The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 25 of 84
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    This could go in The Players section but as a beginner I thought the answers maybe useful to other beginners.

    So many modern jazz players seem know music theory and the technical aspects of jazz out the wazoo. However I was interested in how technical the greats were? Of course their playing is amazing but for example how did Wes, Jimmy Raney, Grant Green, Tal Farlow and George Benson think when playing? Did they know every single arpeggio of every single chord, every single chord inversion, the technical names for chords? I can imagine someone like John Coltrane knew every chord inside out, but what about the guitarists? Did they endlessly practice, did they study music at school or university?

    Interested to hear some thought!

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    I suspect what is missing with not so great players (like me) is that the attitude is slightly off. Driven by ambition mostly, not because the music itself asks for the attention all the time. Great players are then being obsessed in a good way and get to know the theory by heart and maybe not so much "verbally"? At least I remember a lot of good players say something like that.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Babaluma
    This could go in The Players section but as a beginner I thought the answers maybe useful to other beginners.

    So many modern jazz players seem know music theory and the technical aspects of jazz out the wazoo. However I was interested in how technical the greats were? Of course their playing is amazing but for example how did Wes, Jimmy Raney, Grant Green, Tal Farlow and George Benson think when playing? Did they know every single arpeggio of every single chord, every single chord inversion, the technical names for chords? I can imagine someone like John Coltrane knew every chord inside out, but what about the guitarists? Did they endlessly practice, did they study music at school or university?

    Interested to hear some thought!
    Some of them did study music formally.... music theory has changed too.

    It’s sometimes possible to underestimate what people know. BB King was pretty theory literate, for instance.

    Theory per se is actually pretty useless. The important thing is to work out what’s going on in actual music - usually ‘ah so they play this thing on this chord’ - studying actual music leads to a series of discoveries that can be understood through the prism of conventional music theory, or some weird names and symbols that you come up with...

    The advantage of the former is other people will understand it, but this is less of an advantage than you might think.

    In the case of someone like Barry Harris who was teaching back in the 50s and 60s, he had different names for the same things as well as concepts that don’t exist in modern jazz theory.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    I think most of the great players had a very good understanding of what we call music theory, even if they did not learn it in a formal way like many current players do.

    Some players approach music from a melodic place and embellish with extensions, altered chords, etc. Others approach it more like a math problem and structure their writing and playing around self-imposed musical rules. Or a mix of both.

    It's all good, as long as the end result is good music.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    I would say I think a lot of theory people talk about is overly concerned with surface detail

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    I recently attended a workshop given by a very well known player who is a Berklee grad.

    He began the session by saying how the music isn't on the paper or in the theory. It's in listening. He recommended playing along with records. He never spoke about a scrap of theory, although he's well versed.

    I guess there's a question about whether you need theory to get where he is. I didn't ask that. But, I think he was suggesting that jazz players are often too focused on it.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Babaluma
    This could go in The Players section but as a beginner I thought the answers maybe useful to other beginners.

    So many modern jazz players seem know music theory and the technical aspects of jazz out the wazoo. However I was interested in how technical the greats were? Of course their playing is amazing but for example how did Wes, Jimmy Raney, Grant Green, Tal Farlow and George Benson think when playing? Did they know every single arpeggio of every single chord, every single chord inversion, the technical names for chords? I can imagine someone like John Coltrane knew every chord inside out, but what about the guitarists? Did they endlessly practice, did they study music at school or university?

    Interested to hear some thought!
    A few thoughts on this:

    Firstly - who says that the greats were all of the past?

    1. There weren't too many jazz university programs in those days. There were a few, but not nearly as many as there are now, so observing that they weren't all college boys is kind of moot.
    2. Benson looked into Berklee but passed. Tuition $???
    3. These players played Blues and 32-bar American song forms, not sonatas, concertos or symphonies. How much theory did they need?
    4. When jazz players and enthusiasts talk about "theory" they are primarily referring to harmony - as are you.

    So, go analyze the transcriptions of these great players and then ask yourself - did they have an effective grip on expressing harmony?

    When you answer that, I think you'll have the answer to the central question posed here.

    Cheers.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    To me, music is like a supernatural spirit realm. Songs are like individual spirits that inhabit it. Making music is the act of performing certain rituals that one hopes will invoke the spirit of a song. If it appears, it can cast a spell over anyone listening, and they can feel its presence and share the energy of its personality.

    Everything that can help a person accomplish this is valuable -- natural talent, physical attributes, intuitive understanding, discipline, etc. Obviously, formal training and knowledge of music theory are also great assets. And although theory in itself isn't music, it's one way of understanding how to invoke the spirit of music. And that's the main thing.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by strumcat
    To me, music is like a supernatural spirit realm. Songs are like individual spirits that inhabit it. Making music is the act of performing certain rituals that one hopes will invoke the spirit of a song. If it appears, it can cast a spell over anyone listening, and they can feel its presence and share the energy of its personality.

    Everything that can help a person accomplish this is valuable -- natural talent, physical attributes, intuitive understanding, discipline, etc. Obviously, formal training and knowledge of music theory are also great assets. And although theory in itself isn't music, it's one way of understanding how to invoke the spirit of music. And that's the main thing.
    well put strumcat

    there's an ambiguity... or maybe a duality at play
    getting in to Gatwick airport there are two large photo montages
    of the Queen ,
    made up from hundreds of pixels
    when you get closer you can see that each pixel is in fact
    a photo of a random portrait or scene ....

    what at is this object ?
    it depends on your POV

    I asked my teacher should I think of Autumn Leaves
    in major Bb or minor G-
    "both" he said ....

    if if you play Embracable You in F
    and you get to bar 13 , are you in C now ?

    yes and no !
    (kinda)

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by strumcat
    To me, music is like a supernatural spirit realm. Songs are like individual spirits that inhabit it. Making music is the act of performing certain rituals that one hopes will invoke the spirit of a song. If it appears, it can cast a spell over anyone listening, and they can feel its presence and share the energy of its personality.

    Everything that can help a person accomplish this is valuable -- natural talent, physical attributes, intuitive understanding, discipline, etc. Obviously, formal training and knowledge of music theory are also great assets. And although theory in itself isn't music, it's one way of understanding how to invoke the spirit of music. And that's the main thing.
    Spoken like a Steve Vai fan

  12. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    A few thoughts on this:

    Firstly - who says that the greats were all of the past?

    1. There weren't too many jazz university programs in those days. There were a few, but not nearly as many as there are now, so observing that they weren't all college boys is kind of moot.
    2. Benson looked into Berklee but passed. Tuition $???
    3. These players played Blues and 32-bar American song forms, not sonatas, concertos or symphonies. How much theory did they need?
    4. When jazz players and enthusiasts talk about "theory" they are primarily referring to harmony - as are you.

    So, go analyze the transcriptions of these great players and then ask yourself - did they have an effective grip on expressing harmony?

    When you answer that, I think you'll have the answer to the central question posed here.

    Cheers.
    You misunderstand, there are loads of great modern jazz guitarists, however as you point out there are some many resources these days that I wanted to know how the guys from the past developed their knowledge. Thanks for the post

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    One thing complicating such questions is that some players denied having studied much (or any) despite having done so. It seemed more "authentic" to be self-taught, "unspoiled" by theory, more intuitive about the whole thing.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu


  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Yeah there are a lot of street tricks and hustles that people don’t learn on college improv and harmony classes. You can listen to the records though - a lot of the jazz the courses are meant to be modelled on - Miles quintet and that - is rather badly behaved on the level of individual chords.

    Joe’s a case in point. Just simple functions - Dominant, Major, minor.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    3. These players played Blues and 32-bar American song forms, not sonatas, concertos or symphonies. How much theory did they need?
    .
    Have you ever tried to speak to a professional classical instrumentalist about theory? It’s a total waste of time, they know nothing.

    (Except rehearsal pianists. They know everything.)

    Do you know why they hate it? Because they are made to learn it but it has no utility. That’s pretty understandable. They learn figured bass for instance, but not what it is for, beyond passing an exam.

    This is something they seem keen to change in the pedagogy at my college.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Just simple functions - Dominant, Major, minor
    Sounds simple but - Joe Pass is not my guru - I think he said once that he hardly ever played a straight dominant.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Sounds simple but - Joe Pass is not my guru - I think he said once that he hardly ever played a straight dominant.
    Oh yeah the function is obviously not the same as why you actually play....

    You have foreground detail and background structure. You might be thinking ‘F7 Bb’ but that’s not what you are playing. You might be playing all kinds of stuff... but really it’s melodies right? Lines and ideas. Subs. And so on.

    And what you actually playing is intuitive by that point otherwise you are fucked.

    And btw that’s why you can’t play what you practice right away.... what you are practicing at any point is not intuitive by definition.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    what you are practising at any point is not intuitive by definition.
    I'd go with that. I suppose walking or tying a shoelace must be 'intuitive' :-)

    And I guess the more one practices the more intuitive one gets (as well as luckier)

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Have you ever tried to speak to a professional classical instrumentalist about theory? It’s a total waste of time, they know nothing.

    (Except rehearsal pianists. They know everything.)

    Do you know why they hate it? Because they are made to learn it but it has no utility. That’s pretty understandable. They learn figured bass for instance, but not what it is for, beyond passing an exam.

    This is something they seem keen to change in the pedagogy at my college.

    Yes, I asked an award winning classical guitar recording artist - and pedagogue - who was signing a CD for me, what the ending chord was on a certain piece that she had played that night, it was so glorious. She smiled, her eyes bugged out, and she said "ohhhhhhh". She had no clue, and why should she? Her job was to play it. But then she had also transcribed a difficult piano piece to the guitar and played it. It was a bitch. So theory would have helped there, quite a bit.

    I don't need to know too much theory when I play classical guitar pieces either, but it helps a little.

    But composing - as opposed to playing - European Art Music (i.e. "classical"), especially large works? That's a different matter altogether.

    Jazz musicians need to know some theory, especially harmony. But the form that jazzers play 99% of the time, is folk and popular song form - and with a small ensemble. That's a more limited domain. I don't see a debate here. If jazz musicians needed to be PhD's in music theory, we wouldn't have so many jazz musicians, and certainly would not have had so many from the early 1900s through the 1950s.

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Btw I think anyone who is a good improviser on changes thinks along these lines whether they’ve been to spoddy jazz school or not.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    Yes, I asked an award winning classical guitar recording artist - and pedagogue - who was signing a CD for me, what the ending chord was on a certain piece that she had played that night, it was so glorious. She smiled, her eyes bugged out, and she said "ohhhhhhh". She had no clue, and why should she? Her job was to play it. But then she had also transcribed a difficult piano piece to the guitar and played it. It was a bitch. So theory would have helped there, quite a bit.

    I don't need to know too much theory when I play classical guitar pieces either, but it helps a little.

    But composing - as opposed to playing - European Art Music (i.e. "classical"), especially large works? That's a different matter altogether.

    Jazz musicians need to know some theory, especially harmony. But the form that jazzers play 99% of the time, is folk and popular song form - and with a small ensemble. That's a more limited domain. I don't see a debate here. If jazz musicians needed to be PhD's in music theory, we wouldn't have so many jazz musicians, and certainly would not have had so many from the early 1900s through the 1950s.
    People who invent music obviously need to know how it is constructed....

    But you know, I obviously don’t have the skill set of a master classical recitalist. But then aside from maybe Jarrett.... jazzers are always a bit basic when they try to interpret, say, Bach.

    That said I do work with a few musicians from the classical backgrounds who also play jazz and they are just detail junkies. It was a real culture shock haha.... cool though, I think.

    People who interpret other people’s dots obviously get incredibly good at interpreting them.

    Even in jazz you have this a little, in big bands you have the players on certain chairs who don’t do the ‘jazz’ but are obviously killer swinging section players.
    Last edited by christianm77; 06-29-2019 at 04:57 PM.

  23. #22
    I have been drilling in arpeggios and scales for 3 years now and the other day I just went for it on You'd Be So Nice To Come Home To and weaved through it by ear. I actually have no idea if doing all that made any difference or if I should have just chucked theory out the window and played by ear from the start! Was amazingly liberating just to wing it.

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Babaluma
    I have been drilling in arpeggios and scales for 3 years now and the other day I just went for it on You'd Be So Nice To Come Home To and weaved through it by ear. I actually have no idea if doing all that made any difference or if I should have just chucked theory out the window and played by ear from the start! Was amazingly liberating just to wing it.
    That’s the thing, no? To be able to chuck that stuff out isn’t easy, it requires a mental leap.

    OTOH guitar is a tough one because in order to play jazz we have to be able to map out the fretboard. For most of us that’s scale and arpeggio drills, voicings and so on.

    On piano I can imagine there’s less of a gap between understanding a theoretical idea and getting it on the keyboard.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    On piano I can imagine there’s less of a gap between understanding a theoretical idea and getting it on the keyboard.
    Phil Woods, I have read, said, "If you can't play a tune on the piano, you don't know it." When students protested, as most non-pianists invariably do (-Woods played sax, by the way), he said, "Anyone can sit at the piano and plunk out two-note voicings. Anyone!"

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
    Phil Woods, I have read, said, "If you can't play a tune on the piano, you don't know it." When students protested, as most non-pianists invariably do (-Woods played sax, by the way), he said, "Anyone can sit at the piano and plunk out two-note voicings. Anyone!"
    True