I don't know how to go about learning jazz anymore

[Grigoris]

"Something of value" meant that I played something that sounded interesting and it demystified the bebop language a little bit. Better than playing the C major scale in 5ths and 6ths which feels like I'm chewing coffee.

[RJVB]

It's more a matter of "nothing sticks if I try to learn it as rules". Or as theory.

That makes sense to me, because I've always seen music theory a bit like the laws of physics or (closer to home) evolution theory. We formulated all that; matter doesn't behave like matter because it has learned the laws it's supposed to obey and living organisms other than ourselves don't wonder why we're here to bother.

I think you need to approach this like a kid learning language or indeed to play. Think of those teenagers who mess around with their bands and who're able to play together using chord sheets and looking at what the others are doing when they're a bit older - and who don't have much in terms of formal education in music schools or conservatories. They often don't come from backgrounds where it's normal to sit down with a method book before getting any hands dirty.

There should be an Assimil method for jazz and blues!

[Bobby Timmons]

What Peter said. You have to structure your short term practice routine to be in digestable portions. Pick 1 or 2 advanced topics such as intervals that you like for long term practice that will eventually work its way into your playing months or even years later.

For short term practice it has to be stuff that you can do. My 3 step program to working up technique is:

A single chord - practice voicings, inversions, lines, arps, scales, whatever. If you can't run material fluently on a single chord, how are you going to play jazz?

A simple chord pattern - such as 2 / 5 / 1 / 3 6 or 1 / 6 / 2 / 5 or 2 / 5 / 1 / 1. Run material on it same as above.

The jazz blues :

C7 / F7 / C7 / G-7 C7
F7 / F#o7 / C7 / E-7 A7
D-7 / G7 / C7 A7 / D-7 G7

Also you have to get over this idea that theory isn't music and it's all vocab. Listening to the players, or analyzing transcriptions proves this false. They are not stringing together all pre memorized ideas. They throw some memorized ideas in there and come up with much of the content from the raw materials. These you have to have worked out and yes you have to be able to see and execute them on the neck with muscle memory. Scales, arps, intervals, chromatics, voicings, inversions etc.

[pamosmusic]

"Something of value" meant that I played something that sounded interesting and it demystified the bebop language a little bit. Better than playing the C major scale in 5ths and 6ths which feels like I'm chewing coffee.

So maybe …

chords: shell voicings over a tune you like

lines: those Pat Martino lines with a metronome in different positions or in fragments

improvising: something to help you play changes, since the Pat stuff didn’t help with that.

[RJVB]

Also you have to get over this idea that theory isn't music

My dad's favourite expression was "everything is mathematics" (you can guess his profession).

The thing is of course that many if not most of those things existed well before mathematics did, and I'm pretty certain the same is true for music and music theory. The latter describes the former, but it only gives suggestions about how to play it in a more musical way than a computer would.

Anyway, I wasn't planning to learn to play jazz other than from a score.

[jazznylon]

so, jazznylon how is it going?

me too, I come from a classical guitar background and I totally share your thoughts, experiences and frustrations

please tell me you have found the solution

this stuff is too complex, especially when you try to figure it out on your own. and the web with all its online "tutors" is NOT your friend

my typical "practice" routine (when I have the time, after work and kids etc) goes like this:

• pick up the guitar
• start playing drop 2s (or melodic minor scale, or something technical, whatever)
• brain numbness, wondering how to apply all this information to something useful
• start transcribing something to see how can all this be applied to a song and get new vocabulary
• getting lost, because the guitarist I'm transcribing is a music God and mixes everything up
• go on YouTube and waste time watching "tutorials"
• end up confused and fed up
• put the guitar down

it's just not funny anymore

Hello! Its been a while but I already moved on from this thread I made. I would just work on things that interest me the most at the moment. Recently its developing rhythm through improv my teacher showed. In any case I would definitedly recommend a teacher as well. The internet is a blessing and a curse, too much information.

[Bop Head]

That makes sense to me, because I've always seen music theory a bit like the laws of physics or (closer to home) evolution theory. We formulated all that; matter doesn't behave like matter because it has learned the laws it's supposed to obey and living organisms other than ourselves don't wonder why we're here to bother.

I think you need to approach this like a kid learning language or indeed to play. Think of those teenagers who mess around with their bands and who're able to play together using chord sheets and looking at what the others are doing when they're a bit older - and who don't have much in terms of formal education in music schools or conservatories. They often don't come from backgrounds where it's normal to sit down with a method book before getting any hands dirty.

There should be an Assimil method for jazz and blues!

I do not know about that language learning method you are talking about, but Joan Chamorro in Barcelona is teaching jazz to kids like and as a language.

[RJVB]

I do not know about that language learning method you are talking about

Basically Assimil try to follow the same learning process by which kids learn their mother language. Worked quite well for me when I needed to learn Spanish because I was going to study a few months in ... Barcelona

Come to think of it, the Leonard Hal guitar method isn't too different (I taught myself from that until I could enroll at the local music school).

[Bobby Timmons]

My dad's favourite expression was "everything is mathematics" (you can guess his profession).

Everything is logic. Or you can approach it that way.

The thing is of course that many if not most of those things existed well before mathematics did, and I'm pretty certain the same is true for music and music theory. The latter describes the former, but it only gives suggestions about how to play it in a more musical way than a computer would.

Of course that's not the thing, since great jazz musicians past and present use(d) theory to help make their music.

[rpjazzguitar]

Or, you could just do this.

Strum the chords to a song and scat sing. When you scat something you like, figure out how to play it on the guitar. If you know how, write it down in a notebook. Eventually, the notebook will be full of your ideas.

This requires two skills.

1. the ability to scat sing a line you like.

2. the ability to think of a line and play it in real time.

You can practice #2 by simply copying everything you hear. If you're noodling and you hear a commercial on the TV, try to play it. This gets better with time on the instrument.

#1 is, perhaps, more challenging. What I find is that I already can often scat sing a better solo than I can play. So, it seems to me the cutting edge is to be able to play the stuff I can already scat sing.

After I'm satisfied that I can do that, I start thinking about how to scat sing better lines. Listening to a lot of jazz, especially players who don't play a zillion notes, may help. Hank Mobley, Paul Desmond, Jim Hall, Monk. Theory might help too, but my experience is that it's a very inefficient way for me to get new things into my playing. Others find it more efficient.

If you compiled a list of everything everybody recommends, 10 lifetimes might not be enough. There are players who have all that, but the ones I know are at genius level. Not everybody is going to be able to get there.

[JazzPadd]

Hello! Its been a while but I already moved on from this thread I made. I would just work on things that interest me the most at the moment. Recently its developing rhythm through improv my teacher showed. In any case I would definitedly recommend a teacher as well. The internet is a blessing and a curse, too much information.

Hello! I'm glad you found a way forward.

I'm a little late to the party, but have been thinking about this discussion you started, and others extended, for some time. So here are a few thoughts, for what they're worth at this point.

About having a teacher, when I was on a jazz guitar scholarship in the 1980s, part of that was taking weekly lessons. I studied with Remo Palmier and Mark Slifstein for about two years. The former focused on tunes and improvisation, the latter on exercises for technique and reading. Both also gave pointers on chord melodies. The presumed goal was to become a professional musician, or at least to gain the skills needed for that. As part of the scholarship, I joined a big band, and on the side was working in a wedding band and playing in a combo for club dates, and also teaching guitar and doing a little studio work. So, at that time I was "all in" for music. But then I started getting burned out, the joy was dissipating, my outlook on life changed, and I realized that the lifestyle I was entering was not for me. So I quit and sold all my gear to study and travel, eventually settling in Japan.

Beyond learning something about jazz, I gathered two things from that experience: 1) It might be helpful for one to have some idea, perhaps a realistic goal, of why one is doing all this practicing, technique, theory, rhythm, learning tunes, etc. The goal I started with was love of music and hoping to make a living at it, but once on that path the pressures of daily hustling for gigs to entertain others put me off; and 2) Teachers are great for assignments and regular reminders to help one stay on task, to get some specific pointers on one's playing, etc. I truly value what I learned from those teachers. Especially Remo. When I came back to playing music after a couple of decades, the first thing I did--after buying a guitar--was to review those old lessons with Remo. More recently, I have taken a couple of one-off lessons, or attended a clinic or workshop or two, with different musicians and/or teachers. I eventually found that a single idea from any one of these experiences was enough to keep busy for months, if not years. But only if one doesn't need the recurring lessons to keep motivated and to seek regular feedback.

For goals, mine now are to have fun playing jazz with others, and creating my own arrangements of jazz and other tunes for solo guitar. I tried to get back into gigging and was even invited to go on a regional tour with a tenor saxophonist, but that was just enough to remind me why I bowed out decades ago.

Then I discovered a vibrant amateur jazz scene near where I live. A handful of venues, dozens of musicians, open jams several times a month, and intimate sets in small clubs. It's something like a community, and I feel very fortunate to be part of that. So I go to jams often (and have been writing about those experiences in my monthly Jam Session Journal in the From The Bandstand section of this forum). Open mics are fun, too, and can be motivating. So, for example, I'll work up a chord melody at home and then take it out to an open mic. After a while I started getting invited to do a solo guitar set at a local venue, and now do that a couple times a year. From the jams, I sometimes get invited to sit in on a gig, also a couple of times a year. Both of these are different than playing at home; they involve playing out live, solo or with others, but without the pressures of regular gigging.

About the term "amateur," in a certain manner of speaking this can be taken to mean unskilled, unprofessional, "amateurish" as in not serious, and other negative, judgmental adjectives; it's almost a pejorative term. But then I read Andy Merryfield's "The Amateur: The Pleasures of Doing What You Love," and that completely redeemed my attitude toward being an amateur jazz guitarist. I, and others in the local music scene here, and presumably on this forum, too, are doing what they love, and that love can bring about devotion to the music.

That brings up the question of fun and enjoyment. I agree with those above who find playing music fun, and who enjoy the process of learning, who enjoy playing music with others, and who enjoy the act of creativity and participating in art. There is work to be done, too, but the goal can still be to enjoy taking part in the great and global music tradition of jazz. And since jazz is also a kind of social music, knowing enough to enjoy being part of a social scene around the music is important, too.

Listening is crucial, and immersion in listening really helps to get the music in one's ears. But there is so much to listen to, and it can be as overwhelming as your initial list of things to learn that started this whole thread, and which has been generously augmented by others. Back in the 1980s, I was enthralled with Joe Pass and Wes Montgomery, but on my return to music I selected a few genres to at first explore the music, little by little. I fell in love with George Barnes "the happy guitarist," so I initially listened to a lot of that, and then it was Grant Green, especially the early Blue Note records. My current preferred genre is Hard Bop, which seems to be a preference in the scene of which I am a part and which is more drum and horn centric (grew up with a brother who is a drummer). But I also like playing the old standards (initially pop songs, show tunes, and movie themes) and a bit of Bossa. I especially enjoy spontaneously weaving improvisational lines through the changes in light of the melodies. To get the sounds in my ears off the bandstand, I listen to ten versions of a tune I'm working on to get a sense of what others in different times and places have done with it. That's more than enough listening to help me to enjoy making music with others, at least in my limited experience.

I understand why many advocate playing all tunes in all keys, but for me that's a very lofty task and hasn't really been necessary for what I decided I'd like to do with jazz. So first, I learn the keys that are in the songbooks that are in general use in the jazz scene where I live (here in Japan, that would be the two volume Jazz Standard Bible, with about 500 tunes of most genres). And, after playing with vocalists, one can learn some tunes in another key, often a fourth away from the songbook charts. That's enough to do what I want to do: play music with others. For solo guitar, I may change the key so it lays better on guitar. So at most, three keys are enough for me, but that doesn't need to be every tune, just certain tunes for specific situations that I encounter as an avid amateur musician.

Finally, there's an important point I've gathered in this thread from @RLetson, a writer who "learned to write by writing." I agree, and applying that to music I believe that we can "learn to play by playing."

Check in with us once in a while, @jazznylon; I for one would love to hear about your ongoing journey into jazz.

Wishing you all the best!

[pauln]

I learn new things in three environments:
- practice at home
- rehearsal with my trio
- performance with my trio

At home I practice three ways:
- I run through the set list (about 50 tunes of standards and originals). I do not play the tunes up tempo or all the way through (unless it is one long "A" section like Stella); I just do the intros, individual form sections once, and endings.
- I select a few tunes and play through them very slowly (Rubato) and pause often to examine and explore things (many of which come from performance), what the math folks would call symmetrical, asymmetrical, nonsymmetrical, transitive, intransitive, nontransitive, reflexive, totally reflexive, irreflexive, nonreflexive, and identity relationships (from an aural basis in finger board space)...not as fancy as it sounds, very similar to listening carefully to geometric fingering exercises.
- I just play, no motive or goals but enjoyment

In rehearsal
Sometimes I learn something new, but the focus is on what is already there or on the composition of originals

During performance
These days most everything I learn comes in performance as a new possibility accompanied by a confidence that it will work. Sometimes I just file them away in my mind to be verified during subsequent home practice, but often my confidence in the idea is so strong I play it. Here is an example... forgive my chord names

StellaBSL
Here is one of the ways I start it...
Dbm6#5
G6/F A6/G Ab(6add9)/Gb
Cm11...
as
9x8910x
x8998x x10111110x x9101011x
8x886x...

So, at the end of the form where it is typically shown as chords of E A D G C F Bb, I imagined the sound of those same middle three chords above replacing the A chord where I sometimes play there from Dbmaj7/G or Gdim7. The three chords worked, so a new place for an old sound. Although I think I can do the same transposing for the other chords G and F, I just note to examine in home practice and then compare those three chords with the two I sometimes play from for other tunes as well - to see where that leads (possible application/substitution to other tunes). Having lots of tunes supports the multiplying effect of learning a new thing and folding it into more new things.

[Mick-7]

That was quite a post, JazzPadd. What a journey you've had!

Here is an example... forgive my chord names

StellaBSL
Here is one of the ways I start it...
Dbm6#5
G6/F A6/G Ab(6add9)/Gb
Cm11...
as
9x8910x
x8998x x10111110x x9101011x
8x886x...

So, at the end of the form where it is typically shown as chords of E A D G C F Bb, I imagined the sound of those same middle three chords above replacing the A chord where I sometimes play there from Dbmaj7/G or Gdim7. The three chords worked, so a new place for an old sound.

"forgive my chord names"

I'm sorry but I cannot, those names are absolutely inexcusable!

Those chords are more likely to come when you summon them if you call them by their common names.

I normally think of them all as Dominant 7th chord voicings because they are symmetrical.

Gb7#9/Db (or C13b9/Db) > G13/F (or C#7b5#9) > A13/G (or Eb7b5#9) > Ab13/Gb (or GbM7b5) > Cm11 (or F7sus/C)

The last three chords are a contrary movement tactic. The last voicing could be: x-(3)-1-3-1-1 or: (3)-x-0-3-1-1

- but you'd want to play the previous voicings on the top 4 strings to get to it (instead of on the middle strings).


P.S. - Regarding harmonic theory, it's beneficial in that it helps me mentally organize, duplicate, and transpose what I've heard, for example:

Your first chord could be considered an altered E7 (b5/11/13) or Em7b5 (but it doesn't contain the minor 3rd).

Your G13/F & A13/G can be derived from this scale, let's call it: A Mixolydian Augmented (#5): A-B-C#-D#-E-F#-G-A

The Ab13 could be considered a b5 substitute for the IIIm chord.

[RJVB]

Of course that's not the thing, since great jazz musicians past and present use(d) theory to help make their music.

You're missing the point. Of course theory is used to create music, or rather, to work out an idea to a full composition. One could argue that Beethoven could only use theory in his later life when he could no longer hear a thing. I strongly doubt that theory comes into play when someone comes up with a nice new melody/tune/whatever and I reject the notion that one cannot play one of those aforementioned compositions without a "proper" knowledge of the theory behind it. I also strongly doubt that an improvising musician is consciously transforming theory into practise all the time. The exhaustive descriptions of exhausting practise for learning to play jazz are sufficient proof of that IMHO.

In a sense, I think music theory is theory only in that it tries to explain why we hear things as music rather than noise. Or rather, most of us, or even only some (as with atonal/dodekakaphonic/avant-garde "music"). In that sense it's (empirical) science not math (which is a man-made system of tautologies, to put it "mildly").
Do you think the first human(oid)s to make music sat down to conceive theory before they started to produce sounds? Do you think other animals that make music even have the mental capacity of introspection?

[pamosmusic]

One could argue that Beethoven could only use theory in his later life when he could no longer hear a thing.

Audiation, baby.

[James W]

In a sense, I think music theory is theory only in that it tries to explain why we hear things as music rather than noise. Or rather, most of us, or even only some (as with atonal/dodekakaphonic/avant-garde "music"). In that sense it's (empirical) science not math (which is a man-made system of tautologies, to put it "mildly").
Do you think the first human(oid)s to make music sat down to conceive theory before they started to produce sounds? Do you think other animals that make music even have the mental capacity of introspection?

These are pretty grandiose claims for music theory IMO. I don't think there is any music theory that explains why I love listening to e.g. Blackbirds sing. I've never come across any music theory that purports to tell me what is music as opposed to 'noise', which is surely a way of listening - an open-minded way of listening.

[Bobby Timmons]

You're missing the point.

Well I think I've uncovered your point since you had to be extremely vague in how and where you stated it. In the future, it's best to state your premise clearly up front, then back it up, not put together a bunch of disorganized points and then blame the reader for not understanding you.

Music is empirical science not math.

Anyway, I agree.

[pauln]

Aural basis in finger board space theory is alive and well

[pamosmusic]

That makes sense to me, because I've always seen music theory a bit like the laws of physics or (closer to home) evolution theory. We formulated all that; matter doesn't behave like matter because it has learned the laws it's supposed to obey and living organisms other than ourselves don't wonder why we're here to bother.

For what it’s worth, I might agree with you about the laws of physics but for a different reason.

When you get down to the really fundamental stuff, Newtonian mechanics don’t really apply any more.

[pauln]

The ancients observed agency of the fundamental elements
Earth sought to move to the local center of mass
Water sought likewise with the constraint of a level surface
Air sought to mutually self repel to equally occupy space
Fire sought to rise away from the center of mass

We moderns hypothesize directly absolutely undetectable fields which cause observable motion of dead test particles placed within them... we've shifted the endowment of agency to the invisible fields. This is considered an improvement in our understanding.

[Christian Miller]

That makes sense to me, because I've always seen music theory a bit like the laws of physics or (closer to home) evolution theory. We formulated all that; matter doesn't behave like matter because it has learned the laws it's supposed to obey and living organisms other than ourselves don't wonder why we're here to bother.

Well, the theorists like it that way, of course... but the more ambitious strands of Music Theory tend to display aspects of scientism. Generally I think it's benign.

Music theory wouldn't stand up to the same standards of proof required by a scientific theory.

[Bop Head]

Audiation, baby.

I'll print T-shirts and sell them at Munich's jazz schools and jam sessions.

Hmm ... Helvetica or Futura?

[GuyBoden]

Music theory wouldn't stand up to the same standards of proof required by a scientific theory.

"Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review."


But, does the "Peer Review" process itself stand up to the same standards of proof required by a scientific theory.

[Christian Miller]

"Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review."


But, does the "Peer Review" process itself stand up to the same standards of proof required by a scientific theory.

I’m sorry I can’t hear you over the sound of General Relativity being observationally verified to the limit of measurability. (Which is a bit annoying actually because it would be quite fun if it was even a little bit wrong.)

In seriousness peer review is a system that isn’t as perfect as say, repeating the experiment/measurement but quite a few mechanisms are in place to try and reduce scientists biasing the results of their data analysis, such as blind analysis. Things get through peer review which later turn out false, but the wheels of research turn on a longer timescale.

Music theory doesn’t have these mechanisms of self correction. Which is fine as long as it doesn’t start pretending to be more than it is.

But you know musos are all medievalists at heart, aren’t we? Or maybe toga bois.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[A. Kingstone]

I considered Barry Harris my friend but my peer, no chance. I wish.

His review in 2005 of my book on his harmonic teaching when he skimmed through it was "that's no jive".

I think that should be my epitaph.