-
So, after 4 or 5 days, and couple of effective hours I managed this part, I mean I can play couple of circles as written and I can play around it rhytmically, omitting this and that, in another words FAKE IT for long enough, at tempo I find to be the right one. However, I'm still buffled about it, about the tempo.
Originally Posted by Reg
Reg said 160bpm 2 chords per bar, if I understood correctly.
1. There's no way I can do it with the (let's name it) funky feel(?, or is it groove? I'm not good with terminology) Reg plays it in that clip I posted above. But than, in that clip, if 2 chords per bar, tempo is far from 160bpm, at least the way I understand tempo. At the tempo from the clip, I can play this basic phrase with similar funky tyype of feel Reg does. I can not play it that well with all the embellishments and freedom, but I can do the basic thing, that's for sure.
2. At tempo of 160bpm, as I understand it, which is roughly double of that from the clip, I can play it, but with completely different feel, I don't know how to describe it, maybe as country, or shuffle, ... feel in 1/8 as oposed to 1/16, something like that ...
3. I can play basic thing to sound similar to Reg's clip at metronome set to 160bpm, but at 1 chord per bar, which is effectivly same as 80bpm 2 chords per bar.
If I was to write it down in musical way, I d say at 160bpm I can play it like this:
Reg? Anybody?Last edited by Vladan; 11-01-2014 at 11:07 AM.
-
11-01-2014 10:51 AM
-
IMO, no need to double the positions when there are two chords a bar.
It's like double the tempo. The rythm doesn't need to change, just the chord.
ex:
Dm / G7 | C / A7 ||
Dm11 / G9 | C69 / A9 ||
Dm11 xx5565
G9 xx3455
C69 xx2233
A9 xx2423
Last edited by nado64; 11-02-2014 at 04:28 AM.
-
Thank you nado64. Yes play it simpler, why not. Once I figure how to fluently jump from Db13 on 3rd frett to Db9 on the 9th (2nd part of Reg's) I'll give some time to your quartal voicings. I've tried them in slo-mo and I liked the melody they produced.
-
Vladan, why jump from Db13(3rd fret) to Db9(9th fret)? That's quite a jump. I would play it all in Regs first example.
@nado64, nice changes.
-
Edh, that's because I want to play exact fingerings as Reg wrote them in his post.
Db13........X X 3 4 4 6
Db9..........X X 9 8 6 9
I see it as a challenge and an excersize. Unfortunately, I have no time to work on it as I get distracted by all various topics and subjects, music related and otherwise.Last edited by Vladan; 11-03-2014 at 04:15 AM.
-
I practiced for a while yesterday and I think I'll never be able to make above mentioned change good enough.
At reasonably low speed I can play similar, but simplified grip of Db9 as X X 9 8 6 6, but there I lose the melody.
To keep the melody and play at kind of good enough tempo I have to switch to one of "my" voicings either:
X X 9 10 11 9, or
X X 9 8 8 9 (Db #11), or
Of course, for more rock 'n' roll approach plain triads like X X 6 6 6 9 also work, as well as doubled, or "troubled" fifths (4 4) 6 6 9 9
Also, I found that X X 12 11 9 9 works quite well. Guess that is Db b9 11, but think that places it out of MM, right into mode of Dorian (Ab?)?
BTW, in that thread about picking, holding the pick, whatever, Reg posted a clip where he plays these voicings up to proposed tempo, maybe even faster, all while adding and subbing this and that and talking usual "BS" over it. How is that possible? Guess I should stick to lite and slow pop rock and forget about All that Jazz?
Don't know, maybe there's still hope, I'll try to practice some more.
-
I think this is some awesome group work on an important bridging concept that takes folks to the next level in their musicality. My first exposure to these ideas was through Larry Carlton and Steely Dan. The next major person to outline his perception of this process was Pat Martino, who has described the entirety of his conception of music as an interplay between the two whole tone scales, meaning all I-IV-V structural movements are considered solely from the perspective of the half-step interval. [here I want to be specific: 2 whole tones scales of 6 notes each made up of whole tones separated from one another by a half-step, thus making all 12 tones of the diatonic scale].
Another way to approach this material is to start with basic root position triads, and then move to 1st position triads in the same key and scale center (frequency, not tonic, for instance still in the A2 octave of the guitar) and begin to examine how the 6th intervals are constructed that move up and down the major scale. Much of non-standard open tunings of guitar use the 6ths as basic melodic constructions that are fundamental to that style of tuning that are not so obvious on standard tuning, and unless one is exposed to either bluegrass or slide, it can be a major chunk of musical awareness that is not accessed due to non-exposure.
This use of sliding major and minor 6ths, allows one a 'handle' on 'on-the-fly' transitions between comfortable fingerings and keys, and the extensions and the modalities that are implied by the harmony but not yet voiced. The use of the sixth interval allows the easier movement between these chords that often have solidity only when used close to an auditory tonal center, but as the tonal center is made less clear, the implication that a chord was always D9 and never Fmaj, even though the tonic F major, is achieved.
In the personal progress we make as musicians, we first seek to play the music as it is intended, and this takes a lot of time, effort, and skill to get to that level. But once that is dialed in, music gets somewhat boring. And many of us then look for that which is not so 'cut-and-dried,' we look for that form that is logically precise and correct but also apparently musically ambiguous. And we want to navigate these waters as effortlessly as we do when we play the simple major scale....
What I suggest here is that music (as a function of the manipulation of frequencies) should possibly viewed with a perspective more akin to Ohm's Law of electromagnetism- in that there are a minimum of at least three ways of approaching tonality, and usually we only understand major and relative minor, and play a 2 dimensional form of music, when in fact, music is at least 3 dimensional, and actually n-dimensional. Therefore these seeming limitations in our playing experience actually force us to appreciate the scientific aspects of frequency manipulation, and may demand a better codification standard than what is in use currently in terms of pedagogy.
Finally, any one who has had a left-handed student, or read many of the historical 'how-tos' from companies that may not have been Mel Bay, has seen all sorts of tab and notation systems.
To suggest that Boston Joe should not have made his excellently cogent points and examples because they were not written in the one format with which some individual reader was familiar is ludicrous.
As any kind of teacher, if someone has a question or a point to make, and if they are the student, they may not have the appropriate language to make their query because they have not yet learned it. Rather than disparage the individual for his effort and tell them they are not worthwhile because you currently don't use the format, and then suggest that your way of doing things is THE standard, I ask you to consider that it may not be the standard if one is left-handed. And yet, even without the "Standard", Boston Joe's comments were readable and understandable in the format he worked with, and were more understandable to me personally, then the horizontal format. Also, I have seen the horizontal method used repeatedly, both with the higher pitched notes on top and bottom
If this site wants to put forth a standard for any written musical examples I am all for it, but when someone ignores the attempt at communicating a musical example and ignores the entire musical point of the post because he was some kind of robot unable to decipher the examples, due to some preexisting standard notation with which he was programmed, I honestly don't know what to say to that... It's like yelling at someone for warning you 'there is a cliff and you are about to step off of it' because they did not warn you with proper punctuation, and then because it wasn't in the proper format, you go ahead and step off the cliff to your doom. The Sufis even have a teaching story about such a critic: "Never correct someone else's grammar when standing next to a well."
To me, this info was valuable enough in it's botched format to be copied and put into my practice folder.
Just my 2 cents.
-
Some interesting points... personally I don't remember Boston Joe being trashed that bad... actually I thought most of the comments were in a positive direction. 80 20 ratio thing.
Getting back to your views about music... I like em. But generally most members on this sight don't really have the basics down yet and really don't have references from functional Maj/min CPP to make the leap to similar concepts with different modal application...within Jazz.... yet alone apply modal applications with different structural organization.
You might loose us... Generally jazz guitar is our basic reference, If you can somewhat bridge the gap... sounds great.
-
Yeah, I don't feel like I got trashed. If you want to argue about notation, I'm going to lose interest quickly, but whatever. It's not really my thing. Originally Posted by Reg
But I still don't understand what you mean when you say the voicings sound "non descriptive."
-
Hey B Joe...
When I say the voicing sound non descriptive... I mean they, the voicings... don't imply harmonic reference and movement. That is not a bad thing... but personally there needs to be something going on when comping... not just filling space. They as I said work well when combined with strong lead lines or as somewhat passing or approach filler between targets. And even as a target if set up.
And yea, who cares about Tab in the first place.
-
Reg, I am unsure how I what I said would be taken out of the context of jazz theory. I merely speculate that since the tonal center can already be binary (in that it can be perceived as the Major or relative Minor of the tonal center), when considering the other scales any tone can be part of, such as melodic or harmonic minor modes, one necessarily has to take a "greater than merely two ways of considering the tonic" into consideration, such that rather than merely two ways to interpret harmony, there are n-number of ways to interpret harmony, which is more in line with what we know about the science of sound as frequency and bandwidth, which become major factors when amplifying sound.
The idea of "most members" not having adequate musical skills to follow the conversation does not seem necessary to this specific thread because the people who want to know and talk about this stuff chose this thread over all other threads to discuss this specific info on rootless chords. Therefore, given that the participants are already at this specific thread, and many are posting ideas, it can be assumed that the people who want to talk about these concepts already have the necessary capability to do so at this time, and in the future, when the rest "catch up," this post will be here, when they do become interested in this specific concept in the future.
Further, if folks are already having some lack of capability necessary to appreciate this conversation, while standardization can help if everybody is on board, I feel that arguing for standardization before considering the concept originally proffered is disingenuous because it immediately impugns the idea because it was not properly "formatted," and ignores what may be an incredibly important powerful concept in order to be some kind of "rules lawyer."
Honestly, the whole reason I play jazz is to get away from "rules lawyers." As Miles Davis said (here I paraphrase), "I play what I play, and I let them figure out what I played after I'm done;" or not paraphrased "Don’t play what’s there, play what’s not there."
My post on the second page, and the ideas behind rootless chords brought by the originator and contributors to this thread, are essentially ways to approach playing "what is not there."
I am sorry if you can't understand what I am trying to say. I feel that I have been able to understand the points of all the other posters in any format, even if I don't immediately agree with them.
If I state that using the 6th interval is a good way to switch between chunks of harmonic functionality, even if it is merely going from the Tonic to the Sub-Dominant in a single major key, that to me seems well within the jazz lexicon of description. To me, it seems no great leap of faith to then extend the concept to other possible scale choices- each defined solely by their generic intervalic structure. Thus, I once again return to Larry Carlton: if one knows the intervals of every scale and mode, the sixth interval allows a more facile "gear change" between two (or more) different harmonic structures based on the same tonic.
While others brought tab to show their voice leading using rootless chords, I suggested using the Maj and Min 6th interval as a lens to approach these changes. Though I don't have a lot of time right now to provide voice-leading tab examples, I don't think what I said is spurious: if you spend a little time on only the sixth interval (on three strings initially, not two), moving through harmonic shifts, you may find that due to the sixth's prevalence in the 1st Inversion Triad, it is an extremely effective ratio for gear changes through harmonic changes. I will try to post some actual musical examples in the near future.
I hope this added clarification to my earlier post in more of a "jazz appropriate" language.
What is "functional Maj/min CPP?" I don't know what CPP is in musical terminology, only in C programming language.
Thanks
-
-
ta
The approach to harmony according to which chords are purposely built up from their bass note marked the beginning of the " common practice period" of Western harmony.
In the history of European art music (broadly called classical music), the common practice era – spanning the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods – lasted from about 1600 to around 1900.
Common practice music obeys two types of musical norms: first, it uses conventionalized sequences of chords, such as I-IV-V-I. (see Roman numeral analysis) Second, it obeys specific contrapuntal norms, such as the avoidance of parallel fifths and octaves.
Common practice music can be contrasted with the earlier modal music and later atonal music. It can also be contrasted with twentieth-century styles, such as rock and jazz, that are broadly tonal but do not obey the harmonic and contrapuntal norms described in the preceding paragraph. Nevertheless, there are often significant similarities between the music of the common practice period and the broadly tonal music of the twentieth century
Harmony
See also: Functional harmony
Common-practice harmony is almost always derived from diatonic scales and tends to follow particular chord progressions that have withstood the test of time.
For example, in common-practice harmony, a major triad built on the fifth degree of the scale (V) is unlikely to progress directly to a root position triad built on the fourth degree of the scale (IV), but the reverse of this progression (IV-V) is quite common. By contrast, the V-IV progression is readily acceptable by many other standards; for example, this transition is essential to the "shuffle" blues progression's last line (V-IV-I-I), which has become the orthodox ending for blues progressions at the expense of the original last line (V-V-I-I).(Tanner & Gerow 1984, 37)
Functional harmony
The term functional harmony derives from Hugo Riemann and his textbooks on harmony in the late 19th century, with roots back to Jean-Philippe Rameau's theoretical works amongst others. His main idea was to create a comprehensive theoretical basis for understanding the principles of harmonic relationships typical for the Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods. His work had huge impact, especially where German influence was strong. A good example in this regard are the textbooks by Hermann Grabner.[5][6]
Riemann's basic theories have since been adopted, refined and elaborated upon by many authors of textbooks in harmony, arranging and composition. Functional harmony is being taught as a basic discipline in music theory all over the western world, though different labels are used. Other terms used in the English and American tradition include Common Practice Harmony (stemming from Walter Piston[7]), Tonal harmony (as used by Allen Forte[8]), and Traditional harmony (as used by Gordon Delamont.[9] Vincent Persichetti[10] describes the 19th-century harmonic repertoire as "chords evolving around the tonic pillars" (tonic, subdominant, dominant).
Sorry for just copy and paste... but it's easy, and I'm lazy.
I get your use of 6th... its not complicated, and either is being aware of Relative Maj and Min... and other modal interchange relationship.... if you read above... that is how western functional music works... the relative min is adjusted to cover the dominant functional yada yada...
My comments were more to your use of... Music as a function of the manipulation of frequencies
and the use of... dimensional forms of music...
I was mistaken... I thought you were getting much deeper.... I was thinking you were creating more possible methods of seeing and hearing music with not only the relationships with in tonal and modal music... but also with different divisions based on frequencies., another multiplier.
And I'm not sure that most members understand functional Harmony... or even really care.
But my mistake... I misunderstood your usage of terms.
I personally enjoy the conversation and discussions... I'm a pro, all I do is play... I actually enjoy the BS.
-
reg.
Dude, thanks for the lecture. I have also taken Music Theory at the college level. I appreciate the implication that I am not a "professional" because you do not choose to understand me, though you word it as if your employment gives you personally some kind of high ground. How do you know I don't play and practice every day?
In fact: YES, I was implying that "something deeper" that you refer to in terms of the mathematics of sound, their representation as organized by Western Tonal music, and the implementation of both digital and analog sound through both analog and digital instruments, and then analog and digital amplification, manipulation, and recording methods.
First let me say that the only reason I am on this thread at this time is because I had not been here in awhile and I returned due to an auto-generated email and I like the site. I came to this thread specifically because I like chord extensions without a root so that the bass player can play the root and the guitar player can IMPLY other keys as he sees fit during his improvisation or planned performance; and most of all because I thought I might LEARN SOMETHING. Right now, I am here at this thread because I was going to do a treatment of "Fly Me to The Moon" by Bart Howard to illustrate some of my points. Instead, I see that someone has deigned to give me, personally, a supercilious cut-and-paste lecture about basic music theory as if one day the chimp will learn.
The whole reason I originally posted is I didn't like the attitude of the poster who went after the OP, who brought excellent musical points to the community, on the merest of standard notation grounds, which have never been mandatory to post here as far as I know. If there is some sticky, please post a link here so we'll get in lock step to your way of doing business....
First and foremost, I am a STUDENT who knows that he can, and does, make mistakes. I did not originally plan to post in this thread. Nor do I wish to start a flame war.
But now we're in a flame war because you take offense where no offense was originally intended by the OP, nor those who said that maybe someone should be allowed to discuss what they are thinking conceptually before they are severely edited by some lurking standardization critic firmly entrenched in the world of grammar before all else-- even inspiration.
So here we go:
When we speak about the amplification of notes, as defined by Western Tonal Theory, and the contemporary equal temperament of the keyboard versus the Pythagorean multiples which make up single string harmonics, what we see is that single tube power amplifiers amplify even harmonics of a played amplified acoustic note, whereas a push-pull power amplifier, solid state power amplifiers, and distortion created with solid state devices through diode clipping amplify odd order harmonics.
This is science.
Therefore, we know for a fact, that any note played on a physical single string of a guitar (or any other single stringed instrument), has the fundamental and then even and odd ordered harmonics as part of the sonic audible wave that travels through atmosphere. The wave is at least 3 dimensional.
Now, we can go to how Western Tonal music is ordered, because you seem to like to use that as the criteria by which you internally understand sound. A scientist will have a different language to describe sonic vibration than the instrumentalist; it doesn't prevent each from learning the descriptive language of the other. Nor should prioritization of one form of language or standard take priority over all others in all cases. If I give you a bunch a frequencies to play while you're on stage, unless you have a translator, you may be in trouble.
So please stop demanding that everyone only communicate so that you personally understand them in all cases. My point has been that OP's info was more important than the format it was submitted in, and any player using it would be able to see that it was accurate enough to be used as a map to enhance one's playing. OP did not demand any compliance from anyone else, he simply made a musical point. I suggest the point was well-enough made to prevent Mr. Standardization from making an appearance simply to feed his ego.
To continue, if I take a single tone from a single sine wave generated by, in this case, the software synth Native Instruments Massive, I find that there are many ways of manipulating the single "note." For instance, without changing pitch I can manipulate the modulation of the note, or create a high pass or low pass filter for the sign wave which changes the sound by allowing harmonics of certain bandwidths of frequencies to pass while others don't. I can change the Q parameter of the note with resonance, similar to a wah pedal.
Thus, when the Western Tonal Music by which you wish to define everything says play an A, as a performer with free will, I will decide what type of A I want to play when I want to play it. It may be A = 110Hz, it may be that what I call A is actually Hendrix's Ab-- SUDDENLY everything is relative to the Tonal Center I define.
Because I have free will and choose to define it that way.
Originally I said there were more than two ways of looking at a tonal center. Therefore a key center was at least binary, and I could think of at least seven other patterns not defined by Major or Minor thirds, therefore I said that a Tonic is n-dimensional, in that n= every way that a player can use the data. Though Nicolas Slonimsky describes the ordering ofWestern Tonal Music with Major and Minor thirds, frequencies can also be ordered in Fourths, they can be ordered as micro-tonal ragas, and thus there at least n-number of ways to consider the Tonic.
You are limited as a player only by your lack of imagination, never by your supposed technique.
Every mistake is an opportunity.
Because I am writing this response, I will now have less time of my treatment of "Fly."
If anyone wants to do a quick Wiki study on electricity, electromagnetism, inductance, impedance, and sound, please go ahead.... See if what I have told you is false.
As I said, just my two cents.
But please quit trying to pigeon hole us with your ignorance and assumptions and need for us only to speak in ways you can understand, because that is the exact opposite of learning.
And maybe the guy you really don't like actually does have better information than you have....
I have now described at least 2 ways in this post that references my "getting much deeper;" "it's easy, and I'm lazy."
Because I may actually know of what I speak.
Just my two cents.
PS: Oh, and before somebody says, "Yeah but what does that have to do with rootless chords!?!"
In the above example, the choice of which rootless chords you wish to amplify the bass note with is nearly equivalent to the decision of whether or not to use even or odd ordered harmonics when amplifying sound. The player is deciding what aspects of the chord he wants to amplify, and not all cultures appreciate music in the same way, so what anyone personally thinks sounds "good" is a matter of taste. The flat 5 can sound damned good in the right place, as can the diminished chord according to our culturally trained perceptions and the greatest euphony might sound like Hell to someone else.
You may enjoy these sounds, like I do, start at 12:40 in....
-
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief.
"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-
OK, no need for hostility. I did not feel affronted by the guy who called me out about notation. I'm sure Reg didn't mean to sound condescending.
-
Sorry about the lecture... you asked what Functional Maj/Min CPP was, I tried to answer with some info. Rather than my personal opinion.
I'm still not sure I understand you... but who cares. I appreciate your understandings and views and will give them more thought.
Playing jazz is not that complicated to me personally.
Thanks for the playing example.
-
So you simply could have stated that CPP stood for "Common Practice Period."
My point has been that not-so-subtle, passive-aggressive hostility is still hostility.
To then argue, "Oh, don't call us out overtly for our passive aggressiveness; we only understand other passive aggressive folks."
Or "No matter what you say, even if it scientifically, objectively provable (which is the standard by which we define anything mathematical), I deliberately choose to misunderstand you."
How European.
I was never really concerned with OP's "feelings" because anyone who is a player on a stage has to have developed some capability to take negative feedback.
But if the attitude that prevails at this site is that of the pedagogue who immediately corrects the way the student speaks or writes as a mere grammarian, rather than taking the effort to comprehend the student's musical point-- even if in the end it may be some misunderstanding on the part of the student (which it was not in this case)-- to immediately dismiss someone's content because as a reader you are unable to comprehend the text because you are unwilling to expend the effort to decipher what he or she has to say is your problem, and begs the question as to why you would come to this site at all if not learn for yourself and help other people.
Oh, wait, it seems you actually come here to tell us how easy jazz is to play....
When any teacher assumes that an obscure bit of jargon or an anagram such as "CPP" should be known by a student a priori because someone earlier in their lives made them learn a specific system, and now as a teacher, he or she expects all other people who communicate with him to already know exactly the same info he or she knows and to always present that info in only the standard by which that teacher has been taught, is LUDICROUS.
To expect a student or some stranger to already know what the teacher knows is absurd.
To dismiss what someone states, and reply with something like it is "regrettably not comprehensible," no matter how explicit the example is using the generally agreed science of the physics of sound and electromagnetism, simply because the facts as they were stated did not accord with Mr. Teacher's prior-- possibly extremely inadequate-- world view, is basically a shitty thing to do, and if as a person you did it repeatedly to one of my students or friends, I would no longer let you on the band stand-- no matter how well you personally feel you may play or how high an opinion you hold of your musical comprehension.
I appreciate the efforts of those who provided musical examples of voice leading and counterpoint.
If you feel that my dissatisfaction over standardized form before content is so profoundly incorrect, then my reply is simply that Gregorian and Modal music came before the written standard in which it is encoded now. Those who developed the standard knew the music well enough to be able to fathom each of the prior written forms of communicating sound.
Scientific and mathematical standards are far more rigorous than musical standards, my point in bringing that form of standard up is that if you tell OP to rephrase until he meets your standard, why not then also try to meet my standard?
The implication is immediately, that any other standard but your own-- even if it is more specific and more exact and more overarching-- should be dismissed because it didn't come from you or your school of thought.
Personally, as a player, I don't really need your opinions on voice leading or rootless chords, because I own the Schoenberg texts on counterpoint. I have all of the GIT teaching methods from the 80's and 90's. I come here because I like the effort provided by the owner of the site to teach jazz guitar in the most comprehensible method that I have seen on the internet so far FOR FREE.
I give this site to my students as a resource.
If you feel that I am out of line, sorry, but I don't want some "better informed" member of this site dismissing one of my students (or anyone else) immediately and deliberately making them feel ignorant simply for your own ego or amusement over grammatical issues, especially if the example given was well-formed in a prior standardization, which is what OP provided.
I'm glad reg finds jazz so easy. But if reg is not actually Pat Metheny in disguise, he should probably just let the point drop.
Quite honestly, I have already found the answers I need in my personal and musical life.
I am unsubscribing to this thread because it is a waste of my time.
-
I've returned one last time to this thread to proffer a solution which may be very exciting.
There is an organization known as Organisation internationale de normalisation, or Международная организация по стандартизации or The International Organization for Standardization. They were founded in 23 February 1947.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization
Essentially, the ISO is the de facto standards body of the international community in terms of the standardization of scientific weights and measurements, the standardization of words, terms, and symbols used to describe those weights and measurements in all languages, including the binary code of computers.
The ISO has branched out due to compliance with ASCII computer standards formed by the IEEE and the ACM, and thus, almost every language in the world and ancient proto-languages such as Assyrian and Egyptian hieroglyphics have been standardized as well. Therefore any6thing can now be standardized. It is the best way I have personally found to communicate with Asian folks in their own languages.
Currently, the ISO has developed standards to describe the digital formats that recorded music is stored and recorded in. Software and hardware manufacturers already conform to ISO standards in the US.
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=45316
The current ISO standard for written music is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Musical_Work_Code
and merely describes a library style ordering system similar to ISBN numbers.
My suggestion is for this site and it's members to volunteer to develop a robust standardization for written guitar music and tab systems- both left and right handed, insure that it is compliant with current digital ISO standards, and present it to the ISO once we have tested it on the site.
If folks are going to be so bitchy about formatting, then let us embrace formatting versus all else until the type is set, and we can get back to discussing musical ideas.
It would be a benefit to guitar players and musicians everywhere to have an international standard regardless of language, being read right-to-left versus left-to-right, and that a specific tab/music form be provided as a widget on this site that already conforms to the ISO standard which we wish to provide, and that when someone like OP or myself wishes to provide a written tab piece, there will be a form in HTML on the Reply Console, that will allow people to input their musical idea in both tab and musical notation.
Thus, anyone who then reads this site will be able to format any example in any language to a more readable, comprehensible example.
This will finally dispense with anal retentive "rules lawyers," and allow us to get back to wailing electric jazz that some of our "betters" find inappropriate.
But if you really want, I guess you can camp out in the Common Practice Period where you feel most comfortable and perfect.
-
So, If you set to "ignore", it doesn't quite work on the tapatalk app. Is there a workaround for this?
-
Thanks for setting us all straight. Originally Posted by TheAficianado
-
Man... maybe you might be over thinking my comments to the point where they say or imply what you want them to.
I though I could run some BS.
Get Over It... move on.
-
As I think was mentioned earlier, listen to Ed Bickert who uses these sorts of forms most of the time. He allows the bassist to define the fundamental chord tones and drops the extended harmonies on top of that. When we're comping, part of why these chord work well is that they stay out of the bassist's way. Ed also uses voice leading to create the sense of movement complementing the harmonic reference created by the bass. He uses this approach for accompaniment as well as for trio playing where he is the lead and upper harmony voice simultaneously. That's the attraction these kinds of chord voicings have for me. It allows sophistication without being overly full and avoids inadvertently creating a bass line that may clash with the bassist. Originally Posted by Reg
-
Hey C... yea sounds great, that's a great way to comp, and who doesn't dig Ed's playing. But there can be a lot more going on. The sophisticating aspect I would think would be having lines going on and implying the harmony... while actually playing with the bassist... not just playing on top or different part. But there are many ways and aspects of comping. I'm known for my comping also. Just different circles and tastes.
If you've checked out any of my comping... I use lots of rootless voicings, but like I said I hear most of the rootless voicings constructed with 4ths and in that style, which can basically be used for any diatonic chord constructed from implied scales of the implied tonal or target tonal centers... as filler for lines not generally as harmonic targets...
But like I also just said... there are many choices and different tastes etc... We could play through a few tunes and compare and contrast different approaches to comping. Maybe make some bass and drum tracks for a few tunes and play some sample comping. I'm pretty busy, but will try and post a few, Boston Joe posted My Funny Val... I'll post a few versions of that and maybe Joy Spring... I need to post something on a different thread... two birds with one stone thing. Matbe a latin tune also...
-
Exactly on point, Cunamara! In the videos I've seen of Bickert playing with a bassist, it is almost as if he is playing a 5-string guitar minus the low E. As if he were strumming the chords including the melody line on top, and then using his fourth and fifth string for the sleek voice leading he pulls off. As you said, the lead and upper harmony with lower voice leading, but staying out of the way of the bassist. Originally Posted by Cunamara
Jay
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos