FREE Robert Conti lesson: "Amazing Grace"

[mr. beaumont]

Sorr Tony...double negative ..but "don't think people don't need help" means exactly what you say.

[tbeltrans]

Sorr Tony...double negative ..but "don't think people don't need help" means exactly what you say.

Funny thing, Jeff - I didn't see the double negative until you pointed it out. I quickly skimmed the new messages and just responded as quickly. I took your post to say probably what you meant - "I don't think people need help", and I was just joking saying we all do, since we choose to play guitar rather than drink beer and watch TV. I get what you meant, but it struck a tangential thought that seemed funny at the time.

Tony

[targuit]

MJ Irish - Hmmm...interesting point about the term "chord melody". You are correct in that I was using the term very generically to indicate a guitarist playing a solo jazz 'arrangement' or improvisation of a (jazz) standard. Solo fingerstyle might be an equivalent designation. Frankly, I never really thought about CM as implying simply playing an appropriate chord incorporating the melody note as the highest note. If that were the point, then almost anyone with a relatively minimal knowledge of chords could play CM with just a Fake Book chart and a little practice. My recollection of Robert Conti's style when I heard him in person ever so briefly many years ago was that he transcended that definition, though I think some of his stylizations in his videos are tailored in that direction for simplicity of learning.

I'll go out on a limb here a bit. I am classically trained, so my approach to playing solo jazz standard arrangements does take as much from Bach as from Joe Pass. Even Joe Pass' playing veers far from the strict definition of CM as a nice chord with the melody on top. I hear quite a lot of similarity of style between Joe Pass and Martin Taylor, though I think Joe's approach is more akin to classical styling than Martin's, which I find a bit more idiosyncratic. Although Martin can blaze away with single note lines, he tends to harmonize his solo playing in a more Bach-like approach in terms of counterpoint, an approach that Joe used more on his acoustic CDs like Unforgettable and Songs for Ellen than on his Virtuoso series. I veer from Martin's approach mostly in the voicings I choose. Martin is very barre chord oriented. Maybe it's that thing about the interval of a tenth, which is really a third up an octave.

Although I do have Martin's performance DVD of Jimmy Van Heusen songs, I do not own his GW DVD where he addresses creating fingerstyle arrangements of standards, though I have seen excerpts on YTube. I never heard him address the issue of not calling what he does "chord melody", though I can appreciate the distinction. And as someone who participates in his Guitar Academy, you know more about his thoughts on that matter than I. I do feel that Martin is very straightforward in talking about how he constructs his arrangements from a melody and bass line with harmonization of inner voices. He does make a specific point in the DVD to which I referred, where he says (paraphrasing) something to the effect that "When I first started playing solo arrangements, I played like this. (Playing a 'chord melody' section with melody line on the top.) While there is nothing wrong with that, I realized that it wasn't really that interesting. I studied the way the great arrangers like Oliver Nelson always had independent voices going on. (Plays the same song in that more Bach-like way.) ...." And he proceeds to talk about implying harmonies by the appropriate choice of notes, rather that using simple harmonically dense five or six note chords.

I suppose that in the end many guitarists' approach is a hybrid of these two versions. I know my way is more towards counterpoint with independent voices. I don't "think much" about my picking - it's more instinctive at this point in terms of playing what I want to hear, though I suppose the same thing could be said about my left hand fingering. Usually when I create a jazz standard transcription for my personal library, I actually write two staffs - a melody line with lyrics and a second staff with 'block chord voicings' that I term my 'shorthand', as when I actually play the songs I improvise the 'counterpoint'. Lately, I just was working on a more extensive transcription of "All Of Me" in which I actually am writing out a more detailed arrangement than usual, more like Roland Dyen's versions of standards. (Love his versions, btw.) Hope to get something recorded and up on my YT site real soon, though I will still probably improvise even over my more 'classical' arrangement.

[MarkRhodes]

I guess it's a matter of priorities. I have considered purchasing one of his DVDs in the past, but by now I suspect I have internalized any such 'formulas' for creating arrangements which I do on my own. The only instructional material I have ever purchased of this nature was a Martin Taylor performance video of six Jimmy Van Heusen songs mostly for the opportunity to analyze his playing technique and to access his arrangement in standard notation. Martin, who is an excellent 'teacher' in my book, simply plays through his arrangements as a performance, followed by a slower tempo rendition, and then comments on aspects of the arrangement. He does have some other DVDs that address approaching chord melody playing which are well presented. With my experience and theoretical background I find Martin's approach more compelling, but it's likely a stylistic choice, like whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream.

I get that you like Martin Taylor. Fine. But you're neither posting examples of his material---which would merit a thread of its own---nor demonstrating your mastery of anything. You're just changing the subject and you keep changing it to the same subject. This sounds fishy to me.

[MarkRhodes]

I also don't think people here don't need help...but I do think people have different goals, and are looking for different things--which I need to remember. I always come at any question or topic posed here as coming from a jazz perspective, and that's not always the case.

Jeff, I get that this is your perspective but I think it is wrong to suggest that it is "coming from a jazz perspective" as if people who think differently about this have a "non-jazz" perspective. We know from too many jazz giants that they started out by imitating their idols. For several generations of jazz guitarists, the idol was Charlie Christian. I don't think Herb Ellis and Barney Kessel were, um, less jazz because they learned lots of Christian lines note for note. (I don't think Herb or Barney were 'less jazz' from picking up lots of nifty chord moves from their work with Oscar Peterson, either.) For that matter, I don't think Charlie was 'less jazz' for playing "Stardust" as a fairly set piece. (Benny loved it that way and Charlie dedicated it to his mother, who often heard her son play over the radio.)

You can do whatever you want however you like. However, to suggest that your decision not to master arrangements better than any you can now produce is somehow more 'jazz' than doing what so many great jazz players have actually done---imitating their "betters" and thereby mastering their instruments and the jazz language--could mislead a young player who thinks your view is the traditional one. Think about it: until you're first-rate, it's silly to use yourself as a model. You need to model yourself on those who are better than you now are; that's the royal road to improvement and the history of jazz is thick with examples.

[djangoles]

@targuit

I'm familiar with Martin Taylor Duke Ellington Collection....Learned some bits off it. Not much discussion on how here arrived at certain moves and ideas... I guess my feeling with his stuff is if you can pull off those full arrangements, in real time in front of a crowd with a good groove, you're at a level where you wouldn't need to ape his playing at all.

I can't speak for any other Conti chord material other than The Formula, but basically he says he comes up with ALL OF HIS ARRANGEMENTS using the same 5 or 6 harmonic devices ALL THE TIME. (Now I'm starting to sound like a Conti shill, clarifying his products with long rants...hahaha maybe I am)


The purpose of the book of the book/dvd as I see it is....


1) Illustrating the vast potential of these basic devices by beating you over the head with simple 2 bar melodies reharmonized numerous ways using the same 5 or 6 devices over and over and over again. The melody is always the same, never changes.

2) To get the student to start to learn how to improvise reharm, in real time in a way that has musical logic... even if the new changes have nothing to do with the original ones... ever. (This is solo guitar, so this obviously won't work in a jam session)

The two products couldn't be farther away from each other....


An interesting thing he mentions on the DVD is how he used to play solo chord melody live in a more Joe Pass kind of style (rubato stating of the melody with some variation, some reharm changes , insert fast run...some walking bass, hot dog it a little...rinse and repeat.).....and that after awhile everything was just a big wash....Nobody in the audience was really paying attention to the playing...but once he started to really stick with the melody and change the harmony, people would then really start to listen intently.

Point being if you're playing somewhere and they are there to SEE YOU PLAY, than the Martin Taylor/Joe Pass thing will work great if you can hack it. For the rest of us, we are more than likely functioning as background in some way shape or form.....The Formula is a way to keep things interesting for the player (improvised reharm), while keeping the listener enagaged ("hey I know that melody")....nothing more, nothing less really

This sounds fishy to me.

Hey now your starting to sound like me....hahaha

[mr. beaumont]

Mark,

I actually think you’re really missing my point…when I say “jazz perspective,” I’m talking about practicing things that make one’s jazz playing better. Allow me to try and explain here…

First of all, I don’t disagree with the idea of learning from the masters. I’ve done it, we all do it, it’s always beneficial. What’s important to note though is the next step, which gets glossed over a lot…the synthesis. So people romanticize the first part “learn by copying the masters” but that’s only a part of the equation.

I’ve heard Reg talk about the “trial and error” method, and that’s what I’d call this…you can copy and copy and get things down just like your heroes, and maybe, in 30 years or so, you’ll have absorbed enough to sound like yourself…or not.

Now I’m not suggesting this is all you are doing…but I can’t imagine, for the life of me, why we don’t talk about the bridge between copying and analyzing more…it seems like all I see around here is the pure theoretical side (“what scale do I play over this chord?”) and the counter-argument (“the greats didn’t use scales, learn by copying them!”) and everybody glosses over the part where these things are NOT antithetical…

So back to this thread…all I ever said (and I think I set you off a bit by calling it a “party trick”) was that learning someone else’s arrangement note for note was NOT the important thing, and to not sweat grabbing a certain voicing because there’s always another way to get a sound. See, here’s the deal…I fully admit I’m not the world’s greatest player—but as a teacher, I know a few things for certain because I have observed them everyday through direct observation, and one of those things is that those who apply what they learn retain more than those who simply amass knowledge.

So when I say “jazz perspective,” again, I mean I’m coming at it from the perspective that most folks here want to learn stuff that will make their jazz playing better, and application of ideas is what’s going to do it. So if I’m teaching someone how to do chord melody—I say—just like Conti—being able to play what I do is not important. It’s that you can take the ideas and make them your own.

When we talk about learning from the masters—that’s what we’re really talking about. Yeah, learn the lick…but transpose the lick…learn it in different registers…play with the timing, the phrasing…try it over different chord qualities…the greats did THIS too.

If a players end goal is to be able to compose and improvise on chord melodies themselves, then learning another player’s arrangement AND getting it to performance level is of minimal importance. Learning another person’s arrangement (or part of multiple arrangements) and doing the necessary analysis and internalization WILL help the process. Learning someone else’s arrangement and getting it to performance level is a HUGE chunk of information…A lot will easily be lost without synthesis.

I come at all of this assuming we’re all learners and probably are all folks with limited practice time and day jobs, kids, etc.

[MarkRhodes]

Mark,I actually think you’re really missing my point…when I say “jazz perspective,” I’m talking about practicing things that make one’s jazz playing better. Allow me to try and explain here…

First of all, I don’t disagree with the idea of learning from the masters. I’ve done it, we all do it, it’s always beneficial. What’s important to note though is the next step, which gets glossed over a lot…the synthesis. So people romanticize the first part “learn by copying the masters” but that’s only a part of the equation.

Yes, that is a part, a big part and the first part. It's really no help to tell a beginner at chord melody to skip learning any chord melodies and start out creating his own---if he could do that already he would already know how to play chord melody, so why would he come to you (or someone else) for lessons? This is just backwards. That which we seek to learn is what don't already know, and if we don't know it, how can we teach it to ourselves?

That some people never get past the imitation stage is no argument against starting there, like all our idols did. (Where else is there TO start?)

Now, when someone has been playing for years, has a lot of gigs under his belt, a following, and makes people say, "man, this guy has got something,' that guy can chart his own course. But one of the worst mistakes a young musician can make is to try and be original before he's actually learned to play well. (Jimmy Raney talks about this in a video often posted hereabouts.)

[mr. beaumont]

Mark, I'd be interested to know if you've tried doing your own chord melodies and where you got stuck.

I like Raney's quotes, but I take them less to mean "don't try and be original" and more as "expect to suck for a long time before you are YOU."

[MarkRhodes]

I can't speak for any other Conti chord material other than The Formula, but basically he says he comes up with ALL OF HIS ARRANGEMENTS using the same 5 or 6 harmonic devices ALL THE TIME. (Now I'm starting to sound like a Conti shill, clarifying his products with long rants...hahaha maybe I am)


An interesting thing he mentions on the DVD is how he used to play solo chord melody live in a more Joe Pass kind of style (rubato stating of the melody with some variation, some reharm changes , insert fast run...some walking bass, hot dog it a little...rinse and repeat.).....and that after awhile everything was just a big wash....Nobody in the audience was really paying attention to the playing...but once he started to really stick with the melody and change the harmony, people would then really start to listen intently.

I know the 'shill' thing was a joke but I remember you posting a vid of you playing one of Conti's Wohlfahrt fingerings and that helped me decide to buy Conti's "Precision Technique." That's great stuff. That book ("Precision Technique") and "Assembly Line" are more fundamental than a lot of his other stuff. They're both about mastery of basic technique (-the first one covers picking and the second one how to voice chords with all possible notes on top.) It takes time to get it all down but boy, when you do, you've got a rock solid foundation to build on. The reason I love Conti's stuff is because it WORKS for me, and by the many videos of students posted on his site, it works for a lot of other people too. I've got boxes of books I tried that didn't help me that much. (Exceptions being the Mickey Baker stuff, the Carol Kaye stuff, the Herb Ellis stuff, and some Joe Pass stuff.)

I listen to a lot of Verve stuff from the '50s---lot of singers working with the house band, which was often Oscar Peterson on piano and Herb Ellis on guitar--and I hear a lot of that kind of thing in Conti's work, those sort of intros and turnarounds, flourishes, and of course Oscar's dazzling piano flashes. I see Conti as offering water from that same well (-with Wes, Howard Roberts, and Johnny Smith mixed in) and that's what I love to drink!

[MarkRhodes]

Mark, I'd be interested to know if you've tried doing your own chord melodies and where you got stuck.

I started with trying to create chord melodies for tunes of my own. I had a hard time learning tunes off records as a kid, so I had to write my own. This was good for me in several respects but my songwriting never improved more than it did after I learned some standards.

After working through Conti's "Assembly Line," I don't get stuck anymore. There is more to learn, more variations to get under my fingers, but I learned how to play a chord for each note in a melody. (Sometimes that isn't how I want to play something, but it's good to know that I can when I do!) It's a great skill to learn, and handy for creating intros and comping too, as you can generate nice motion that way. Believe me, I could never have learned this so well in this short amount of time by the 'hunt and peck' method. (I know some people who type pretty fast that way but I'm glad I took a course and learned the layout of the keyboard and can type without thinking about where my hands need to go.)

[djangoles]

Just my 2 cents....


I studied seriously for about 2 years with a NYC bop guitarist in the early 90's, who himself had worked and studied with some heavyweights. This was back when I had no f'ing clue about jazz at all. I thought jazz was Weather Report hahaha.... Anyway one part of the lesson was to read through slowly a solo arrangement he had written out. The next week I was expected to play his arrangement perfectly and to have come up with my own spin with the tune....didn't have to be anything major, but it had to have enough change so it wasn't the same. I'll still play some of them and when I do it's with my interpretation, not the version I learned from the page.

[MarkRhodes]

Just my 2 cents....


I studied seriously for about 2 years with a NYC bop guitarist in the early 90's, who himself had worked and studied with some heavyweights. This was back when I had no f'ing clue about jazz at all. I thought jazz was Weather Report hahaha.... Anyway one part of the lesson was to read through slowly a solo arrangement he had written out. The next week I was expected to play his arrangement perfectly and to have come up with my own spin with the tune....didn't have to be anything major, but it had to have enough change so it wasn't the same. I'll still play some of them and when I do it's with my interpretation, not the version I learned from the page.

Sounds great. In a way, it's like cooking. Mom taught me how to make a few things and later I changed them to suit my taste, but by then I knew my way around a kitchen. If she had told me as a kid, "Go cook supper," I wouldn't have known where to start!

Now, musically, when I 'season to taste' something I learn, it's usually to make it a bit bluesier, 'cause that's my briar patch. (It's one reason Herb Ellis is such a favorite of mine; he had a great blues sense and also had some swing and Texas / country vibe when called for.) Conti has some smoking blues lines too. I used to love organ trio recordings (-still do, actually) and I loved Jimmy Smith. He played with Wes and Kenny Burrell. I love it all but I liked Wes's bluesy playing more. I respected Kenny's and have copped a few of his licks, but I don't use them so much because they I'm not as "uptown" a guy as he is. (I think he was Miles' favorite guitar player.) Another guy I like is Frank Vignola--very swingy foundation, great chops, and his lines are catchy. (I love Joe Pass but I zone out during many of his solo recordings; I lose the thread and tune it out.


As for "Amazing Grace," this arrangement is coming together for me. (I had not tried it before it was posted here. I'd never played it before, but I grew up in Church so I've heard the song well over a hundred times, maybe closer to a thousand.) A couple chords didn't ring out as they should but with a few days of practice, they do, and I'll be able to make those voicings ring anywhere from now on.

Remember Duane Eddy? You're too young, I guess, though you might have heard some of his records. He was a guitar hero back in the day, not jazz but during the age of instrumental rock. He often played things on low strings. (I'm sure you're heard the "Peter Gunn" riff; if not, find it on YouTube!) I always liked cool riff songs and for years played melodies in a lower register than jazz guitarists usually do. I still prefer to play "These Foolish Things" and "There Will Never Be Another You." Seems moodier, more like a voice to me. I think I have lost the thread of this conversation!

[MarkRhodes]

Back to the main subject, I really like that movement in bars 7 and 8: Am11 Bm7 C69 and D13sus4. Makes a nice walk-up.

[DRS]

Cool lesson

[mjirish]

Sax great Lee Konitz said, "You've got to learn to play FAR IN, before you can play FAR OUT." Translation: master playing "within" the tradition before trying to be "original".

Great advice!

From Wes Montgomery: "I never practice anything that I can't use on the gig tonight." Translation: Practice music!

also from Wes: Interviewer "Wes, how do you practice?" Wes: "I open my guitar case once a week and throw in a piece of meat".

Love it!

[MarkRhodes]

Sax great Lee Konitz said, "You've got to learn to play FAR IN, before you can play FAR OUT." Translation: master playing "within" the tradition before trying to be "original".

Great advice!

I think that's great advice too. Willie Thomas (-a trumpet player, now in his 80s) met Wynton Kelly when they were both in the military. (Army, I think.) Willie said Wynton showed him how to link "pentatonic pairs" through chord changes, which is at the heart of what Willie teaches to this day. (He's a cool guy and can really play.) That's another way of saying what Conti says, "You learn to play jazz by playing jazz!"

[djangoles]

I think that's great advice too. Willie Thomas (-a trumpet player, now in his 80s) met Wynton Kelly when they were both in the military. (Army, I think.) Willie said Wynton showed him how to link "pentatonic pairs" through chord changes, which is at the heart of what Willie teaches to this day. (He's a cool guy and can really play.) That's another way of saying what Conti says, "You learn to play jazz by playing jazz!"

haha....I just watched this a few hours ago. Never heard of him till today poking around on youtube. Looks like he's got a bunch of stuff on his site if you want to pay.

[MarkRhodes]

haha....I just watched this a few hours ago. Never heard of him till today poking around on youtube. Looks like he's got a bunch of stuff on his site if you want to pay.

I like him and if I had extra money, I'd join his site just to help him out. Actually, I respect anyone in their 80s who remains active!

[djangoles]

I like him and if I had extra money, I'd join his site just to help him out. Actually, I respect anyone in their 80s who remains active!

When you put it that way I think I'll plop down twenty just help out

[MarkRhodes]

When you put it that way I think I'll plop down twenty just help out

You've got a great gig, so you can afford it! ;o) He has a lot of play-along material---he's got a connection with Jamie Aebersold, so he can use some of Jamie's play-along tracks for various exercises. Conti's a better guitar teacher, but Willie is a great cat who has been teaching for decades and I think he's worthy of your support!

[tbeltrans]

Back to the main subject, I really like that movement in bars 7 and 8: Am11 Bm7 C69 and D13sus4. Makes a nice walk-up.

Nice observation, Mark. Straight outof The Formula. Many of Conti's chord melody arrangements have this sort of movement, and in the context of each tune, it doesn't at all sound repetitive. That is the beauty of Conti's approach - learn a handful of very useful and flexible ideas and use them well in different contexts and you never sound like you are using the same devices over and over. It is a vocabulary, much as we all have our same words we use again and again to speak and write every day, and it isn't the entire English dictionary, but really only about 200 words. He does that with his single line approach too. I am going to have to find the time to go through Amazing Grace in a bit more detail, now that you have me interested in what is goiing on in the arrangement. Unfortunately, I have practice with the band tonight, stuff going on tomorrow and this weekend. Hopeully things will slow down at some point. I really want to retire sooner than later so as to have more time for this sort of activity. At least with the band, I have real application for what Conti teaches - and it fits in amazingly well, according to the rest of the band.

Tony

[tbeltrans]

OK, since the early morning is my guitar tme before going to work, I played several times through Conti's Amazing Grace arrangement. This is a great arrangement to play around with and change the harmony on any way you want. If anybody is interested, I could make a video when I get the time in which I talk through a couple of ways to harmonize some sections of it and different ways to approach playing it. I don't really see the point in just putting up a verbatim performance of the tune since everybody who downloaded the arrangement should be able to do that for themselves. If you play the forms shown in the melody, one after another in a reasonable semblance of time, the melody will be easily recognizable, and that is certainly a valid and fun way to approach it, so I am not criticizing that approach at all. However, since we all can do that on our own, I don't see particular value in doing it in a video.

What I am thinking of is taking a section of the arrangement and just trying different harmonic approaches, so we can hear what they sound like and what the process looks like (at least my process). I won't discuss The Formula, but will use what it does to create new harmony. I feel that, though what The Formula teaches wasn't invented by Conti (and he never claims to have done so), his way of presenting it is uniquely his and not mine to give away. I think there are limits to how long a video can be for YouTube and/or Conti's site, but if I just take a spot here and there to show people what you can do with The Formula and Conti's arrangement as a starting point for your own exploration, maybe all the discussion in this thread will make more sense. I really think that when you start experimenting and finding your own way to play it, Conti would be happy as a clam, so to speak.

So, to start with, I slide up a half step using octaves to land on the first D (one of the Ds being on the third string 7th fret, and the other on the fifth string fifth fret) instead of the Daug or Ab69#11 that Conti uses. Any of these or even another chord entirely is fine. Or...try a G#dim down to the G6 or an F6 or an F13 up to the G6. There are lots more, but this would get "long winded" again. I leave the first full measure as is. We could do lots of stuff with it, but I just like it the way it is. Then, we have the third measure, which begs to be reharmonized, not that there is anything wrong with what Conti did, but why not make it our own?

Anyway, I have to leave for work now, but maybe people get the idea of what I am talking about...if interested post a followup and I will try to get a video done. I think Conti chose this tune specifically because it just begs to be mangled like this.

Tony

[MarkRhodes]

Nice observation, Mark. Straight outof The Formula. Many of Conti's chord melody arrangements have this sort of movement, and in the context of each tune, it doesn't at all sound repetitive. That is the beauty of Conti's approach - learn a handful of very useful and flexible ideas and use them well in different contexts and you never sound like you are using the same devices over and over.
Tony

In one of his books--maybe a few of them--Conti mentions being influenced by pianist Oscar Peterson. I checked out Oscar for his guitar players, Barney Kessel and Herb Ellis. (Kenny Burrell also played with OP but that didn't seem as fruitful a union.) Oscar was the first player I consciously realized was using some of the same harmonic formula over and over. I realized this was key to his playing so fast: it's hard to play something blazing fast that you just made up, and it's hard to make up a lot at blistering tempi because you don't have the time!

Anyway, in working with "The Formula" I see / hear this is what Conti is teaching and it's a good thing. It's really what people mean when they say something "sounds like jazz" to them.

[djangoles]

You've got a great gig, so you can afford it! ;o) He has a lot of play-along material---he's got a connection with Jamie Aebersold, so he can use some of Jamie's play-along tracks for various exercises. Conti's a better guitar teacher, but Willie is a great cat who has been teaching for decades and I think he's worthy of your support!

yea I did a month for 15 bucks....some cool stuff on there, and not guitar related which is a nice change.