The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 26 to 45 of 45
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    I don’t think he was arrogant. I think people who are really good at music just get a bit puzzled when someone can’t do something that is to you fairly straightforward. Also, you know, high level players learn music VERY quickly.

    That’s some tough stuff to pull together phillidor.... I can’t help but feel if I was in harms way in that way I’d improve as a player super quick. Time to get roasted, I think. It’s been too long...

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Well, fact is, we don't really know, do we? Either the guy's just a good, conscientious, top-class musician/composer doing what any player of that ilk does in that world, or he's not. And either Philidor is just a moaning minnie who can't get his stuff together, or he's not.

    Don't ask me. Bit of both, probably :-)


  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    In solidarity with Cosmic and Christian: .................................................. .................................................. ........................ There are gigs to be had that challenge us and we dig in and can rise to the task with focused shedding.There are other gigs where the differential between present skills and requirement is too wide to catch upin time to keep the gig. In many cases, there will be other players ready to step in and get the job done.None of this reflects malicious intent of bandleader composer/arrangers. When faced with such a scenario as a player, it is an honorable choice to strengthen our weaknesses to prepare for such situations in the future.

  5. #29
    I guess I misunderstood the direction of the thread, but I put the following together on Reg's process for learning voicings on the fretboard (or at least what I understand of it).

    It's somewhat different from other approaches I've seen over the years here, but it is systematic. Diatonic chord subs to yield would-be extensions etc, developing voicings for single chords across the entire fretboard systematically. Learning MM/altered voicings as a complete note set in a similar way to accommodate chromatics (vs one-note-at-a-time chord alterations)...



    I'm definitely not at the level of many in this conversation. It's an ongoing process, but this approach has helped me a lot personally.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    I guess I misunderstood the direction of the thread, but I put the following together on Reg's process for learning voicings on the fretboard (or at least what I understand of it).

    It's somewhat different from other approaches I've seen over the years here, but it is systematic. Diatonic chord subs to yield would-be extensions etc, developing voicings for single chords across the entire fretboard systematically. Learning MM/altered voicings as a complete note set in a similar way to accommodate chromatics (vs one-note-at-a-time chord alterations)...



    I'm definitely not at the level of many in this conversation. It's an ongoing process, but this approach has helped me a lot personally.
    Thanks! This is a very helpful video. Among other things, I now understand Reg's use of the terms reference and organization.

    If I might ... maybe I misheard something ... when you play Eminmaj as the second chord of the cliche, are you thinking of it as part of E harmonic minor? Is that right?

    This is a very helpful point, a reminder about the value of substitution at just about any point in a tune.

    Aside: I learned a system that sounds like it's more or less equivalent. Warren Nunes' teaching was that all major type and all dominant type chords from the major scale are interchangeable. So, in his view, Cmaj7, Em7, Am7 (and Gmaj7, the way he viewed it) were interchangeable. Similarly, Dm7, Fmaj7, G7, Am7 (Am7 goes both ways) are interchangeable.

    I don't recall Warren mentioning it, but Mark Levine wrote that all chords from the Melodic Minor scale are the same chord, because there's no avoid note.

    These two principles get you in Reg's ballpark, if I understand it correctly. So, in this view, for example, when you get to that Eminmaj7, you can play F#susb9, Gmaj7#5 etc etc , up to Ebalt.

    And, of course, you can still use other ideas for substitutions, like tritone, alternating diminished chords with other chords etc.

    So, thanks again for the video. Content was great and the recording made it easy to hear.

    I've never really worked through harmonic minor in the same way, so I won't comment on that.

  7. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    Thanks! This is a very helpful video. Among other things, I now understand Reg's use of the terms reference and organization.
    Thanks for the kind words. Yeah, these are the two biggest terms of disambiguation in what he's talking about in a lot of this material IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    If I might ... maybe I misheard something ... when you play Eminmaj as the second chord of the cliche, are you thinking of it as part of E harmonic minor? Is that right?
    yes. I would call that the functional reference for that chord.
    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar

    I don't recall Warren mentioning it, but Mark Levine wrote that all chords from the Melodic Minor scale are the same chord, because there's no avoid note.

    These two principles get you in Reg's ballpark, if I understand it correctly. So, in this view, for example, when you get to that Eminmaj7, you can play F#susb9, Gmaj7#5 etc etc , up to Ebalt.
    Yeah. That's one way to think of the Eminmaj7, but I was using B altered (kind of the MM sub for the "functional reference" of the V7 of E HM. So, Em-Eminmaj7-Em7 becomes Em-Balt-Em
    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    So, thanks again for the video. Content was great and the recording made it easy to hear.

    I've never really worked through harmonic minor in the same way, so I won't comment on that.
    Really appreciate the kind words. Means a lot. I would love to get reg's take on all of this. Corrections, additions etc. a lot of this is just things I put together piece by piece trying to understand etc.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    I guess I misunderstood the direction of the thread, but I put the following together on Reg's process for learning voicings on the fretboard (or at least what I understand of it).It's somewhat different from other approaches I've seen over the years here, but it is systematic. Diatonic chord subs to yield would-be extensions etc, developing voicings for single chords across the entire fretboard systematically. Learning MM/altered voicings as a complete note set in a similar way to accommodate chromatics (vs one-note-at-a-time chord alterations)...
    I'm definitely not at the level of many in this conversation. It's an ongoing process, but this approach has helped me a lot personally.
    Oh cool, oh that's all really familiar and straightforward to me then. Solid advice.I was just about to upload a video about how you might want to organise your voicings into scales so as to use them to harmonise melodies and create chord solos and comping leadlines. Everyone has a version of this. Barry Harris is one way. Wes has his version. Lage Lund has his own way, and so on. There's only so many diatonic scales and most melodies are composed of diatonic scales. For chromatic melodies, you have other options of course, but it's probably best to start diatonic, as that will give you the most bang for the buck.In terms of passing tones, the Wes way is the dim7 chord. That works. But if you don't like that sound, there are other options too.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    T

    Yeah. That's one way to think of the Eminmaj7, but I was using B altered (kind of the MM sub for the "functional reference" of the V7 of E HM. So, Em-Eminmaj7-Em7 becomes Em-Balt-Em
    .
    I'm having trouble understanding this terminology. "MM sub for the functional reference of the V7 or EHM"

    Balt is not within EHM, even though B7b9b13 is. So, is this just taking the liberty of adding the D and maybe the F? Or are you referring simply to using an alt chord as a sub for the B7 within EHM -- and thinking of the alt chord as a MM chord, even though it's from CMM?

    Thanks in advance for clearing this up.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Actually, the early jazz reference would be Em B+ Em7 Em6/A7So the B+ reference might be, for instance, whole tone in the swing to bop era. Takes you out of the diatonic world. You still hear this in Wes's playing, Four on Six, Smokin at the Half Note. Later on (at some point?), altered became the more popular sound, but it has a lot in common with whole tone, of course.

  11. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    I'm having trouble understanding this terminology. "MM sub for the functional reference of the V7 or EHM"

    Balt is not within EHM, even though B7b9b13 is. So, is this just taking the liberty of adding the D and maybe the F? Or are you referring simply to using an alt chord as a sub for the B7 within EHM -- and thinking of the alt chord as a MM chord, even though it's from CMM?

    Thanks in advance for clearing this up.
    yes.

    Sorry. I'm saying it in somewhat of a confusing way probably. I was just kind of trying to answer the common objection on the front end: what does C melodic minor have to do with E minor?

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    yes.

    Sorry. I'm saying it in somewhat of a confusing way probably. I was just kind of trying to answer the common objection on the front end: what does C melodic minor have to do with E minor?
    Thanks. Seems like the theory gets a little frizzy around the edges there.

    Here we have the idea that the second chord D# G B can be seen as coming from EHM. Or, for that matter EMM. If you view it as an EMM chord then you can (per Levine and others) sub in every other chord that uses only notes from that scale. That doesn't include Balt, but, in fact, it sounds fine to me when I try it. So, the theory makes a very useful point, i.e. that the second chord can be thought of as coming from a different scale, which opens up reharm possibilities.

    But, at the same time, the theory we have been talking about doesn't account for all the possibilities and there may well be things suggested by the theory that don't sound very good.
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 10-16-2019 at 07:21 PM.

  13. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    cana
    Thanks. Seems like the theory gets a little frizzy around the edges there.

    Here we have the idea that the second chord D# G B can be seen as coming from EHM. Or, for that matter EMM. If you view it as an EMM chord then you can (per Levine and others) sub in every other chord that uses only notes from that scale. That doesn't include Balt, but, in fact, it sounds fine to me when I try it. So, the theory makes a very useful point, i.e. that the second chord can be thought of as coming from a different scale, which opens up reharm possibilities.

    But, at the same time, the theory we have been talking about doesn't account for all the possibilities and there may well be things suggested by the theory that don't sound very good.
    Yeah. That's where melodic minor is used pretty differently. It's not used in a traditional functional way. B altered is used for altered dominant functions relative to Em, not really as much with functional relationships to C minor.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    B altered is used for altered dominant functions relative to Em, not really as much
    with functional relationships to C minor.


    VII7 to either I minor or I major is not an unusual move.
    Here's a melodic minor sequence:

    B7alt > CmMa7 > B7alt > CmMa9

    X B D# A D X .......... X C G B Eb X ........... B X A C F X ........... X Eb B D G X

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    yes.

    Sorry. I'm saying it in somewhat of a confusing way probably. I was just kind of trying to answer the common objection on the front end: what does C melodic minor have to do with E minor?
    great vid..thanks for taking the time to "explain" concepts that take most players years to incorporate in their playing..

    the "jigsaw puzzle" approach to harmony just dosent work for many and it seems to only create more confusion and fustration..

    Ripping apart the major scale and learning harmonizing the chords embedded in it..in all positions and inversions-and in ALL KEYS..becomes the base for more advanced harmonic (and melodic) concepts..yes--its alot of work..(it took me years to feel comfortable with some keys (Gb Bmaj Db)

    In doing so you will begin to see obvious and subtle connections between keys and chord movement and then you begin to see/hear moving voices and chord changes that result from same..and then--the mixture of both..

    when you rip apart some of the classic standards that master musicians and composers wrote..many of their melodic lines can be harmonized in several different ways..and still work !! here is where the illusive "experimentation" comes in..its like discovering secrets of music..and all rules and methods be dammed..its the ole' "if it sounds good.." it works..

    one thing that is confusing to many is the use of minor scales within a major key...the three minor chords and the mi7b5--plus the synthetic Harmonic/melodic/and others- are a treasure of discovery to be had for those who explore the depths of mixing these scales and chords in and out of their tonal range and chord functions..and the realization that you may be in very different key which allows resolution with out any preperation-(ii7 - V7 type cadence)..but will lead you back to the origional key..or not...

    over time and practice of course..you may begin to travel without fear of getting lost in these harmonic realms..

    thanks again for the video...

  16. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by wolflen
    when you rip apart some of the classic standards that master musicians and composers wrote..many of their melodic lines can be harmonized in several different ways..and still work !! here is where the illusive "experimentation" comes in..its like discovering secrets of music..and all rules and methods be dammed..its the ole' "if it sounds good.." it works..
    Yeah. I definitely love the discovering secrets part. It's funny. After after talking some of this the other day, I looked at some tunes that have that major chord CESH thing going (make someone happy/wee small honours) and realised that it's basically the same as the minor chord patterns, just repelled as 6 chords instead of minor.

    Went from being something that I hated because it felt limiting and cheesy to something very cool that I could play with a lot more options and freedom. And all immediately, by just making a connection,versus having to practice something new a lot.

    I like that: discovering the secrets of music.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Yea... Matt, your really sounding great. Pretty good breakdown of how I approach playing. Once you get through the door.... playing becomes pretty easy. Of course there's more, but you seem to get the basic approach of using Function as means of creating motion for playing, both comping or soloing.

    It works with.... complete analysis type of musicians like me...or just being in the moment and bouncing off whatever works approach. Point being, it's not a theoretical way of playing.... It's a method of labeling chords. Can be as simple as calling all chords.... an "A" "B" or "C" chord. Not maj, min dom etc... Tonic, Subdominant or Dominant.

    Those labels imply a type of movement or non movement, (Static), or at least the perception of. You do need an analysis or some method of defining the movement, Some like gravity, tonal Gravity... When you begin to expand the use... theory comes more in to play. Theory is just musical organization.

    And as Matt seem to be doing... once you understand how the guitar is designed, you use a fretboard organization system that uses that guitar design for playing music.

    Part of what helps me make tunes work, harmonically etc. I perform from analysis. I choose or select, (or someone else or something chooses), which and how chords and melodies function within.... THE FORM. Those choices tell me what are the levels of musical importance within a tune. This creates rhythmic, the harmonic rhythm, the functional harmonic rhythm of a tune. It can change, but there is a basic starting point. The Reference, can be harmonic, melodic, rhythmic, dynamic, articulative... whatever.

    I then can start creating musical relationships. Matt was using Diatonic subs as a means of expanding basic changes of a line cliche.

    As I was reading through the thread, RP mentioned seeing C7susb13 C7_9... In isolation, I would just assume V7susb13 to V7b9 which could be, G-7b5 to C7b9... basic Harmonic Minor II V. If the _9 means something else... I would just hear it. In a tune... the analysis would make the choice pretty obvious, from quick analysis.

    So I guess the answer to Philidor's question would be...

    1) you need a system to be able to organize and create voicings. ( based on the guitar), that repeats and transposes.
    1a) you need a system of being able to realize those voicings...(fretboard organization)
    2) Then the performance thing... a system of performing the voicings live. (how to use the voicings)

    1) and 1a)... I use 12 fret repeating patterns with 6th string root positions scale degrees and implied chords. The 7 positions as basic starting reference for organizing the space within those 12 frets and 6 strings. This doesn't mean I play scales etc... if you ever watch my playing, I jump all over and play more in the arpeggio style. I play notes that imply chords. There are only three basic types of Function right. The rest is just what you want to play.
    I use complete note collections... all the scales and arpeggios. (that does't mean you need to play them all). I'm not big on embellishments without organization. Organization could just be what you know and like and then the results of what your able to play... as long as it can repeat.
    2) When comping I use the "style", (Christian reference), to start with, and usually comp with lead lines, (just the top note of chords I choose to play), melodic lead lines, somewhat like what Matt was doing, top note of voicings connected with melodic figures from implied harmony. I generally use groove figures above my Chord Patterns. They tend to help imply the style and harmonic motion.
    And then, what Matt was also getting into, organizational expansions of single chords to becoming Chord Patterns that have the same Functional harmonic implications. (all the different approaches for creating subs... or just expanding one chord to having a harmonic life within it's self).

    Matt was using diatonic 3rd above and below, relative and parallel organizations. I just have some more levels of expanding harmony.

    His Line Cliche Emin with descending line E Eb D C# became E-7, A7alt. E-7 A7. I use Modal Interchange for organizing the expanding of the Line to become complete note collections.
    Basic Choices,
    E-7, aeolian, (and anything from the reference)
    B7alt. super Locrian, (or whatever you want to label) Could use F7#11, right.. or a chord pattern
    E-7 Dorian
    A7 mixo

    I could then expand those chord choices... create chord patterns from each chord, Or I could change the basic starting chords developed from the line cliche. I also use rhythm and create patterns within patterns. Strong beats and weak beats.

    So just like eventually the fretboard becomes just one 12 fret pattern that repeats, so do chord patterns with different lead lines. You can just play instinctively... hear sounds, or you can be conscious, like me and make choices and know where you want to go harmonically using Tonal Targets. The important locations within the Form of the tune your playing.

    And when your comping you make choices based on the analysis or just how you hear the tune, the melody and basic changes. To create your comping part. And when someone solos... you listen and interact with them.

    There are reasons why music begins to have feel, a groove etc... especially in rhythm sections.

    Again cool vid Matt.... thanks

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    I think I posted a sort of framing question elsewhere to forum participants which is 'how important to you is the study of stylistic harmony?'

    I want to ask that because there's often discussion of what is possible (and a lot is possible) but what is actually done within that framework depends on your tastes and ... the style of the music. The way you teach or study will be different depending on which.

    So, things like diminished 7th chord and whole tone scales to me are stylistic. I like them in some gigs I play, and tend to avoid them in others.

    So, I would say style is quite important to me. Do I take this tune to church? Am I referencing the 1930s? Or is it more 60s? Am I going for a more contemporary sound? This sounds very intellectual, but actually it just sort of happens naturally. Push an acoustic guitar into my hands and put a violin or clarinet on stage with me, and I almost can't help sounding a certain way. Put me on stage with a post-Trane style sax player and I wouldn't even think to play the same chord voicings. I suppose you could say this is too much like being a session musician, and a jazz musician has an identity and voice that is individual.

    So to what extent when are you listening to music and boning up on theory are you learning history or epochs, or just taking what appeals for your own sound?

    How much is it affected by the communities which you play in? For me it's all affected... I mean I never wanted to play 1930s music particularly, it's just that's the music that I knew everyone was playing at that time. But I also find the history interesting now as a result of having to cover those gigs.

    I sometimes wonder if I should have just done my thing and let the chips fall where they may..... otoh I think understanding history has made me a stronger player over all, not that I think it necessary to check this out to be a strong player.

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Lastly I think what is interesting about Barry Harris is he teaches idiom. Almost no one does this in jazz.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Yea Christian... I was trying to support your point. There is another thread I saw about being embarrassed about not knowing tunes and part of knowing tunes is knowing and understanding "styles". This awareness can influence all aspects of how one performs tunes.

    So when performing, your either entertaining with the music or your performance skills. Besides the common background BS.

    I gig with lots of different bands, singers etc... I can entertain with my playing, which is just a skill thing and being aware of the audience and how to bring them into the performance, or By playing the tunes, the music which brings them in. So maybe at smaller venue where the audience is close etc... you or the band is asked to perform a tune from specific musician, monk or Herbie... whom ever. The point is they're into the music, the stylistic thing becomes the focus, the feel and locking in etc... Or you notice that there are a bunch of guitar geeks at gig... and are digging your playing... so you go off on your personal burnin skills, ( obviously with feeling, in the moment, balanced and extremely musical...), point I'm entertaining with my playing, the stylistic thing becomes secondary.

    And yes, comping and what voicings you use can be part of that.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Sure, I understand. I think it's an interesting question to ask oneself though - how do you listen?