-
Not at all. If we were to be as narrow as you suggest then we would simply answer the OP about where he can get the book and no we aren't going to help him photocopy it etc., and then we would be done, goodnight. Robot like.
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
But fortunately - forums are for discussion and exchange of ideas. These books? They are a text like series. I have purchased them. The price of admission affords me ample latitude in offering commentary, including critical commentary. Same as for any other expensive textbook that I've invested in. They are tools and should be evaluated by students and teachers alike with critical thinking. I have been both a music student and teacher in my time, and have devoted plenty of time and money in my area of interest. I try to make it a point to think critically about any materials that a music student invests his time and money on, especially when that music student is me.
-
07-21-2018 07:55 PM
-
And name-calling and passive aggressive barbs. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
-
Cool! Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Let's start with this. Seriously. Let's talk about the expectations you had in purchasing them. Let's talk about what it is that the convergence of voice led proficiency and the traditions of harmonic movement in the jazz genre can gain by such study, if at all.
I'd admit that Joe Pass didn't voice lead in the same way that Ed Bikert, or Bill Evans, or Keith Jarrett or Fred Hersch did... so does the coexistence of two differing attitudes of chord progression negate one in favour of the other?
It's harder for guitarist to realize the subtleties of moving voice leading chord movement. Does that mean it's impractical to the point that others besides yourself should feel put off by it? Is there a value in relatively unapproachable material when there are those who find the value of it... even if it's just a handful of musicians?
There's nothing dismissive about taking on a challenge. I feel like you've dismissed the content of these books because they didn't fit your already established concept of what and how you study. In a word, you were prejudiced. Fine. They were not practical to you. They are/were to me. But I do hope we'll see the fruits of those who have taken on non traditional sources. It really is the best and strongest testament to the spirit of jazz as it came to be.
David
-
"Name calling" refers to persons, not concepts. I have called no names. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
-
Yeah, I always suspected as much. Too much of a coincidence. Originally Posted by TruthHertz
So where did Pat pick up the sliding half-step trill as opposed to hammered-on/pulled-off? I was thinking how unique that was in jazz guitar but then recalled that Wes did it a lot, but with his octaves, and then remembered Pat copied him so much when in high school that his older bandmates told him to make his own voice.
-
Listen to Steve Swallow's bass playing. It's Swallow's sound. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
David
-
I don't act like that about Joe Pass, and I don't think like that about Joe Pass, lol. That' TWICE in this thread where my examples were cherry picked because I didn't list 100 players names to make my point. We're talking past each other. Originally Posted by TruthHertz
I too have noticed something about this forum, myself included. When person A offers an opinion that includes something less than fawning praise of person B's hero, idol or friend, person B gets quite bent out of shape, and objectivity goes out the window. Emotions and resentment overtake objectivity. I realize that the author is a friend of yours so I'll stop opining about the utility of what I feel is hyper-research into guitar chord study. Have a nice day.
-
Having one. Thanks Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
David
-
Those completist nerds! It's like you can't even have an objective, honest, adult discussion about their $1000.00 method for achieving triad nirvana without them getting offended. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Defensive completist nerds...
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
-
I love books that take a few ideas and develop them to the enth degree.
The Goodchord series certainly does that, exploring scale based close voice leading.
The Brett Willmott book does the same with drop 2 superimpositions as does
the Van Eps series with detailed fingering transitions between scale based harmony and later
other concepts to expand on moving voices. While each of these could have with been presented
with fewer pages, I'm ok with the fact that they weren't.
I like this one quote from my earliest jazz guitar teacher, Ted Dunbar:
"For every page you read in a music book, write ten of your own" (paraphrased)
Whatever way you choose to study, be engaged.
-
That's a nice quote, but many books have been written by now, from a few pages to volumes so thick you could break a window with them.
Time management is a critical skill set for a (reasonably) well run life.
-
The best example of "Goodchord in Action" that I can think of is Ben Monder. He seemingly took the tongue-in-cheek advice in "The Advancing Guitarist" to "go try every combination" quite literally.
If your goal is to sound like Wes or Joe Pass, then I agree that Voice-Leading Books are very much overkill. If your goal is to push the harmonic possibilities of the instrument to their limit, then they can very much be a great asset.
-
The music combined with personal imagination is always the best source to uncover the magical
nuance of organized sound. But, without the info in my first guitar book, Alfred #1, which had a
picture correlating piano notes to open strings, I wouldn't have known how to tune my guitar.
Steve Coleman often talks about how for what he is trying to do with composition/improvisation,
notation is a far too quantized model, although he reads well and notates when he has to.
So yes, what you are trying to do is central to what might help you get there within an efficient time frame.
-
Originally Posted by dasein
Not all voice leading books, not at all. And Wes, Joe and other jazz guitarists most certainly used/use voice leading, for heaven's sake.
Goal being to "push the harmonic possibilities of the instrument to their limit"? No, that wouldn't be the goal of mine, or most. Music first, esoterica second.Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 07-22-2018 at 12:45 PM.
-
Glad to hear about the new publisher! These books aren't for everyone (nor were they ever marketed as such), but I'm happy that they will be available to those looking to explore the possibilities therein. Any chance the "Falling Grace" book is part of the deal? I assume the books will be available in the US, but I've got some gigs in Austria/Germany coming up in January so I can shop over there as well...
PK
-
TruthHertz........Glad to see the Goodchord material being published again! I still work out of my “vintage” volumes... was wondering if there was anything new that’s in the works?
-
Not in the plans. Recently Mick handed me a bag, it was full of volumes of material I haven't begun to comb through. In there are entire chapters of stuff from the Creative Chordal Harmony book. That book was published by Berklee Press and they put a page limit on their books, which is one reason they have no interest in much of Mick's works as they're by nature exhaustive works of specific aspects in harmony/melody/rhythm. Originally Posted by Toddep
When Tim and Mick put that out, there was enough material that they had to "axe" to meet the page ceiling to make at least one or two more chapters.
I was thinking about the value of theoretical works and the role they play in the evolution of the large expanding genre we think of as jazz. In the late 70's I studied with a teacher, Roland Wiggins, who taught at U Mass Amherst while Max Roach and Archie Shepp were mainstays there. He also taught at Hampshire College where I met him. I remember being fascinated but also vexed about how practical the things he taught were; I was just beginning to learn to play improvised music and that in itself was a challenge to work within the conventional framework.
We studied melodic permutations that could be played on piano, but I couldn't make a connection with how they'd be used on guitar. I had this same experience with Yusef Lateef years later when he told me about applications of clusters in compositional contexts. This was so far from anything that Mel Bay talked about that they were different languages.
It wasn't until I listened to Coltrane's recordings he did with Miles, just before he left Miles, it's a recording they did in Stockholm, that I heard how one man wrestled some of that material into a musical form that could be applied linearally. And it turns out when Coltrane was exploring new directions and wanted to find possibilities of conceptual and practical application that fit into something he felt yet hadn't heard yet, he looked up Roland when he was based in Philly.
There will always be those who see the world as others handed it to them, and define the boundries by the conventions given to them, and there will be those who surround themselves in something never heard before. Jazz is one genre of creative exploration that not only embraces, but has an active place for the people who want to find articulate forms that exist beyond imagination.
Too, I remember hearing about the resistance Trane met, and Ornette, and Mary Halvorson, and Andrew Hill... and each one of them had inspirations, mentors and teachers who pointed the way outside of the safety of the known world of jazz at the time (Andrew Hill studied with Paul Hindemuth).
As far as figuring out why some people are so drawn to the unknown, and why some people dismiss the unfamiliar, I guess that's for the social scientists to figure out.
David
-
In today's hurry-up world people want return on investment, and in this case the investment in time and hard work. For the student of jazz guitar; (1) if there are tangible and easily observable returns and (2) if those outcomes are desirable and inspirational - then they will be pursued.
With regards to Van Eps and Leavitt all those triad studies can presumably result in the ability to conceive of, and then play or compose the way that they did.
The question is, do the majority of newcomers find those outcomes desirable and inspirational? I think we would have to ask them.
Of note, Berklee refers to itself as a contemporary music school, not a jazz studies program (unlike their less "progressive" competitors who have yet to "get it"?), and the only history course they offer online beyond traditional music history is History of Rock. No more history of jazz. I don't believe that's agenda driven, I believe that it's reflective of demand. I find that a bit depressing, but they didn't ask me.Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 07-23-2018 at 09:13 AM.
-
I just don't see beginners seeking out this huge out- of- print work. I think continuing to address "beginners getting distracted by it" is just seeking to tackle a made-up problem which doesn't exist.
I mean, I'm really happy for all of you guys making millions of dollars playing jazz, but I had always assumed that most here were in it mostly for themselves anyway and were seeking all kind of various nerdy ways to pursue it for its own enjoyment. Anyway, for me, the most ENJOYABLE aspects of learning the instrument for have been in what others might actually call "wasted pursuits".
But the things which make my style unique as a player - and understanding that that's mostly OUTSIDE of jazz - are a culmination of all those pursuits. I wouldn't do anything differently, I don't think, if I had to do it over. All of the triad stuff I did a year or two ago pays great benefits OUTSIDE of jazz. Acoustic instrumental music in non- jazz styles is mostly NOT four- note chords anyway. But in terms of ROI? It's still mostly for ME . The parts that benefit my "playing out" are mostly just residual benefits - nothing like a proportional return on time spent , but again, I'm not only playing for everyone ELSE only. The "everyone else" part somewhat justifies it, but it's all just an excuse to do what *I* want to do. If you can't play for yourself in the first place, at least to a degree, what's the point?
I like Walter Anderson's perspective on art: that the RETAIL/consumer part of creating , for the artist , is merely the MEANS toward their being able to then pursue a more PURE art , WITHOUT consideration for money etc. I feel much the same way about gigs which pay the bills, and for me, the JAZZ part is mostly for myself. That's just me. Different strokes for others...
Last time I got my guitar set up I pulled it out of the case to check it out and played some of my usual BS. The tech is a really fun, wise old dude, and he replied with a laugh: "There's no money past the third fret . Ha!. Anything above the third fret is for yourself".
It's funny, on acoustic at least, he's mostly right , at least as a proportion of time spent.
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
-
If you're anywhere near the cultural penumbra of New York jazz, you know most of the new cats write their own music. Most of these players are searching for fresh sources to stake their own ground and thrive. It's the young players, many of them well versed in the most rigorous theory til it's thoroughly steeped, but finding equal balance in the other arts too, that find their expression in the new. These are the under the radar players who not only seek out inspiration in others who've found unexpected perspectives, but from my own experience, they don't WANT to live in the grounds that are well trodden by the mainstream. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
This is a small subset of lesser known players, but they're a vital community. Names like Ben Monder, David Binney, Max Light, Mike Bono, Dan Weiss, John Escreet, Wayne Krantz... not really names on pedestals, but guys with their feet on the ground going new places. For all of them, and us in the minority of this forum, it's exciting to look at anything that points to a new direction, even if it comes as a frontier that takes a LOT of work to tame.
In the end, you may wind up with nothing. Originality is a lifetime pursuit; the process is deeply satisfying. But you will also realistically wind up with something nobody else came up with. Some people are predisposed to that way of thinking.
It's with them I find a good hang with, in life and the forum.
David
-
this is a special forum..many here have studied and some have worked with musicians that have influenced the direction of jazz and music in general. I and others on here have studied with ted greene..now the thing that I realized - I was not only watching everything he did..but he was watching what I played. He stopped me in mid play and said.."..hey man who said you could do that..!" with a bit of a stern voice..I froze..he smiled..I said well it sounded OK to me..and he confirmed..If you like the way it sounds go with it..if it breaks rules that are written or even if I told you..go with it..he then played my progression and added some sweetness to it..I still play that progression to this day..
Playing to pay the rent can be fun or hard work..the fun part is when the listeners don't have to work to understand what your doing..thus the beauty of blues and popular rock tunes..and getting to the essence of rock music can be as much work as complex jazz progressions.
I was always fascinated by jazz..how the musicians made strange sounding chords and solo lines work-how did they know how to do this..and as I grew musically and studied and explored the extreme ends of harmony..I now can use that knowledge in my own compositions..some like them..some don't..I hear the Beatles had the same reactions..
I am glad there are musical pioneers that share their knowledge in any form to anyone hungry enough to dive deeper-as the pearls are not on the shoreline..while some may find such endeavors a waste of time for me it is the true expression of the undiscovered sounds that are possible..worth my time and effort to embrace and ingest these studies
-
I think harmony has been well explored. And, guitarists have not led, in particular.
So, exploring the possibilities of tonal harmony on the guitar? There are 4 fingers and 6 strings. The problem domain is finite.
In LA we used to call the BS grips "out to lunch" chords. The human hand has not changed. There is such a thing as folly. There is such a thing as a fool's errand. Segovia had to educate Ponce on as much.Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 07-23-2018 at 11:44 PM.
-
I enjoy the search for the lost chord, which resides somewhere in the Goodrick Almanacs.
-
I think that we would benefit much more from etudes. Exercises are great, we need exercises, lots of exercises in fact, but they only go so far.
In jazz there us a huge gap between exercises (musical calisthenics) and music, improvised music for the most part.
If some of the more advanced harmonic concepts would be applied to highly musical etudes they would probably bear more fruit. The problem with that of course, is that great etudes don't come easy. They require compositional talent and discipline, and if we're honest we admit that most don't have that in great supply. Hence, it's much easier to create exercises.
-
50+ yrs after its release..Kind of Blue still sells well..it is the study of improvisation in its raw form..the solos played by these music greats were not based on chordal arrangements..but what the musicians heard at that moment..
to actually study the solos and try and get the same feel would be a study in frustration..one of the reasons the album still sells well is that you cant hear this stuff anywhere else..noone has copied it..not for lack of trying
so creating etudes based on this body of work would be a life long journey into the magic-and my take-perfection in and of music
Reply With Quote
mclaughlin sound here
Today, 12:26 AM in The Players