What do I really need to practice

[pamosmusic]

I heard maybe an interview with Peter Bernstein? Maybe a friend telling me from a lesson with him? Can’t remember …

… anyway he was like “I don’t know man, all this drop 2 and drop 3 and drop this and drop that. Just drop the fifth instead.”

[AdroitMage]

Yeah, four note chords are hard to play.

C G B E … easy on any string set.

E B C G … not bad on the top, really really hard on the middle and bottom

G C E B … easy on top, tough in the middle, easy on the bottom

B E G C … easy everywhere but not a popular voicing for the m9 in the outer voices (I don’t care, but I’m a heathen).

So fretboard knowledge aside … I can play all those voicings, but there are many that I’m not jumping to on the fly. If I want to voicelead them well, I *am 100% going to* run into voicings that just don’t lay well on guitar.

If I want extensions, it’s a whole other ball of wax. I could play some of those same voicings rootless to get 9ths, but 11ths and 13s are going to sub out the fifth and give me a whole other set of voicings that are often harder to play and that need to be voicelead too etc etc

3rd 7th and color as a framework means I have the bedrock of 3-7 voiceleading and can just slap whatever color I want on top to make a strong melody. On top of which, if I’m adding two notes, I’m going to land on some of those drop (mostly drop 2) voicings anyway when they lay well on guitar.

So I might flip the question on you:

If you can find your 3rds and 7ths, and your fretboard knowledge is where it should be, then why do you need this whole elaborate system of drop 2 and drop 3 and drop 2/4 and double drop voicings and upper structures and substitutions to get a harmonic vocabulary happening?

Four note voicings are a breeze for me, so that's all I got on that subject.

The drop 2 drop 3, etc., stuff is just the logic of deriving chord voicings in a systematic way that makes logical sense, and a way to memorize the chord voicings you need to be able to grip at a moments notice. So with that logic applied, if you want to derive some drop 3 voicings, you have the system to do that. Within those, though, your fretboard knowledgs should be good enough to see the intervals within the voicings, and that applies to the voicings when externsions and alterations are added too.

[Tal_175]

Well okay ... but having a voicing that relies on the presence and arrangement of the other voices also requires you to voice-lead those voices or you end up in a pickle pretty quickly.

C G Bb and Eb means you obviously voice-lead Bb to A and Eb is a common tone. But C is a common tone and G goes to F. Those notes could do other things (C# and Gb or something maybe) but they have to be accounted for too. So when you're focusing on the location and movement of the 3 and 7, then you end up with a lot more flexibility in the kind of voicing you're using, but also the texture -- in that Alone Together, he pretty routinely switches between 2, 3, and 4-note textures, root on the bottom or rootless, keeping the voice-leading intact the whole time.

I can see the benefits of keeping guide tones in the middle strings , and organizing other voicings around the movements of these two voices. It is true that in the Ed Bickert transcription I posted, he tends to keep the guide tones in adjacent middle strings and they do the heavy lifting. So you can play similar ideas using your approach. On the other hand the majority of the voicings are basic drop-2's and drop-3's(* see below). F6 and F7 are mislabeled BbMajor7's. He voice-leads the drop-3 BbMajor7 to Drop3 Amin7 etc. These are all standard grips (with the fifths and all), so it's not obvious to me that he must be building these voicings from guide tones rather than directly accessing all the voices.

Working directly with three, four or five part voice-leading is not unusual. Ted Greene, Bret Willmott, Randy Vincent, John Thomas, Johannes Haage have written books on the study of voice-leading with 3+ voices. I personally find it pointless to read and memorize voice-leading from books as I prefer exploring these things on my own but it shows that many prominent educators and performers see the benefit of working on multipart voice-leading without working on two voices in isolation.

The way I work on voice-leading is primarily based on four and three-part voicings. The three-part voicings are usually missing the root or the fifth (sometimes the top note). Each voicing is a group of voicings that can be achieved by exploring moving each voice up and down. I explore voice-leading inside a chord as well as connecting chords. Moving inside a chord means working on step-wise movements that retain the function of the chord-of-the moment (as I described on the first page of this thread). Not every voice moves or moves in the same direction. I also work on different ways of voice-leading the the next chord from whereever I ended up in the step wise movement. The goal is to harmonize phrases that across changes on the fly like I hear Ed Bickert does. This is not how I always comp in a combo setting but I see the benefits of practicing tunes this way in my playing.


*In the second and forth bar he breaks up the voicings but he is clearly holding down the drop grips as he plays them.

[GuyBoden]

A three note Major chord with the 5th in the bass and no root is good for comping in a Jazz Guitar Duo.

It is good for voice leading on the low bass string.



Three note chords are all you really need for basic comping.

[Tal_175]

I heard maybe an interview with Peter Bernstein? Maybe a friend telling me from a lesson with him? Can’t remember …

… anyway he was like “I don’t know man, all this drop 2 and drop 3 and drop this and drop that. Just drop the fifth instead.”

Yes, I heard him say something like that in a workshop. But then he goes on to play a fifth in the bass voicing in the next tune, lol.

[Christian Miller]

So yeah, this is what I'm thinking of in terms of 'guitar grips'. These are a mix of four, three and two note chords but most of them have no 5th.

No one uses them better than Pete, but these shapes should all be familiar to intermediate level jazz guitarists. If they are not - learn 'em.

it's not the voicings you know, it's what you do with them.

[Christian Miller]

For my own approach, I like three voices a lot for voice leading. There's a lot of flexibility in terms of how those voices can move, what sustains etc.

But four notes are good for a more percussive style. However voice leading in four voice on guitar does tend to come out homophonic and perhaps a little choppy. That's almost a part of the traditional vocabulary of chord melody guitar - Wes, Barney etc. It's vibe in itself.

[pamosmusic]

I can see the benefits of keeping guide tones in the middle strings , and organizing other voicings around the movements of these two voices. It is true that in the Ed Bickert transcription I posted, he tends to keep the guide tones in adjacent middle strings and they do the heavy lifting. So you can play similar ideas using your approach. On the other hand the majority of the voicings are basic drop-2's and drop-3's(* see below). F6 and F7 are mislabeled BbMajor7's. He voice-leads the drop-3 BbMajor7 to Drop3 Amin7 etc. These are all standard grips (with the fifths and all), so it's not obvious to me that he must be building these voicings from guide tones rather than directly accessing all the voices.

Are we still talking about the video you posted?

Working directly with three, four or five part voice-leading is not unusual. Ted Greene, Bret Willmott, Randy Vincent, John Thomas, Johannes Haage have written books on the study of voice-leading with 3+ voices. I personally find it pointless to read and memorize voice-leading from books as I prefer exploring these things on my own but it shows that many prominent educators and performers see the benefit of working on multipart voice-leading without working on two voices in isolation.

I don’t think I said it’s two voices in isolation. Can be, but doesn’t need to be.

The way I work on voice-leading is primarily based on four and three-part voicings. The three-part voicings are usually missing the root or the fifth (sometimes the top note). Each voicing is a group of voicings that can be achieved by exploring moving each voice up and down. I explore voice-leading inside a chord as well as connecting chords. Moving inside a chord means working on step-wise movements that retain the function of the chord-of-the moment (as I described on the first page of this thread). Not every voice moves or moves in the same direction. I also work on different ways of voice-leading the the next chord from whereever I ended up in the step wise movement. The goal is to harmonize phrases that across changes on the fly like I hear Ed Bickert does. This is not how I always comp in a combo setting but I see the benefits of practicing tunes this way in my playing.

Okay.

[GuyBoden]

I think we need more threads on basic comping (with good time), because comping is what Jazz guitarists spend most their time doing.

[AllanAllen]

I never work on voice leading, sometimes it happens by accident and it's nice.

Y'all got any clips of you comping with 3 and 4 note voice leading? Rhythm changes would do just fine as an example/exercise.

[AllanAllen]

I think we need more threads on basic comping (with good time), because comping is what Jazz guitarists spend most their time doing.

Just a warning, I'm going to drift it into a Red Garland and McCoy Tyner appreciation thread.

[GuyBoden]

Just a warning, I'm going to drift it into a Red Garland and McCoy Tyner appreciation thread.

But obviously, you can only use three note chords.

[AllanAllen]

But obviously, you can only use three note chords.

Man, I'm often still using grips from Easy Jazz Guitar. Going to 3 notes would be a development. LOL

[pamosmusic]

I never work on voice leading, sometimes it happens by accident and it's nice.

Y'all got any clips of you comping with 3 and 4 note voice leading? Rhythm changes would do just fine as an example/exercise.

Im due to make a video for a student on a blues.

At this point it’ll have to wait until after quiet time but sometime today

[Christian Miller]

Comping isn't voice leading really. Voice leading is part of comping, but mostly comping is about making the other player sound good. So that's at least as much about rhythm, tone, texture, FORM and listening.

To comp well I think you need to be playing stuff that is deep in your bag, similar to soloing.

I can play some voice leading stuff that sounds nice in isolation, but by definition it's not comping.

[pamosmusic]

Comping isn't voice leading really. Voice leading is part of comping, but mostly comping is about making the other player sound good. So that's at least as much about rhythm, tone, texture, FORM and listening.

To comp well I think you need to be playing stuff that is deep in your bag, similar to soloing.

I can play some voice leading stuff that sounds nice in isolation, but by definition it's not comping.

Mike Moreno says Rhythm, Counter-Melody, Voice-Leading in that order.

I think voiceleading is the most fun for us so we get super into that. It’s like a little puzzle.

[GuyBoden]

This bloke with a "Catfood" jumper has some nice basic three note chord ideas in his good videos.

Edit: I like the Eddie Lang type comping in the video at 4:35 that's very good for Duo playing, this bloke in the video has very good time too.

[AllanAllen]

omping is about making the other player sound good. So that's at least as much about rhythm, tone, texture, FORM and listening.

I know we have this concept that what you comp is a response to the solo, but does that every actually happen?

I mean, all that I do is keep the form going. I have voicings and subs and turnarounds, but I never feel like I'm responding to the solo. Nothing like George Barnes and Ruby Braff had, but I guess Barnes wasn't really comping, the other guitarist was...

[pamosmusic]

I know we have this concept that what you comp is a response to the solo, but does that every actually happen?

I mean, all that I do is keep the form going. I have voicings and subs and turnarounds, but I never feel like I'm responding to the solo. Nothing like George Barnes and Ruby Braff had, but I guess Barnes wasn't really comping, the other guitarist was...

Yeah for sure. Rhythmically responding for sure — constantly all the time. Sometimes the correct rhythmic response is just to lay it down, though too. Other times it’s to go along for the ride more.

Textural interaction … responding to density with something sparse or vice versa.

Harmonic interaction … I think most common as “the solo is getting dissonant, so the accompanist is too” or the solo is getting dissonant so the accompanist stays inside. More broad intensity level things than “the soloist played the ninth on that, so the accompanist is too. There’s some of that, but I feel like that’s more of an effect.

[Christian Miller]

I think of it more like being an arranger FWIW. Your job is to make a space for the solo to happen.

Things like - playing the same thing for the A sections are actually really helpful - this is a tip Peter suggests. It helps the soloist to have some sort idea of what to expect.

Interaction can work, but the issue with that is it can in fact be really annoying to have the accompanist play along with what you are playing. True interaction is often about listening to what the soloist is playing and playing something complementary to it. This might mean playing sustained simple chords when the soloist is active and busy, or playing little clusters of detail in the gaps between phrases. Or just playing - well - not a lot really.

[AllanAllen]

the soloist played the ninth on that, so the accompanist is too. There’s some of that, but I feel like that’s more of an effect.

This is what I understand the baseline to be when I read what comping is. Needless to say, it's overwhelming and does not align to my real world experience.

I also wonder if it's somewhat of an arranged effect, in as much as "the soloist is playing a quote and I know the shout riff" can be called an arrangement.

[Tal_175]

The comper's freedom also depends on whether the soloist needs the comping to tell them where they are. The less babysitting the accompanist needs to do, the more arrangement possibilities open up. In the real world this is part of the interaction, if the comper is listening, then they would know when the soloist is in trouble and can use some help.

[pamosmusic]

Interaction can work, but the issue with that is it can in fact be really annoying to have the accompanist play along with what you are playing. True interaction is often about listening to what the soloist is playing and playing something complementary to it. This might mean playing sustained simple chords when the soloist is active and busy, or playing little clusters of detail in the gaps between phrases. Or just playing - well - not a lot really.

Yeah that’s the tricky part. I don’t really think any of that is incompatible with interaction. We usually make the mistake of thinking interacting with someone is filling the space.

I’ll risk a language metaphor and say that being a good listener sometimes means nodding along and saying “mmhm” here and there and other times it means interjecting. People who interject all the time can be exhausting and people who never interject and make you do all the work are exhausting in a completely different way.

[pamosmusic]

This is what I understand the baseline to be when I read what comping is. Needless to say, it's overwhelming and does not align to my real world experience.

Yeah I think a lot of people get that impression. I know I did for a long time. It can be cool … like hey the soloist is holding out that #11 so I’ll pedal that note too.

But in most instances I feel like that’s more self gratifying than contributing to the music — like just telling the audience “see check it out I’m listening” or showing the band that your ear is functional.

Christians definition of accompanying as just “doing what the soloist needs” is about as simple as it gets and almost by definition the one thing the soloist probably doesn’t need is for me to be playing the thing they’re already playing, or just played.

I also wonder if it's somewhat of an arranged effect, in as much as "the soloist is playing a quote and I know the shout riff" can be called an arrangement.

This on the other hand is interaction at its coolest.

I was at a session a couple weeks ago and the sax player was an old professor of mine who is a MONSTER player and also goofy and fun and we were playing Girl From Ipanema and he was playing these big honks and bebop quotes and stuff. The piano player was maybe 18 or 19 and had played A Train earlier in the night, so when we came around to the A section once, he played the A train intro over the first four bars and the sax player went off and started playing a bunch of stuff from the original recording (do re mi fa sol la to do re….. faaaaallll … si ).

That sort of thing works on so many levels — everyone knows the literature, they know the tunes well enough to know that they’re the same in those spots, they know their instruments well enough to put them together on the fly, and **everyone in the room was in on the joke** It was goofy and cool and that is the most fun that the sort of monkey see monkey do interaction can be.

[AllanAllen]

I’ll risk a language metaphor and say that being a good listener sometimes means nodding along and saying “mmhm” here and there and other times it means interjecting.

I was about to reply to Christian with the exact metaphor. This makes a lot of sense to me. Sometimes the solo is a presentation and sometimes it's a conversation.