-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
I've often read that you listen to the soloist and adjust your comping based on the extensions the soloist uses. I've always wondered about that. Who says that he's going to play the same extensions when that chord comes up again?
TBH, either I don't have the ears for that or it isn't that big a deal. I don't think about it much and I don't usually hear a problem. It may be that I tend to defer the pianist and I'm usually trying to find something else to do other than near-duplicate the piano comp.
-
09-27-2020 03:48 PM
-
Originally Posted by GTRMan
It's - are you a pro musician? That's a whole school of hard knocks and experience. Can you do the job?
Maybe a wedding. Would I call you to come and dep a gig, no rehearsal, turn up on time, read the charts well, adapt to contingencies, take good solos, not be a dick, play well, not antagonise the clients etc etc? There's a lot of stuff I can't even write down, that musicians use to judge other musicians.
You can't learn that shit in a school. Ask any pro.
But in terms of jazz edu has IMO a tendency to over-teach - to over systematise things that don't actually need to be systemised. Suggestions and resources become methodology and analysis. It's better to specify the tasks sometimes then specify the means. Also, students are not empty vessels waiting for information to be deposited.
For instance, you don't need to teach jazz students chord scale theory and jazz harmony. They all know that stuff by 18. ALL OF THEM; it's all over the internet and YouTube. I don't think I've ever had to teach any of my students the melodic minor modes. What they need from me is not simply information; there's plenty of that.
-
Originally Posted by Cunamara
In general, when the 5 (perfect fifth not augmented) is in the chord the b13 isn't, and vice versa. Avoids the minor 9th interval.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Originally Posted by christianm77
Originally Posted by christianm77
Originally Posted by christianm77Last edited by GTRMan; 09-27-2020 at 10:19 PM.
-
Yeah, I actually agree with your last sentence :-).
I don't think our understanding is really that far apart.... I think the difference might be that you think the value of jazz schools is in the syllabus and information, whereas in fact they are in what Polanyi calls the 'tacit' knowledge of the educators, and the environment of playing music. The syllabus can be helpful of course, but it's never the primary learning activity.
This is widely known: Rick Beato for instance makes that point well in this video 'the lick that killed jazz.'
However, the syllabus and textbooks become widely available, which is great, but people then make the mistake of thinking that these are the most important things about learning the music.
(There's also problems with the actual information... if you study with Barry for instance, you will quickly learn that the standardised versions of Rhythm Changes and Bebop Blues you see in pretty much all mainstream jazz edu materials do not represent the changes actually played by Charlie Parker. The standard changes of the bop blues in most textbooks etc don't even present a good fit for a tune like Au Private or Billie's Bounce... We shouldn't need Barry to tell us this.
Commonly used texts get it wrong all the time; the Omnibook is famously full of mistakes; I see a large part of transcribing tunes as basically fact checking the Real Book. Proper jazz musicians know this...)
As the adage goes 'the textbooks are the records. With specific reference to harmony, and undoing the illusion of the primacy of chord symbols, I have found an effective way of teaching students is to tell them to go away and listen to favourite players and see what they notice. In this way I discovered that Chet Baker consistently outlines Ebmaj7 on the Eb7 in Out of Nowhere.
You could run a class like this - go away and get your students to collect strategies for negotiating bar 6 of a Rhythm Changes, for example - and pool the knowledge. You could even write a textbook on jazz soloing together over the course of a term; it wouldn't be any more work for the tutor and students would learn far more - and your actually good students are already doing that anyway. (I mean, the Berklee students that wrote the Real Book probably learned more than the students that simply read it, right?)
-
So, duh, obviously the G7#5 in a minor key comes from the fact that we often refer to the chord G B Eb in the C minor key as being an 'augmented triad': in fact the only properly spelled augmented triad in the minor key is the III+, Eb G B, say, which is rare in classical music apparently.
Augmented triad - Wikipedia
In jazz, I hear aug triads a lot in early jazz; a great way of sounding like 20s and 30s music is to sub it frequently for V7. It is usually used to harmonise a blue third (b3) in tunes like Mood Indigo. In this case, the top note usually moves up a half step into the 3rd of the 1 chord. Other strategies for harmonising this very common melodic move include the cadential diminished chord.q
Probably best not to think about it too much, but I think that's the origin of the confusing # or +. It makes sense to write out it that way for players you have learned augmented triad voicings (look at the 'Eddie Lang' guitar method for instance for a typical syllabus of prewar harmony, and aug triads are very much in there.)
So you add a 7th to that, and you have our G7#5 chord, which was probably written G7+5 because of the augmented triad.
Harmonically, it suits itself to blues, whole tone and borrowed minor, and later, altered lines, so it's pretty flexible.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Yeah, did you read how Bert Ligon produced his book Connecting Chords with Linear Harmony? It was a project with students doing research and is a very valuable set of findings, find IMO.
And yes, jazz students have to transcribe, although analzying already completed transcriptions would probably cover more ground for the limited time available in a 4-year period, but whatever.
So, some educator's books don't have Charlie Parker's golden changes, eh? Or is it all of them? Did Joe Pass get Blues changes and Rhythm Changes "wrong" in his books? What about that point in general regarding jazz artists who produce/produced educational material? Are they all wrong too? Who got it right and who got it wrong? What are the golden changes anyway? We might as well get it over with and post them on the internet for all to see.
I've heard Barry talking about all these educators getting it wrong. He has set himself up as the man to listen to, the man with the plan, and that's why he's so easy to ignore. The self-appointed guru act gets old. Everyone has to kiss the ring, etc.
So name names please, which well known jazz books produced after 1970 have it wrong? Are there any jazz books that have it right, or is Barry the only one on earth who has it right?
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by GTRMan
The actual findings are worth less than the process. The process is where the learning happens. Besides, no one's checked out everything, and everyone thinks a little differently so every textbook will be a bit different. The aim is to obviously be a musician, not a scientist... so it's not so much about checking out a body of knowledge so much as it is about learning to hear and listen.
And yes, jazz students have to transcribe, although analzying already completed transcriptions would probably cover more ground for the limited time available in a 4-year period, but whatever.
It's about internalisation. But, submitted notation and analysis is easier to mark.
So, some educator's books don't have Charlie Parker's golden changes, eh? Or is it all of them? Did Joe Pass get Blues changes and Rhythm Changes "wrong" in his books? What about that point in general regarding jazz artists who produce/produced educational material? Are they all wrong too? Who got it right and who got it wrong? What are the golden changes anyway? We might as well get it over with and post them on the internet for all to see.
I've heard Barry talking about all these educators getting it wrong. He has set himself up as the man to listen to, the man with the plan, and that's why he's so easy to ignore. The self-appointed guru act gets old. Everyone has to kiss the ring, etc.
He's still right about the Parker changes. People say a lot of stuff and I've believed it and been caught out because I didn't check it out myself. But Barry is as far as been able to tell, always correct about Bird's music. (I haven't checked every Bird recording. He has.)
According to BH, this what Parker tends to play, which is borne out by the music of his I have checked out:
| F6 | Gm C7 | F6 | Cm7 F7 |
| Bb7 | (Bbm) | Am7 | D7 (or Abm7) |
| Gm7 | C7 | F6 Dm | Gm7 C7 |
It might not be what his accompanists also play incidentally... which is another limitation of chord symbol notation.
Another thing - Rhythm Changes. Parker plays
Bb | Cm7 F7 | Bb | Cm7 F7 |
OR, later
Bb (Gm7) | Cm7 F7 | Bb G7 | Cm7 F7 |
Not
Bb G7 | Cm7 F7 | Dm G7 | Cm7 F7 |
The Omnibook is a bit better here, the changes are reasonably accurate for Rhythm Changes and Blues.
So name names please, which well known jazz books produced after 1970 have it wrong? Are there any jazz books that have it right, or is Barry the only one on earth who has it right?
Part of the problem is that people start with seventh chords, so they have to call it whether it's a major or dominant chord. Parker's gen played a lot more bluesy on major chords, because the voicings were often 6ths or triads even.
That's why you need to get into the music. The textbooks and transcriptions are not 100% reliable. They have to be read critically, and the recordings themselves are definitive. Don't learn Donna Lee form the omnibook for example - learn it from the recording.
I'm sorry if this makes you upset. This is well understood by professional jazz musicians. Go to the source.
But you know, if by carefully listening to the music you have drawn different conclusions, I'd love to hear it.Last edited by christianm77; 09-28-2020 at 10:52 AM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
I think that:
The difference in the changes posted above is tantamount to splitting hairs. Fast harmonic rhythm and slight modifcation of chord quality? Big whoop.
Most people studying Parker today want to get the essence of his solo line construction, instead of becoming a carbon copy of him. (same with Trane). The music has moved forward and he sounds pretty dated by now
-
OK. I haven't read everything, but that's not going to keep me from weighing in on the academic debate. I think when academia gets involved with teaching ART and ARTIST that kind of points to the end of that art. Academia tries to codify. It's often taught by failed artists who might have various axes to grind. Jazz has turned a corner in the last 20-30 years or so. Great players, but much different from the musicians who played it in the 50s, 60s and 70s. It's become systematized and codified in often ridiculous ways. I teach. I taught in the jazz department of a university. University of the Pacific that hosted The Brubeck Institute. Great players, but a different mindset. Is it wrong? I don't know. It is for me.
It's not like going to school to get a degree in medicine, law, science. It's ART. You shouldn't try to codify artists. That's the death of the art itself.
-
There’s been plenty written on exactly what you just said Henry.
But my concern is less about educators who in my experience are great and mindful of these issues (and mostly players) but more about education product itself, which appears without context and people imagine that stuff is more important than it is.
try to systematise jazz and you get into the woods, start saying stuff which isn’t true, forcing square pegs into round holes.
It seems to me a profoundly unimaginative form of music education that thinks we have to systematise knowledge in that way. But you are an educator yourself, right?
-
By the way one book that influenced me a lot is Lave and Wenger’s Situated Learning which isn’t even about music education, but about traditional apprenticeships which usually take place in the area of professional practice rather than education per se.
It was an important book because up to that point educationalists thought apprenticeships had to do with direct pedagogy Master to Student. In fact, this is rarely the case, and there is often very little observable teaching.
Most jazz musicians I’ve talked to about this book find it lines up with their own experiences learning music.
Its less of a direct influence but I love the term ‘pseudomusic’ used in Keith Swanwick’s Teaching Music Musically, to refer to the music that typically gets played in music schools. The infamous Berklee Funk (tm) is a great example.....
-
Originally Posted by GTRMan
It’s not that the usual prog is ‘wrong’ it is that it is not a ‘bebop blues’ if by bebop we mean what Charlie Parker played.
A lot of music is in the details. By learning the details of other people’s music you become more attuned to detail in music generally.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
Traditions and knowledge are handed down from the old to the young, and it has always been so. Going to a university is just a modern thing to do, and a western thing to do. You could always have a bebop dojo where you stay full time, but then that's kind of like living on campus at a conservatory. The main problem in my mind are all the non-music classes, but high schools don't do the job with the "three Rs" as well as they used to.
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
Besides, artists tend to codify themselves to a very significant extent. It's called repeatability. There is significant repeatability in harmony, melody, and rhythmic practices, compositional forms, style and expression etc. over different periods of time. The periods which stand the test of time artistically are the ones that educators focus on in courses of study.
Finally, most musicians are performers not composers. They are not destined to break new artistic ground as much as they are destined to keep the flame.
I just don't see the problem, as long as messaging around objectives is clear.Last edited by GTRMan; 09-28-2020 at 02:30 PM.
-
Originally Posted by GTRMan
(Also, as I said NOONE actually learns to play jazz at music school. It’s just not enough time or the right environment of itself.)
The problem is people get hold of the textbooks and don’t realise this. They think in a very linear way that creates problems.
‘What do I play on this chord?’ should never be a question, because the answer to that question can always be found on the records. They do teach you this at the schools of course.
They pay it lip service in the books, but that’s not what the books are about or for.
Then you can apply what’s in the textbook from an educated position of how it’s done in the music.
Maybe this is obvious to some; but there a lot of people this not obvious to at all. Part of being a good musician is learning to take charge of your own learning and to engage critically with the published materials. I don’t think that’s terribly original or controversial as a viewpoint.
-
Originally Posted by GTRMan
(Also, as I said NOONE actually learns to play jazz at music school. It’s just not enough time or the right environment of itself.)
The problem is people get hold of the textbooks and don’t realise this. They end up thinking in a very linear way that creates problems. A book is linear and non interactive, so it’s easy to see how this arises.
‘What do I play on this chord?’ should never be a question, because the answer to that question can always be found on the records. (They do teach you this at the schools of course)
They pay it lip service in the books, but that’s not what the books are about or for. Books tend to ‘freeze’ knowledge, remove the experiential element, create an air of systematisation and authority.
But the best way as a learning player that you can apply what’s in the textbook is from an educated position of checking out how it’s done in the music itself; if the textbook seems to describe what is going on then that idea is useful. If not, it can be set aside for the moment.
Maybe this is obvious to some; but there a lot of people this not obvious to at all. Part of being a good musician is learning to take charge of your own learning and to engage critically with the published materials. I don’t think that’s terribly original or controversial as a viewpoint.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by GTRMan
No. they'd lose their license if they offered a curriculum like that. So you read transcriptions and study the bebop scale and modes with neighbor tones and tricks that bird might've done.Last edited by henryrobinett; 09-28-2020 at 04:44 PM.
-
What drives me absolutely BONKERS is seeing or adjudicating recitals where the student playing a TRANSCRIPTION of Ko-Ko or Confirmation or some Joe Pass or Metheny solo. Wow. WTF???? What absolute drivel is that? To ME jazz is about finding your OWN voice and playing YOUR OWN shit. Why in the world would a recital even ALLOW students to do this in a jazz class? Happens all the time. Not for a recittal. I taught a course in bebop. We used the Omnibook a lot. We read and analyzed a bunch of Bird solos. And Dizzy. And Bud and Monk. But it wasn't for the end of copying them. Getting the sound in our ears and under the fingers. Also I knew it would make the dean happy. But I never allowed my students to play that in a recital. That's not jazz.
-
I hear ya Henry. But I think jazz improv training/education or whatever you want to call it has moved forward, just my opinion. Some insightful material is out there that wasn't there decades ago. There are lots of teachers that can play too, depending on the school. Coastal big city schools especially, yada, yada.
On transcription, yeah that's interesting. I don't think it's recital material for a jury, just your teacher.
I guess one perspective is that you will improvise in improvisation classes (UNT has 4 semesters in undergrad) - AND - you will also improvise in your junior and senior recitals - at a minimum. But playing level-appropriate transcriptions throughout your undergrad still has value because hardly anyone will have reached the promised land (so to speak) prior to graduating. In other words, they will still have much to learn not only by the time they graduate but for some time after that, so should keep pluggin'. What is that, 8 transcribed solos for your entire academic life? That's not too bad. Another positive aspect is that you can choose your solo transcription and naturally will transcribe/play something that reasonably represents a target state for your own expression.
I know I'm beating a dead horse, but if person x can figure it out on their own, or hanging with their buds, or receiving mentoring from an expert coach, or all of the above, then that can be accomplsihed at a great school too. You just have to pick the right school and teachers.
-
I know there are great teachers who are also great players. I know lot of them. I was generalizing to make point. I know. Sorry. But I know there's great value in transcriptions. Yeah. I never did and I can play. It flew in the opposite direction of what I valued in jazz, which is why I think academia misses the ENTIRE point of jazz. They're trying to turn it into a western classical form. It's not. It was born out of bordellos and word of mouth, funerals and juke joints.
But how can you turn this massively huge and confusing GREAT ART into an academic subject worthy of a PHd? Transcribe the works of the great geniuses. Study them. Force a curriculum down students throats. But miss the point that the great geniuses didn't do any of that. They PLAYED. They failed, They played. They failed. They played.
Bird, Dizzy, Bud, Monk, Coltrane, Rollins, Art Tatum, Phineas Newborn weren't stupid people. They were brilliant. They carved out ways of playing that were unique and just awe inspiring. But they by and large were NOT playing and creating the systems being taught today. None of them had degrees and probably would flunk jazz theory. Who knows? Not Bud or Monk and Diz, but Bird. It's just Bud and Monk wouldn't or couldn't talk to you.
I know from first hand that the systems Mingus, Duke and Dolphy used; the way they thought about altered tones and extensions were NOT what is taught in schools ANYWHERE. They'd FLUNK. So many times looking at their music you can find a B natural in a C dominant chord. Often later transcriptions remove them as mistakes. NOPE.
-
A friend of mine did graduate study in physics at UC Berkeley.
He discontinued that education, went to medical school and has been a Professor for the last 20 years or so.
Why did he leave UCB? He said, "There were a few people that really understood it. The rest of us were monkeys plugging numbers into equations."
Sounds like a Berklee experience to me, based on acquaintance with players from each group.
I'd add that based on my own experience with music and formal education in technical areas, jazz guitar is harder.
-
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
BTW - I hate transcribing, lol.
Brazilian Rosewood and CITES
Today, 12:27 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos