdominant function. Am I supposed to hear a dominant tension in that bar?
If not why do you think Eb7 scale is the best fit for explaining the melody of that bar.
Another example is the second half of bar 2. I hear and see (deflected) outlining of A diminished triad which perfectly fits the underlying F7 chord.
Analysis puts in under Ab dominant scale with raised 1 (since the A). Is it more likely that Miles Davis (the composer of the song) was thinking (the rather obscure) Ab dominant with raised 1,
or simple arpeggiation from the third (also very common bebop device)?
May be I am missing something?
On the other hand, the first half of the bar 3, seems to fit well with Ab7 raised 1 concept. Those b6's over dominant are a bit mysterious. Altered 5's perhaps. But playing and listening (to me) shows that it's a way of creating tension which is resolved in the 3 and 4th beats of the same bar (just half diminished arpeggio from the third).
Is the back door with raised 1 concept covered elsewhere out side of Barry Harris method?Last edited by Tal_175; 11-28-2017 at 01:46 PM.
-
Attachment 47890
I haven't made it easy for you, TBF, cos this is a sheet I did specifically for a Barry Harris thread. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Barry never uses the term bebop scale. That's David Baker etc. We use seven note scales with added notes as required for improvisation. For these purposes Eb dominant = mixolydian.Most obvious example is bar 5. What's played is B minor 11 over B minor 7 chord (playing upper exstensions was common in Bebop). The analysis says Eb bebop scale for that chord.
Sub-what? :-)Theory should explain what is heard. I hear outlining of the subdominant function. Do you hear a dominant tension in that bar?
I too used to view that arp as a Bbm11. And it certainly looks that way right?
Well here is one area where the Barry approach is a bit different to the mainstream. We always ignore the IIm7 chords in the BH approach.
So this arp is here understood an extended arpeggio built on the 5th of the Eb7 scale. (Just in case you are thinking, but what about the Ab - isn't that a bad note on Eb7? - we don't care about that stuff at all.)
The IIm7 chord is a suspension of the dominant in this understanding not a chord in its own right. This might seem an odd way to look at it, but take a look at the changes for the original tune this song was based on, a Dixieland tune called Indiana, and you will notice that these IIm7 chords do not appear. So in this sense they are an embellishment of the underlying harmony.
Barry is very clear on this - soloists play V, accompanists play II-V... So you may hear sub dominant. Barry hears dominant over a dominant suspension....
YMMV, but I think most players find it helpful to unite II-V into a single entity. As in II-V licks... Barry is making that equivalence his own way (because we want to generate language, not licks)... Others might prefer to think about a minor/dorian scale on the II - Pat Martino for instance. But from a Chord/Scale perspective, in a vanilla ii-V-I, II dorian and V mixo are the same, effectively Barry is saying it's all V mixo (which he calls dominant scale.)
Personally, I find this concept extremely helpful. In general - why think about an extra chord if you don't need to? In practice the results are the same. You would listen to my lines and hear extended ii chords, but it's not what I hear or think of when playing... Isn't that interesting philosophically?
Yup, which belongs to that parent scale. Arps, triads, etc exist within the scales in the BH approach. It's a scale focussed approach (which surprised me as I thought bebop was about chord tones and embellishments.)Another example is the second half of bar 2. I hear and see (deflected) outlining of A diminished triad which perfectly fits the underlying F7 chord.
The scale is not actually obscure at all. My framing of it as Ab dom raise 1, is obscure :-) See below.Analysis puts in under Ab dominant scale with raised 1 (since the A). Is it more likely that Miles Davis (the composer of the song) was thinking (the rather obscure) Ab dominant with raised 1,
or simple arpegiation from the third (also very common bebop device)?
But the logic is like thinking of an Adim7 as a Ab7 raise 1 - just here we are using a scale. If that makes any sense. Gives you a scale you can play on A dim7, which is the 3 5 7 and b9 of F7(b9).
If that makes ****-all sense, fair enough lol.
He doesn't actually use that language. That's my way of saying it which I think confuses people actually...(I did this sheet a year ago.)May be I am missing something?
On the other hand, the first half of the bar 3, seems to fit well with Ab7 raised 1 concept. Those b6's over dominant are a bit misterious. Altered 5's perhaps. But playing and listening (to me) shows that it's a way of creating tension which is resolved in the 3 and 4th beats of the same bar (just half diminished arpeggio from the third).
Is the back door with raised 1 concept covered elsewhere out side of Barry Harris method?
His approach is -
Dm7b5 G7b9 Cm6 (say)
Now unlike with major ii-V's we do like to think about the IIm7b5 chord. We understand Dm7b5 as the top bit of Bb9
And we run a Bb7 scale down into the third of G7 (B) to cover the Dm7b5 G7b9, for instance:
Ab G F E D C B
And resolve into the target chord Cm6, or whatever it is. You could run an arp up from the B, or whatever you like really.
I don't know anyone else who couches it this way. But take a look at that scale and see if you can work out what commonplace scale it is a mode of, which might be more accessible to non-Barry heads, and a scale Miles would certainly have known. (And then ask me why on earth do we frame it in this weird way?)
For more info, I think Roni Ben Hur covers this in his latest two mymusicmasterclass vids.Last edited by christianm77; 11-28-2017 at 02:30 PM.
-
BTW I'm not saying your analysis is 'wrong' or anything, it's good stuff, you know your shit, it's just that the BH thing is a very specific language for describing what's going on that can seem counter-intuitive at first. Originally Posted by Tal_175
I was going to Barry's workshops for years on and off before I found his stuff useful at all... And it was when I realised there were lots of stepwise scales in bop lines and I wanted to understand how they operated. But, I'm not an evangelical Barry fanatic, and totally get why some people would be like.... what? Works for me though, as they say.
Just wanted to pick up on the b6 on dominant thing. They are definitely b6 not #5 and they come out of the scale I talked about last post. (Ab7 has a Gb in, right? You'll also notice you get both A and Ab in these lines intermixed....)Last edited by christianm77; 11-28-2017 at 02:23 PM.
-
Oh I see, D locrian #2? (ie melodic minor)I don't know anyone else who couches it this way. But take a look at that scale and see if you can work out what commonplace scale it is a mode of, which might be more accessible to non-Barry heads, and a scale Miles would certainly have known. (And then ask me why on earth do we frame it in this weird way?)
Yes I've certainly seen this before. There is also the opposite (more bluesy) approach of playing II over V. This is identical to playing minor pentatonic over the IV chord of blues.Barry Harris is very clear on this - soloists play V, accompanists play II-V...
But the logic is like thinking of an Adim7 as a Ab7 raise 1 - just here we are using a scale. If that makes any sense. Gives you a scale you can play on A dim7, which is the 3 5 7 and b9 of F7(b9).You explained it here perfectly. I get it now.His approach is -
Dm7b5 G7b9 Cm6 (say)
Now unlike with major ii-V's we do like to think about the IIm7b5 chord. We understand Dm7b5 as the top bit of Bb7
And we run a Bb7 scale down into the third of G7 (B) to cover the Dm7b5 G7b9, for instance:
Ab G F E D C B
And resolve into the target chord Cm6, or whatever it is. You could run an arp up from the B, or whatever you like really.
It seems to me that this is more a pedagogical approach then being an alternative theoretical framework (sort of like the chord-scale system). It's a way of figuring out how to play over changes with scales. The theoretical implications of the suggested scales are secondary to their ability to reliably give you bebop style stepwise lines.
Thanks again for the detailed explanation.
-
Sorry, my mistake, should be this: Originally Posted by Tal_175
Ab G F Eb D C B
Bb7 scale running from the 7 down to the 3rd of G7....
Indeed :-) In fact that is probably the origin of the Lydian Dominant... Play on F7 in C, just lower the E to an Eb (Bird does this, you see it in voice-leading against melodies very early on - Limehouse Blues etc...)Yes I've certainly seen this before. There is also the opposite (more bluesy) approach of playing II over V. This is identical to playing minor pentatonic over the IV chord of blues.
Barry Harris would say Cm is the important minor of F7. And using this, you can play minor scales on dominant too - melodic minor etc... It's just that BH focusses on the dominant side of the coin, which is actually at least 80% of what we need for bebop lines, as it turns out.
Exactly so. Nail on head.You explained it here perfectly. I get it now.
It seems to me that this is more a pedagogical approach then being an alternative theoretical framework (sort of like the chord-scale system). It's a way of figuring out how to play over changes with scales. The theoretical implications of the suggested scales are secondary to their ability to reliably give you bebop style stepwise lines.
It is a practical approach. There's little in BH's theory that isn't reframeable in CST terms - but that's kind of not the point. It's how to use scales - not what scales to use.
There's more to it, too... It's how these scales are used to create bop language that is the primary focus of the teaching. A large part of it is focussed on that dominant/mixolydian scale.
No problem. Glad it was helpful.Thanks again for the detailed explanation.
-
Right, true D locrian #2 would have a Bb too. This is a mode of what some would call C harmonic major? (completely unfamiliar to me).Nope. You'll kick yourself if I tell you. As I said it's a mode of a common place scale....
B C D E F G Ab
-
It would be if I'd written out the notes right lol, apologies.... Originally Posted by Tal_175
It's actually Ab G F Eb D C B
So harmonic minor
-
BTW I have just downloaded the Roni Ben Hur videos and they have this stuff in it (unsurprisingly) so that might be a good port of call if you are interested in finding out more (I don't work for the site lol)
Roni Ben-Hur (Inside the Minor Blues) - Jazz Guitar Lesson 1
-
Thanks. I'll certainly check it out.
-
Another obscure reference -lol this Time to the cheesy but cool Outer Limits Sci Fi TV Series Intro where they 'take control of your TV Screen '. Originally Posted by christianm77
You MUST visualize your Fingerboard this way or the scary Announcer will find you....
even though he's probably dead.
-
Interesting and well thought out question. In my case, I tend to focus on tonalities. If it's a drone, then it's easy -- stuck in Bb forever, for example. If it's a shifting tonality, then instead of thinking in terms of chords, I prefer to think in terms of keys. Something like "okay, now we're in the key of Bb, and now I sense we're shifting over to F." And so on. Once I sus that out, I can find my way around and try not to sound too lame Originally Posted by Tal_175
My proud moments come when I manage to hear a famous phrase in my head that fits the underlying harmonic shift. For example, a phrase that Miles played, or Herbie played etc. If I can hear it, then chances are I will be able to play something that kind of resembles that. Which is not bad at all. These things come not so much from a lot of practicing, but more from lots and lots of focused, dedicated listening to jazz recordings.
But the highest achievement in improvising comes when you can throw in a famous melody that fits your improv perfectly. I recently heard a Larry Coryell recording where he managed to startle me by throwing in the melody of the Beatles song "Eleanor Rigby" in the middle of one of his most rambunctious, almost anarchic solos. The line "Eleanor Rigby, picks up the rice in the church where the wedding has been" was delivered to rev up an already amazing high octane solo. I was blown away at the perfect tonality, timing and execution of that melody on the guitar. Now that, to me, is the ultimate improvisational genius!
-
Re minor ii V i there is a one scale solution if you don’t add any notes to the I sound.
The multiple options are a natural result of the fact that we’ve been messing around with the 6 and 7 of the minor key for hundreds of years.
Which is why ones explorations of this tonality should take in a bit of Bach, if you ask me.
The melodic minor ii v I (I.e iim7 V9 Im.) Common in Charlie Parker also.
Reply With Quote
2 new & excellent Jazz Comping Truefire...
Yesterday, 10:22 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions