The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 6 of 31 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Posts 126 to 150 of 771
  1. #126

    User Info Menu

    So getting back to comping... you can use or not use min.6th chords and Dim chords or voicings, but how you use them or why might be more important than using or not using.

    Generally there is a reason or tonal reference for why your playing the changes your playing. Not just because you can or it's just what you know, it's your latest thing, or the worst... trying to sound hip for other musicians.

    Any tonal direction can be used, through substitution, modal interchange or any number of other harmonic devices to change or camouflage the starting harmonic reference... the basic changes.

    Personal choice is cool or it sounds good is good enough for me, but understanding what your doing harmonically might make what your playing work better in ensemble playing. There is jazz common practice.

    Hey Jay here's something I posted 5 years ago on this forum... don't remember why and if I played the tune again... I'm sure it could be different depending on what I would be using for a reference...


  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #127

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by targuit
    I already proposed a video theme - let's all decide on a song that fits the criteria (harmonic movement, min6's or if you prefer as I do diminished chords and flat fifths) to illustrate so-called 'chord harmonic movement' and submit our respective interpretations. I think of it as voice leading, and I need no method book or Sacred Secret Harmonic theories from Planet Galactica to teach me to reproduce the necessary music. I use me ears. I transcribe. Note-for-note if you want. When I play a standard that has the requisite chord movement, I think about the bass line. My subconscious provides the correct harmony. Translation - if you can play 98% of the jazz repertoire by ear, why do you need to muddle your brain with 'theoretical mush'?

    It is like CST - for kids, not adults musically speaking. "Daddy, can I use a flat fifth here or not, and what mode should I chant while playing?" "Use your ears, Junior. If it sounds like crap, probably you shouldn't do it." Joe Pass - "Don't ask me about modes...I don't know anything." Poor, Joe. If he only knew how inadequate he was....

    On the other hand, if you wish to send me lots of money, I will come up with a theoretical treatise. Or better yet, advise you to devote the next decade of your life to studying Van Eps method book. Hope you live long enough.....

    Anyway, I was thinking about songs that have 'chordal movement' and I decided it was practically all of them. Which did not help in narrowing potential songs for demonstration purposes. Louie, Louie .... Gloria... I'll come up with a list. How about Two for the Road? Love Mancini.

    Here, Mark, I saved you the trouble of reviewing the entire thread. I suspect that this is the most egregious post of mine on this thread. Do you find any particular poster named as "a moron" or some other denigrating term? No. Do I trash talk any particular individual? No. Do I call anyone a 'fraud' or "imposter"? No.

    If you notice, I was taking a jocular approach - "It's like CST - for kids, not adults musically speaking." Wow! That is pretty heinous, isn't it? I guess many posters felt slighted.

    And then there is this inflammatory remark - "....and I need no method book or Sacred Secret Harmonic theories from Planet Galactica to teach me to reproduce the necessary music. I use me ears. I transcribe. Note-for-note if you want. When I play a standard that has the requisite chord movement, I think about the bass line."

    Could get you locked up for years for such heresy. If you lived during the Inquisition.... I certainly insulted every one of you personally with that damning remark. Despite the fact that I did not name one poster or contributor on the forum. But of course, if your point is that no dissenting opinions are permissible, who needs real evidence, right?

  4. #128

    User Info Menu

    Beautiful playing, Reg! Man, I like hearing you play ballads!

    Now, although I don't have a video camcorder, I am going to try to film a video with my old Canon camera of this very same tune, same key, just to demonstrate a couple of concepts. And I will post it up on my YT site, just to dispel the pervasive notion on the part of some that I don't know from where I speak.

    As the old saying goes, "money talks, bullshit walks". I hope that is not too 'condescending' to some.

    To get back to your video and the subject of the thread, I note you remarked that you don't like to play diminished chords, right? Is there a particular stylistic reason? I'm going to listen to your video again. Excellent playing and I hope you will post more of your ballad work soon. Really nice.

  5. #129
    I think if someone who wants to help the group and really understands this stuff could make a video going over each measure of standard and saying this is how we create movement..... Maybe a song like My Romance.....
    Maybe they also have some idea on what to practice to create chord movement..
    thanks
    Ken

  6. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Reg

    Diatonic....
    inversions or chords that imply the same tonal function.The basics are using diatonic to mean physically from the implied scale and chords built from same functional scale degrees. Cmaj7...being a Imaj7 chord with tonic function... the root, 3rd and 6th degrees, E-7 and A-7. Do the same with Dominant and sub dominant.

    The next level of usage is for diatonic to be applied in modal approach, different guidelines.

    The next level would be different organization to create diatonic like function to chord movement... I use blue notes and Melodic minor to create a diatonic functional feel to chords and chord patterns.

    Passing and approach chords....
    now your moving past the macro tonal approach, your opening the door for micro or tonal targets. Each chord can become a tonal center, opens the door to modal interchange, subs, chord patterns etc...
    Hey, Reg. I was wondering if you generally consider the order of these presented above to be more or less in order of priority for students learning this stuff?

    I personally think this would be a pretty good outline for a thread, or more realistically, a series of threads on this topic. I would personally be very interested and grateful. Maybe beginning with some default fingerings for leadline chords for the three scales, as a starting reference. I've never seen that if you've posted it somewhere else.

    I know it's a crazy busy time of year. Was wondering about maybe in January?
    Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 11-16-2015 at 01:05 PM.

  7. #131

    User Info Menu

    Thanks Jay... I don't like Dim chords because they tend to reflect very old Maj/min functional harmony, or worse a filler chord for changes. They tend to lose the tonal reference... instead of implying. I understand they can be used functional but they tend to be symmetrical and not very deep as far as tonal reference layering, which personal tends to become very vanilla.

    Ken... I understand this stuff extremely well and can verbally breakdown as well as perform examples with out rehearsing etc... I have tons of standards that I have gone over measure by measure, but memorizing examples usually doesn't make you understand... if you could help narrow what your trying to understand as far as creating harmonic movement, it would help. Do you have trouble with the big picture or macro approach, being able to create a harmonic analysis of a tune from which you would create harmonic movement... (add chords and chord patterns), with some type of harmonic organization which is related to that analysis.

    Or are you at the stage where your beginning to have micro approaches, already understand basic tune analysis and begin to have tonal targets. The next step, using organization when creating relationships with those tonal targets.

    Reg

  8. #132

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    Hey, Reg. I was wondering if you generally consider the order of these presented above to be more or less in order of priority for students learning this stuff?

    I personally think this would be a pretty good outline for a thread, or more realistically, a series of threads on this topic. I would personally be very interested and grateful. Maybe beginning with some default fingerings for leadline chords for the three scales, as a starting reference. I've never seen that if you've posted it somewhere else.

    I know it's a crazy busy time of year. Was wondering about maybe in January?
    Hey Matt...yea somewhat, I believe the order would be how far away from the tonal center or reference you get.

    Diatonic to basic maj/min harmonic reference, then creating different guidelines for controlling diatonic, like different modal reference etc... It's pretty straight ahead stuff, and somewhat plug and play application, lots of options which do result with builtin tonal organization.

    Ya would be fun, January does sound better, but I'll help as much as I can.

  9. #133

    User Info Menu

    I agree with Targuit that learning tunes is the most valuable method to learn about harmony and movement. However, I also think that one needs a basis to go from before just learning tunes can be effective. Barry Harris' method is in my opinion a good method for learning the basics and going from there. I think we should switch to talking about something that is really contentious just to mix it up a bit. I'll start: how about that new Starbucks cup, seriously? :-)

  10. #134

    User Info Menu

    There are many great books for chord movement:

    Mick Goodrick's Voice Leading Almanacs
    Randy Vincent's 3 Note Voicings and The Drop 2 book
    Alan Kingstone's Barry Harris Method for Guitar
    Brett Willmott's Chord books...

    Etc.... These have great concepts within them and apply them to tunes... A book is as good as how you use it. Music has a lot of room for concepts and development... What's there to argue about?

  11. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    Thanks Jay... I don't like Dim chords because they tend to reflect very old Maj/min functional harmony, or worse a filler chord for changes. They tend to lose the tonal reference... instead of implying. I understand they can be used functional but they tend to be symmetrical and not very deep as far as tonal reference layering, which personal tends to become very vanilla.

    Ken... I understand this stuff extremely well and can verbally breakdown as well as perform examples with out rehearsing etc... I have tons of standards that I have gone over measure by measure, but memorizing examples usually doesn't make you understand... if you could help narrow what your trying to understand as far as creating harmonic movement, it would help. Do you have trouble with the big picture or macro approach, being able to create a harmonic analysis of a tune from which you would create harmonic movement... (add chords and chord patterns), with some type of harmonic organization which is related to that analysis.

    Or are you at the stage where your beginning to have micro approaches, already understand basic tune analysis and begin to have tonal targets. The next step, using organization when creating relationships with those tonal targets.

    Reg
    Hi Reg,

    I guess I'm really starting from the beginning so would like a foundation first on how to think about chord movement. for example if you were playing My Romance in Bb . It has 2 chords per measure so basically I'm looking for adding chords and subs as well and how to actually think about the different ways to approach it.
    thx
    Ken

  12. #136

    User Info Menu

    GP007 - The Devil here! Before we get into videos, let's take a look at My Romance out of a Real Book. I would suggest for simplicity the key of C which is in fact the key Joe Pass plays this tune on his fine solo classical guitar CD, Unforgettable, if I recall. If I may, I would also premise that before you worry about substitutions, we simply look at the chord changes and think about what they imply. While I don't know at what level you play, we can at least examine the "chord movement" (the definition of which still eludes me) or at least how min 6 chords - in essence the equivalent of a min 7 b 5 chord a minor third below - and diminished chords are used. We could address substitutions later. But I would also add that it might profit you to search for "Martin Taylor" on YT and listen to video excerpts from his instructional DVDs on chord melody playing. Martin is a fine teacher, and he makes one point very clear. He remarks that one can play quite properly just the chord changes, but that his art is in implying the changes by the interplay of voices, which makes for a richer and more complex sound. He illustrates this very well in his DVDs.

    My Romance in the key of C begins with a pickup bar of two eighth notes. The first chord in the second measure is a Cmaj followed by the minor second, Dm7. Here after for brevity I will use a hyphen between two chords or more to indicate the movement within the measure, as in Cmaj7 - Dm7. Next comes Em7 (iii7) - Ebdim7. Note that this latter chord is on the 'weak' third beat and transitions to the next measure. Dm7- G7. "...in the sky. Cmaj7 - Bb13. Here following the ascending phrase of the first few measures we being the descent. Am - Am#7: the 7th of the Am is a G - note that the #7 is a G#. Depending on where in terms of fret position you decide to play the initial Am, the Am #7 is a simple example of a nice voice leading movement. Eg, if you play the Am at the fifth fret sounding the A on the fourth string seventh fret, dropping to the sixth fret with your second finger you sound the G# with a nice descending voice lead as you head to the next measure: Am7 - A7, a nice little change from minor to seventh in which you play the g note on the fourth string fifth fret. Then Dm7 - G7, a classic ii7 - V7 cycle turnaround back to Cmaj7 - C7. Even here, you have the movement of the B note descending to the Bb of the C7.

    Next measure: "no month of" - Fmaj7 - F#dim7. To Cmaj7 "May" - C7. Note the connection of the voice leading in these phrases - smooth. The next measure repeats the Fmaj7 -F#dim7 to the next Cma7 "stars". "No hide a-"
    F#m7 - F7b5. " way, no.." Em7 - Eb7. " no soft gui-" Am9 - D7. "tars. Dm7 - G7.

    I don't know if this is helpful, but I'm trying to show you that just attention to the character and color of the chords as defined by the major or minor 3rds , the nature of the 7ths (flat or natural or raised sharp), and the colors flat or raised 5ths, 9ths, 11ths or 13ths in combination with m6ths and diminished chords suggest the movement.

    You can sound pretty hip just playing these chords as is, though Martin creates more complex interplay of the voices moving independently. That is the artistry of his technique and ears.

    There is the rest of the song to complete, but it would be too tedious to chart it all out here. And of course an audio/visual demonstration is helpful to hear the voice leading of Richard Rogers. As far as substitutions, I don't think they are called for in this song, but that is an artistic decision.

    I hope I have not insulted anyone's intelligence by putting forth this measure by measure account, as that is not the intention. If this is too 'simple', well perhaps someone else can explain it on a more complex harmonic level. But this is an introduction. And if you listen to Joe Pass play this song on his album (I've also heard him play it the key of A, but that is just a transposition), he doesn't use subs. He just plays it eloquently and like me in a 'simple' way.
    Last edited by targuit; 11-16-2015 at 07:30 PM.

  13. #137
    HI Jay,

    I'll have to see if I have My Romance in C...I took lessons on Martin Taylor site for a while, his finger style is rather amazing...But now I decided to work on my improv on Richie Zellons site..but still want to work on chord movement,comping and CM on the side...
    Thanks for the insight!!!!
    Ken

  14. #138

    User Info Menu

    I am at a distinct disadvantage in making visual as opposed to audio videos because I don't have a camcorder and have to use an old Canon point and shoot camera which has rather primitive video functions. If I do film a visual video, I will record the sound simultaneously with my Tascam DR-5 recorder and then in the computer synch the sound to the video, as the sound off my Canon sucks frankly. All that can be done, but for me not being especially tech savvy, it takes time which is a precious commodity around my house these days. But I'll try to put something together. Right now I have neither time nor silence in the house.

    You are welcome, Ken. You can just transpose the chords down a major second to be in Bb.

  15. #139

    User Info Menu

    I think it depends what you are going for.

    Learning dim7's and minor 6ths and their use as passing chords is pretty essential if you are interested in playing swing and bebop. Old school functional major/minor harmony. Fletcher Henderson era big band stuff. Block chords. Etc....

    Later on, jazz harmony becomes more modal and floaty, and people derive scales largely from 7 note scales. Intervallic clusters, upper structure triads and so on.

    I like both styles of harmony, and both have their place. If I am playing fusion I probably won't play dim7's too much as it doesn't really fit the style (unless the tune has a gospelly or bluesy vibe.)

    Barry Harris takes your old school harmonies - major 6, minor 6, dom 7, dim7 and runs them together into 8 note scales that can be used to create rich and beautiful harmonic voice leading that sounds logical, rich and expressive - like the harmony of Chopin. I feel for straightahead playing this is it for me - both 'old' and 'new' at once, classic and timeless. Much better than when I hear harmony derived from 7-note chord/scales and doesn't quite sit right in this type of music, to my ears.

    (The sort of thing where you put an E altered scale structure of some type on an E7 chord in the key of C just sounds a bit wrong to me. Not bad per se, just a bit Jamie Aebersold jazz camp/70's Berklee for what I want when I'm playing a great old ballad or something. It seems that some players are moving consciously away from this type of harmony - it has it's place though.)

    So if you are interested in creating harmonic motion in standards, Barry Harris is a great guy to check out.

    It's a matter of taste though - some guitarists make harmonic choices to me that sound very ugly, but they are way more advanced in terms of what they can do than I am. Sometimes their 'ugly' harmony is nonetheless kind of interesting and evocative.

    I think the thing to get away from is thinking 'dim7' or 'major 7' and start to see harmony as groups of voices moving together and apart, occasionally resolving on some familiar chord, intuitive and based on listening to what the soloist is doing.

    When you are on your own you can play whatever you want - but if you have a modal soloist you need to play modally. If your soloist is very bop, you need to play in a different way, and so on.

    And then - there's Monk, Mingus, Ellington and so on, where you may as well chuck out your textbooks and write new ones...

    TL;DR use your ears and make aesthetic choices accordingly. Listen to as much music as you can, and study what goes on in the music as best you can.
    Last edited by christianm77; 11-16-2015 at 09:58 PM.

  16. #140

    User Info Menu

    Oh, the Lage Lund video is interesting as well if you fancy something quite challenging. Its at jazzheaven.com

  17. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by targuit
    GP007 - The Devil here! Before we get into videos, let's take a look at My Romance out of a Real Book.
    Jay,

    First, are those really Richard Rogers'changes? The changes in a real book are "jazzed up" changes to begin with. Not to mention the fact that, (I thought) we were talking about IMPROVISING chord movement. I suppose you could do some kind of analysis of the original vanilla changes on some of these tunes and compare...

    All of that of course IGNORES what reg is getting at in his video and many others: substitution, modal interchange, defining tonal centers with chord movements at macro and micro levels etc. (He's doing a lot in between the changes as well, on more of a micro level than the basic changes in this tune.)

    I'm confounded by your compliment of reg's playing while, in the same thread, implying that all of this is an overcomplication. Honestly, I don't come away from Reg's video thinking that he's playing it "pretty simply" from the original changes, (nor do I think that's "simply" what Joe pass did). He's bringing a lot more harmonically to it and actually TALKING about it as well.

    I personally don't think that Joe Pass himself would find Reg's playing to be either simple and straightforward (from the original tune), nor over-the-top (beyond the kind of jazz that you say you like in Joe's playing).

    Honestly, we've got dozens of reg's videos here we could talk about . The one that was put up was fine and had plenty of material. What did you think about the harmonic concepts he used and talked about on THAT tune besides that it was nice or whatever? I'd especially like to know what you think about the things that he brought in harmoniously which WEREN'T just on the original chart.

    Jay, I wouldn't fault you for being a casual player or hobbyist (like myself), nor for finding many of these concepts to be somewhat over your head... but to continue to talk about them as if you know all of them and then demonstrate otherwise (in this confounding post above),...you're not helping yourself.

    Like yourself, I enjoy singing simply, playing the Great American songbook standards, and a lot of chord melody, especially ballads. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I think it's healthy to just own that aspect of who you are. But that's not quite the same as playing real jazz in a jazz style.

    You're always talking about not caring for Charlie Parker or whatever, but what about Joe Pass? I think you're greatly oversimplifying Joe's playing as well if you're implying that he played things, even simple cord melodies, "pretty straight from the changes".

    I don't think folks on this forum are going to have anything negative to say about your posting chord melody or singing or playing standards if you're not acting like you know EVERYTHING about all aspects of jazz at the same time.

    I find it personally insulting , and I'm not even a real jazzer myself.
    Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 11-16-2015 at 10:16 PM.

  18. #142

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    So getting back to comping... you can use or not use min.6th chords and Dim chords or voicings, but how you use them or why might be more important than using or not using.

    Generally there is a reason or tonal reference for why your playing the changes your playing. Not just because you can or it's just what you know, it's your latest thing, or the worst... trying to sound hip for other musicians.

    Any tonal direction can be used, through substitution, modal interchange or any number of other harmonic devices to change or camouflage the starting harmonic reference... the basic changes.

    Personal choice is cool or it sounds good is good enough for me, but understanding what your doing harmonically might make what your playing work better in ensemble playing. There is jazz common practice.

    Hey Jay here's something I posted 5 years ago on this forum... don't remember why and if I played the tune again... I'm sure it could be different depending on what I would be using for a reference...

    Haha Barry Harris would scorn you for you desertion of the biiio7 (there's a whole rant on this) - it's aesthetic choice - he loves that chord, you hate it, but you know the sound and make your choice... As long as it backs up the melody... I happen to think straight dim7's are a bit 1930's, but dim7's with notes borrowed from the key or half-whole scale - much more interesting....

    (Recently for a recording the composer of a tune asked to 'swingify' the changes of one of his tunes - a Confirmation like A section. This is what I did...

    Original:
    Gmaj7 | F#m7b5 B7 | Em7 A7 | Dm7 G7 | Cmaj7 | Cm7 F7 | Bm7 E7 | Am7 D7

    My 1930's Django style style reimagining
    G6 | B7 | Em6 | G7/D | A7/C# | Cm6 | G/B Bbo7 | Am7 D7 |

    I like doing this kind of thing, and vice versa. I'm using similar principles to reg, but in reverse, taking out the ii-V-I's and adding in dim7s and inverted chords to get that chromatic bass movement that so fascinated Django, Cole Porter and Jobim.)

    Your comping here sounds kind of 60's blue/note era - I hear that kind of Wes vibe very strong. I think of this era as having more minor seventh/ninth sounds on the minor chords rather than minor 6's - more ii-V'ey kind of changes in general. More floating and open even on a harmonic tune like this one. The dim7 would kind of be out of place here.

    One could also stick in a ii-V chromatic thing as well - I hear a lot of players do this where the melody permits. Might not be the best on B&S though...

    I want to encourage anyone studying the video to pay close attention to the way reg uses rhythm in the comping - these voicings are relatively straightforward by contemporary standards, and should be well within the grasp of most jazz players, but the rhythm really makes it all sound great. Simple chords with hip rhythm will always sound good, and the soloist will thank you!

    Lovely playing as always :-)
    Last edited by christianm77; 11-16-2015 at 11:35 PM.

  19. #143

    User Info Menu

    BTW reg, what would you do on a tune that has a kind of structural dim7 in it like Insensatez or Corcovado? Would love to know... Play some fruity half-whole voicing?

  20. #144

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    Jay,

    First, are those really Richard Rogers'changes? The changes in a real book are "jazzed up" changes to begin with. Not to mention the fact that, (I thought) we were talking about IMPROVISING chord movement. I suppose you could do some kind of analysis of the original vanilla changes on some of these tunes and compare...

    All of that of course IGNORES what reg is getting at in his video and many others: substitution, modal interchange, defining tonal centers with chord movements at macro and micro levels etc. (He's doing a lot in between the changes as well, on more of a micro level than the basic changes in this tune.)

    I'm confounded by your compliment of reg's playing while, in the same thread, implying that all of this is an overcomplication. Honestly, I don't come away from Reg's video thinking that he's playing it "pretty simply" from the original changes, (nor do I think that's "simply" what Joe pass did). He's bringing a lot more harmonically to it and actually TALKING about it as well.

    I personally don't think that Joe Pass himself would find Reg's playing to be either simple and straightforward (from the original tune), nor over-the-top (beyond the kind of jazz that you say you like in Joe's playing).

    Honestly, we've got dozens of reg's videos here we could talk about . The one that was put up was fine and had plenty of material. What did you think about the harmonic concepts he used and talked about on THAT tune besides that it was nice or whatever? I'd especially like to know what you think about the things that he brought in harmoniously which WEREN'T just on the original chart.

    Jay, I wouldn't fault you for being a casual player or hobbyist (like myself), nor for finding many of these concepts to be somewhat over your head... but to continue to talk about them as if you know all of them and then demonstrate otherwise (in this confounding post above),...you're not helping yourself.

    Like yourself, I enjoy singing simply, playing the Great American songbook standards, and a lot of chord melody, especially ballads. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I think it's healthy to just own that aspect of who you are. But that's not quite the same as playing real jazz in a jazz style.

    You're always talking about not caring for Charlie Parker or whatever, but what about Joe Pass? I think you're greatly oversimplifying Joe's playing as well if you're implying that he played things, even simple cord melodies, "pretty straight from the changes".

    I don't think folks on this forum are going to have anything negative to say about your posting chord melody or singing or playing standards if you're not acting like you know EVERYTHING about all aspects of jazz at the same time.

    I find it personally insulting , and I'm not even a real jazzer myself.
    Ciao, Matt!

    I hesitate to point this out, Matt, but you are talking about two different songs. Reg's video was an excellent version of Body and Soul in C#. The modest analysis I examined briefly here was about half of the tune My Romance by Richard Rogers in the key of C. Two different songs.

    Although I do not own the CD Unforgettable by Joe Pass and have not heard a complete version of his recording of My Romance in C, the excerpt some twenty plus seconds or more heard on Amazon of this specific CD is in the key of C, if I recall, and follows the same key changes. As I pointed out, I have heard a version by Joe in the key of A, which is also solo chord melody, but is a bit more typical Seventies and Eighties Joe Pass style with his penchant to interpolate more single note runs. I cannot argue one way or the other about the veracity of the changes except to remark that those are the changes in my one Hal Leonard The Real Little Jazz Book, a plastic semi-spiral book I bought back in the early Eighties. These changes are the ones I have heard in most versions of the song I have ever heard, whether instrumental or with vocals by singers like Sinatra, Bennett, and other vocalists. But I don't suggest they are set in stone. Unlike the minds of some people.

    As regards Reg's lovely version of Body and Soul in C#, I think those were the standard changes one finds in the same HL Real Book that I cited above and most versions I have heard by other artists like Billie Holiday, though this version is in the key of Ab and has a more retro sound.


    As Reg and I discussed briefly, he prefers not to play the diminished seventh chords, which he covers just fine. I would suggest that is a personal choice, as Christiann discussed well. Apart from that deviation from the Real Book, Reg played the tune in a sensitive and rhythmically interesting manner. I have no specific negative criticism of Reg's version, and I hope he will play more ballads. As far as "...substitution, modal interchange, defining tonal centers with chord movements at macro and micro levels etc.", I confess that apart from substitutions (including the "omission" of diminished chords and substitution of single note riffing that works in the context of his version), I don't pay much (theoretical) attention to "modal interchange". I play what I hear as appropriate in the stylistic context. Ears.

    Secondly, as regards "defining tonal centers with chord movements at macro and micro levels", I think he managed to stay in the appropriate key very well. (- joking here, Matt - that is what the smile means, no?) As far as I could hear, Reg's 'macro' choice of the chords in the progression were pretty straightforward. Or to put it another way, he played the same changes I would with the exception of the diminished seventh chords as we noted above. If by "micro level" is meant the actual melody or voice leading as he nicely articulated, I have no quibble there. The melody is the melody, though some deviation here and there is tolerated by most as an interpretation (Mike -Destinytot excepted). Certainly it was not atonal or "out", which would sound rather weird with this tune.

    As regards "I'm confounded by your compliment of reg's playing while, in the same thread, implying that all of this is an overcomplication...", I don't really understand what you mean. I will reread my post complementary to Reg's playing, but I don't recall saying that or implying it. I suspect you are referring to "macro micro" stuff which apparently is impressive to you. I'm not sure beyond choice of style, rhythm (bopish or swing), tempo, etc, what you are referring to or what Reg intends. Maybe he can speak to that. What may be "overcomplication" would be a contention that some overarching new and improved harmonic thesis is essential to play that song as Reg played it and countless other musicians have for some seventy years or so (I don't know the exact date Rogers composed the song). I don't think I said that nor Reg nor Christiann. But perhaps you are referring to something else.

    "...nor do I think that's "simply" what Joe pass did..." - As I remarked earlier here, I don't have a complete recording of Joe Pass version of Body and Soul on the Unforgettable CD, but there is a version that is more complex in terms of melodic excursions and single note runs recorded by Joe Pass in the key of A, consistent with his style approach in the Seventies and Eighties. The version in C to which I referred is more restrained, consistent with his approach to the other tunes on that CD (Amazon sampling).

    Continued in next post -
    Last edited by targuit; 11-17-2015 at 03:30 AM.

  21. #145

    User Info Menu

    I'd especially like to know what you think about the things that he brought in harmoniously which WEREN'T just on the original chart." To be quite honest, apart from some minor melodic single note phrasing, I don't think Reg brought in anything remarkably different from the "original chart" harmonically, the choice not to use diminished seventh chords excepted. That is not a criticism - Reg played the tune beautifully in my opinion.

    "Jay, I wouldn't fault you for being a casual player or hobbyist (like myself), nor for finding many of these concepts to be somewhat over your head... but to continue to talk about them as if you know all of them and then demonstrate otherwise (in this confounding post above),...you're not helping yourself. "
    "I don't think folks on this forum are going to have anything negative to say about your posting chord melody or singing or playing standards if you're not acting like you know EVERYTHING about all aspects of jazz at the same time.
    I find it personally insulting , and I'm not even a real jazzer myself
    ..."

    Well that is very magnanimous of you to forgive me my ignorance, Matt!

    I have never maintained that I am a professional musician, Matt, or even that I "know everything" - that would technically be "omniscience" and my psychopathology has not yet reached that point. After all, I did get a bit distracted for some thirty plus years by mastering another "hobby" of mine - the practice of medicine. As Graham noted, one does have to read lots of books to master that hobby after completing four years of college, four years of medical school, and then a minimum three years of residency with those eighty plus hours per week at a pay that came out to a whopping $6 or so. That was before I became a cog in the machine for some 25 plus years of actual independent medical practice. As I said, a minor distraction from becoming a professional musician.

    On the other hand, I do play classical guitar as well, so ....nothing. Sorry you feel personally insulted. But, I like to think that despite "not knowing everything" (it is getting a little late in the fourth quarter), I do have something in common with Joe Pass beyond my Italian heritage. Joe used to argue for "keeping it simple". He also remarked on several occasions in interviews that he knew nothing about modes (paraphrasing), so maybe he didn't know much about "modal interchange" like me or care to. Still, he did manage to squeak by somehow.

    Check out the video on YT of his "An Evening With Joe Pass" DVD. I miss Joe Pass and his sense of humor. Something that seems often to be too rare here on the forum these days....and don't be so sensitive. Life is too damned short.

  22. #146

    User Info Menu

    Reg - I wonder if anyone noticed one of the most important aspects in my humble opinion about your phrasing, rhythmic feel, and perhaps most importantly the fingering used in your excellent and lovely comping example of Body and Soul. Gosh, if we were in a classroom, we could take a show of hands and see if anyone guesses where I'm heading, especially as regards the fingering.

    But we aren't in a classroom or 'clinic' (Joe Pass used to say " Clinic...makes me feel like I'm a doctor or something..." - I miss Joe Pass!). Anyway, first the phrasing and rhythm. I put them side by side because that is how they work together. I love the bopish feel and rhythm you give the song changes and melody as opposed to say the approach in the lovely Billie Holiday recording which is more laid back. Nice, but today I prefer Reg's thing.

    Second, the fingering. What is it that attracted my attention? Two things - first, the grip or fingering that Reg uses on his minor seventh chords in terms of the lush use of the bass strings with close voicing as opposed to a more open fingering. To be specific I'll cite just one example. The first Ebm.fingered at the fourth fret position with the sweet F natural high note fingered at the sixth fret of the B string, as compared to a barre form Ebm7 at the sixth fret. Much more lush, and also allows you to do something that is very important in my opinion. I don't know what the proper term is or even is there is a specific term, but for lack of a better alternative, I call it "playing behind the chord form" or from behind. The melody and the bass are voiced so much better this way. I think this is one of the most important concepts that Reg expertly demonstrates, and if you take away just one thing, I think this may be the most important.

    I'm not sure if I'm expressing the concept articulately, because it is one of those things that you can demonstrate easier face to face than in words. But I'll bet that Reg and Christiann know what I'm getting at. So much more lush sounding and playing "behind the chord" gives you both better melodic articulation as well as the important bass voice leading or even segueing into Wes style octaves for melodic articulation (used sparingly for effect). Just a great example. My personal favorite from the videos Reg has up on his YT site.

    Btw, I tried getting a video of my version of this tune using my old Canon digital "point and shoot" camera. It does have a video function, but just putting on the desk front of me doesn't capture the video in terms of the visual of the fret board and right hand in the frame and especially the audio. So I may revert to just putting up the audio recording that I can make with either my Tascam DR-05 or my old Korg D1200. Take me a few days to find the time - I'm up to my neck in medical records to copy. I'm experimenting a bit with playing the tune in the key of B rather than C#, just cause I like the way the turnarounds happen in that key. Especially the part where the vocal goes "...for you I cry, for you,dear, only, why haven't you seen it..."

    Btw, it is not my intention to lead the thread off the path of the theoretical treatises such as that authored by Alan, which I have not read, regarding Barry Harris' method. I was hoping he would stick around to discuss a bit. But, I think Reg's video just reveals so much that is very important and deserves to be highlighted. But if you all think the comments are off base, please chime in and I'll remain quiet for a while. Hard to do when you have a bit of ADHD...
    Last edited by targuit; 11-17-2015 at 11:48 AM.

  23. #147

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by targuit
    Second, the fingering. What is it that attracted my attention? Two things - first, the grip or fingering that Reg uses on his minor seventh chords in terms of the lush use of the bass strings with close voicing as opposed to a more open fingering. To be specific I'll cite just one example. The first Ebm.fingered at the fourth fret position with the sweet F natural high note fingered at the sixth fret of the B string, as compared to a barre form Ebm7 at the sixth fret.
    I can't watch the video at the moment (but I watched it last night) - I think you just mean he played Ebmin9 (X6466X) rather than Ebm7? That's what I use on this tune also (I think we're talking about Body and Soul in this clip, right?). The F is where the melody goes to, so it sounds right anyway. And it voices more smoothly into a Bb7#5 for a nice V7 sound.

    Actually I use minor 9 chords a lot more than 'strict' minor 7s, they just sound more 'jazzy' to me. I don't actually like that Ebm7 form at the sixth fret much, it's a bit 'pop/rock' to me. If I do play that chord shape, I often get rid of the 5th (the one on the D string) and make it a 4th instead, sounds a bit more 'McCoy Tyner' or something.
    Last edited by grahambop; 11-17-2015 at 12:03 PM.

  24. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by targuit
    I hesitate to point this out, Matt, but you are talking about two different songs. Reg's video was an excellent version of Body and Soul in C#. The modest analysis I examined briefly here was about half of the tune My Romance by Richard Rogers in the key of C. Two different songs.
    I understood. Didn't mean to communicate that I believed we were talking about the same tune.

    Quote Originally Posted by targuit
    As regards Reg's lovely version of Body and Soul in C#, I think those were the standard changes one finds in the same HL Real Book that I cited above and most versions I have heard by other artists like Billie Holiday, though this version is in the key of Ab and has a more retro sound.
    The basic changes are there...with much more in between as well. Are we talking about the same video? There's a lot going on which isn't "just the changes", but which imply the original changes. Of course, if it's done really well by a Joe or Reg, it sounds simple and beautiful, but that's beside the point.

    First, the things which he is doing to "imply" the original harmony are not all "in", "basic" or "simple". I'm not trying to quote you directly there, but that's the vibe I get. We can say it's just basic for someone like Reg or Joe or maybe you, whatever.... but there are actual real terms and ways which musicians describe these things. It's no more contrived to talk about them in the ways that Barry Harris does or Reg does (in this very video) in theoretical terms than it is for you to talk about playing in Bb or C. It would be asinine to call the key of Bb the "whatty whatty" or some such garbage "because you don't need theory if you have ears". BS.

    I don't necessarily need to "think" to play a melody in Bb, but if I talk to another musician, why would I not come up with terminology which describes it? There's some kind of semantics or terminology misunderstanding with the way you talk "at" other members of this forum on this topic.

    First, I'm calling you out. No more garbage about scales, key signatures, note names, etc. etc. etc. from you if you're going to imply that others are beneath you for talking about music using theoretical terminology. You are the only one on the forum who insists that using terminology to discuss concepts equals thinking about theory while improvising. There is absolutely a place for thinking about things while practicing, working things out, or transcribing. You do it every day in transcribing things. Of course you don't think about all of that while improvising for real, but that's beside the point.

    At a certain level music theory is nothing more than vocabulary by which musicians communicate. You use it in every post and then call demean others for doing the same. So, the new mantra for responses from you which include any musical terminology are going to be met with, "Use your ears, and stop thinking so much." And yes, this sentiment is as ridiculous as it sounds, whether you're talking about scales, chords or advanced harmonic concepts.
    Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 11-17-2015 at 12:16 PM.

  25. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by targuit
    I confess that apart from substitutions (including the "omission" of diminished chords and substitution of single note riffing that works in the context of his version), I don't pay much (theoretical) attention to "modal interchange". I play what I hear as appropriate in the stylistic context. Ears.
    Quote Originally Posted by targuit
    To be quite honest, apart from some minor melodic single note phrasing, I don't think Reg brought in anything remarkably different from the "original chart" harmonically, the choice not to use diminished seventh chords excepted. That is not a criticism - Reg played the tune beautifully in my opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by targuit
    Joe used to argue for "keeping it simple". He also remarked on several occasions in interviews that he knew nothing about modes (paraphrasing), so maybe he didn't know much about "modal interchange" like me or care to.
    Again, Joe and Wes had terms for discussing all of these concepts. Even if they didn't call it modal interchange, it's one version of the vocabulary for talking about them. I think you're absolutely wrong that reg is basically just playing the changes of the tune. He even says as much at the end of his "basic" video which you like so much. Something to the effect of "you can't just play this..." (basic changes). Cheesy rhythm aside, the way he plays the rest of the tune is vastly different harmonically.

    Jay, I think you would be well served to spend a small percentage of your daily transcription time transcribing portions of reg's video and posting here for other members. It would gain you major karma points, further the actual OP, and we could all get past the semantics of terminology of what is "basic" for some vs. other ways of describing it for those of us who are students. I believe what's presented in this video is excellent material related to the topic and would provide loads of interesting discussion.

    You need some Jay points. This is a homerun. :-)
    Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 11-17-2015 at 12:19 PM.

  26. #150
    Why don't you get a webcam and use that to make videos