The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 26 to 42 of 42
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    I think the level of intellectual depth required/necessarily depends a little on personality type. Some people need reasons and others don't. I think it's useful to balance approaches. With analysis, you can learn how to integrate and implement something in a variety of contexts, which is extremely useful when you're going for something specific. I really was never a big fan of the "just feel it" approach, but maybe that's part of why I never liked performing all that much...

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27
    Balance is key . There's nothing wrong with theory or analysis, but it's something you do "after". Somewhat depends on how much playing and listening /transcribing you've already done.

    we tend to get a little heavy on the hyperbole with regard to theory or scales, out of a reaction to a common problem with beginning players' obsessing over them.

    As someone who waded through all of these conflicting statements, not too long ago, myself, I would say that it's certainly confusing to read all of these opposing ideas.

    If someone is obsessing over food, then food is not really the "problem". Obsession is. Balance is needed in either case , and the counsel of a good teacher is probably more helpful than anything.
    Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 10-06-2016 at 12:08 PM.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    I agree, but I do get the natural want to know the "why."

    But whenever I get myself thinking to much about that, I remind myself the "why" is BECAUSE IT DOES.

    Theory is just putting a name to "because it does."
    Ha, me too.

  5. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    Balance is key . There's nothing wrong with theory or analysis, but it's something you do "after". Somewhat depends on how much playing and listening /transcribing you've already done.

    we tend to get a little heavy on the hyperbole with regard to theory or scales, out of a reaction to a common problem with beginning players' obsessing over them.

    As someone who waded through all of these conflicting statements, not too long ago, myself, I would say that it's certainly confusing to read all of these opposing ideas.

    If someone is obsessing over food, then food is not really the "problem". Obsession is. Balance is needed in either case , and the counsel of a good teacher is probably more helpful than anything.
    Really resonates with me, thank you. I think I will start approaching transcribing in another manner - what I'm currently doing is way too overwhelming. My goal for the transcribing process is to acquire new musical ideas and sketches. I just found that to be able to do so, I HAD to now the why in order to play it in different contexts. However I guess for now the most productive and smart thing is to just listen and sing along a lot, get the chords and melodies down and remember the set of notes that sounded good with a particular harmony. Any objections - good to go?

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    A couple of thoughts sprung to mind when reading this thread,

    firstly, when you play transcribed lines on your guitar, you should always try and finger them within, or relate them to a mental/visual reference of a chord form or shape that you're familiar with. Generally,a) this will show you exactly what chord tones or extensions you're dealing with and b) it will make the line easier to memorize. It's also logical to do this as generally, guitar players have traditionally extracted/generated their single note lines using scalar embellishments of chord forms.

    Secondly, your general question about not "getting" an idea, or concept on the first pass is a lot like the transcription process itself, in that sometimes on the first 'A' section, or chorus or whatever, there may be some note(s) that elude you, due to fluffed execution on the recording/whatever, the idea is to move on, and very often the answer will be revealed with perfect clarity on the next chorus, or sometimes, that lick that you're trying to work out by a certain player, will be played in another solo on the same record.

    Just keep at it.

    By the way, do you have a link to the specific Chet Baker Time After Time recording you mentioned, or recording date/line up details. I'd like to check it out !

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Yeah transcription. Hmm. I mean 'working shit out by ear' is such a basic part of music, and yet many seem to be more interested in books and theory, to the point where we even have a special fancy (and somewhat inaccurate) name for it.

    Anyway, I'm developing a more nuanced understanding of this area. A popular genre of youtube video (see Jam of the Week on facebook) of which I myself have indulged is the 'play your transcription on video.'

    This is fun (some of the JotW vids are highly entertaining as well as musically excellent - that vocal version of Giant Steps) but I do think this type of thing is a motivated by a combination of 1) Look Mum! and 2) nerdy jazz fandom. Not saying there's anything wrong with that .. it's just... that's what it is. We should admit it.

    From my own personal experience I learned a few things from doing this
    1) The exacting standards required to get something prepared for video (Which seems harder than audio)
    2) Made me think about fingering, technique and so on
    3) A good exercise for matching the phrasing on the record.

    The 1st point is certainly valuable... It's easy to play along with the record in our practice rooms and pretend we have it nailed, when in fact, we don't.

    But transcription itself - which I prefer to call 'learning shit by ear' can be done in many ways.

    For example, these are all different elements that can pursued through the transcription process:

    1) The preparation of a whole solo for performance like a classical piece (the youtube video thing)
    2) The appropriation of individual lines for inserting into one's playing
    3) Development of technique
    4) Analysis for development of improvisational concepts
    5) Matching of phrasing and rhythm
    6) Ear training
    7) Musical memory
    8) Intuitive understanding of the jazz language through intuitive means
    and so on

    Of these, I think 1) is perhaps the least relevant to learning to play jazz. But that's not to say 'don't do it' if you enjoy doing it. And it's kind of what Wes did in his early years as a player. Whose to say it didn't each him something?

    In all these cases, I can think of ways to change or modify the ear learning approach.

    If your aims are 5), 7) and 8), I would recommend the Tristano approach - learn to sing an entire solo from start to finish without your instrument. Only then, play it. For me my goals are:

    1) develop better short term musical memory
    2) instrument/ear link
    And do this FAST - develop a better real time understanding of music. For me transcription is what you do if your ears aren't good enough yet.

    Gary Burton says he never transcribed. How come? Well he has amazing ears. He doesn't need to.

    I know musicians who can transcribe almost at real time. There may be some lurking on the forum!

    I want to be able to listen to a solo and hear what's happening right away, not later on when I have it down on paper. Why? Well that's what you need to able to do to play jazz - you need to be able to listen to others, and have a strong sense of aural connection with your lines. I'm pleased to report that this area is getting better. So, how do I work on this?

    1) Take a random solo
    2) Sing a phrase
    3) check it's right - if not, back to 2)
    4) Play it on the guitar

    So that's one exercise, and it's a revealing one. Some things I hear a lot better than others. Usually things that are closest to what I play.

    Obviously some things - John Coltrane 'sheets of sound' are not things I expect to pick up on the fly, or super fast bop lines - but medium tempo stuff? Sure why not?
    Last edited by christianm77; 03-19-2017 at 08:46 AM.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Theorem:

    The bigger gap between what you can play and what you can sing - do more singing exercises....?

    or?

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Yeah transcription. Hmm. I mean 'working shit out by ear' is such a basic part of music, and yet many seem to be more interested in books and theory, to the point where we even have a special fancy (and somewhat inaccurate) name for it.

    Anyway, I'm developing a more nuanced understanding of this area. A popular genre of youtube video (see Jam of the Week on facebook) of which I myself have indulged is the 'play your transcription on video.'

    This is fun (some of the JotW vids are highly entertaining as well as musically excellent - that vocal version of Giant Steps) but I do think this type of thing is a motivated by a combination of 1) Look Mum! and 2) nerdy jazz fandom. Not saying there's anything wrong with that .. it's just... that's what it is. We should admit it.

    From my own personal experience I learned a few things from doing this
    1) The exacting standards required to get something prepared for video (Which seems harder than audio)
    2) Made me think about fingering, technique and so on
    3) A good exercise for matching the phrasing on the record.

    The 1st point is certainly valuable... It's easy to play along with the record in our practice rooms and pretend we have it nailed, when in fact, we don't.

    But transcription itself - which I prefer to call 'learning shit by ear' can be done in many ways.

    For example, these are all different elements that can pursued through the transcription process:

    1) The preparation of a whole solo for performance like a classical piece (the youtube video thing)
    2) The appropriation of individual lines for inserting into one's playing
    3) Development of technique
    4) Analysis for development of improvisational concepts
    5) Matching of phrasing and rhythm
    6) Ear training
    7) Musical memory
    8) Intuitive understanding of the jazz language through intuitive means
    and so on

    Of these, I think 1) is perhaps the least relevant to learning to play jazz. But that's not to say 'don't do it' if you enjoy doing it. And it's kind of what Wes did in his early years as a player. Whose to say it didn't each him something?

    In all these cases, I can think of ways to change or modify the ear learning approach.

    If your aims are 5), 7) and 8), I would recommend the Tristano approach - learn to sing an entire solo from start to finish without your instrument. Only then, play it. For me my goals are:

    1) develop better musical memory
    2) instrument/ear link
    And do this FAST - develop a better real time understanding of music. For me transcription is what you do if your ears aren't good enough yet.

    Gary Burton says he never transcribed. How come? Well he has amazing ears. He doesn't need to.

    I know musicians who can transcribe almost at real time. There may be some lurking on the forum!

    I want to be able to listen to a solo and hear what's happening right away, not later on when I have it down on paper. Why? Well that's what you need to able to do to play jazz - you need to be able to listen to others, and have a strong sense of aural connection with your lines. I'm pleased to report that this area is getting better. So, how do I work on this?

    1) Take a random solo
    2) Sing a phrase
    3) check it's right - if not, back to 2)
    4) Play it on the guitar

    So that's one exercise, and it's a revealing one. Some things I hear a lot better than others. Usually things that are closest to what I play.

    Obviously some things - John Coltrane 'sheets of sound' are not things I expect to pick up on the fly, or super fast bop lines - but medium tempo stuff? Sure why not?
    Great post and nuanced distinctions between different 'goal-areas' so to speak. Agree with all points.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomcat
    Theorem:

    The bigger gap between what you can play and what you can sing - do more singing exercises....?

    or?
    I think there's always a limit. Pretty much everyone can play stuff they wouldn't be able to sing - even a really accomplished singer like Aimee Nolte. In fact, she has a video on this very subject.

    You don't need to be able to sing WELL (unless you want to be a singer) - but singing connects most people more deeply to music than playing the guitar, and actually people's pitch is often a lot better than they think. And sometimes the singing is as much about phrasing and rhythm as pitch.

    The thing you need to be able to do - of course - is listen, then play.

    So, the biggest thing guitarists do that should be fixed (and I say this from experience) are:
    1) Noodling (i.e. distractedly playing without direction.)
    2) Trying to play something before they know how it goes.
    3) Consequently getting hung up on the theory stuff because they are rubbish at working stuff out by ear.

    I say this with love, and I acknowledge that this is a problem that also affects me.

    Most guitarists can be improved by not allowing them to touch their instruments for half the lesson/practice, meaning they have to focus on how the music goes.

    You then apply the same sensibility to improvisation.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    I think also being loose with singing requirements - singing slower, changing octaves, etc, still works. It's just to make sure you actually 'know' on a deeper level what the sounds are. You can slow things down so you maintain accurate pitch and rhythm or speed things up and let yourself be looser with pitch (so you are moreso just singing contours) and also separately clap or tap the rhythms if they are giving trouble.
    Last edited by JakeAcci; 03-19-2017 at 10:23 AM.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    This guy has done some good stuff.
    Ear training with recordings | IWasDoingAllRight
    And the app there is pretty flexible if interested.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by emanresu
    This guy has done some good stuff.
    Ear training with recordings | IWasDoingAllRight
    And the app there is pretty flexible if interested.
    That site and app are both excellent, and a lot of fun IMO. I have made tons of little exercises for myself with it. A nice tip to incorporate what Christian is talking about - for any little ear training quiz item you get wrong, try singing it in a bunch of different ways, different keys, places in a key, etc.

    For example, if I heard C G Db Gb and go it wrong I'd trty singing it over a C pedal - 1 5 b2 b5. But then I'd hold down taht C pedal and transpose the line up a half step so I'd sing Db Ab D G, or b2 b6 2 5. Then another half step and it's 2 6 b3 b6, etc. Because hearing intervals is great, but any set of intervals will have very different consequences depending on placement within the harmonic context

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77

    So, how do I work on this?

    1) Take a random solo
    2) Sing a phrase
    3) check it's right - if not, back to 2)
    4) Play it on the guitar

    So that's one exercise, and it's a revealing one. Some things I hear a lot better than others. Usually things that are closest to what I play.
    CHristian, do you mean singing a phrase along with the solo or first play & listen then sing "a capella"?

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomcat
    CHristian, do you mean singing a phrase along with the solo or first play & listen then sing "a capella"?
    In general I listen to a phrase, then sing acapella. Then check.

    Singing along means you can 'lean more' which is what I want to avoid.

    But singing along could be a good idea if you are working on, say, phrasing.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    I agree, but I do get the natural want to know the "why."

    But whenever I get myself thinking to much about that, I remind myself the "why" is BECAUSE IT DOES.

    Theory is just putting a name to "because it does."
    In the district where I teach, the big push in math has been to get elementary-grade students to understand the "why" of what they're doing. My teaching partner and I tried to go with that, but very few kids ever got they "why," and even fewer got the "how" (because we spent so much time on the "why).

    She and I talked, and concluded that any kid with a working grasp of a basic set of flash cards should be able to do long division if they just followed the steps . . . so we went back to teaching the steps. Way more kids get it now, but every once in awhile, one of them asks, "Why do we do this part?"

    My answer: "Just do it -- it's good. Once you've done it a bunch of times, you'll figure out why it works. You don't know how the toaster works, but you know how to make toast, right? Follow the steps."

    At some point before we finish the chapter, the ones who needed to know "why" can usually explain it pretty well, and the ones who don't care about "why" know how to do long division.

    If you do something often enough, and look at it carefully enough, you eventually figure out a way to explain it to yourself in a way that makes sense to you, which -- unless you plan on writing or teaching -- is the only explanation that matters, in my opinion.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Don't always expect that you can infer meaning or association to every note or phrase. Some players will confound you. Take George Benson in full flight for example. Good luck there with trying to force any association with some of his lines to any chord or sub of the moment.

    I used to try, but realised that if I couldn't take any "forced" analysis and use it as a guide to create my own lines, then I was wasting my time.....

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I'm kind of playing devils advocate here, but why is that important?

    You are a musician not a scientist.
    Well, instead of repeating that one word you learned that sounded good, you kinda learn the language? Exactly how you understand it, or how you organize or name it is up to you.

    There was a discussion about a Wes solo, where he used notes outside the scale/chords, some weeks ago. It sounded sweet, but didn't fit basic theory. My understanding of what went on was that he went further down the COF and played over VII7-iii instead of V-I. Someone else might analyse differently, but it works for me, and I have access to that colour without using the same line