Tim Lerch's Chord Dictionary vs Robert Conti's Assembly Line

[Tal_175]

Judging by the descriptions it seems like these books are based on the same concept. They both provide a chord vocabulary organization based on the top voice, that is one voicing for each chord type per melody note. Is that correct?

[tbeltrans]

Yes, that is true. However, what Conti's Assembly Line prepares your for is to work with "The Formula" in which you are matching up chord forms with a melody notes while using tools he teaches to determine what chords will be used to create ever-changing harmony. In other words, there is much more to Conti's "story".

This doesn't diminish Tim Lerch's book, but while there are similarities in the beginning with Conti's approach, Conti continues showing all you can do once you have those basics of matching a chord form to a melody note down (i.e. that is the beginning, not the meal).

I have Tim's book too, but haven't done much with it so far. Tim Lerch certainly has quite a bit more material available from Truefire and from his site that is actually quite good. But where Conti shines is that he has a step by step logical approach beginning to end where everything builds on what came before. I think Conti would have been a good engineer because he has a very logical, linear mind.

Tony

[Tal_175]

Yes, that is true. However, what Conti's Assembly Line prepares your for is to work with "The Formula" in which you are matching up chord forms with a melody notes while using tools he teaches to determine what chords will be used to create ever-changing harmony. In other words, there is much more to Conti's "story".

This doesn't diminish Tim Lerch's book, but while there are similarities in the beginning with Conti's approach, Conti continues showing all you can do once you have those basics of matching a chord form to a melody note down (i.e. that is the beginning, not the meal).

I have Tim's book too, but haven't done much with it so far. Tim Lerch certainly has quite a bit more material available from Truefire and from his site that is actually quite good. But where Conti shines is that he has a step by step logical approach beginning to end where everything builds on what came before. I think Conti would have been a good engineer because he has a very logical, linear mind.

Tony

Thanks. I have Conti's "The Formula" book. Over the years I think I have developed a decent chord vocabulary. Besides, other than the note names, I use intervallic relationships to navigate the fretboard which helps me to build new chord voicings on the fly (at least in the woodshed). So, I suppose I don't have much to gain from Conti's "Assembly line" book. But I do like the Formula book for working on reharmonizations.

I'm curious about one thing though. I read in the description of the Assembly Line that there are voicings for each chord type that cover every scale and chromatic note. So does that mean he doesn't treat the so called "avoid notes" or chromatic passing notes in a special way? I mean, say, does he have voicings of Cmaj with an F on top or a Db on top? Or does he borrow different chords for these more clashy top notes?

If I harmonize such notes, my preference is to use a passing chord which could be diatonic, diminished or dominant of sorts.

[tbeltrans]

For the 'F' melody note, he uses D minor. He uses various chords such as augmented, etc. They all work. At the back of Assembly Line, he provides several alternative forms for most of the chords used in the book.

Throughout the Assembly Line book, he only uses one form for each melody note. That way, he eliminates any guesswork so that there is only one "right" answer for each musical situation. To me, this makes perfect sense because when working from a book without a "live" teacher, it is all too easy to get lost in the weeds trying to figure out what the author wants. Conti eliminates that. I have seen some folks disparage his approach (this was years ago...in more recent years, folks seem to have become more accepting of his approach), but for self-teaching, especially until the student understands the mechanics he is trying to convey, I can't think of a better approach.

In "The Formula", there are many solutions to a given situation, but by that time, you are expected to have gone through "Assembly Line" and be able to quickly put together a chord melody from a fakebook (i.e. the "Assembly Line" approach). Also, by the time you get to "The Formula", you have been playing all the chord forms used and therefore can focus on the subject matter instead of trying to get your fingers around the chord forms. This is an example of how Conti's material builds on what came before.

Tony

[Jonah]

Yes, that is true. However, what Conti's Assembly Line prepares your for is to work with "The Formula" in which you are matching up chord forms with a melody notes while using tools he teaches to determine what chords will be used to create ever-changing harmony. In other words, there is much more to Conti's "story".

This doesn't diminish Tim Lerch's book, but while there are similarities in the beginning with Conti's approach, Conti continues showing all you can do once you have those basics of matching a chord form to a melody note down (i.e. that is the beginning, not the meal).

I have Tim's book too, but haven't done much with it so far. Tim Lerch certainly has quite a bit more material available from Truefire and from his site that is actually quite good. But where Conti shines is that he has a step by step logical approach beginning to end where everything builds on what came before. I think Conti would have been a good engineer because he has a very logical, linear mind.

Tony

I'd rather say he could be a good manager: he really can identify and choose what is important right now and throws away other things or adapts things to reach very feasible goal.
His approach is much like business or process management


Ted Greene, he could be an engineer I think
Engineering is also about pratic and efficient approach but it is also very technical on details.
I can imagine also an engineer doing something just for the sake of the process.
But manager is always focused on the target

[tbeltrans]

I'd rather say he could be a good manager: he really can identify and choose what is important right now and throws away other things or adapts things to reach very feasible goal.
His approach is much like business or process management


Ted Greene, he could be an engineer I think
Engineering is also about pratic and efficient approach but it is also very technical on details.
I can imagine also an engineer doing something just for the sake of the process.
But manager is always focused on the target

I am retired as a software engineer. For quite some time, the upward path was to go from engineer to manager, until companies learned that good engineers don't necessarily make good managers, though some certainly do. At some point, a parallel path for engineers was created and Principal Engineer became that path for engineers. I was a principle engineer for about the last 10 or 15 years of my career. The lines between manager and engineer blur at that point.

With that in mind, I would say that Conti is a bit of both - engineer and manager. that would be a Principal Engineer.

Tony

[Jonah]

I am retired as a software engineer. For quite some time, the upward path was to go from engineer to manager, until companies learned that good engineers don't necessarily make good managers, though some certainly do. At some point, a parallel path for engineers was created and Principal Engineer became that path for engineers. I was a principle engineer for about the last 10 or 15 years of my career. The lines between manager and engineer blur at that point.

With that in mind, I would say that Conti is a bit of both - engineer and manager. that would be a Principal Engineer.

Tony

Thanks my mother has been railroad Principle Engineer for years..
And I am totally the opposite - a process but even more a people management...

Sorry for derailing the thread

Reading Conti interviews and looking at his website I think he is also a good sales man)))

[tbeltrans]

Thanks my mother has been railroad Principle Engineer for years..
And I am totally the opposite - a process but even more a people management...

Sorry for derailing the thread

Reading Conti interviews and looking at his website I think he is also a good sales man)))

Conti is definitely "all of the above". As for derailing the thread, whatever turns it takes will be interesting.

Engineers have personalities just like anybody else. I have known engineers who get lost in myriad of details and never seem to really accomplish much as a result. Contrast that to other engineers who seem to keep the end in site and aim for that, stripping away unnecessary details, much as we have been describing Conti. Most engineers, just as with any other aspect of being human, lie along the continuum between these two extremes. Using the two extreme examples as contrast, as a project leader, you can usually find work within a project for the different personalities. The guy that gets lost in myriad of details, being so detail-oriented, can be given a small part of the project that requires that kind of intense focus. The engineer that strips away unnecessary details would be good at whipping up material to test that the direction the project is going, will result in success and hopefully steer the team away from anything that would derail the project. That person can usually product a demo that at least shows progress at various points in the project. Conti does that with Chord Melody Assembly Line - you get a real taste of his style of putting together a chord melody BEFORE you get deep into the details presented in The Formula.

Tony