Bebop Chops?

[CC323]

Hey guys,

Is it just me or is bebop so technical that seems almost impossible to do it justice without using at least somewhat prerehearsed licks? How are bebop chops so confounding compared to normal guitar technique? How does one get really solid with it (like Benson or Remler or Bailey or Martino solid)?

Thanks!

Chris

[cosmic gumbo]

For chops, you must take your axe out to the woodshed.

[randalljazz]

[FatJeff]

Yes, bebop is complex, and fast, and you bet that accomplished players have spent many, many hours in the woodshed learning scales and licks. As much as people like to say otherwise, jazz improv is not really "instantaneous composition". It's more like instantaneous assembly of pre-worked-out ideas. Not to take anything away from great bebop players, of course...there is amazing craft displayed in the solos of Parker, Monk, Brown, Adderley, Gillespie, Montgomery, etc.

To get really solid with it, study...transcribe...listen...practice!

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

For example, when you look through the Omnibook, you'll quickly learn to spot where he uses the "Charlie Parker Lick".

[CC323]

For chops, you must take your axe out to the woodshed.

No doubt, but the chops for bebop are so different than those for modal type playing. The angularity makes it so much different than classical type 'technique' wherein one struggles to play linear scales quickly. Along those lines, scales seem at lot less prevalent in bebop; there are obviously scales, but they tend to be 4-8 note fragments instead of the shred guitar 4 octaves up and down.

Thanks for the responses.

[TommyD]

The word "shred" has ruined creative and artistic guitar playing.
Spare me.
T/

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I like these.

[Little Jay]

Your bebop-playing would most definately benefit from an arsenal of bebop-licks in your head.... 'chop' the Parker-themes into pieces and you have all the licks you need!
I recommand starting with Donna Lee, some great II-V-I licks in there.

[Goofsus4]

No doubt, but the chops for bebop are so different than those for modal type playing. The angularity makes it so much different than classical type 'technique' wherein one struggles to play linear scales quickly. Along those lines, scales seem at lot less prevalent in bebop; there are obviously scales, but they tend to be 4-8 note fragments instead of the shred guitar 4 octaves up and down.

Thanks for the responses.

Exactly, if you look at Parker's lines you see a lot of arps with chromatics. Yes, at times you can say this is "the bebop scale" or something, but it doesn't last long. Seems like arps + melodic extensions with chromatic approach and connection notes is more descriptive of the style. And that's what makes it hard to play at fast tempos.

[Sam Sherry]

As much as people like to say otherwise, jazz improv is not really "instantaneous composition". It's more like instantaneous assembly of pre-worked-out ideas.

Jeff, congrats. Your post has caused me to stop lurking in order to respond.

I have a great deal of respect for engineers but what you have described is an engineer's approach to "jazzy" sounds.

The great jazz players, and those who would walk in their path, play in the moment. They get past -- or totally avoid -- assembly of quasi-musical noises into quasi-musical moments. They play what they hear.

The great beboppers played quick because they had quick ears and quicker minds.

[FatJeff]

Jeff, congrats. Your post has caused me to stop lurking in order to respond.

I have a great deal of respect for engineers but what you have described is an engineer's approach to "jazzy" sounds.

The great jazz players, and those who would walk in their path, play in the moment. They get past -- or totally avoid -- assembly of quasi-musical noises into quasi-musical moments. They play what they hear.

The great beboppers played quick because they had quick ears and quicker minds.

To a degree, I agree with you - the "great beboppers" certainly do play what they hear - but what you are implying is that they don't ever rely on pre-worked-out ideas, and I disagree with that. One can hear the same cells, or phrases, or note combinations, or scale fragments, or arpeggios, or ideas, or whatever it is you want to call them, being played over and over and over again in Parker solos, in Coltrane solos, in Hank Mobley solos, in just about any bebop solo. What differentiates the one from the other is the order in which the ideas are stitched together, slight rhythmic variations, etc...all just simple permutations of a smallish number of fundamental building blocks. This is discussed in numerous treatises on bebop.

None of this takes away from the originality of the great bebop solos!

[markf]

same cells, or phrases, or note combinations, or scale fragments, or arpeggios, or ideas

I agree. yes, like the alphabet, just put them together different ways to form different words, sentences, etc. and pull out your most blazing riff, to impress /excite people. once in a while anyway.

I have given up trying to play faster than I can think, (over about metronome 210 or so, ) except for a bit of fun.

to actually put together a decent new melody over chords, I have to slow it down. and it's more fun for me to do that.

also some people (charlie parker for instance) can think a h..l of a lot faster than I can.

that's why part of why he was a genius, and I'm not.

[markf]

And after a while, quite a while, I figured out , that trying to playing fast as posssible, no thinking involved, just riffing, was leaving me feeling completely empty, bored, that I had wasted my time, and everyone else's.

and a lot of this was from playing with other people who were doing the speed thing, some better than others, but all, basically just mindless stuff. and being influenced by them.

I stopped playing with them, and that helped me to figure this out. and talking to players who do not value speed over all else.

[TommyD]

Jeff, congrats. Your post has caused me to stop lurking in order to respond.

The great jazz players, and those who would walk in their path, play in the moment. They get past -- or totally avoid -- assembly of quasi-musical noises into quasi-musical moments. They play what they hear.

The great beboppers played quick because they had quick ears and quicker minds.

The great beboppers played fast because they practiced until they dropped! Coltrane was discovered in his Harlem apartment sitting in a kitchen chair fast asleep - with the horn still in his mouth! That's a true story. And so is this. Parker confessed to practicing on his horn for 12 to 13 hours every day!
There is no substitute for hard work.
Tommy/

[liponguitas]

Check out David Baker´s book about the bebop lines and scales... is a great help to develop a bebop playing.

That book will open your eyes to the licks that you will find in the charlie parker omnibook and other bebop solos.

[derek]

Jeff, congrats. Your post has caused me to stop lurking in order to respond.

I have a great deal of respect for engineers but what you have described is an engineer's approach to "jazzy" sounds.

The great jazz players, and those who would walk in their path, play in the moment. They get past -- or totally avoid -- assembly of quasi-musical noises into quasi-musical moments. They play what they hear.

The great beboppers played quick because they had quick ears and quicker minds.

While I would not disagree with your post at all, I do think it is important to note that playing what you hear = playing what you have woodshedded for years. That means scales, licks arps, the whole enchilada. There is no other (that I am aware of) way to play what you hear. So one could say that playing what you hear is mostly playing what you know.

[Meggy]

While I would not disagree with your post at all, I do think it is important to note that playing what you hear = playing what you have woodshedded for years. That means scales, licks arps, the whole enchilada. There is no other (that I am aware of) way to play what you hear. So one could say that playing what you hear is mostly playing what you know.

Good point I think. As a learner, I'm always hearing people tell me to stop trying to learn particular technical things - scales, runs, whatever, and instead concentrate on learning to play what I naturally hear in my mind. But this pre-supposes that I already have everything I will ever need already in my head, which I very much doubt! I think sometimes you have to work on stuff in order to get it into your head (and under your fingers) in the first place.

[derek]

Good point I think. As a learner, I'm always hearing people tell me to stop trying to learn particular technical things - scales, runs, whatever, and instead concentrate on learning to play what I naturally hear in my mind. But this pre-supposes that I already have everything I will ever need already in my head, which I very much doubt! I think sometimes you have to work on stuff in order to get it into your head (and under your fingers) in the first place.

Yes, this is true. At least every pro I know says this, and checking out Chris Standridge's "Play What You Hear" instructional method, it combines ear training with the obvious fretboard work.

If we took this way outside of what we hear in jazz, say traditional Indian music, I sincerely doubt we could play that stuff convincingly without some serious shed time.

[lkmuller]

Good point I think. As a learner, I'm always hearing people tell me to stop trying to learn particular technical things - scales, runs, whatever, and instead concentrate on learning to play what I naturally hear in my mind. But this pre-supposes that I already have everything I will ever need already in my head, which I very much doubt! I think sometimes you have to work on stuff in order to get it into your head (and under your fingers) in the first place.

So true. A beginner not learning the fundamentals and just trying to play what he hears is nonsense, unless he can hear b9's b5's, #9's, etc. in his head already. You gotta practice and study to open up your ears. If all you can hear is "See Spot run, run Spot run", then playing what you hear just won't cut it.

[Meggy]

Yes, this is true. At least every pro I know says this, and checking out Chris Standridge's "Play What You Hear" instructional method, it combines ear training with the obvious fretboard work.

If we took this way outside of what we hear in jazz, say traditional Indian music, I sincerely doubt we could play that stuff convincingly without some serious shed time.

I'm way ahead of you on the Chris Standring course Derek - I made the investment last year and have no regrets! As you indicate, despite the title, it has a lot to teach about training the mind to hear new possibilities, as well as improving the connection between the brain and fingers. Also he makes it quite clear that this is not a course for slackers - time in the shed is required!

So true. A beginner not learning the fundamentals and just trying to play what he hears is nonsense, unless he can hear b9's b5's, #9's, etc. in his head already. You gotta practice and study to open up your ears. If all you can hear is "See Spot run, run Spot run", then playing what you hear just won't cut it.

The fingers and the ears have to learn together maybe? Problems can occur when one is lagging behind I think. But you put it very well and amusingly, cheers!

[Jazzyteach65]

I'm way ahead of you on the Chris Standring course Derek - I made the investment last year and have no regrets! As you indicate, despite the title, it has a lot to teach about training the mind to hear new possibilities, as well as improving the connection between the brain and fingers. Also he makes it quite clear that this is not a course for slackers - time in the shed is required!

The fingers and the ears have to learn together maybe? Problems can occur when one is lagging behind I think. But you put it very well and amusingly, cheers!

What are the similarities and differences between Chris Standring and Jimmy Bruno's respective courses?

[Meggy]

What are the similarities and differences between Chris Standring and Jimmy Bruno's respective courses?

I don't personally have any experience of the Jimmy Bruno course, but I get the impression it is perhaps a bit more all-encompassing in scope, whereas the Standring course is aimed in a more specific, and quite unusual (but good IMO!) kind of way. I have seen a clip on youtube, where Jimmy Bruno is explaining his approach to scale fingering shapes - nothing wrong with that of course, but for me, I prefer to use some different fingerings. Just one example though.

I think the Bruno course could be excellent (actually I'm sure it is) but I have the impression that you need to be prepared to "buy into" his approach and methods to get it to work for you. Kind of similar to the way you would select a face-to-face teacher.

The Standring course is self-contained on a CD ROM, or can be accessed online of course, but maybe a little less like having an individual teacher. Having said that, I understand that Mr Standring is very happy to respond and help with any individual issues regarding the course. It is IMO a very good product, which does some very important/useful things, which is not addressed very much elsewhere. To me it seems pretty flexible, in that you don't have to learn specific fingerings or whatever - in fact that is kind of one of it's big points.

I've gone on for longer than I meant to - these are just my thoughts, and others may wish to correct me about the Bruno course, or have other opinions.

[CC323]

The word "shred" has ruined creative and artistic guitar playing.
Spare me.
T/

I didn't know that 5 letters had that kind of power. Sorry if my comment made your day any less enjoyable.

Warm Regards,

Chris

[CC323]

Your bebop-playing would most definately benefit from an arsenal of bebop-licks in your head.... 'chop' the Parker-themes into pieces and you have all the licks you need!
I recommand starting with Donna Lee, some great II-V-I licks in there.

I know the head to that tune, but not nearly well enough! I'm finally convinced that learning stuff in a bunch of keys and positions is highly important on guitar. I used to think that having a 'Bb Major' position, an 'Ab Major' position, etc. would be enough. Then I tried Giant Steps and Confirmation that way... . Thank you for the great advice!

Deepest Gratitude,

Chris