Looking for the best book on creating chord movement to use on standards

[Sti Eci Tephor]

Regardless, I'd like to thank everyone here for sharing on the forum. Though i usually get pretty lost, once in a while, someone will post a little gem that helps me progress. Thank you all.

[docbop]

That looks nice Matt, but I can't read music.

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Method-...leavitt+guitar

I know this excludes me from a bunch of material: I bought 2 of Ted Greene's books once & had to return them, which made me pretty sad since I'm a pretty big fan. Thanks for the suggestion though, I do have some basic books to start reading: which I plan to start once I get lessons.

Sounds like the Universe is telling you it's time to learn how to at least read music notation. Sightreading is a different skill, but know how to read so you can speak and read the language of music isn't that hard.

[MarkRhodes]

Art Tatum

Just when I thought I was gettin' pretty good... Amazing playing.

[matt.guitarteacher]

That looks nice Matt, but I can't read music.

While there is a lot of reading material in these books, most of the chord stuff I'm talking about has chord grids. About halfway through the second book it's more notation based, but that's a lot more complex chord movement anyway. Personally, I think the chord grid material is probably worth having the book, but the notated cord études are probably worth learning to read music for. Beautiful stuff.

[destinytot]

Regardless, I'd like to thank everyone here for sharing on the forum. Though i usually get pretty lost, once in a while, someone will post a little gem that helps me progress. Thank you all.

[destinytot]

Just when I thought I was gettin' pretty good... Amazing playing.

(Interesting to see how Dan has modified his grip)

[Irez87]

That's one of the best Grasso video I've heard he used to play Smalls quite a bit, but only occasionally now. It's helps growing up with a brother who's and excellent Jazz sax player so lots of listening and playing together. I heard Pasquale is a big fan of Bud Powell and that's what got me back to listening to Powell again.

So you've studied with Pasquale that must be very interesting even to just sit close and watch him play and ask questions.

No, never studied with Grasso. I played with Yvonnick. I just know Grasso plays in NYC a lot.

I've never seen him play in person. I am sure that would be pretty damn awesome, though.

Re: the Levitt Method. I heard that the last volume deals with chord movement.

[targuit]

For those who aspire to learn to read notation for guitar, consider Christopher Parkening's Method Books one and two.

http://www.amazon.com/Christopher-Pa...pher+parkening

Learning to read notation is so valuable that it is worthwhile for nearly everyone, imo. The advantage of using a good classical guitar method book is that you also learn good technique.

Pasquale Grasso is just out of this world, especially that video linked by Mike (Destinytot.) I am not familiar with that piece, but he plays the veneer off that guitar. I can't recall anyone quite that nimble. He is a classically trained musician, btw, having won one or two competitions. EDIT - It would appear they were jazz competitions. Including a Wes Montgomery International Jazz Guitarist 2015.

[docbop]

No, never studied with Grasso. I played with Yvonnick. I just know Grasso plays in NYC a lot.

I've never seen him play in person. I am sure that would be pretty damn awesome, though.

Re: the Levitt Method. I heard that the last volume deals with chord movement.

Yes, it would be great to hear Pasquale in person he is great accompanist too.


The Levitt books are gems, I've worked on most of one, and parts of two and three. They are one of those bucket list things to work through cover to cover one day along with the Van Eps books.

[MarkRhodes]

Sounds like the Universe is telling you it's time to learn how to at least read music notation. Sightreading is a different skill, but know how to read so you can speak and read the language of music isn't that hard.

Agreed. It seems like it will take a long time---progress is slow at the beginning. But there's probably nothing you can do today that will give you more long-term, day-in day-out benefit then learning to read music. As doc said, you don't have to sight-read. ("Not that there's anything wrong with that!") But to learn tunes from the Real Book, or to jot down your own riffs, melodies, what have you. It's a great skill to have. And lots of music---for example, Charlie Parker's lines in the Omnibook---don't have tab, so you either read 'em or learn 'em by ear.

I put it off a long time and I'm still not great at it, but "if I had it all to do over again," I would have learned to read right away. There's really no advantage to not learning how to read music.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Re: the Levitt Method. I heard that the last volume deals with chord movement.

Volume 2 has more movement over static harmony. Volume 3 has a lot of "melodization" of chords types, very systematic treatment.

[mjirish]

#1. Lets start here. I am just going to use the "pickups" and first 4 measures of "Romance" (in Bb) to illustrate a few ideas. The main melody notes are:

D, Eb || F D, Eb | F, G, A, Bb, | Bb, A, G | F ||. The basic chords would be:

F7 || Bbma7, Ebma7| Dmi7, G7 | Cmi7, F7 | Bbma7|| You will notice that the chords are falling on beats "1" and "3" of each measure. If we are to harmonize each note of the melody, arrangers call this "note-for-note" (NFN) harmonization. That's what we will use here.

So, the main melody and the bass melody when put together, look like this:

MAIN: D, Eb || F D, Eb | F, G, A, Bb, | Bb, A, G | F ||
BASS: F || Bb Eb | D G | C F | Bb || (see pdf)

Now let's find some "logical" bass notes that will fill in the bass melody. LOGICAL bass/root movement can be 1) movement according to the Circle of 5ths (descending 5ths) (I think that Robert Conti in "the Formula" calls this "The Judge"!), 2) movement by 1/2 step up or down, 3) diatonic movement (according to scale tones) or 4) movement by Thirds (major ((four 1/2 steps)) or minor ((three 1/2 steps)) up or down.

Arrangers often move the bass melody in the opposite direction that the main melody moves. So for this example, I will use half steps to fill in the "missing" bass melody notes:

MAIN: D, Eb || F D, Eb | F, G, A, Bb, | Bb, A, G | F ||
BASS: F "B" || Bb "E" Eb | D, "Ab" G "Db" | C F, "A" | Bb || (see pdf)

The last thing we need to determine is what are the chords that these 2-note combinations yield.
F bass/D melody = F13; B bass/D#(Eb) melody = B7; Bb bass/F melody = Bbma7, Bb7, Bbmi7; E bass/D melody = E7, Emi7; Eb bass/Eb melody = Eb6; D bass/F melody = Dmi7, D7#9; Ab bass/G melody = Abma7; G bass/A melody = G9, Gmi9; Db bass/Bb melody = Db13; C bass/Bb melody = Cmi7, C7, Cmi7b5; F bass/A melody = F7, F7b9; A bass/G melody = A7; Bb bass/F melody = Bbma7, Bb7, Bbmi7. Whew! This is just with ONE technique and, ROOT voicings!

So, here is a possible NFN chord melody for the 4 measures:

CHORDS:F13, Bb13|| Bbma7, Emi7, Eb6| Dmi7, Abma7, Gmi9, Db13| Cmi7, F7, A7| Bbma7||
(see pdf)

That's the tip of the iceberg of how it is done. All of the greats, Tatum, Peterson, Pass, Taylor, Greene, Breau, Van Eps, Conti, Roberts, Smith did this. Think MUSIC first, THEN put it on the guitar. Enjoy

[mjirish]

Just a quick reply to my "Romance" example. The person that started this thread was asking about what is the best "book" for this. In my opinion, it is Robert Conti's "The Formula" at robertconti.com. Conti explains it better than I did and besides being a world-class player, he has been teaching this since, the '60's. So he has it down pat and is very engaging. I strongly encourage anybody that is truly interested to check it out. It is ALL there!

[Reg]

Hey mjirish... I like your approach. But NFN arranging technique needs organization... right. I understand Conti uses bass moment by intervals... but different intervals do imply different changes, different harmonies which represents why one uses specific intervals and where those chords come from.

I also assume these are just the beginning of something... comping usually doesn't just involve playing voicings below the melody... more in the direction of voicings below a counter melody. Looking forward to where your taking us. Thanks.

... I like the formula, at least the concept of having an approach to comping. Conti's pretty straight personally... but that's my problem. Generally doesn't Conti just create chord movement by voicing lead lines... which are generally chord tones and voice diatonically below, which become the related diatonic functional chords of harmonic moment..

For example... Abmaj7
X X 13 13 13 15
X X 10 10 11 11
X X 6 8 8 8
X X 3 3 4 4
X X 1 1 1 3
Throw in some sub V's and you have pretty standard chord movement.

X X 13 13 13 15 tonic
X X 11 12 12 12 dom.
X X 10 10 11 11 tonic
X X 7 8 9 9 dom.
X X 6 8 8 8 tonic
X X 4 5 5 5 dom.
X X 3 3 4 4 tonic
X X 5 4 2 2 dom.
X X 1 1 1 3 tonic

Move it up to Bbmaj... and you have movement in My Romance on Tonic chords... Bbma7 or the relative VI- G-

This how I generally comp... I'm not that straight, use Blue notes and use MM to organized my harmonic source for them. Also use much more than chord tones, and just generally create very groove style counter melodies for my lead lines. The trick is to always keep the tune and style being performed as basic reference.

I generally use very simple voicings... I'm not trying to trick anyone. Don't want to get wow... want to get yea.

[Gregc57]

Damn, that's crazy, crazy good. He frets the board like its a keyboard. Wow. Thanks for posting it.

Art Tatum

[MarkRhodes]

I generally use very simple voicings... I'm not trying to trick anyone. Don't want to get wow... want to get yea.

"Don't want to get wow...want to get yea(h)." Now that's a motto!

[mjirish]

Hey, Ken! This thread is getting pretty long and involved already. It has proceeded from your question about the book, to comping, chord voicings, practice materials, etc. It shows that folks are interested! That's great!

First about comping. The point that most folks are missing is that RHYTHM is the most important element of comping. RHYTHM motivates everything. Assuming that one can provide the appropriate basic chord (Ma7, 7, mi7, mi7b5 or o7), the next aspect to work on is rhythmic comping. The governing factor here is CONTRAST. If the the main melody (or solo) is rhythmically active (like in bebop) then the rhythm of the comping should be inactive (sustained notes or Nothing Sometimes playing nothing is the answer (big guitarist problem). If the melody/solo is relatively inactive rhythmically, then the comping can be more rhythmically active. You can have the hippest chord voicings in the world, but if the rhythm isn't happening, you're screwed. Also be aware of TEXTURE - big chords (lot's of extensions, etc) vs little chords (3rds & 7ths). Don't provide more than is needed.

Some soloists like Dizzy Gillespie (RHYTHM was "king" for him) like to be "fed" rhythms and ideas from comping musicians. Others, like Sonny Rollins, want you to just "follow" where they are leading. In either approach, rhythm is the most important aspect.

In the big picture of "how music works", the big 3 are (in order of importance) 1) Rhythm (far out in front), 2) Melody (sort of distant second), and 3) Harmony. This thread has focused mostly on the "distant 3rd", Harmony, as being the ultimate. Not so.

Here's why: Rhythm is the most compelling and most universally understood aspect of music. 'Nuff said. Melody has been around almost as long as rhythm, but not quite. Very compelling. Harmony is, by comparison, a recent development in music. Actually you could make a case for saying that "chords" don't exist. Since music is an art-form in time, "chords" are merely the result of simultaneously moving melodies in time! Food for thought.

Let's take Wes Montgomery for example. I think that everyone can agree that he is among the absolutely greatest guitarist/jazz musicians in history. Harmonically, Wes had a very small chord vocabulary. BUT, his RHYTHMIC feel was off the charts! And his ability to create outstanding IMPROVISED MELODIES was/is par excellence! He used ALL of this to the max!

So, while all of the beautiful "chords" and subs, and reharmonizations are really cool (and believe me, I am a chord freak!), don't lose sight of the big stuff (rhythm and melody).

[docbop]

So, while all of the beautiful "chords" and subs, and reharmonizations are really cool (and believe me, I am a chord freak!), don't lose sight of the big stuff (rhythm and melody).

The further along I go and more old cat I hear the more I realize chords and scales are one thing. They are sources of each other and so many look at them as separate things. All those chord subs and reharms are sounds for your lines, your scale or motif is a source of chords. A chord voicing can be broken into a melodic motif. You learn a some new chord pattern, need to work on a line that reflexs it too. Even rhythms you come up with a rhythm apply it to chords too, understand the harmonic aspects of the rhythm. All this stuff interrelates.


I know I'm restating the obvious for many of you, but I think it worth throw out for others to think about.

[mjirish]

Well said! Even the FORM of a song is Rhythm on a very large scale. How often chords change establishes a rhythm (harmonic rhythm). A group of pitches are motivated into a melody by rhythm. Like you said, it is all interconnected.

[mjirish]

Thanks for moderating this, Mark! It's like herding cats!

[55bar]

Thanks for moderating this, Mark! It's like herding cats!

Or juggling soot.

[christianm77]

The chords themselves are very easy to play, even the minor 2nd voicings once you get used to the stretches. Steve Herberman uses a similar concept, and we've talked about it during Skype lessons. I have to meet with him in person so I can play in real time with these concepts.

I studied the hell out of George Van Ep's Method for Guitar and still go back to it. I have all of his mechanisms books as well.

The difficult part with this type of comping is that it is movement dependent. You have to always be aware of inner lines and the larger pulse to setup the tensions correctly. All that is guided by the ear, in a way that is similar (I am sure) to how a professional pianist plays accompaniment on a high level jazz gig.

What I love about this method is that the "grips" are so small that I can be more reactive to the soloist. I am working more bass movement into them so I can utilize them in duet settings.

That said, Jeb Patton said something very interesting to me during my first lesson with him.

First, he said he liked my lines... That felt really good to hear.

Then he said that guitarists need to stop using voicings that are in the lower register. He said I should explore the higher registers of the guitar. So I am mixing the low and the high and studying bass movement.

But it all revolves around my ear, and not my fingers.

Ear training is a longer process than learning rote voicings. But I can guarantee that if you ear train enough, those voicings you thought you knew will become brand new adventures to explore.

I often state how I studied with James Chirillo. Maybe it's bragging to some, but I considered myself lucky enough to have that opportunity.

Well, he taught two hour lessons for 100 bucks or so. That is a lot of money, he would usually charge more because it was a two hour lesson

Why two hours? Well, the first hour we didn't even touch our guitars. For an hour to sometimes an hour and a half we would sing solfege, clap rhythms, and play cadences on the piano.

Then, for the latter half the lesson, we would get out our guitars--no amps allowed. He was responsible for making me a fanatic about my tone. He also got me back into Johnny Smith and introduced me to the sounds of Jack Peterson

ME: His tone sounds like a bell

JAMES: [grinning] Yupe. No effects there, just pure guitar.

He was really into classical music and would often stop me to talk about my tone, my string noise, my posture.

But one hour of ear training. Bruce Arnold did and does the same thing, I often bring my guitar and never touch the instrument (Bruce, stop telling me to bring my axe. Bringing a guitar on a NYC subway ain't no joke!)

Train the ear and then everything else will follow. Sight reading? Sight sing it. Technique? You can only play, musically, as fast as you can hear, musically. Comping? Start with dyads and move up from there. If you are doing it right, triads and four note chords will be easier to hear than dyads because more of the chord is there.

If you've got time to practice technique than you've got time to practice ear training and musicianship.

I'm not arguing for it. I'm just stating fact. Your ear is more valuable than your fingers. That's why Django did what he was able to do with only two fingers. His ear was made of gold.

Thanks for this. What you have said about James Chirillo's lessons is really interesting. I think I should really go with my hunch on this one - 50% ear work away from the instrument 50% playing.

The dyads thing is interesting. I took another look at the Lage Lund Darn That Dream solo again today. Lots of Dyads. I think if you can solo and play two notes completely by ear there's a heck of a lot you can do.... And there's bass notes too... I think triads are less important than we think you harmony, let alone four note chords. Building everything in drop 2s and 3s is quite cumbersome....

[christianm77]

That's one of the best Grasso video I've heard he used to play Smalls quite a bit, but only occasionally now. It's helps growing up with a brother who's and excellent Jazz sax player so lots of listening and playing together. I heard Pasquale is a big fan of Bud Powell and that's what got me back to listening to Powell again.

So you've studied with Pasquale that must be very interesting even to just sit close and watch him play and ask questions.

Well it just drips out of Pasquale's playing no? Those cute little whole tone runs that he does, etc...

It is fantastic the way he makes it all sound so guitaristic too...

[christianm77]

For those who aspire to learn to read notation for guitar, consider Christopher Parkening's Method Books one and two.

The Christopher Parkening Guitar Method - Volume 1: Guitar Technique: Christopher Parkening, Jack Marshall, David Brandon: 0073999952285: Amazon.com: Books

Learning to read notation is so valuable that it is worthwhile for nearly everyone, imo. The advantage of using a good classical guitar method book is that you also learn good technique.

Pasquale Grasso is just out of this world, especially that video linked by Mike (Destinytot.) I am not familiar with that piece, but he plays the veneer off that guitar. I can't recall anyone quite that nimble. He is a classically trained musician, btw, having won one or two competitions. EDIT - It would appear they were jazz competitions. Including a Wes Montgomery International Jazz Guitarist 2015.

How does learning to play classical guitar help you sight read jazz? Conversely, if you are not already able to play classical guitar this might raise a bar that could deter learners. Classical guitar is a lovely thing in its own right, and a fantastically enjoyable thing to explore (I find), but many players already have their stuff together on guitar and just want to add sight reading on top of their improvising and ear playing abilities.

The Leavitt books might be a better shout. I find classical guitar music quite a lot easier to sight read than jazz. It's always the more 'contemporary' pieces that give me pause for thought in the graded material. I think the main reason is the rhythms.

So I would recommend Belson for that...

I've been perusing the Trinity Graded Plectrum guitar syllabus - lots of good pieces in notation. I think that would be a good shout for most pick style jazz players.

[docbop]

Well it just drips out of Pasquale's playing no? Those cute little whole tone runs that he does, etc...

It is fantastic the way he makes it all sound so guitaristic too...

I picked up the Yvonnick Prene and Pasquale album yesterday after hearing that video, and in studio setting it doesn't have the warmth of the live performance of them. It's still great playing and ideas but comes off a bit stiff that happen to many in the studio vs live.