The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 12 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Posts 276 to 300 of 771
  1. #276

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by grahambop
    Here are the chords Wes Montgomery used to create a chord solo in G minor. They use the top 4 strings only.
    Thanks, Graham. I'm working on top-4-string voicings and this will give me something to tinker with.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #277

    User Info Menu

    Here's the same Wes Montgomery chords transposed down to D minor. So they start on the middle 4 strings, then switch over to the top 4 strings.

    I made the first chord Dm6 because I find it a bit easier to grab when playing these quickly.


    Looking for the best book on creating chord movement to use on standards-wes-montgomery-chords-2-jpg

  4. #278

    User Info Menu

    I find it easier to treat this like writing very simple chord melody, instead of using the melody of a song take a very simple improv line or pattern that lays on high-E and maybe B string too. Then harmonize simply to turn from single note riff to a chord riff. In the long run that is what you want to be able to do on the fly is take a riff and convert to a chord riff.

    Practicing this will later help with doing simple chord melody on the fly too.

  5. #279

    User Info Menu

    It interesting... I hear the voicings as
    G-7 to D7b9
    Bbmaj7 to F7b9
    ? dont remember G-9 to C7
    What would the roots be...

  6. #280

    User Info Menu

    Yea Doc... that's what I've been posting for years. The lead line or whatever you want to call the melody of what your playing, is whats going on. You are just voicing the changes below from whatever harmonic approach(s) your using.

    generally it's either the basic I V or target tonal tonic and Dominant harmonic structure,

    the I IV or again target tonal target and subdominant harmonic structure'

    I VI or I III or some type of tonic to tonic movement, sometimes modal like.

    And then instead of just one chord or voicing you begin to use II V's like wes or any other Chord Pattern. Add subs, approach etc... and again like wes use blue notes.

    The biggest aspect most seem to have difficulty with is realizing the melody also works as a single spatial reference also, just like chord patterns. All the notes don't need to line up and fit neatly like in maj/min Functional harmony. Generally when you don't have every single aspect line up perfect... it works and sound better. The melodic phrases or licks and the chord Patterns or standard short chord phrases work and function as one harmonic reference.

    There is organization going on... just more than one at a time.

  7. #281

    User Info Menu

    Of course, referring to Wes' style, one notes that use of just the top four strings would be especially employed when playing with a bass, piano and / or drums. In his solos he tends to use all six most of the time.

    I enjoy Sinatra's rendition of I've Got You Under My Skin in C# or if you prefer Db. Tour de force by the composers.
    Last edited by targuit; 12-05-2015 at 03:48 PM.

  8. #282

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    It interesting... I hear the voicings as
    G-7 to D7b9
    Bbmaj7 to F7b9
    ? dont remember G-9 to C7
    What would the roots be...
    It's all in G minor. It comes from a live version of Summertime (in G minor) from a record called 'Live at Jorgies'. I think Wes played similar chords (in D minor obviously) in his solo on Impressions (Smokin at the half note).

  9. #283

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by grahambop
    I once worked out the chord solo lines Wes played on a long G minor run - I think it was on a version of Summertime from the 'Live at Jorgies' LP.

    Starting from the G minor barre at the 3rd fret and ascending up the scale, it would be something like this, for each degree of the scale. These chords are all using the top 4 strings only.

    1: Gm7 (or maybe Gm6)
    2: Diminished
    3: Gm7 (inversion)
    4: Diminished
    5: Gm7 (inversion)
    6: C7
    7: Gm7 (inversion)
    8: Gm6 (i.e. using a barre on the 15th fret). You could also view this as a rootless C9.

    So a bit like Barry Harris, but Wes stops using the diminished after the 'halfway' point, and does not have the extra half-step between the 5 and 6.

    Of course Wes makes more melodic lines out of it than just a scale, sometimes he ascends, sometimes descends, sometimes ascends on 1, 3, 5 ,7 then descends on 6, 4, 2, etc.

    I could probably write out the exact chord shapes if anyone would find them useful. I use them quite a lot for chord solos.
    This I EXACTLY it. Check out Barry greene's lesson on diminished approaches.

  10. #284
    destinytot Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by docbop
    I find it easier to treat this like writing very simple chord melody, instead of using the melody of a song take a very simple improv line or pattern that lays on high-E and maybe B string too. Then harmonize simply to turn from single note riff to a chord riff. In the long run that is what you want to be able to do on the fly is take a riff and convert to a chord riff.

    Practicing this will later help with doing simple chord melody on the fly too.
    That's a recipe for instant joy.

  11. #285

    User Info Menu

    Wes did do a Barry type thang, who cares as to Wes doing this before Barry got going with it, (I think) its the rhythmic groove here, not specific maj6dim or min6dim etc that extra note gives acess to rhythmically lines, not possible with 7 note scales. a lot of wes used diferent quality chords this does not matter at all as long as voice leading and Rhythmic component structure is grooving, In fact it really does not mean anything using Barry Harris method, I mean Barrys got the groove he is hip-hop really, Roni Ben-Hur good but does not have the groove.

    Reg532 is the current world champ hands down simple re this. with no contenders in sight.

    Benson does this at the breakfast table its only tension release, subs really

    Re earlier post
    Wes & GB bluesy all the time. Barney very bluesy, and sometimes with WTF was that blues line doing there, but always killer. Joe bluesy on blues (no disrespect).

    Reg532 very Bluesy with his fantastic rthymic groove, ** ( and not afraid to throw it in all in, modern slant on existing harmonic stuff )

    ** Not enough spoken about this new post coming needs dire attention Reg532 has tried in many vids, its all there.
    It's not just speed its............................................... .............................

    All the current regime of new big name players should be knocking on Reg's door, pleading how the hell do you do that. Wes had it Benson had its Hip hop Man.

    Ps

    Benson does the Barry Harris thing all the time, Watch the claws come out.

  12. #286

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by plasticpigeon
    Wes Montgomery used these chords scales in his chord solos, as I'm finding out by transcribing. Maybe in comping too, but I make heavy weather of transcribing and haven't transcribed any comnping as it is even harder to hear, and I'm still a beginner really. I do find that using the diminished chord for a 7b9 can get a bit tired if used exclusively like in Alan's video, but I'm certain that Alan was just illustrating a concept and the real joy comes in the freedom of being able to use many different approaches, depending on the desired sound. I have Roni Ben Hur's video and pamphlet which I have found very helpful. Does Alan's book bring anything diofferent to the table?
    Using diminished chord/6 chord alternation is merely the beginning.

    I haven't checked out Alan's book, but I imagine it would go into much greater detail...

  13. #287

    User Info Menu

    Hey thanks Graham,
    I checked out a clip of the live version of summertime at Jorges...

    So personally I hear the basic vamp for the G- chord as... G-7 to D7b9 or even G-7 to Ab7#11 . Generally most use some type of groove or simple vamp for the I- chord, the G-7 chord when playing Summertime.
    Usually depends on the arrangement as to what vamp you use on the I- chord either G-7 to A-7, G-6 to G-6 or G-7 to C7 those would be tonic to subdominant grooves.
    Or more of what the thread was getting into above... the I to V vamps... G-7 to D7b9 or G-7 to Ab13#11 or use of Diminished chords.

    I guess you could just call it all G-7 but the voicings basically just follow the G-7 to D7b9 or I V groove. And that vamp basically creates very strong harmonic motion.

    I only heard a short clip of the recording... but it's fairly common jazz practice for comping or soloing.

  14. #288

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Using diminished chord/6 chord alternation is merely the beginning.

    I haven't checked out Alan's book, but I imagine it would go into much greater detail...
    I have... it's very well organized and covers complete collections of voicings based on string grouping... basically closed and opened type of voicings...different dropped styles of voicings. Beyond that it's a very personal view of how harmony works... the organization of what creates the power behind harmonic movement, organization for function. And the organization from where complete note collections come from. Not to mentioned organization of voiceleading.

    Basically if you understand major and relative Minor... type of relationships... call all chords maj or min 6th or Dom7th and Dom7b5 with added Dim7th chord added to each from the Major 7th degree of each... yes really.

    Add a diminished 7th chord to both Maj and Min 6th chords staring on the MAJOR 7th degree...
    So yea... Cma6 becomes Cmaj7 with added 6th and Bdim7, 8 note scale and source for chord construction
    C D E F G Ab A B

    Same with C-6, but starts with natural 6th and then again adds Bdim, or Dim7th chord built from the Maj 7th degree
    C D Eb F G Ab A B

    Same process with Dom7th and Dom7th b5 chords... chord tones and Dim7th chord from Maj7th....

    Anyway... you end up with a collection of somewhat Chord Patterns constructed and organized from resulting 8 note scales which are used in a symmetrical sub type of application. I'm skipping the philosophical life relationships.

    It works because it's well organized based on maj/min functional harmonic relationships and uses diminished chords as source for upper structure note sources. It has complete note collections for complete chord relationship organization. It is just as Maj/min functional harmony... very vanilla in it's self. And personally missed most of what can and does happen harmonically when playing Jazz...but does offer another view of what's going on harmonically when playing jazz, beyond maj/min functional harmony.

    Like I said... it's well worth the money, and well organized.... but if you don't already understand Maj/min functional harmony and it's basic relationships.... your not really going to get it.

    But will teach and show you how to organization voicings based on inversions and string groupings.... which is a basic requirement of playing jazz guitar. Again the technical aspects of playing your instruments are required before you can begin to realize the theoretical concepts.

  15. #289

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    Hey thanks Graham,
    I checked out a clip of the live version of summertime at Jorges...

    So personally I hear the basic vamp for the G- chord as... G-7 to D7b9 or even G-7 to Ab7#11 . Generally most use some type of groove or simple vamp for the I- chord, the G-7 chord when playing Summertime.
    Usually depends on the arrangement as to what vamp you use on the I- chord either G-7 to A-7, G-6 to G-6 or G-7 to C7 those would be tonic to subdominant grooves.
    Or more of what the thread was getting into above... the I to V vamps... G-7 to D7b9 or G-7 to Ab13#11 or use of Diminished chords.

    I guess you could just call it all G-7 but the voicings basically just follow the G-7 to D7b9 or I V groove. And that vamp basically creates very strong harmonic motion.

    I only heard a short clip of the recording... but it's fairly common jazz practice for comping or soloing.
    Hi Reg

    Just to clarify, those chords I printed were what Wes used during his chord solo on Summertime. (The rhythm section is playing behind him throughout). They are not the underlying vamp or comping as such.

    In his solo, Wes is playing a different one of those chord shapes on every single beat, so they are spitting out at quite a rate, given that the tempo is quite brisk in this version.

    Unfortunately I don't think there's a full-length clip anywhere online where you can hear Wes' solo. I certainly couldn't find one.

  16. #290

    User Info Menu

    Hey Graham. thanks. Yea the tempo is a little up, but pretty typical in two feel. I actually hear the bassist just vamping on his line while the piano plays grooves of I to V or I to bII.

    I believe when your spelling or labeling what's going on harmonically, even when your just looking at a short section or few bars... you still need to keep the entire tune in place as a basic harmonic reference. Wes always used his standard harmonic subs and standard chord patterns to voice his groove lines with. He seem to always have the V7b9 and all it's standard subs open when playing from a V7 chord, or in II V chord patterns. There is a difference between V - I and II V - I, When playing off the V chord in a vamp or groove, the harmonic or melodic feel or motion is usually Dominant. As compared to using a II V where you always have the option of creating Sub dominant relationships. A very different door for developing harmonic or melodic feels and grooves.

    He did use Diminished chords as typical diatonic passing chords, which generally has chromatic function and does not have whole step root motion... but I always hear the blue note V7altered harmonic reference most of the time. When there is whole step root motion use of Dim. chords... it's usually a deceptive usage of V7b9 type of chord. When you begin to use melodic minor as well as Harmonic minor, there are more options. And if you use blue notes, as Wes did... you need more than just random embellishments.

    I'll buy the recordings and check out the tune. Wes is generally pretty easy to transcribe, creating his feel is a different subject. But I do cover most Wes tunes, I do generally use more modern harmonic usages when performing.

  17. #291

    User Info Menu

    Just a question to the group. In the context of voice leading and learning to use m6 and diminished chords as transitional in twentieth century jazz functional harmony, how much do you as performer consider it important to hew to the composer's original intent. In other words, there are many ways to imprint a 'signature' on your interpretation. Wes, for example, was often thought to develop the chord progression and melody in a stepwise fashion - single note, octaves, to fuller chords. Or he infused a strong blues or rhythmic feel to the song. But he was nearly always true to the melody. Or is that last statement shaky?

    I was reviewing my recording efforts or at least a portion that is still on my digital Korg D1200 recorder with the intention to "prune" to free up space. I noted that my recordings whether solo or multi-track do tend to convey the song as written for the most part. I've been rightly critiqued for wondering off and being too expansive on lead phrases, but the chord progression is the composer's intent usually. I'm more inclined to vary the feel rhythmically.

    What do you do and how important is the original composer's concept in your interpretation?

  18. #292

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    I have... it's very well organized and covers complete collections of voicings based on string grouping... basically closed and opened type of voicings...different dropped styles of voicings. Beyond that it's a very personal view of how harmony works... the organization of what creates the power behind harmonic movement, organization for function. And the organization from where complete note collections come from. Not to mentioned organization of voiceleading.

    Basically if you understand major and relative Minor... type of relationships... call all chords maj or min 6th or Dom7th and Dom7b5 with added Dim7th chord added to each from the Major 7th degree of each... yes really.

    Add a diminished 7th chord to both Maj and Min 6th chords staring on the MAJOR 7th degree...
    So yea... Cma6 becomes Cmaj7 with added 6th and Bdim7, 8 note scale and source for chord construction
    C D E F G Ab A B

    Same with C-6, but starts with natural 6th and then again adds Bdim, or Dim7th chord built from the Maj 7th degree
    C D Eb F G Ab A B

    Same process with Dom7th and Dom7th b5 chords... chord tones and Dim7th chord from Maj7th....

    Anyway... you end up with a collection of somewhat Chord Patterns constructed and organized from resulting 8 note scales which are used in a symmetrical sub type of application. I'm skipping the philosophical life relationships.

    It works because it's well organized based on maj/min functional harmonic relationships and uses diminished chords as source for upper structure note sources. It has complete note collections for complete chord relationship organization. It is just as Maj/min functional harmony... very vanilla in it's self. And personally missed most of what can and does happen harmonically when playing Jazz...but does offer another view of what's going on harmonically when playing jazz, beyond maj/min functional harmony.

    Like I said... it's well worth the money, and well organized.... but if you don't already understand Maj/min functional harmony and it's basic relationships.... your not really going to get it.

    But will teach and show you how to organization voicings based on inversions and string groupings.... which is a basic requirement of playing jazz guitar. Again the technical aspects of playing your instruments are required before you can begin to realize the theoretical concepts.
    I would characterise BH's approach in general as a one octave approach - it's telling that he prefers his students to not use compound interval names - so a D over a C7 is a 2, not a 9. Everything comes from this understanding - the 8 note scales for harmony (which are a closed loop - you always come back to where you were) the added notes for soloing (which ensure the same chord tones end up on the beat) and so on.

    (There are some elements of superposition/extensions on dominant chords - including altered and lydian dominant style tonalities, but these are not expressed in the more customary way modern theorists use).

    If want to make music in this way, the BH system is hard to beat. It covers bebop (and swing ere) harmony beautifully...

    It's interesting that the inference is that bebop - Charlie Parker's music was never based on the upper intervals - but then it's worth pointing out that the famous quote - 'I realized by using the high notes of the chords as a melodic line, and by the right harmonic progression, I could play what I heard inside me. That's when I was born.' Is in fact a misattribution - the origin is a Downbeat article and the quotation itself was made about Charlie Parker rather than by him (source - Conrad Cork, Harmony with Lego Bricks - interesting bit of scholarship.)

    Anyway, CST is a two octave theory - hence the compound intervals - 9's, 13's #11's etc. The second octave is seen in some way as colouring and extending the sound of the basic chords (not merely on dominants, but on any chord) - see the Wes Montgomery stacked third shape.

    C E G B D F# A

    With diatonic passing tones:
    C D E F G A B C D E F# G A

    These got codified into the familiar seven note system we use today as a collection of notes available for use in intervallic chord construction and melodies:

    C D E F# G A B C (same both octaves)
    The interesting thing is that seven note scales when harmonised in parallel don't repeat like the BH scales,
    so the system is to some extent open. This creates opportunities and some difficulties...

    Also, melodically, if you play one going up, or descending from 1, you will get the same pattern of extensions on the beat in 4/4:

    1 (2) 3 (4) 5 (6) 7 (8) 9 (10) 11 (12) 13 (14)
    1 (14) 13 (12) 11 (10) 9 (8) 7 (6) 5 (4) 3 (2) 1

    Anyway...

    A three octave system, in which C# can be used on a C major scale, is alluded to in John Klopowski's book a Jazz Life - Warne Marsh was using two octave scales that sometimes just about spilled over into a third.

    C E G B D F# A C#

    We introduce diatonic passing tones:
    C D E F G A B C D E F# G A B C#

    (I suspect that George Russell may have some aspects of this too, but I don't use his theory and his theoretical basis is not stacked thirds, but some sort of fudged stack of fifths....)

    To bring it back to the subject:

    European harmony -->swing/bop harmony (Barry Harris) --> extended harmony (50s/60s) --> modern CST intervallic

    That's a lot of different colours to draw from, and approaches to explore - it's good to know all of them, I feel... There are a few simplifications here, but that's the gist of my understanding... .
    Last edited by christianm77; 12-08-2015 at 10:10 AM.

  19. #293

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by targuit
    Just a question to the group. In the context of voice leading and learning to use m6 and diminished chords as transitional in twentieth century jazz functional harmony, how much do you as performer consider it important to hew to the composer's original intent. In other words, there are many ways to imprint a 'signature' on your interpretation. Wes, for example, was often thought to develop the chord progression and melody in a stepwise fashion - single note, octaves, to fuller chords. Or he infused a strong blues or rhythmic feel to the song. But he was nearly always true to the melody. Or is that last statement shaky?

    I was reviewing my recording efforts or at least a portion that is still on my digital Korg D1200 recorder with the intention to "prune" to free up space. I noted that my recordings whether solo or multi-track do tend to convey the song as written for the most part. I've been rightly critiqued for wondering off and being too expansive on lead phrases, but the chord progression is the composer's intent usually. I'm more inclined to vary the feel rhythmically.

    What do you do and how important is the original composer's concept in your interpretation?
    My playing involves a strong awareness of historically appropriate stylistic jazz harmony (though not as specific as some players). This is not something everyone is interested in - in fact historically most musicians have gone with the tides of fashion. Except now, the fashion is recreate things. In any case I do a lot of listening to early recordings of tunes to see what people were playing, in say, 1928, as opposed to 1956, or now. I find that sort of thing interesting. I understand Peter Bernstein, for example, spends a lot of time looking up the original sheet music for standards.

    The idea that there are 'correct changes' is kind of stupid to me. I think there are original changes. There are the changes in common use. There are alternative changes that could sound a bit nicer - someone could suggest them on a gig, for example. And there are reharmonisations - some of the reharmonisations become standard changes over time - take Stella by Starlight for example.

    And then there are guys like Django, who seem to play changes that bear no resemblance to the composer's intentions (sometimes varying from chorus to chorus.) Take his version of Embraceable You, for example. Whether this was a conscious reharmonisation or a case of Chinese Whispers, I couldn't tell you.

    So in summary, I don't think it matters too much to me. I hate Changes Nazis, or those who want to browbeat you with their knowledge of what Johnny Hodges was playing 1933. Those people can bugger off. But friendly suggestions are always welcome!

    A great solo played on the modern changes to Stella, say, is still going to be great (for example, I think Reg would prefer the modern changes than the old ones, right?.) But I think getting used to a few variations of the basic chords to a single standard is great for the ears. It also lets you know what's possible.

    TL;DR not really. But it's good to listen closely to music.

  20. #294

    User Info Menu

    Hmmm...I did not know that there were "original" changes to Stella By Starlight that had been altered. Certainly, in the course of decades jazz players may alter the composer's intent - intentionally or not, so to speak. I'm not so much thinking in that vein as to the recognizable factor of the song. Do you deconstruct everything, or do you want the audience to nod their heads as they recognize old favorites?

    I'm thinking about how you go about 'arranging' the standard. Think a tune I was listening to in my recordings - Two For The Road by the great Henry Mancini. I play that tune often in the key of A. And I think of a great vocalist like Johnny Mathis singing the melody. This song is richly harmonic, employing the infamous m6ths and diminished chords which I love to play. If you muck around with the chord and harmonies, the identity of this song begins to fade. Another tune that struck me like that I was listening to in my recording library is The Way You Look Tonight. I mess around with the rhythm as a bossa nova or other rhythmic thing but not in terms of the melody and harmony.

    Maybe it's just me. On the other hand, if the voice leading is correct and the song sounds 'right', all this theory is ... well... just theory. Music is the sound and the glory. Again, I leave you all to your discussions of theory in this respect, but does not the practice validate the theory, rather than the other way round?
    Last edited by targuit; 12-08-2015 at 11:06 AM.

  21. #295

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by targuit
    Hmmm...I did not know that there were "original" changes to Stella By Starlight that had been altered. Certainly, in the course of decades jazz players may alter the composer's intent - intentionally or not, so to speak. I'm not so much thinking in that vein as to the recognizable factor of the song. Do you deconstruct everything, or do you want the audience to nod their heads as they recognize old favorites?
    In case you are interested:
    http://hideyukiasada.com/wp-content/...ok-changes.jpg

    Of course, the melody is the most important thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by targuit
    I'm thinking about how you go about 'arranging' the standard. Think a tune I was listening to in my recordings - Two For The Road by the great Henry Mancini. I play that tune often in the key of A. And I think of a great vocalist like Johnny Mathis singing the melody. This song is richly harmonic, employing the infamous m6ths and diminished chords which I love to play. If you muck around with the chord and harmonies, the identity of this song begins to fade. Another tune that struck me like that I was listening to in my recording library is The Way You Look Tonight. I mess around with the rhythm as a bossa nova or other rhythmic thing but not in terms of the melody and harmony.

    Maybe it's just me. On the other hand, if the voice leading is correct and the song sounds 'right', all this theory is ... well... just theory. Music is the sound and the glory. Again, I leave you all to your discussions of theory in this respect, but does not the practice validate the theory, rather than the other way round?
    Stuff theory. Listen closely to music, and learn.

  22. #296

    User Info Menu

    Hey Christian... nice posts.

    I'm not sure about about 1,2 or 3 octave organization of pitches as really being base reference for creating relationships. Just as calling chords different from melodies... you can just ignore different octave displacements of different notes to justify organizational harmonic or melodic concepts... but isn't that just us deciding how we want to use the notes.

    When talking about scales... 1,2,3,4 etc... when talking about chord tones constructed from 3rds, 1,9,3,11 etc..

    Who said bebop isn't organized with upper extensions as being part of harmonic reference. What makes an upper extension... if your playing basic swing era changes, sure there are upper extensions, but if your not performing notated music in a big band setting... or small ensembles playing those standards from those type of charts. Where basically the changes are vanilla because the understandings were not or are not there. When you write for large ensembles, it's like having 3 or 4 pianist performing together... you keep things simple so all the notes aren't played all the time.

    Does something not exist because one isn't aware of it yet. Do you believe different harmonic organization comes from creating upper extensions or from becoming aware of different organizations of notes. (Christian not really just talking to you, just trying to create conversation).

    Getting back to creating harmonic movement... generally most don't play or create that harmonic movement because they don't know what will work, from not understanding harmonic relationships. BH's system uses basic I V I strong weak etc... type of harmonic movement. The main reason I don't really like the approach by it's self... It's just too limiting, too vanilla. Like I said once you get the symmetrical sound and organization in your head. You get past the ambiguous and camouflaging effect of being able to use one basic organization for one type of harmonic motion.

    It works great... it's not the answer for creating harmonic movement, it's one approach, and just one organization of using that one approach. Just as just using II V's isn't the only approach for that same concept of harmonic motion.

    I still like II V's better because they can not be as vague... and can reflect many more harmonic options. And of course because I just don't personally like Dim. chords... thay sound like mistakes. Obviously not all applications...

    Check out some of BH's music as part of a rhythm section... he could and can also play other approaches. BH got into the academia world later later in life. I mean the man lived with Monk for a period... he's not going to be down the middle.
    Liston to his Bull's Eye and Luminescences records from early... you'll hear the Monk and Powell influences.

    In general... he's a solo or trio pianist, they fill all the space.

  23. #297

    User Info Menu

    Jay... what is correct voice leading. I always enjoy when we say... theory is BS and the music is where it's really at.

    I'm always amazed when musicians who don't have a clue what music theory actually is try and act as if it's not worth understanding... and then act like they have the performance thing together. They can already play and cover whatever the theory conversation is getting into...

    There are reasons beyond not having he physical skills for not being able to play.

  24. #298

    User Info Menu

    Reg, Ciao, man!

    No one says theory is BS. Voice leading is voice leading. You know what it is. Because if it is not proper, you hear it, no? You often want to bang the nail that no one here knows theory and "act as if it's not worth understanding...". Really? You think that musicians who wrote the standards BEFORE Barry Harris developed his 'theory' did not know what they were doing? What, they just 'got lucky'? Erroll Garner who 'did not know music theory and remained an "ear player" all his life starting the piano at the age of three just got lucky with Misty? Jerome Kern. Richard Rogers. Hoagy Carmichael. You want to tell them they didn't know theory, and therefore they or their estate should have forfeited the residuals from their copyrights on the standards they wrote?

    All I am trying to say is that if your performance sounds right, it is probably 'theoretically correct'. Because if you play a flat or a sharp or chromatic where it does not belong, it sounds wrong. You know Christy Brinkley has a skeleton just like you do. But what makes her infinitely more sexy is the flesh on those bones. Just as the sound of the music fleshes out the dots on the sheet music.

    Love you, man, but that stuff about "reasons beyond not having he physical skills for not being able to play ..." is just BS and gets real old real fast. Show me one person who received a Grammy or two based on their knowledge of theory.

    Or conversely, if all it took to be a successful performer and composer was being well versed in theory, then all the Berklee grads would be rolling in dough. Not the pizza kind.
    Last edited by targuit; 12-08-2015 at 01:15 PM.

  25. #299
    destinytot Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    In case you are interested:
    http://hideyukiasada.com/wp-content/...ok-changes.jpg

    Of course, the melody is the most important thing.



    Stuff theory. Listen closely to music, and learn.
    Great post. If I sing Stella in Bb, the chord I prefer to hear for the first two bars is an A triad over Bb.

  26. #300

    User Info Menu

    Jay... yes I believe most on this forum don't really understand music theory. You sure don't. And yes I believe many musicians get lucky... and increase their odds from trial and error. The usage becomes theory from accepting common practice usage. There is a big difference between understanding why something works musically and accepting common practice as the reason.

    Using proper to explain voice leading is typical example. You don't understand VOICE LEADING, you'll cite some examples as the organization behind the usage.

    What the hell does a Grammy have to do with theory. The Berklee reference is ... who cares.

    Jay I can comp well... in many different styles. I can sight read just as well. I don't have to memorize music to be able to perform it well and in the intent of the composer or arranger. You don't develop these skills form skipping the theory aspects of being a musicians. The analogies are the BS... what are the goals of your posts? I actually am trying to help guitarist become better musicians. You generally seem like your trying to convince us as well as yourself that you are a musician... if my comments are getting old.... don't read them.

    I apologize for such a BS and useless post...