Chord-Melody - improv, memorized or some combination?

[Hoji]

This is sort of a philosophical question around chord-melody style. To me, it seems jazz is all about freedom and improvisation. Coming from a classical background, I learned to memorize arrangements note-for-note. I find that in trying to create my own chord-melodies I end up finding something that works, "learning" it, and then sort of forgetting what chords/notes I'm actually playing. The end result is, basically the same thing each time the tune is played. I feel like this is not really very "jazzy", and definitely not helping my improvisation skills. My question is - are players who are great at chord-melody actually playing something memorized or are they really making it up in realtime, thinking about the keys, chords and voicings etc? I suspect it's somewhere in the middle - just wanted to see what others have to say about it.

[JonnyPac]

Seems like a lot of CM is arranged to a large degree. Even classic players fell back on set patterns (listen to alternate takes). Some transcend this need and can improv on all levels bass lines, chords, and melody at once. My famous guitar teacher (week-long workshop), Ron Eschete could do it with ease in real time- he blew the class away. We called tunes, keys, voicings to him thinking it would slow him down, but no! He was on it. Way beyond the average player!

[mr. beaumont]

For my solo jazz stuff, the head is somewhat arranged...there's wiggle room for improv, and I don't play it the same way every time. I think of it as a "shell."

The improv is true improv.

[paynow]

Seems like a lot of CM is arranged to a large degree. Even classic players fell back on set patterns (listen to alternate takes). Some transcend this need and can improv on all levels bass lines, chords, and melody at once. My famous guitar teacher (week-long workshop), Ron Eschete could do it with ease in real time- he blew the class away. We called tunes, keys, voicings to him thinking it would slow him down, but no! He was on it. Way beyond the average player!

Well put. Ron Eschete is a monster chord melody guy; his re-harmonizations are amazing. Great book:

Amazon.com: Chord-Melody Phrases for Guitar (REH Pro Lessons) (0073999956283): Ron Eschete: Books

I'd also say Joe Pass is on this level.

[JonnyPac]

I'd also say Joe Pass is on this level.

For sure!!

[NSJ]

As basic as this sounds, firmly believe that one should always have these two things DOWN stone cold--


1. the melody
2. the root progression/root movement.


If you have this, no matter how much you fall for your own canned arrangement, it's much easier to remain creative.

In fact, all chord melodies should start with these as the building blocks. Screw finding the right inversion, build it from the melody line and the root movement.

[jayv999]

Agreed about Ron Eschete. Of course Joe Pass did the spontaneous chord-melody thing too.
The first time I saw Ted Greene play was at a seminar at GIT in 1978. He blew us all away. The next day Ron Eschete said that Ted merely worked out arrangements and memorized them, but he wasn't actually "improvising" his chord-melodies. Years later I studied privately with Ted and found out that Ron's statement was not accurate. In the initial stages of learning a tune one will spend time to work out certain chord moves. The more you play and the deeper you get into the whole process of arranging on the guitar, the more advanced your bag of tricks becomes. Finally you can get to the point where you can just do it on the spot. That's what Ted Greene did...not to mention that he had monster ears and could instantly play what he was hearing in his head. Ted also mastered the art of baroque improvisation...which is a feat that not many can do (check out some of his videos on YouTube).

[mr. beaumont]

The next day Ron Eschete said that Ted merely worked out arrangements and memorized them, but he wasn't actually "improvising" his chord-melodies. Years later I studied privately with Ted and found out that Ron's statement was not accurate. .

Wow, did he really say that? If that's true, I just lost a lot of respect for Ron.

[FatJeff]

Wow, did he really say that? If that's true, I just lost a lot of respect for Ron.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Why would he say something like that?

[mr. beaumont]

I'll hold off passing too much judgement just because I don't know the context of how it was said...it's different to say "Geez, I don't think he could have been improvising all of that, some of it had to be planned" versus the very sour grapes comment it initially looks like.

But I do wonder when players doubt other players abilities...and I'm sure I've been guilty of it too...sometimes hearing someone really great is inspiring, but on the wrong day, it can be a real shot to the ego...

[Jazzaluk]

As basic as this sounds, firmly believe that one should always have these two things DOWN stone cold--


1. the melody
2. the root progression/root movement.


If you have this, no matter how much you fall for your own canned arrangement, it's much easier to remain creative.

In fact, all chord melodies should start with these as the building blocks. Screw finding the right inversion, build it from the melody line and the root movement.

I agree with this totally. This basic rule of thumb will allow the chord melody to build from a basic solid framework and show how it best lays out on the guitar.

The rest is just embelshiment techniques, whether they are improvised fills, inner line movement or intersting voicings.

I always start learning a chord melody with a two part arrangement using the root movement and the melody keeping the bass on the lower two string and melody on the highest two strings. I found that this will map the tune on the fretboard and point to the most appropriate voicings.

Overtime, chords, bars and even entire sections of the form can be replaced with improvisation techniques, using the underlying framework as a constant reference.

The real trick is to collect a variety of tecnniques to replace chords and sections. Thats the fun part.

[paynow]

I'll agree that the comment has to be looked at as being out of context. That being said, the "cutting session" in jazz is such an old concept that it's mentioned in The Bible. It doesn't surprise me one bit that someone would make such a comment, even if they like the person about who they are making it.

[NSJ]

I agree with this totally. This basic rule of thumb will allow the chord melody to build from a basic solid framework and show how it best lays out on the guitar.

The rest is just embelshiment techniques, whether they are improvised fills, inner line movement or intersting voicings.

I always start learning a chord melody with a two part arrangement using the root movement and the melody keeping the bass on the lower two string and melody on the highest two strings. I found that this will map the tune on the fretboard and point to the most appropriate voicings.

Overtime, chords, bars and even entire sections of the form can be replaced with improvisation techniques, using the underlying framework as a constant reference.

The real trick is to collect a variety of tecnniques to replace chords and sections. Thats the fun part.

Yes!!! This is the way I have been taght.

Also, I recently went to a Master Class by Howard Alden at the OLd Town School of Folk Music here, and he agrees as well. He said he gets a kick out of people who have these elaborate arrangements worked up and then he follows up with a simple, "but can you play the melody?"

And, quite often, they can't. Forrest from the trees, I say.

melody.

Root movement.

Guide tones and inner voices.

It's all there.

[Jazzaluk]

@NSJ ... Yes ... I was going to mention Howard Alden as well. I saw a video clip where he described this approach. It was amazing to watch him play both lines with a pick only.

Martin Taylor also explains this in a finger style context. He sketches out the tune using tenth intervals that evolve into amazing, well, Martin Taylor solos. The idea of using tenths creates interesting bass movements that can easily be related to the original root progression.

[randalljazz]

As basic as this sounds, firmly believe that one should always have these two things DOWN stone cold--


1. the melody
2. the root progression/root movement.


If you have this, no matter how much you fall for your own canned arrangement, it's much easier to remain creative.

In fact, all chord melodies should start with these as the building blocks. Screw finding the right inversion, build it from the melody line and the root movement.

with respect--much as i agree with points 1. and 2., comma, the last sentences overlooks the usefulness of harmonizing with the melody as the top note in a chord (especially a 3 or 4 note chord on the upper strings), in that this is a very elegant and musical way to play the heads in small group, as bass & guitar, or bass, percussion and guitar. ymmv.

[mr. beaumont]

I was very guilty of "falling in love with the arrangement" when I first started out in this style...I caught myself quickly...my playing was so much better on tunes I "really knew"-- tunes where I knew the melody and chords separately as well as together.

Beneficial for me was to stop writing arrangements down...sure there were frustrating moments ("how the hell can I do that?") But overall, sitting down and "sight reading" an arrangement has been huge as far as me truly internalizing a song.

[NSJ]

with respect--much as i agree with points 1. and 2., comma, the last sentences overlooks the usefulness of harmonizing with the melody as the top note in a chord (especially a 3 or 4 note chord on the upper strings), in that this is a very elegant and musical way to play the heads in small group, as bass & guitar, or bass, percussion and guitar. ymmv.

Well, sure, I may have over-stated my point. I guess I was just saying that, fundamentally, I try to start out with the root and melody. Doesn't mean you can't add other things, just get that down cold, as a foundation.

It really comes down to, "how well do you know a tune? In how many positions? etc" I"m currently taking an inventory asking precisely this: how well do you I really know a tune? What does it mean to really "know a tune--forwards, backwards, sideways"?

I asked Howard Alden if he had the following basic "String division of labor"--strings 1 and 2, melody notes; strings 3 and 4--guide tones; strings 5 and 6--root movement. And he enthusiastically answered "Yes", that is how he exactly looks at the guitar and music.

That is also Mr. Taylor's approach, from what I can surmise. I think the harmonizing in 10ths idea he must have gotten from Mr. van Eps.

[jayv999]

Please don't get me wrong...Ron Eschete said that comment about Ted Greene in the context of deep respect for his playing. He admired his knowledge of guitar, theory, arranging and teaching and as a person. But Ron simply thought that Ted operated like a classical guitarist who mostly memorized his own arrangements. This was 1978, and Ron didn't really know much about Ted at that time. Ron was a gigging musician, and Ted didn't play out very much...he mostly taught.

[wizard3739]

Please don't get me wrong...Ron Eschete said that comment about Ted Greene in the context of deep respect for his playing. He admired his knowledge of guitar, theory, arranging and teaching and as a person. But Ron simply thought that Ted operated like a classical guitarist who mostly memorized his own arrangements. This was 1978, and Ron didn't really know much about Ted at that time. Ron was a gigging musician, and Ted didn't play out very much...he mostly taught.

Very true! One thing to consider here, Having known and studied with both of these monster players, I feel well-qualified to make some comment here. Ronnie is a true gentleman and would NEVER intentionally make a negative comment about Ted Greene. Ted was very particular about where and when he would play for the public. At the time (1975 to 1978 ish) he did play only songs that he could play perfectly. He was learning, studying, and was totally dedicated to putting together his masterful approach to the guitar. Both Ron and Ted achieved "Master Status" from a slightly different approach. Both with Monster ears, both with total dedication, both with a great musical education and both with a love and deep respect for the music. Both were influenced by George Van Eps in a very positive way, Ron perhaps more as a player and Ted perhaps more as a dedicated student. Please note that my comments here are IMHO and not intended as a controversy. Both of these guys were my personal friends.

wiz

[Hoji]

Hey - thanks for all the insights. The "shell" idea really makes a lot of sense - learn the melody and the chord roots first, then fill in as needed. I've been trying to apply that and it's helped.

[NSJ]

Hey - thanks for all the insights. The "shell" idea really makes a lot of sense - learn the melody and the chord roots first, then fill in as needed. I've been trying to apply that and it's helped.

Check out this video (there's a part 2 as well) from Martin Taylor. Explains it pretty well.

Part 2:

[mr. beaumont]

Off topic but also on topic: One of the most important things for me in the process of learning this style of "solo guitar" (and mind you, I have a long way to go) was to imagine drums in my head. I know that sounds kind of weird, but in my head, I'm hearing my guitar part, and when I'm not playing, the swish of cymbals and brushes...when I can relax and do this it makes me a lot less afraid of space...fearing space is the enemy of the solo performance...

[Liarspoker]

What about Jeff Linsky ? There was an article in Guitar Player magazine years ago ( late 80's, early 90's ? ) where I first heard about him. The article states that he can play any tune ( which he has heard ) in any key, any time - all improvised.