Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 50 of 185
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    I'm a mainly blues/rock guitar player who have developed an interest of more advanced chords and harmonies lately. I stumbled across this video with Jack Pearson who shortly demonstrates a harmonization of a scale. I know how to harmonize a scale in generel, but he seems to get some more colorful chords.

    Could someone point me in the direction of what the theory is behind his approach?

    He starts playing the scale at 1:32


  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    He plays (Ab major)

    x x 1 1 1 1
    x x 1 1 1 3
    x x 3 3 4 4 *
    x x 5 5 6 6
    x x 6 8 6 8

    So - all of these chords are Ab major. Basically. Jazz versions of Ab major. Lets not get too hung up the names of them. I wouldn't bother thinking about it myself - I often play chords I don't even have a good name for - I think that sort of stuff gets in the way of just doing it.

    There's not much theory here if any. What you need to know is two things - the Ab major scale along one string, and a bunch of Ab major type shapes that you can back it up with. You also probably should know which melody note is the tonic note, the 1 of the key, Ab. It's the one with the * on. That might be a bit weird at first because you are probably use to thinking about the bottom of the chord, not the top note.

    So, categorise all of these chords as 'a version of Ab major with this melody note on top. Once you collect enough of these shapes, you can start to improvise chord melodies on a given chord. A first step might be to take the chords in this example and mix them up, see what you come up with. Then, maybe transpose them to different keys, such as Bb or C.

    We might also want a whole scale. The one note in the Ab major scale that doesn't quite fit over an Ab chord is the note Db. If you notice in the video he doesn't play that note. So I'm going to skip over it.

    x x 1 1 1 1
    x x 1 1 1 3
    x x 3 3 4 4
    x x 5 5 6 6
    x x 6 8 6 8
    x x 10 10 11 11

    If you wanted to play it, you could use a diminished seventh chord. The general rule, is any note that you don't know what to do with, play a dim7. Good enough for Wes, good enough for me. Also, there's only one shape, so hey, easy.

    x x 1 1 1 1
    x x 1 1 1 3
    x x 3 3 4 4 *
    x x 5 5 6 6 *
    x x 6 8 6 8
    x x 8 9 8 9 (dim 7)
    x x 10 10 11 11 *

    Now you can play a chord behind each melody note of a tune in Ab major, right?

    Speaking of theory - this is something people getting into jazz don't expect because they see learning as learning more stuff. Often in jazz it's learning contexts. As you get to know more shapes, you are going to find shapes pop up in different guises. Look at the shapes I've marked with a * - the same right, different frets? All of them do for an Ab major in this setting. Weird, huh?

    Another example - all of these shapes would do for Fm7.

    That might bake your noodle, because I think guitarists in blues and rock often think shape = chord as a 1:1 relationship. You see C major, you play a C major shape. Jazz (and funk) players learn that shapes pop up again and again in different places.

    (Here's a hint - Fm/Ab pentatonic scale. You know the box. Look at the chords. Compare. Relate this to what you already know.)

    Above all, have fun, and play things that sound good to you.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    There are parallel harmonizations of a scale. Once the first structure is chosen then the story is already
    written, each note proceeds to the next scale note.

    There are ways to present the scale as a harmonized variations of a given chord type
    (as in example above).

    There are chord pair harmonizations. Two adjacent triads cover 6 of seven notes leaving one more
    structure to finish. Two adjacent scale derived 7th chords present all 7 notes of the scale through
    inversions and have one common tone.

    Eight note scales provide two seventh chords with no common tones.

    Scales can also be harmonized combining chords drawn from multiple harmonic sources.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    There are parallel harmonizations of a scale. Once the first structure is chosen then the story is already
    written, each note proceeds to the next scale note.

    There are ways to present the scale as a harmonized variations of a given chord type
    (as in example above).

    There are chord pair harmonizations. Two adjacent triads cover 6 of seven notes leaving one more
    structure to finish. Two adjacent scale derived 7th chords present all 7 notes of the scale through
    inversions and have one common tone.

    Eight note scales provide two seventh chords with no common tones.

    Scales can also be harmonized combining chords drawn from multiple harmonic sources.
    There is a lot in this post. A thread unto itself.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Explanations given so far are spot on. The harmonizations he showed are very common in jazz chord melodies and comping. Like Christian said they are all different ways to play Ab major 7.
    A major chord can be substituted with it's relative minor or with 3 minor. There are more but relative minor is the only substitution he uses. For Ab major that's F minor.
    Here is another way to look at them. First chord is F minor7 (Ab6), second is F min 9 (Abmaj7), third is Ab 6/9, fourth is Ab6, fifth is Fmin7 (inversion).

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    Explanations given so far are spot on. The harmonizations he showed are very common in jazz chord melodies and comping. Like Christian said they are all different ways to play Ab major 7.
    A major chord can be substituted with it's relative minor or with 3 minor. There are more but relative minor is the only substitution he uses. For Ab major that's F minor.
    Here is another way to look at them. First chord is F minor7 (Ab6), second is F min 9 (Abmaj7), third is Ab 6/9, fourth is Ab6, fifth is Fmin7 (inversion).
    Sshhh

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Schuster7 View Post
    I'm a mainly blues/rock guitar player who have developed an interest of more advanced chords and harmonies lately. I stumbled across this video with Jack Pearson who shortly demonstrates a harmonization of a scale. I know how to harmonize a scale in generel, but he seems to get some more colorful chords.

    Could someone point me in the direction of what the theory is behind his approach?

    He starts playing the scale at 1:32

    I'll take a shot at trying to provide some useful theory.

    I iiim vim can be considered (as tonic chords) interchangeable. That's Abmaj7, Cm7 and Fm7 in this case. You can add Ebmaj7, although it makes the statement of theory a little more complicated.

    You can usually add 6 and 9 to the major chord, an F and a Bb. Also,the major 7th, G.

    So, now, with just those little fragments of theory, what can you play at the first fret?

    xx1111 works, since it's Fm7. You can add the maj7 (thinking from Ab, not F) and get xx1113.

    If you add a Bb you can get xx1311 or xx1313.

    These will all sound like Ab tonic chords, if the bassist plays Ab. If the bass plays an F, they will sound more like Fm7, Fm11, or Fm9.

    You won't get much at the second fret, but there are options at the third fret. You've got Cm7, Abmaj7, Fm9 and more. I'd point out x36343. There are lots of variations available.

    You can go up the neck and find lots of options, just using the basic I iii vi and the added 6 nat 7 and 9.
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 11-09-2019 at 04:47 PM.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    Well, so far I've looked at about 12 or 13 different sites, including Wiki, to see if I'm missing something. They all, without exception, say harmonising the scale is the usual stacking of 3rds, which we all know. So C = C Dm Em F G, etc etc. No problem.

    So what Pearson is doing isn't harmonising the scale at all. He's simply finding different voicings to go underneath the Ab scale played on the 1st string. And they're not 3rds. He does it very nicely but it's not harmonising the scale.

    In fact, I'm not sure he's not voicing the Eb scale...



    And don't trust a guy with long, dirty fingernails on his fretting hand either! :-)
    Last edited by ragman1; 11-08-2019 at 11:16 PM.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    Well, so far I've looked at about 12 or 13 different sites, including Wiki, to see if I'm missing something. They all, without exception, say harmonising the scale is the usual stacking of 3rds, which we all know. So C = C Dm Em F G, etc etc. No problem.

    So what Pearson is doing isn't harmonising the scale at all. He's simply finding different voicings to go underneath the Ab scale played on the 1st string. And they're not 3rds. He does it very nicely but it's not harmonising the scale.



    And don't trust a guy with long, dirty fingernails on his fretting hand either! :-)
    That's the first thing I think of.

    The second thing is starting with a voicing and moving each note to the next one in the scale. In Cmaj, start with xx7788. I've always thought of this as harmonizing the scale in 4ths.

    For melodic minor, there's no avoid note, so you can start with any cluster of, say, 4 notes, and move that voicing up through the scale. All the resulting voicings will be, arguably, interchangeable. I got this partly from Mark Levine's book.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    I know all that. By the way, are you sure that's the Ab scale he's doing? Or the Eb scale? The Db is missing so it's ambiguous.

    Just wondering.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Harmonizing a scale to me means applying intervals or chord(s) to the melodic note collection of the scale.
    It is no more required to harmonize a scale with parallel structures than it is to do so for a melody.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Harmonizing a scale to me means applying intervals or chord(s) to the melodic note collection of the scale.
    It does, but it's defined as doing it by 3rds.

    I know it can be done in 4ths, or anything you like, but that's not how it's generally understood. Which probably doesn't matter but I think we should be clear about what we're doing. I don't say eat when I mean drink, or drink when I mean eat :-)

    In any case, harmonising Ab major in 4ths would look like this:

    Ab Db G C
    Bb Eb Ab Db
    C F Bb Eb
    Db G C F
    Eb Ab Db G
    F Bb Eb Ab
    G C F Bb
    Ab Db G C

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    It does, but it's defined as doing it by 3rds.

    I know it can be done in 4ths, or anything you like, but that's not how it's generally understood. Which probably doesn't matter but I think we should be clear about what we're doing. I don't say eat when I mean drink, or drink when I mean eat :-)
    Sorry if I sounded condescending. I didn't mean to.

    What is it called when you do it in something other than thirds?

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    In post #3 I defined multiple approaches to harmonizing a scale.
    Although they have differences to me they all part of the same game.
    Please feel free to embrace whatever division of definition serves you well.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar View Post

    What is it called when you do it in something other than thirds?
    No idea. Probably still harmonising but adding 'in 4ths' or whatever it is.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by bako View Post
    Please feel free to embrace whatever division of definition serves you well.
    I tend not to do that because nobody will know what I'm talking about.

    But what Mr. Pearson is doing isn't sticking to one idea throughout. He starts with an Fm7, probably just plays the G by itself, and then plays Ab69.

    I think he's just finding nice voicings to match the scale. Which isn't the same as applying one harmonisation idea throughout. I'm not saying he should do that either, it's up to him.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Basically, I think by using the word harmonising he's confused the OP... that's about it :-)

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Schuster7 View Post

    Could someone point me in the direction of what the theory is behind his approach?
    I think it's the theory of whatever sounds good borrowed from here and there :-)

    What he's actually doing is playing a cliche. In G, that's GM7 - Am7 - G/B. But he's starting on the Em, so Em7 - F#m7b5 - GM7 - Am7 - G/B. Except he's doing it in Ab and putting the scale note on the top string.

    So Fm7 - Gm7b5 - AbM7 - Bbm7 - Ab/C. But 69's are easier to play for him (he has a wrist mobility problem) so it's

    Fm7 - (note G) - Ab69 - Bb69 (ambiguously minor) - Ab6 inversion with Ab root and C on top (xx6868).

    So nothing's being 'harmonised', he's just playing certain voicings under the scale notes, that's all. Like all players do. The reason it sounds 'cool' is because those 69 (quartal) sounds are being introduced. Otherwise it's the usual thing.

    (Which he does very nicely, by the way, I'm not putting him down one little bit).

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    I don't really care how other sources define harmonizing scales. It's not like there is an authoritative source on the term. But to me it's not a term, it's a description and that's exactly what he is doing in the video.
    This is harmonizing scales in the sense that one would harmonize a melody. There are no strict rules like you have to use stack of 3rds when you're harmonizing a melody. Here he is taking the scale as the melody. You can harmonize a scale note with a major 9th chord where the 9 is the melody or using quartal harmony or just with 6th interval etc. etc.
    I think that's the skill that's more relevant to real life chord melody harmonization.

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    So nothing's being 'harmonised', he's just playing certain voicings under the scale notes, that's all. Like all players do. The reason it sounds 'cool' is because those 69 (quartal) sounds are being introduced. Otherwise it's the usual thing.
    Of course it is. Everytime you play a chord you're harmonizing a melody note. Otherwise comping would be just jumping around. Listen to good compers, they are playing a melody.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    You're giving a wider meaning to the word harmonising. That's fine, but what most people mean is creating chords from a scale by stacking notes, the most general way being in 3rds. Western music is tertiary. Of course it can be done differently, like using 4ths or 5ths, but that's an alternative method used to produce certain effects. If all our music was only harmonised in 4ths it wouldn't be that pleasant. We'd be back in the Middle Ages or something.

    Every skilled chord melody arrangement uses different colours - and the occasional discord - to make it interesting and attractive to the ear. But when talking about harmonisation generally it means what we said, creating chords from notes in the scale, usually by 3rds. This is indisputable.


  23. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    Well, so far I've looked at about 12 or 13 different sites, including Wiki, to see if I'm missing something. They all, without exception, say harmonising the scale is the usual stacking of 3rds, which we all know. So C = C Dm Em F G, etc etc. No problem.

    So what Pearson is doing isn't harmonising the scale at all. He's simply finding different voicings to go underneath the Ab scale played on the 1st string. And they're not 3rds. He does it very nicely but it's not harmonising the scale.

    In fact, I'm not sure he's not voicing the Eb scale...



    And don't trust a guy with long, dirty fingernails on his fretting hand either! :-)
    This is silly.

    What would you call it then? The thing from the OP? The thing we all understand and are talking about it? Give it a name.

    Oh, and furthermore, whatever name you decide upon has to be verifiable as a musical "thing" from other credible courses such as Wikipedia or else it's not legitimate.

    Go.
    Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 11-09-2019 at 10:56 AM.

  24. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    You're giving a wider meaning to the word harmonising. That's fine, but what most people mean is creating chords from a scale by stacking notes, the most general way being in 3rds. Western music is tertiary. Of course it can be done differently, like using 4ths or 5ths, but that's an alternative method used to produce certain effects. If all our music was only harmonised in 4ths it wouldn't be that pleasant. We'd be back in the Middle Ages or something.

    Every skilled chord melody arrangement uses different colours - and the occasional discord - to make it interesting and attractive to the ear. But when talking about harmonisation generally it means what we said, creating chords from notes in the scale, usually by 3rds. This is indisputable.

    If we're going to be engaging in Wikipedia fascism , then try Googling "harmonize a melody" . See if it yields only harmonizing melody notes with diatonic thirds stacked under them the way you're talking about. That's not what "harmonizing " means.
    Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 11-09-2019 at 10:24 AM.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    Well, so far I've looked at about 12 or 13 different sites, including Wiki, to see if I'm missing something. They all, without exception, say harmonising the scale is the usual stacking of 3rds, which we all know. So C = C Dm Em F G, etc etc. No problem.

    So what Pearson is doing isn't harmonising the scale at all. He's simply finding different voicings to go underneath the Ab scale played on the 1st string. And they're not 3rds. He does it very nicely but it's not harmonising the scale.

    In fact, I'm not sure he's not voicing the Eb scale...



    And don't trust a guy with long, dirty fingernails on his fretting hand either! :-)
    If a chord is harmony and you play a chord (any chord) under a melody note then it seems to me you are harmonizing the melody. What else could you possibly call it? I don't understand your position at all.

    “It ain't what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Mark Twain.

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    You're all going bananas!

    I said the definition of 'harmonising the scale' (which is what was originally said) is stacking in 3rds. I've already said I googled it. No less than 13 sites said the same, including Wiki. It was never about 'harmonising a melody'.

    I've already said that harmonising a melody, as in chord melody arrangements, meant using whatever sounds you want (see #21).

    I also said, which I think you're missing, is that the OP (where is he?) was getting confused between the two because Pearson said 'harmonising the scale'. The OP already knew about the 3rds stuff but he said he thought Pearson was using different chords and sounds and he wanted to understand that.

    Jack Pearson who shortly demonstrates a harmonization of a scale. I know how to harmonize a scale in generel, but he seems to get some more colorful chords.
    That's all, it's all very simple :-)

  27. #26
    Something occurring more often on Wikipedia or other sites isn't proof of anything per se. Proofs aren't required for this kind of conversation honestly.

    "Harmonized scales" are going to be found more often , as you say, on Wikipedia etc. that doesn't change the fact that everyone can understand what was meant in the original post where someone talked about "harmonizing scale". Bako's post made a lot of sense in outlining different ways, including the one that you're mostly talking about.

    You should know how to create harmonized scales in the traditional sense , and you should also learn to harmonize all scales degrees in similar ways using other harmony , including static chords, chord pairs etc., the way Bako laid out. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you collect , but a great many of us learned to harmonize individual chords this way by practicing them in ascending and descending melodic fashion , in actual melodic scales.

    The fact that there is no codified, agreed-upon and standard term for this that you can find on Wikipedia , doesn't mean that you can't use the term. In as much as you can harmonize melodies in different ways, you can also harmonize scales in different ways and practice them that way.

    Call it "Chordy McChord Face" if you like, but this is ridiculous derail of a good topic into nitpicking semantics .

  28. #27

    User Info Menu

    I didn't draw the distinction because I'm a nitpicker, Matt, I did it because that seemed to be, or was, the OP's confusion.

    And, as I keep asking, where has he gone?!!

  29. #28

    User Info Menu

    See, the thing is that I think he'll now have a problem. If it was simply a matter of harmonising each melody note in, say, 3rds, according to the scale, he could probably work it out for himself.

    But if, as we're saying, it's about applying whatever chord voicings sound good/cool/whatever then he won't really know what to do. But that's the problem that besets all chord melody players. The answer to that, of course, is experience and study, but it takes a long time to master.

  30. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    Well, so far I've looked at about 12 or 13 different sites, including Wiki, to see if I'm missing something. They all, without exception, say harmonising the scale is the usual stacking of 3rds, which we all know. So C = C Dm Em F G, etc etc. No problem.

    So what Pearson is doing isn't harmonising the scale at all. He's simply finding different voicings to go underneath the Ab scale played on the 1st string. And they're not 3rds. He does it very nicely but it's not harmonising the scale.
    you're a bit confused. you're talking about harmonizing the scale from the bottom. the scale notes become roots of chords that are created by stacking thirds on top of the root.

    the other guys talk about the scale as the top notes of chords. try creating chords that have the root on top by stacking thirds and report back.

  31. #30

    User Info Menu

    you're talking about harmonizing the scale from the bottom
    sigh...

    I said that was the traditional way chords are derived and that was the way the OP appeared to be understanding it.

    I pointed out that Pearson, although he said he was 'harmonising the scale', wasn't doing that, whether from the top, bottom, or anywhere else. Some of his chords were based on 3rds, like the Fm7. Others, like the 69 voicings, weren't. Hence the OP's confusion.

    This conversation is over, really. If you want to go on with it, address yourself to the OP's original question. That would be better. But he may not hear you :-)

  32. #31

    User Info Menu

    for me this is the use of the term "harmonized scale"

    as stated by most here..the traditional way is stacking 3rds (triads and four note chords) now using a different voicing of the chord (inversion) does not change the term harmonized scale just the way the chords are voiced within the scale..stacked 3rds in this sence are replaced with inversion voicings..

    What Jack is doing in not in a "scale" harmonized but changing the voicings of a given chord..Ab triad AbMA7 MA9 11 etc..now if he moved those voicings to the next chord in the scale Bbmi and altered the various voicings of Bbmi Bbmin7 9 11.. then I would begin to see/hear the Ab SCALE being harmonized in a non traditional( stacked 3rds) way..ie CM7 C G B E becomes E B C G and the rest of the scale has the same voicing intervals..thus harmonized..

    true some of the fingerings are far more difficult..but the results are a harmonized scale...and at any given point in this you can change voicings from a MA7 and make it a MA9th and use that config for the remaining chords in the scale CMa9 Dmi9 Emi9 etc...which would be the starting point of what I think Jack was doing
    play well ...
    wolf

  33. #32

    User Info Menu

    Ok it’s not a systematised harmonisation, on the other hand it is a harmonisation in the sense of adding harmony to a melody line.

    In practice I think most guitarists do what sits easily under the fingers for speed and ease of access rather than something textbook. This is certainly true of Wes, joe pass etc.... even Kurt from what I have transcribed.

    Players who spend a lot of time playing advanced voicings tend to have a very developed left hand technique for that.... look at Lage Lund, Ben Monder, Pasquale Grasso. Lots of advanced fingerings and non parallel motion....

    OTOH proper jazzers like Kurt, Reiner Baas and Wes grab the neck with their thumb over the top. They tend to use more parallel voicings like the above? Often parallel fifths, sevenths and seconds for modernism?

    Just a theory....
    Last edited by christianm77; 11-10-2019 at 05:02 AM.

  34. #33

    User Info Menu

    The example also shows the very guitaristic sounds - basically it’s 4ths and major thirds that are easiest to play in guitar voicings, so most traditional jazz guitar sounds like that. Think Wes, and so on.

    To get away from that requires in general, stretches, string skips and/or open strings....

    It’s a bit of a problem in some ways. Am I the only one who thinks contemporary classical guitar pieces have a tendency to sound like standard tuning?

    It seems some here seem to feel that harmonisation requires similar or parallel motion - for instance the same melody down a third. This is bollocks.... it’s one strategy, but there is this guy, Bach, you might want to check out.

    That said I think fretboard solutions are not to be sniffed at, as I already said. Life’s too fucking short haha, and loads of great players just do it and don’t spend time nerding about this or that.

  35. #34

    User Info Menu

    Apart from not reading music (he admits to being able to find his way round a chord chart) Pearson has a wrist mobility problem due to an accident. He can't hold six-string bar chords with any strength or for very long so he said he's modified his fingering. So most of the stuff you see him doing is on the top four strings, etc. But most jazz players do that in any case, of course.

    Everything else you said is spot on. Good players don't care as long as it sounds okay. No one's interested in sticking to rigid principles. The idea is to make nice music.

    The problem, of course, is the beginner who needs some kind of structure in order to grasp how to play things. It must be very confusing when they can't just apply a blanket rule. It's what happens here, someone asks a simple question and gets twenty different answers, all viable...

  36. #35

    User Info Menu

    Yeah? Well I’ve got stupid fingers. So there.

    Also playing barre chords remains my least favourite thing. Besides, barre chords never sound better than playing fewer notes or adding in some open strings. I rarely use them.

    Thumb fretting sounds better if you must play 6 string shapes for some reason.

  37. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    I’ve got stupid fingers.
    Nice garden, tho.

  38. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    Nice garden, tho.
    I actually did some weeding and sweeping and wondered what I’ll plant in the spare beds this week.

    what is happening to me??????
    Last edited by christianm77; 11-10-2019 at 05:20 PM.

  39. #38
    Wow, that’s a lot of commentaries and I would like to thank each and every one of you, for your time and participation.

    So...a lot to unpack for me and a lot of good information, for me to somehow understand this little conundrum.

    I've got some really good general insight from “christianm77”. Thank you for that.
    It’s a really good way to explain, first of all what Mr. Pearson is doing in the video, but also how to approach these things, seen from my perspective.
    I don’t naturally bounce around in the world of jazz, but are truly fascinated by the sounds, the harmonics and the texture and would like to drag some of that into my world.
    But the trap I seem to fall in again and again, is to learn stuff and forget it again, because I don’t have this natural shelf to put it on.
    So what really caught my ear in the video, was the sentence “That opened a lot of doors for me…”. My first thought was “what #%&! doors?” It just gave me some new chords to remember and needed to be able to put in in context somehow.
    I of course know chords and how to build them, also to some degree what Mr. Pearson is doing. (I, II, III, IV, V ect.), and I also recognize most of the sounds, the m9, the 6/9ish, the m9 in some inversion, which we who plays rock calls “the one we rarely need”.

    So “ragman1” raises a really interesting point. Maybe Mr. Pearson isn’t harmonizing anything, but just plays some different voicings. That sounds absolutely plausible to me and a great way for me to approach it.
    He is a very skilled and experienced musician and most likely uses his ears and experience much more than a chord book. So I could do that too. “Listen up, rock band. This is a 6/9 chord and that’s the one I play from now on. Deal with it...”

    But “bako” and “tal_175” goes deep. They talk about different chord names relative to each other and parallel harmonization, which gives me even more ways to hopefully find my way to understand this better and even more, what comes after.

    My own experience tells me that there are always different ways to approach things and two things easily can be true at the same time. It’s just up to me to find the right way best suited for me, based on how I have approached things in the past and by all these great suggestions provided to me here.

    This was my first post in this forum and I’m overwhelmed by the enthusiasm and answers from you mentioned here and just as much from you not mentioned here.

    Thank you all again for your help.

    Ps. I’ll post this as an answer and hope that you all will see it that way.

    Last edited by Schuster7; 11-10-2019 at 04:36 PM.

  40. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    I actually did some weeding and sweeping and wondered what I’ll plant in the spare beds this week.

    what is happening to me??????
    Domestic bliss, dear boy, domestic bliss :-)

  41. #40

    User Info Menu

    Shuster7 -

    Good, I'm glad you're back.

    It just gave me some new chords to remember
    I think that is probably its best use.

    Pearson isn’t harmonizing anything, but just plays some different voicings
    That's right. Forget harmonising in the usual sense, he's just moving up the chords Fm7 - (Gm7b5) - AbM69 - Bbm69 - Ab6 inversion.

    As I said before, it's normally done with the scale note in the bass but here the scale notes are on top. I think that was the door that opened for him.

    most likely uses his ears and experience much more than a chord book
    That's true too. He doesn't read music, he's an 'ear' player. In some ways that's probably not a bad way to be, especially if you have a good ear, which I think he has.

    there are always different ways to approach things and two things easily can be true at the same time
    Exactly.

    But don't forget in chord melody playing - which is not easy - most chords have the melody on top and are supported by voicings underneath them.

    This forum has many lessons which deal with playing chordal melody. There are also study threads which many people find very useful. There are also lots of YouTube video transcriptions of good players which show you the fingerings of their solos.

    You searched for | Jazz Guitar Online | Free Jazz Guitar Lessons, Licks, Tips & Tricks.

    I can only wish you very good luck!

  42. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Schuster7 View Post
    I'm a mainly blues/rock guitar player who have developed an interest of more advanced chords and harmonies lately. I stumbled across this video with Jack Pearson who shortly demonstrates a harmonization of a scale. I know how to harmonize a scale in generel, but he seems to get some more colorful chords.

    Could someone point me in the direction of what the theory is behind his approach?

    He starts playing the scale at 1:32
    I don't know what all the discourse is here but @ 1:37 or so to 1:38 or so it is Ab 6 dim scale (Barry Harris)...period...end of discussion.
    If you can distinguish between rehearsing and practicing...you're better than half way there!

  43. #42

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    You're giving a wider meaning to the word harmonising. That's fine, but what most people mean is creating chords from a scale by stacking notes, the most general way being in 3rds. Western music is tertiary. Of course it can be done differently, like using 4ths or 5ths, but that's an alternative method used to produce certain effects. If all our music was only harmonised in 4ths it wouldn't be that pleasant. We'd be back in the Middle Ages or something.

    Every skilled chord melody arrangement uses different colours - and the occasional discord - to make it interesting and attractive to the ear. But when talking about harmonisation generally it means what we said, creating chords from notes in the scale, usually by 3rds. This is indisputable.
    In case you insist to the thirds, then make it big: There are augmented and diminished thirds too and there we go. Harmonizing melodic minor where the fun really begins.

  44. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by WILSON 1 View Post
    I don't know what all the discourse is here but @ 1:37 or so to 1:38 or so it is Ab 6 dim scale (Barry Harris)...period...end of discussion.
    It sounds similar, but it isn’t, he is not playing any diminished chords.

  45. #44

    User Info Menu

    Names are kind of bs

    The second chord is clearly Abmaj7/Eb for instance not Fm9 (there is no F) but of course it does for either.

    But how does that help us? Answer - it doesn’t.

  46. #45

    User Info Menu

    You don’t harmonise a scale in classical harmony using consecutive stacks of thirds, you’d get consecutives. You can do it with one third, but many composers would avoid that for various reasons. Classical part writing frowns on too much parallelism. You want independent melodies in theory at least....

    Stack of thirds are more of a jazz and pop thing. Block chords in big bands may have come from that practice - play the same melody down a third/fifth/sixth. That’s where the 8 note maj6 dim-scale comes in.... but that’s another thread.

  47. #46

    User Info Menu

    Maybe I missing something, but majority of the posts in its reasoning automatically assumes, that the scale tone is root, then the thirds built up, and completely disregards the possibility of inversions, what are also valid triads, even in the 300+ years old classical theory.

    Because the term harmonizing makes more sense on a melody, not on the bass note in the following I suppose the melody note is what progresses on the particular scale. But the very same reasoning could be true for the bass note.

    - So even limiting ourself (we should not) to classical triads, for all melody note we have three triad choices. (for melody C: C Major, F Major and a minor (corrected)) This itself gives us many usable progressions.

    - When going forward, but still in the triad stack (again, inversions are valid choices), and creating 7s, 9s 11s, 13s, and leaving out some notes, so got say 4 note harmonies, we got many jazz chords what we usually call completely different, like altered, or sus or / or polychord, but as Christian wrote names are not important this case, that is another topic.

    What I am trying to say, for each scale position we have 7 possible chords (7 thirds stacked, and any chord note can be the melody). This gives us 7*7 = 49 chord progressions for two steps and 7*7*7*7*7*7*7 for seven steps of the scale.

    All we need for all of the above is the classical third stack definition and inversions. The conclusion is that we can use practically any jazz voicing as long as we use scale notes, without violating the classical third stack definition.

    When we finished with this, and still want more, then we always can go forward and violate the classical rules, nothing is wrong in that.
    Last edited by Gabor; 11-11-2019 at 09:49 AM.

  48. #47

    User Info Menu

    You don’t harmonise a scale in classical harmony using consecutive stacks of thirds, you’d get consecutives. You can do it with one third, but many composers would avoid that for various reasons. Classical part writing frowns on too much parallelism. You want independent melodies in theory at least....
    This is very true in regards to the way independent part writing is taught in schools although greater
    leniency was allowed for parallel 1st inversion triads. Long before jazz existed as a word, classical method books have included parallel melodic presentations of scales as a basic technique exercise. Hanon style exercises are nothing but diatonic parallelism. So while independent voices was the guiding principle for part writing, diatonic parallelism was still presented as the clearest way to learn about inversions.
    Further forward, some classical music composers began incorporating constant structure parallelism
    into their compositions.

  49. #48

    User Info Menu

    An obvious example is just harmonising a scale using one of the primary triads, I IV and V or Ab, Db and Eb

  50. #49

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabor View Post
    violate the classical rules, nothing is wrong in that.
    Absolutely.


  51. #50

    User Info Menu

    To the OP. Don't let the ensuing discussion discourage you from learning jazz. Things tend to get abstract and philosophical really quick in this forum. It's fun to read and participate in these discussions, but they are not an indication of how one would typically approach playing jazz. Most jazz musicians, even the legends are/were a lot more pragmatic in the way they thought about their music than the discussion in this thread might imply.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 11-11-2019 at 11:51 AM.