-
A chap called Lutemann has some tuition videos on Big Band Rhythm guitar on YouTube. In the first video he says that it's desirable that there should be no more than two chord changes per bar. And then goes on to suggest that where there are 4 chords in the bar you should use theory to reduce that to two.
I'm playing in a "small big band" using principles derived mainly from Charlton Johnson's "Swing and Big Band Guitar" but I hadn't come across this concept before. When I come across a bar with 4 chords I figure a way to finger and play all 4 chords. Depending on the chords and tempo sometimes it's not always easy to do that in real time while reading a chart. So I often end up working out a set of fingerings and memorising them.
My thoughts are that by doing it this way I'm making life harder for myself - as well as possibly not following best practice. Reducing 4 chords to 2 would potentially make life quite a bit easier, but I'm not sure what principles should be applied. Can anyone advise on where I'd find a set of rules or similar for this?
-
02-03-2023 02:34 PM
-
I do enjoy a bit of nominative determinism
Originally Posted by Ozymandias
I play 4 chords a bar sometimes. Usually as a fill. I think 2 most of the time.has some tuition videos on Big Band Rhythm guitar on YouTube. In the first video he says that it's desirable that there should be no more than two chord changes per bar. And then goes on to suggest that where there are 4 chords in the bar you should use theory to reduce that to two.
Principally; it’s hard to explain. I don’t use a consider theoretical process; I rely on experience and intuition to a large part. I know a lot of tunes; I’ve read a lot of charts. If the tune is Honeysuckle Rose I know that the chords in the A section will be some sort of sub of ii V for four bars and I for four bars.
I look at changes as levels of detail I suppose
Gm D+ | Gm7 Gm6 | C7 Do7 | Ebo7 Em7b5 |
Fo7 F | Fmaj7 F6 | E7 Eb7 | Am7 D7 ||:
or something
is just Gm7 C7 F with motion added in
it does help because then it stops being a string of random chords.
Maybe stick up an example and we can work through it.
-
In my book, there is no firm rule about what to play. Most times it is perfectly fine to play what the sheet music tells you to play. But frequently, you can do less. More chords than 2 in a bar become challenging if the tempo is say 150+. At 180-200 BPM you really need to know what is coming by memory.
If it becomes hard, try no longer to play all that is written, but play what is neccesary for the band. That pops the question what is neccesary? Well, you can find out by leaving a chord out and see for yourself.
Keep in mind that >90% of the arrangement writers are not guitarists. Keeping the rythm is far more important than the correct chord. Keeping in sync with the bass and drums is the key factor. If you play a wrong chord in sync, the only person that will probably notice and remember is you. Playing out of sync will be noticed by more than you alone.
-
My first thought is that it depends on what the chords are. Often, one of those chords, maybe the third one, is going to be a modulation, usually a half step up. Fourth one could be back down the half step. You can't look at the first two and use theory to tell you how to play the third one in that situation. And, you can't play the same chord for beats 3 and 4. Originally Posted by Ozymandias
Here's one from Gil Evans. This one doesn't have the common half step modulation.
Gm9 Ebmaj7/A BbmiMaj7 Eb7. One beat each.
Thence to Dm9 Abmi#9maj7. Two beats each.
You can collapse the first two because they have a lot of notes in common, particularly if you don't play the notes they don't share. It won't sound as good as if you play them as written, but it will work.
The third chord is a variant of a ii V in Ab but resolving to Dm9. But, you can't play your usual iim, Bbm7. It has an Ab and Gil Evans told you to play an A. Then, the next chord has Eb G Bb Db. You can't play just one of them for two beats without sounding bad on either beat 3 or beat 4.
Is there some way you could use theory to reduce it to two chords? The last two chords share 2 notes (Bb Db). The first two share a Bb and a D. So you could, I suppose, play Bb D and then Bb Db. The bassist would, presumably, play a G, making the first chord a Gm triad. Then he'd play an A making the second chord A Bb D (but Gil Evans asked for an Eb in that chord, so hope somebody else has the Eb that's in your chart). Then the bassist plays Bb while you play Bb and Db, which will sound minor and you hope that somebody else will play the A note. Then the bassist plays Eb and you play Bb and Db, which is probably sort of ok, even though it's not what Gil asked for.
Now, this tune is at 56 bpm, so you have some time to think. And you could work it all out in the practice room. But, I'd rather use the practice time to learn to play all four listed chords at tempo.
Generally speaking chord fragments work. So you can play thirds and sevenths or shell voicings and that may be fine. Might even be best. But, in my experience nailing the exact voicing sounds better. Not always possible, though.Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 02-03-2023 at 09:21 PM.
-
My experience fwiw is that I basically learned this on the bandstand. Couldn’t take charts home etc.
-
Thanks to all who responded.
Sorry, I had typed a long response which I frustratingly lost - by the time I tried to post it I had been logged out and in the process of trying to log in I lost the post.
-
Sorry I feel I bailed rather abruptly and on this thread after people had put in an effort to give advice. Here's my explanation.
The lengthy post I typed, then lost, explained why I was looking for no more than a "quick fix". To summarise, I'm not really from a jazz background, have no formal musical education, have never played from charts before and although I've picked up a smattering of theory over the years it's fairly superficial. Playing this style is a trip into unfamiliar territory, late in life, for one specific project. Once it's over I'll almost certainly never play big band rhythm guitar again.
The message I'm taking from some responses is "Don't settle for a quick fix, do it properly, you'll be glad of it in the longer term". I have no doubt that would be excellent advice if I were younger and serious about learning the style, but it doesn't apply here.
The video maker referred to in my original post (Lutemann is his Youtube name: his name is Kent Murdick) has written a book called Playing Swing Guitar in a Big Band. In his first video (of 17) he lists his 5 key principles. These are broadly familiar to me from the Charlton Johnson book but principle 4 was new: "For the most part you will play only one or two chords per measure. When the score indicates otherwise, the score will be changed to fit this pattern".
That caught my eye because although the sections of the charts with 4 chords in a bar are not a very large percentage of the charts they cause a completely disproportionate amount of my difficulties in learning, playing and most of all remembering them. If I could establish principles for reducing some or all of these to 2 chords it would make things significantly easier as well as being, in Murdick's opinion as a teacher, better practice. Unfortunately Murdick's youtube videos don't cover this part of his course and I can't locate a copy of his book. (Other books by him seem to be still in print but not this one).
I may be pursuing a chimera: Murdick does say you will need to learn a little theory and mine may not be adequate. But his course is aimed at beginners, so I like to think that even my basic theory might be up to the task.
-
CHORD REDUCTION-EMBELLISHMENT
Its a balancing act. Choices...
The OP raises a good thread. Regardless of his moving on, there are always like-minded guitarists, like myself, seeking answers and commiseration. As an avocational guitarist and retiree, I'm freed up and currently dealing with this aspect myself, and glad to find a place where I can share my opinions on it, for anyone who cares to listen or respond.
Slowing the harmonic rhythm from 4 To-The-Bar to 2TTB by reversing embellishments and undoing the amount of back-cycling. However, you may have to keep, at least, the basic [1M 67 27 57], or [1M 37 67 27 57]. In the rhythm changes, [1M7 67 2m7 57], you can always drop the [67] and [2m7] because they are embellishments for [1M7] and [57], respectively. [67] and [2m7] are really forms of diatonic substitution for the sake of embellishment. [1M-57] alone is more rhythmic, but only your ear can judge. [1-6-2-5] harmonises the melody better, while [1M6-57] invites dancing - but with some loss in harmonic interest. Choices...
Like in a conversation, you can say it all in three words - or you can say good morning, how is your day, my name is Dick Burns and I'd love to set fire to your car blocking my driveway...
You can almost always drop the ice-cream nice [2m7-57] and use the hard [57] alone. Theoretically you could hold on to the [1M] until your ear forces you to switch to [57]. Most songs boil down to a skeleton of [1M's and 57's]. But our ear wants to move the chords more with passing chords, extensions, alterations, inversions and chord substitutions.
An [Am6] or [F#m7-5] can become a [D7]. [37] and [67] can be played as [1M]. and [7m7-5 = 57].
Any [o7] chord becomes a [7] chord when you flatten one of its notes. The resulting [7] chord will bear the name of the flattened note. Once you practice this, you can reduce or embellish in real time - with lots of specific practice.
On the other hand, for introductions and finales, [1M6-57] won't suffice, unless you're making some point of interpretation. Django Reinhardt's playing makes for a good study in 1TTB and 2TTB rhythm dreadnoughts. Probably the best.
Moving the chords along 4TTB like Freddie Green's playing is a delight to hear. The rhythm is not lost because the chord grips are small and the voice leading is close. In fact, each chord change barely disturbs the rhythm. You might consider smaller two and three note chords so you can still play 4TTB, yet not interfere with the rhythm flow. Count Basie hardly ever used his LH on the keyboard because the bass and guitar had it covered. So, he often conducted with his LH and struck crucial phrases with his RH.
When comping, one should always be judging reduction-embellishment as you go. Pianists have this down to a fine art. There are nearly infinite possibilities when comping - from the pattern formed by the fingerboard root path, to the voicing complexity, the degree of chromaticism invoked, and the strumming rhythm figures. The rhythm is enhanced by the energy the guitarist applies to the strings. Simple changes allow more energy to flow per second while many chords/bar are like hurdles and cause a tiny ebb and flow. Swing=E/s!
Do they cover this at Berklee? What terms do they use?
I know that the Rodger Edison book explains all of this very well in a programmed learning process.
(Now that Hal Leonard handles many Alfred pubs, and bought almost everyone else, it would be nice if they reissued his two books Jazz Rhythm Guitar Lead/Rhythm. I got my copies at the Value Village for 2x$3.99. Amazon has one for $371.99 Jazz Rhythm Guitar: Edison, Roger: 9780739025949: Books - Amazon.ca A good down-payment on a cheap archtop. LOL! My copy is now worth its weight in gold...
::Last edited by StringNavigator; 02-18-2023 at 04:05 PM.
-
It comes down to this. Sometimes simplifying works and sometimes it doesn't.
If there is a quick halfstep modulation in the middle of bar, for one beat (as there often is), you can play it, or stay silent for a beat, but you can't play a chord which is wrong by a half step.
Other times, the four chords may be an elaboration on something simple like a ii V and you can simplify without creating a conflict.
My experience though is that, usually, the arranger had something in mind and it will work best if you can play the ink.
If you can't, you have to pick your spots for simplification. And, it's better to be silent than wrong.
-
Is it that straightforward? Let's say you have a bar of D7. Wouldn't it be very typical for the guitar to embellish by playing, say, D7 D7 Eb7 D7 - or similar chromatic movement? This presumably works because even though the chord on the 3rd beat is "wrong by a half-step" what the guitar is playing moves logically in own terms then resolves with the rest of the band. Or something like that, I'm not sure I have the vocabulary or theoretical knowledge to discuss this. I only know you can do it and it sounds fine. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
What about the opposite situation: the arranger creates the embellishment by moving to Eb7 on beat 3. But the guitarist carries on playing D7 througout the bar. Couldn't that work as well, for pretty much the same reason?
The inference I would draw from that is that, at least in some situations, the guitar doesn't need to be harmonically in step with the rest of the band at all points in the bar - provided the harmonic movement of guitar and band make sense in their own right and the tension is resolved. And that could be the basis for reducing the number of chords the guitar ought to play.
I'm quite happy to have these thoughts picked apart by people who know better.
-
So... yea comping is not only about the chords.
There are....
1) the harmonic organizations... how the chords work together with the melody and how they work with the rhythmic organization. Sometimes called the Harmonic Rhythm, the jazz expanded version. You create this organization from analysis.
2) Actual comping techniques... the organization of how you play the notes and chords.
Eventually you'll have a few things going on... generally your lead line and your rhythmic organization of attacks are the most important. Also jazz is about Chord Patterns... not single chords. Chord Patterns create harmonic movement... generally to a Tonal Target. There are Primary Tonal Targets and secondary tonal targets.
This becomes a road map of how to develop tunes, how to reduce or expand what's notated or implied.
It becomes about subdividing... The Tune has a Form, ex.... AABA, those sections of the Form also have smaller sections of time etc... the better you become... the more options you have.
3) you learn "what needs to be played" and "what are the possibilities of what can be played" and all with musical organization... to the "Form" of the Tune.
It doesn't sound like your ready to really get into these concepts.... but it's not bad to be aware of where you can go.
Some tools to put into your bag of tricks...
1) Become aware of Harmonic Function... the simple versions.... Tonic, subdominant and dominant.
ex. ll Bb-7 /// ll Eb7 /// ll Abma7 /// ll Abma6 /// ll
Possible analysis...
Bb-7 ... SD
Eb7...Dom
Abma7 and Abma6... Tonic
The next step from this simple analysis is to take those Harmonic Functional Targets and expand...
Use... Chord Patterns to create harmonic movement from each chord to the next while keeping the primary functional movement still implied.
Chord patterns also usually need Lead Lines, melodic melodies or licks that also have or imply harmonic movement and then chord movement.
Ex. you can spell changes in a few ways but the lead like is more important... here's an example.. of above expanded...
ll Bb-9 F7#9b13 Eb13sus E13 ll Eb13 Eb13/Db Eb7#9 Db-7b5 ll Abma7 Abma6 Db9#11 ...ll C-11 C-7b5 F7#9 B13
This is probable to busy... but it's just a possible lead line with chord patterns
x 6 6 6 6 8
x 8 7 8 9 9
x x 11 10 9 11
x x 6 7 7 9
----------------
x 6 5 6 6 8
x 4 5 5 4 x
x 6 5 6 7 x
x 4 5 4 5 x
____________
4 x 5 5 4 x
x x x x 6 x
x x 3 4 4 3
x x 3 4 4 4
___________
8 x 8 8 6 x
x x x x 7 x
x 8 7 8 9 x
7 x 7 8 9 9
-
The question here is when the ear can accept bitonality. Originally Posted by Ozymandias
If I were the only chord instrument in a quartet, I'd probably be doing that half step movement thing quite often.
Add a piano and it becomes riskier. Do you really want to play a D9 in the midrange of the guitar while the pianist is playing an Eb9 with his left hand in the same range? It might work, as you suggest; maybe more likely to work if the timbre is different, the chord is released quickly and played with great time. Then, you'd hope, it sounds like a cool variation rather than a clam.
But, now add horns. They're playing, on that hypothetical third beat, an Eb7. The piano is playing an Eb7. How likely is it that a D7 is going to sound fine? In a big band, I think the audience would likely hear a moment of mud and not a clever, musically interesting guitar part. They won't know exactly what went wrong, but they won't like the music as much.
Since I've missed my share of those 3rd beat modulations, I believe, that it sounds better if you play what's written, which means you go with the horns and not play that D7 against an Eb7 even for one beat.
-
If the four chords per bar were written for the guitar, then play them. If they weren't and and are difficult to accommodate, then seek the path of least resistance.
-
Rhythm Unhindered.
The simpler the music... The quieter the music... The more it swings...
Clutter is confusion. And amplification can upset the balance. Once upon a time, drummers used brushes, bassists played gut strings, and yet they were heard. Now we need a dedicated human being to continually adjust the knobs and levers. Also, jazz stages at local jazz spots were once tiny in comparison to the mega venues today, Big Band Ballrooms not withstanding. The evolving amplified world altered the balance obtained in pre-electronic times when jazz and blues were born.
Reducing harmonic rhythm at will is a required skill for guitarists when there is no arrangement or written part. At the very least, we should be aware of it. Jazz guitarists can hardly escape their need to know their grips and subs whether it be upper structures, inversions, extensions or alterations - and what to leave out... Then they can change gears midstream and reduce or embellish their accompaniment to suit the interpretation of the moment or the type of ensemble that they're in.
It's important for any discussion on reduced harmony, to state in advance as to whether one is speaking of a solo jazz guitar act or a chunking, comping guitarist in a big band (or combo), or whether one is accompanying a solo jazz vocalist. Each role of the guitarist dictates the level of embellishment that is appropriate or required.
Reduction can be another tool in every guitarists' toolbox for appropriate circumstances where there is no written arrangement. Skillfully selecting the proper string set can allow one to play a range of density from single notes, guide tones only, phat three note chords, Drop 2's, Drop 3's, on up to six note Hollywood chords. Changing the size of the chord grips and the number of changes per bar can tailor the guitar to the musical situation.
Of course, it's all a moot point now, ever since folks stopped dancing to jazz.
::Last edited by StringNavigator; 02-19-2023 at 10:36 PM.
-
The charts are, with some very minor exceptions, not written for guitar.
For clarity, my difficulty here is not with knowing what to play, or being able to play it. Given time I can come up with something to play. Rather it's a problem of remembering what to play in real time.
Even after working with the Johnson book my chart reading is not good enough for me to sight-read charts unless they are fairly easy. Maybe 25% of the charts are simple enough. A classic case of an old dog trying to learn new tricks.
For more difficult charts what I do is play the charts through until I have enough familiarity with them to be able to play them using the chart as an aide memoire. This works well where there are no more than 2 chords per bar. Even at quicker tempos I seem to have the time to read the chord symbol and remember the fingering I derive from it - providing I do the prep.
This approach breaks down where there are 4 chords in a bar. The chord symbols are coming at me too fast to process even as an aide memoire. Also 4 chords in a bar can force you into less typical note choices, because you want a smooth transition between chords and no big fretboard leaps. So it gets even harder to instantaneously connect what your fingers are doing to the chord symbols.
What I end up doing in these cases is working out and memorising fingering for these passages. So when I come to that part in the chart I'm not reading the chords, I'm just thinking for this part of the song I need to play the fingering pattern I've memorised.
Here's a 3 bar example:
Underlying chords: lAm Bdim Am7 C sharp dim l Dm7 / / Gdim l G7 F6 A sharp dim C sharp diml (apologies, my keyboard doesn't have a sharp sign)
Pattern I worked out and try to memorise, on the 3rd and 4th strings:
5/5 7/6 5/5 6/5 l 5/3 / / 3/2 l 4/3 5/3 4/3 3/2 l
This approach works but there are drawbacks. The main one is that these patterns are so abstract and unmemorable. I think I'm reasonably good at remembering, say, guitar solos I've learnt but it's much harder to get this kind of thing to stick because it looks so random if you can't relate the fingerings to the chords quickly enough.
The best I can usually do is get these patterns into my short term memory. Which means if I don't play them for a few weeks, I often need to go back and re-memorise them.
So to summarise my problem, I'm spending a totally disproportionate amount of time learning these patterns, I still often need to go back and relearn them for the next gig and even with all that work they remain the vulnerable points where I'm most likely to make a mistake or lose my place on a chart.
If I were a young player with serious aspirations to get better the correct advice would be improve my chart reading so I could process the information fast enough and my theory so I could simplify the charts in real time. As a retired hobbyist learning a completely new style for a single project that's not realistic.
If I had a method for going through the charts and systematically reducing these passages to 2 chords per bar, my problems more or less disappear. That's why I got so interested when Murdick implied that this could be done: as I said above, his course is aimed at beginners so I'm assuming the theory he thinks you would need would not be very advanced.
-
I understand your problem, I had the same when I started playing in a bigband years ago.
Now, playing that stuff for years, I learned the intention behind.
In your example, the first bar is a common movement from Am to Dm, hence you can stay on Am and only play the C#dim because it works as an A7b9 (V to Dm). Also a common use.
I.e. once you get more familiar with such typicals you will remember them easier.
BTW, I play the a.m. movement
5x55xx
7x67xx
8x79xx
9x89xx
10xx1010xx
I think now you can see the movement from Am to Dm.
The third bar is similar to see and I suppose it goes to a resolution in the fourth bar.Last edited by bluenote61; 02-21-2023 at 02:27 PM.
-
I'll venture a guess that this passage seems difficult because the dim7 grips you know are hard to grab as quickly as the tempo dictates.
If that first Bdim was a Bm7, you probably wouldn't have a problem.
One solution is to memorize fragments of diminished chords. There are three diminished chords, each with 4 names (not counting calling them 7b9s). So, it tends to be confusing.
Consider Am7 to Bdim. That's A C E G to B D F (and Ab, if it's actually a dim7). That Bdim is a rootless G7 among other things.
So, if you know that, you can go from Am7 to one of your G7 grips, but omit the root (yes, you have to know which note is the G).
Then, in your example, you go right back to Am7.
The next chord is C#dim, which is C# E and G (Bb too if its C#dim7) . That looks like a rootless A7. It's helpful to know that the difference between Am7 (A C E G) and C#dim (C# E G) is that the C moves to C#. Meaning you only have to move one note, and then only a half step.
So now, you start with Am7, slide to G7 (no G) back to Am7 and then sharp the C (which you're probably playing on the G string).
That rootless G7 could be played as F B D at the third position, or just B and F at the 4th position. Both are pretty easy moves.
Anyway, there are certainly different approaches. This one works for me, but I spent a lot of time drilling myself on the individual notes in the chords I use.
-
Yea... whats the tune?
I generally would play on higher strings..
X X 7 5 5 5 ....A-
X X 6 7 6 7 ... Bdim
X X 7 9 8 8 ....A-
X X 8 9 8 7 ... C#dim
(10) x 10 10 10 10 ... 3 beats .. D-7
X 10 11 9 11 X ...Gdim
X 10 9 10 8 X
X 8 7 7 6 X
the next Dim. voicings would depend on next bar... if to D-
X X 8 9 8 9 ...A#dim
X X 11 12 11 12 ..C#dim
? D- then a II- V7 to Cma
Yea... you need to be able to look ahead while playing LOL It's not as difficult as it may seem ... you need to put a few months into learning the 12 fret fretboard and different voicings of basic chords.
Years ago I posted basic Rt6, Rt5 and Rt4 basic chords. If you need some help... let me know.
Just for the record... I world play better chords... depending on session etc...
-
I didn't mean to put too much focus on this particular example - it was chosen almost at random to illustrate my basic problem - namely that if you don't have the skills to derive fingerings from these 4 to a bar chord symbols in real time, and work out the fingering more slowly and try to memorise it, you are left with an abstract looking collection of notes that doesn't stay in the memory easily.
The tune is Fly Me To The Moon. I believe the arrangement is based on the famous Sinatra/Basie at the Sands recording, and it's the first few bars of the instrumental part in the middle of the song. But as I say, it was a random choice to illustrate a point and I could have just as easily picked lots of other examples. It's also just chance that there happens to be so many diminished chords in this example.
My approach to this stuff is to stick pretty close to the Charlton Johnson formula, especially on "old school" stuff like FMTTM: which means 3 note chords on the 3,4 and 6 strings, often with the 6th string muted, so only 2 notes are ringing out. I appreciate that more experienced players might consider this a bit pedestrian and it's very interesting to see how other posters would play it: but as a newbie to this style I'm happy to stick to what works and keeps things simple (and just about possible for me).
With the 4 chords in a bar stuff, I often forget about the 6th string - just keep it muted somehow and think about strings 3 and 4. This has one clear advantage - it simplifies the fingering and makes a fast run of chords easier to play. And one very clear disadvantage - you lose probably the biggest clue to the connection between what you're playing and name of the chord on the chart. For example if you play:
5 x 5 4 x x
you have a much better reminder of what chord relates to than
x x 5 4 x x
So basically the second is good for playability, bad for being able to use that section of the chart as a reminder of what to play.Last edited by Ozymandias; 02-23-2023 at 03:16 PM.
-
If you’re playing in a big band, someone is likely covering any notes you’re not playing. A friend told me that, as the 3rd trombone, I got the notes that were left over. The most important thing might be that you keep chugging along.
-
Pedestrian is fine. You aren’t there to exercise your ego or show off your mad comping skillz.
-
Wow... and we wonder why BB's and Jazz are not popular. Originally Posted by Bach5G
The other thing is your friend might not really understand how BB's work. Without a good rhythm section they suck.
Just being ...as Christian said..."Pedestrian is fine", doesn't work... If you can't comp... get it together.
-
One thing that strikes me as different about comping in the big band compared to the small group is this.
In the small group, especially without a piano, you have a lot of freedom to create your part and coordinate with all the other musicians.
In the big band, even during solos, there may be horn backgrounds, and there is likely to be a piano (and you don't know what's in his chart until he plays it). And, in big bands I play in, we're often doing songs/charts that I've never seen/heard before. The big band arranger wants his arrangement to sound novel, so there are likely to be rhythms that aren't so typical (depends on the band -- I play in two, one of which is typical and the other often isn't).
So, there are more constraints. You can't go wherever you might like -- rather, you have to find a way to go that maintains awareness of what the rest of the band is reading and find a way to propel the rhythm section without sounding too far outside of what's going on.
The underlying skill, which I think is elusive, is the instinct for combining harmonic movement with jazzy, propulsive, time feel. I've found Reg's videos helpful with this and recommend them to anybody who is trying to improve their comping.
-
Yeah Freddie what you doing? Learn to comp.
joking aside I’ve been in a situation where I am liberty to do the sort of thing reg describes in a big band basically once. When the pianist left to go to the toilet. it was fun.
Understand what the gig is, and adapt your comping accordingly.
-
yea... not joking, comping in Freddie green style isn't difficult, and generally only used as an effect. It's not really comping. Generally most don't play in the style as I play... as christian said.... is because they don't really have the skill set to do so. Again it's not that difficult, I'm an average guitar player, but I put in the time learning how to Comp.
I don't really get it.... why.
Reply With Quote
Want to Buy: Ibanez PM20
Today, 04:24 PM in For Sale