The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 227
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    ^ Please don't revive this deep state mad at theory thread.
    Don’t feed it then haha

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    But Bird didn't use chord scales per se, isn't that a post 70's "thing"....
    He didn't think that way. The chord scale approach is an academic thing, as you say, it came much much later on the track.

    Received Wisdom (Jeff Goldblum, chord scales, the iReal Book, and Kamasi Washington) | DO THE M@TH

    "The problem is that no master ever played any changes of any song without consulting the melody first. The melody is the song. The song dictates the aesthetic. Once in a while even the lyrics can be helpful. The iReal Book leaves out the most relevant pieces of information a jazz master uses when forming an opinion about a standard. Instead, the app just gives a banal table of chords, frequently not even connected to a key, always with the implication that knowing the right scales that go with the chords is enough to get by."

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ChazFromCali
    He didn't think that way. The chord scale approach is an academic thing, as you say, it came much much later on the track.

    Received Wisdom (Jeff Goldblum, chord scales, the iReal Book, and Kamasi Washington) | DO THE M@TH

    "The problem is that no master ever played any changes of any song without consulting the melody first. The melody is the song. The song dictates the aesthetic. Once in a while even the lyrics can be helpful. The iReal Book leaves out the most relevant pieces of information a jazz master uses when forming an opinion about a standard. Instead, the app just gives a banal table of chords, frequently not even connected to a key, always with the implication that knowing the right scales that go with the chords is enough to get by."
    i see that ethan agrees with my opinion that bebop is folk music.

    "It’s folk music first, any technical information about scales exists only as an afterthought. Their notes are blues licks and bebop melodies. Bebop melodies are rarely purely scalar. Indeed, the very sound of bebop requires constant little snakes and chromatic reversals of direction. During the solos, when the phrasing is verging on becoming too intellectual, Fats, Bird, and Bud all play blues licks to keep it in the right place, to keep it jazz. Blues licks do not fit a chord scale."

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    You guys are so ridiculous.


  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by djg
    i see that ethan agrees with my opinion that bebop is folk music.

    "It’s folk music first, any technical information about scales exists only as an afterthought. Their notes are blues licks and bebop melodies. Bebop melodies are rarely purely scalar. Indeed, the very sound of bebop requires constant little snakes and chromatic reversals of direction. During the solos, when the phrasing is verging on becoming too intellectual, Fats, Bird, and Bud all play blues licks to keep it in the right place, to keep it jazz. Blues licks do not fit a chord scale."
    That's an interesting "take" - folk music. But yes, if you think about it, I guess it is. It's an African-American folk music.

    I came across his blog awhile back it really resonates with me, he put into words what I was feeling. I despise that "magic scale" that will kill all songs attitude. The "what scale do I play?".... thing. My response would be, "Scale? WhyTF do you wanna play a scale?"

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    ^ Jazz is not folk music. It didn't only evolve from ethnic music. It also predominantly came from ragtime which came from classical marches in the 1800s. You guys do not give up with the bs do you? Listen to the Parker interview where he said he studied (theory) books like crazy along with his practicing and said that education is one of the best things.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    ^ Jazz is not folk music. It didn't only evolve from ethnic music. It also predominantly came from ragtime which came from classical marches in the 1800s. You guys do not give up with the bs do you? Listen to the Parker interview where he said he studied (theory) books like crazy along with his practicing and said that education is one of the best things.
    1.) What about the blues, Mistah Organ Grinder?

    2.) The Klose book from 1881 is an etudes book for saxophone not a theory book.

    Parker did practice scales but the only scales that were practiced till around 1960 were major and minor (natural, harmonic, melodic).

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    A little bit of embellishments can go a long way — no scales necessary


  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ChazFromCali
    That's an interesting "take" - folk music. But yes, if you think about it, I guess it is. It's an African-American folk music.

    I came across his blog awhile back it really resonates with me, he put into words what I was feeling. I despise that "magic scale" that will kill all songs attitude. The "what scale do I play?".... thing. My response would be, "Scale? WhyTF do you wanna play a scale?"
    My suspicion is this kind of thing may come more from modern rock/pop guitar pedagogy where we learn the blues as a scale and widdle around in that. Never mind that the great rock and blues players were playing melodies just as much as Bird et al, and had learned these licks by ear from their favourite records. Good blues and rock guys learn the importance of dues paying and careful listening, but many rock players never cotton onto this and still work from tabs etc.

    When (shred) rock guitar players move to jazz they expect more of the same. They can find it too, perhaps, in some corners of fusion.

    I think this is much less problem for pianists and sax players, because most of these guys are better musicians than the average guitar botherer.

    That said Ethan seems to think of it as a problem for pianists. I remember some other article where he was talking about European jazz club owners who all have a play at the end of the night when everyone's packing up, and invariably sound like a pale imitation of Bill Evans because that's what you get from Chord Scale theory and that's how they learned.

    Ouch. That dude knows how to get on his high horse. I learned a lot from him ;-)

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Bop Head
    What about the blues?
    Try reading what I wrote?

    Parker did practice scales but the only scales that were practiced till around 1960 were major and minor (natural, harmonic, melodic).
    Are you making that up?

    The Klose book from 1881 is an etudes book for saxophone not a theory book.
    Listen to the interview where he said he studied books - plural, and that he attributed his playing to his education.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    […] Are you making that up? […]
    Look into jazz theory books from that period.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    That doesn't mean they didn't have knowledge of it, or that they didn't have educational material then that we don't have a record of now. Monk ran whole tone scales in the 40s. Do you really think they didn't intellectually know what that was?


  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    Are you making that up?
    I've researched this a fair bit.

    Parker wasn't familiar with chord scales because chord scale theory simply didn't exist in the 30s and 40s. As Jimmy Raney put it 'we didn't have it that worked out.'

    The nearest thing in the 50s is George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept which was an influential book and had many concepts we know today in an unfamiliar form. John Mehegan is often credited with introducing CST in his (1959?) book on jazz piano; although I have to say looking at it that it isn't the CST we know today. Tristano had some CST style ideas, but his school was kind of its own thing and not everyone was into his ideas or approach.

    CST was certainly fully formed by 1964 in Jerry Coker's book Improvising Jazz. (Assuming my edition is the same as the one issued back then)

    And yet... Bird actually plays these sounds. A great example is the way he uses the #11 on the D7 and G7 chords in his solo on Moose the Mooche. My suspicion is he heard these sounds from Billy Strayhorn. The phrases in Moose could almost be a paraphrase of the A Train shout chorus. This would fit with Parker's MO which was very quotation heavy. A lot of licks we associate with Bird are actually paraphrases of earlier melody material, his paraphrase of Picout's High Society solo is a classic example.

    He also uses the augmented triad which is typical of this type of 'early melodic minor' use, and probably came more from a voicing led approach. (See also Afternoon in Paris et al.)

    If I had to describe the role of CST in jazz edu history it was to systematise a number of diverse 'street' jazz practices - playing off the thirds of chords, extending harmonies, tritone subs, use of the augmented chord and so on - under one umbrella so that it could be taught as a clear syllabus in college.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    I see what you're saying and I agree that he had the street knowledge, but I think he also had the theoretical knowledge. Did you listen to the interview where they asked him how he plays so tremendously and he said by hitting the books? Or is Parker's own word inconsequential in pursuit of the disinformation campaign?

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    I see what you're saying and I agree that he had the street knowledge, but I think he also had the theoretical knowledge. Did you listen to the interview where they asked him how he plays so tremendously and he said by hitting the books?
    Without specifying what books he used its a matter of conjecture of what was in them. We can rule out modern jazz theory though, so any theory books would most likely be classical. We know he used the Hyacinth Klose manuals. I have them somewhere.

    IIRC they are exercises with no theoretical explanation. You could use them as the source for lines, but it's a classical technique book. (See also Coltrane's use of piano and harp manuals which I think was similar.)

    Bird was certainly hungry for knowledge - he once approached Varese for lessons. I think he was very interested in music theory. We know Dizzy was interested in teaching new ideas and concepts to his circle too.

    But in terms of where his playing comes from - it sounds like it comes from absorbing the language of the music around him, which included washing dishes at the club where Tatum played piano. It certainly doesn't sound like it comes from a book. I know what that sounds like very well.

    Bird's playing is full of melody, much of it borrowed and repurposed. (And, of course, a unique creative rhythmic gift which no-one's equalled in my view.) This can clearly be heard in the 1940s recordings where he is almost a Lester Young quotes machine. His music was always based around a lot of quotations, melodic material from all over. There's the classic story of him spotting Stravinsky in the audience and then just quoting Stravinsky all night to him (which Igor LOVED).

    Harmonically speaking jazz just wasn't as complex back then. The dance music, Kansas City swing, of the 30s and 40s which Bird sprang from was sophisticated but grounded in the blues and straightforward functional harmony. Complicated theory just isn't that important to solo on that stuff; you just need to know when the keys change and play good melodies that hit some tasty notes on the changes. If you have a good ear and have listened to and absorbed plenty of jazz, that's no problem. Theory ideas like the whole tone scale and so on could be used to extend the palette of this more diatonic approach to improvisation (and Bird is pretty diatonic actually).

    Now, if you want to solo well on Inner Urge or something, that's a whole different proposition.

    Most of what Bird solo'd on were standards changes, things like rhythm changes and blues an awful lot probably because they gave him the most freedom to be inventive. Rhythm changes itself just being a typical A section of the types of pop songs people liked in the dance hall era. Slim and Slam, Lunceford, stuff like that. He was like the best there was at doing it and could do it any key you liked, but it wasn't like he could solo on anything. There's a story about him simply bowing out when asked to play on a particularly challenging bridge on a session (I'll track it down.)

    As Dizzy put it 'quiet as it's kept, Parker's main contribution was melody.'
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 09-26-2022 at 06:04 AM.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    The other thing that I really get from reading detailed accounts like Berliner's Thinking in Jazz is how thin on the ground info was back then. People didn't want people to know their tricks. Barry used to watch the pianist's hands in clubs, for instance.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    I guess this has been posted before — Carol Kaye was playing bebop professionally in the 50ies.


  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    John Coltrane’s and Charlie Parker’s former employer’s jamming together


  20. #44

    User Info Menu


  21. #45

    User Info Menu


  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako
    Each perspective can potentially yield something useful to a practitioner
    regardless of how inaccurately they replicate the mindset of the creator.
    Yeah, this. We cannot get inside somebody else's mind to really understand their thoughts and intentions, but we don't need to do that. We listen to what they actually did play and come up with an explanation that facilitates our understanding of it.

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Without specifying what books he used its a matter of conjecture of what was in them. They are exercises with no theoretical explanation. You could use them as the source for lines, but it's a classical technique book.
    2 silly presumptions here. 1, that absolutely no theoretical models existed back then just because you can't find evidence of them on the internet now lol. 2, that Bird was brilliant enough to absorb music language but was too inept to analyze written music and draw theoretical conclusions from them. Lol and lol.

    I think he was very interested in music theory.
    Yes, you can tell from his playing that he used theory since over half of it is scale and arp based.

    But in terms of where his playing comes from - it sounds like it comes from absorbing the language of the music around him. Bird's playing is full of melody, much of it borrowed and repurposed.
    Yes, that's half the equation, the aural and creative aspect, like I've said in countless posts. Doesn't negate the educational aspect which he clearly says in the interview.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    2 silly presumptions here. 1, that absolutely no theoretical models existed back then just because you can't find evidence of them on the internet now lol. 2, that Bird was brilliant enough to absorb music language but was too inept to analyze written music and draw theoretical conclusions from them. Lol and lol.

    Yes, you can tell from his playing that he used theory since over half of it is scale and arp based.

    Yes, that's half the equation, the aural and creative aspect, like I've said in countless posts. Doesn't negate the educational aspect which he clearly says in the interview.
    But surely the issue here is not whether Bird knew and used theory, but rather whether he knew and used CST which is the specific theoretical model used by the OP for his analysis. And the answer is self-evident: Bird could not have known and used CST because it hadn’t been invented yet. Whether he would have found it useful if he’d had access to it is moot.

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    ^ The omnibook is CST. So how could he not have known about it? The fact that CST wasn't standardized (or invented as you would put it) is moot.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    ^ The omnibook is CST.
    Afraid you’ve lost me there.