Arpeggios or Licks?

[pamosmusic]

Theory is naming stuff. It doesn’t really matter if you call a Gm chord the orange sad sound or a Gm chord. Naming things helps sort it in your head and find the same sound later.

The specific names are useful in that they’re common language.

Its like the Dewey decimal system in a library.

Maybe some people act like the Dewey Decimal system is useless because they organize the shelves in their home alphabetically and by language.

Maybe other people act like knowing how to find a book is the same as knowing what’s in the book, so they spend all their time memorizing the system.

Both misunderstand its purpose.

[joe2758]

Theory is naming stuff. It doesn’t really matter if you call a Gm chord the orange sad sound or a Gm chord. Naming things helps sort it in your head and find the same sound later.

The specific names are useful in that they’re common language.

Its like the Dewey decimal system in a library.

Maybe some people act like the Dewey Decimal system is useless because they organize the shelves in their home alphabetically and by language.

Maybe other people act like knowing how to find a book is the same as knowing what’s in the book, so they spend all their time memorizing the system.

Both misunderstand its purpose.

I read this and just spent half an hour naming chords after characters from Shrek II

[henryrobinett]

I think I disagree with both of your points: (1) You don't have to learn a a scale for each chord quality, just understand scale harmony, e.g., the III chord in the melodic and harmonic minor scales is a maj.7#5.

(2) You don't have to learn a lot of rules of application, just learn to play what you're hearing. I think the creative process should precede the analysis of it.

Yeah. I don’t think you have to learn a lot of new scales. Just look at the ones you know from different angles. B melodic minor. But it has so many different applications. For Bb altered dominant. For E7+11. For DMaj7+5. Same scale. Different viewpoints. I think of them as one scale from different rooms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brent.h]

I read this and just spent half an hour naming chords after characters from Shrek II

I spent an hour playing Tickle-Toe to internalise both arpeggios and (playable fragments that could pass as) licks!

[joe2758]

Did you play the gingerbread man chord in the second A?

[pamosmusic]

Yeah. I don’t think you have to learn a lot of new scales. Just look at the ones you know from different angles. B melodic minor. But it has so many different applications. For Bb altered dominant. For E7+11. For DMaj7+5. Same scale. Different viewpoints. I think of them as one scale from different rooms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Teaching is always interesting because you think about how much of this junk you know is actually important.

I usually teach major and "dominant" or "mixolydian" as really useful modes to know. By which I mean it's good to the dominant or mixolydian without having to do the translation from major -- basically just because of blues. Good to be able to orient yourself to either of those. The other mode names get much less useful. Maybe a steep drop off to Dorian and Aeolian or Natural Minor, and then the other three I don't think I've ever needed to really know.

[brent.h]

Did you play the gingerbread man chord in the second A?

lol whats a gingerbreadman chord, im dumb

[rpjazzguitar]

Another example.

I know what lydian sounds like. I know I can get to it by playing a #11 (or some chord tones a whole step up), but I have to think for a fraction of a second about it.

OTOH, I can hear and play lydian dominant without thinking at all. I know it by sound and my fingers go right to those notes on the fingerboard.

In the case of lydian dominant I feel like I have the sound internalized -- and it was almost instant when I heard baiao music that used it. No theory. Just hear the line and play it.

For lydian, I know the sound, but I don't have it internalized at the same depth. So, I use the theory as a support, or crutch, depending on your point of view.

One thing I know about this type of discussion is that if someone denies using theory, someone else will argue that he is in fact using theory but not recognizing it.

[rpjazzguitar]

Teaching is always interesting because you think about how much of this junk you know is actually important.

I usually teach major and "dominant" or "mixolydian" as really useful modes to know. By which I mean it's good to the dominant or mixolydian without having to do the translation from major -- basically just because of blues. Good to be able to orient yourself to either of those. The other mode names get much less useful. Maybe a steep drop off to Dorian and Aeolian or Natural Minor, and then the other three I don't think I've ever needed to really know.

This is completely a tangent to the main discussion, but I wanted to ask your view of a small point.

It has long seemed to me that a Cmajor scale and a G7 scale (I've had at least one world class teacher use those terms) are not the same thing. Or shouldn't be. I'd suggest that the Cmajor scale not have an F and the G7 scale not have a C.

So, one is a Cmaj7(69) and the other is a G7(69), or something like that. Calling them maj13 includes the 11, hence the odd names).

That is, that thinking of major scale harmony in terms of hexatonics makes sense. Otherwise you can think of them conventionally while acknowledging avoid notes if you believe such a thing exists.

[pamosmusic]

This is completely a tangent to the main discussion, but I wanted to ask your view of a small point.

It has long seemed to me that a Cmajor scale and a G7 scale (I've had at least one world class teacher use those terms) are not the same thing. Or shouldn't be. I'd suggest that the Cmajor scale not have an F and the G7 scale not have a C.

What? Why not?

[pamosmusic]

Did you play the gingerbread man chord in the second A?

Its a Muffin Man on the original recording for sure.

[Mick-7]

So, one is a Cmaj7(69) and the other is a G7(69), or something like that. Calling them maj13 includes the 11, hence the odd names).

That would be more confusing. A 13th chord always includes the 7th (if not it's called a 6 chord) but it may or may not include the 11th or the 9th, e.g., this common guitar chord includes neither chord tone:
G13: | 3-x-3-4-5-x |

[Christian Miller]

Theory is descriptive of sound. If you know the descriptions without knowing their associated sounds, you're like someone trying to bake a soufflé who has never actually tasted a soufflé.

Thus, theory and ear training go hand in hand.

The way theory helps playing is when you hear something on the TV (or the bandstand, or in your head) your theoretical-brain says "my ears are telling me that I hear a ii-V-I" or "my ears are hearing lydian dominant" or "the pianist just subbed an altered dominant that is a tritone sub for the vanilla V" and then it goes further to say "so I can play Dorian, or melodic minor from the 5th, or a half-whole diminished scale, or a full diminished arp a half-step up from the root" because your mental connection between theory and sound is strong enough that you know not just what you heard but what those responses will sound like before you play them.

You may be using theory more than you are aware.

Depends what you mean by theory of course. Music theory in so much as practical musicians use it is at its best when it accepts that it is stamp collecting, and at its worst when it starts to think it is physics. Much music is built from oft repeated modules (or schemata if you are being posh.) These modules can be decorated and extended but they are still recognisable.

I’ve come to think that ear training, reading and improvisation all happen at the phrase level. It’s interesting how often musical styles gravitate to a fairly small number of archetypes - such as voice leading formulae. How many standards have 3-3-1 on II V I in their last phrase? Squillions of them.

This is so well known we have memes- the Licc, the Axis chord progression.

It seems people naturally learn music this way. The street knowledge of jazz has long categorised things like cycles, turn backs, Montgomery Ward bridges and so on. And these names might be localised to the community of players. One we have in the UK is the Kipper for a Night and Day style #IV turnaround. I have no idea if this name is widespread.

The same is even more the case for Common Practice European music. It’s a small room.

Where this falls down is in progressive jazz where there’s much greater variety in the way harmonies move. An obvious example is Wayne of course, but Wayne does have Wayne moves. It’s probably no coincidence jazz became more scale oriented at this time. But scales themselves are kind of modules.

But for the learner the advice learn tunes/learn solos is the most organic and holistic way to learn these elements. And despite my natural tendency to categorise everything like the massive nerd I am, I am skeptics about how much help this is. In fact, I don’t think there’s a shortcut. Plus if you learn hundreds of tunes by ear, you’ll know hundreds of tunes and will certainly have a good ear.

It’s a very efficient way to practice, despite the reductionist claims to the contrary. Instead of looking for shortcuts, perhaps we should ask ourselves if we really afford the time to learn it any other way?

Teachers leave them kids alone!

(thats what my MA in music education taught me haha. But it isn’t just jazz musicians who lament the loss of the apprenticeship system, as flawed as it is.)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[djg]

It seems people naturally learn music this way. The street knowledge of jazz has long categorised things like cycles, turn backs, Montgomery Ward bridges and so on. And these names might be localised to the community of players. One we have in the UK is the Kipper for a Night and Day style #IV turnaround. I have no idea if this name is widespread.

in germany and holland it is called the kuester schluss or kuster slot. the kuester (sexton/verger) would often play the organ in church.

[Christian Miller]

Yeah. I don’t think you have to learn a lot of new scales. Just look at the ones you know from different angles. B melodic minor. But it has so many different applications. For Bb altered dominant. For E7+11. For DMaj7+5. Same scale. Different viewpoints. I think of them as one scale from different rooms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s what I do I think.I mean you kind of have to think of both things at once to some extent. Oh there’s a Bm7b5, I’ll play Dm6 stuff. Until you don’t think about it any more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

in germany and holland it is called the kuester schluss or kuster slot. the kuester (sexton/verger) would often play the organ in church.

Interesting. I have no idea of the etymology of Kipper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GuyBoden]

don’t think, KNOW.

"Don't Think, KNOW"

Yes, a great comment, "Don't Think, KNOW" comes with the years and years of practice we've all hopefully put in.

[Christian Miller]

"Don't Think, KNOW"

Yes, a great comment, "Don't Think, KNOW" comes with the years and years of practice we've all hopefully put in.

I mean, yeah…. no one is born KNOWING how to solo through Moments Notice.

(Apart from Chris Potter maybe.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[henryrobinett]

I mean, yeah…. no one is born KNOWING how to solo through Moments Notice.

(Apart from Chris Potter maybe.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. There are no short cuts. The only way to KNOW comes after years and years of playing and practice. That’s why I feel these forums are so frustrating. Because there’s too much thinking going on. It only comes from playing. Practicing ahead of time working through however you want to think about these things and playing. Eventually, the playing will happen and the thinking will stop. For me it’s always been a see-saw. Probably like all of us I discovered very early that playing was almost an out of body experience. But then when I had to stop and think about learning songs or what scale I’m gonna use or how to play on top of this type of chord or something really drastic like Moments Notice or Giant Steps, I had to think about it and practice chord change after chord change to get through the entire thing. And working through all the scale patterns and all of the arpeggios that fit like a glove to the scale patterns so I could see the neck. Looking isn’t thinking. So I just look at the neck and I see BMaj to D7 to G to Bb7 to Eb. Do it till I could know it. See it. Not think about it. IMPROVISE through it. And if someone asked me what I was doing, I’d have to stop and THEN think. “Well, let me see that was, . . . the first chord is B right? And then it goes to a 2-5 in G and then a 2-5 in E flat. Simple, right. It’s just offkilter to the bar. But that’s the only time I start thinking. If I had to explain or if I’m reading it.

But think think-think-think isn’t going to do it. Method after method book. There ARE systems. Some are more complex systems or that sound more complex than they are. A lot of guys like the Coltrane guys use patterns. And many of those patterns, almost doesn’t matter what they play on top of given chords. Particularly with some modal things. They’re just patterns. Sounds great. But theoretically not so difficult.

[henryrobinett]

Addendum: I’ve never been a lick player. Never ever ever. Ok. Exceptions. Early on I learned a couple of blues licks. The standard bend thing. Haven’t we all? And there was a four note Dexter Gordon lick that I learned. But I always thought Jazz was improvisational. So I did it the super hard way. I misapplied something that Mingus told me. “Play your own shit even if it stinks.” Well I just always played my own shit, even if it stunk. Didn’t matter. It was about connecting to my imagination. It was only ever about connecting to my own imagination. That was my grand experiment. I don’t know anyone else who decided to take that approach. You become much better “player “if you do it like everyone else. Learn solos. Learn licks. Put it together and eventually you’ll have your own voice. That just seemed backwards to me. “Hey, I like the way that guy dresses. I’m gonna buy his shoes and find out where he buys his clothes. I will learn how to walk like him and laugh like him, tell his jokes and eventually, I’ll find out how to be me.” It just sounded ass backwards to me. So I am who I am. My playing is me. My sound. You might not like it, but it’s my sound. I don’t want to sound like anyone else. I don’t want to NOT sound like anyone else I just don’t want to sound like anyone else. Because I’m not someone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joe2758]

Interesting. I have no idea of the etymology of Kipper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Around here it's referred to as "three little pigs" and I think that may also have German roots.

[pamosmusic]

Addendum: I’ve never been a lick player. Never ever ever. Ok. Exceptions. Early on I learned a couple of blue licks. The standard bend thing. Haven’t we all? And there was a four note Dexter Gordon lick that I learned. But I always thought Jazz was improvisational. So I did it the super hard way. I misapplied something that Mingus told me. “Play your own shit even if it stinks.” Well I just always play my own shit, even if it stunk. Didn’t matter. It was about connecting to my imagination. It was only ever about connecting to my own imagination. That was my grand experiment. I don’t know anyone else who decided to take that approach. You become much better “player “if you do it like everyone else. Learn solos. Learn licks. Put it together and eventually you’ll have your own voice. That just seemed backwards to me. “Hey, I like the way that Guy dresses. I’m gonna buy his shoes and find out where he buys his clothes. I will learn how to walk like him and laugh like him, tell his jokes and eventually, I’ll find out how to be me.” It just sounded ass backwards to me. So I am who I am. My playing is me. My sound. You might not like it, but it’s my sound. I don’t want to sound like anyone else. I don’t want to not sound like anyone else I just don’t want to sound like anyone else. Because I’m not someone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've known a couple people like this -- frankly not many -- and they've all had one thing in common, so I'm curious if you do as well.

They all sing A LOT. Like you mention you like Bird's second chorus on All the Things from Massey Hall and they just hum you the solo and are like "you mean that part?"

So I think there's definitely a lot of osmosis and connection with the ear there, even with people who can sort of skip the part where they put it on their instrument explicitly. Not sure if that's true of you.

[joe2758]

In terms of osmosis, I think Harry grew up in quite a good environment for that based on his bio!

[henryrobinett]

I've known a couple people like this -- frankly not many -- and they've all had one thing in common, so I'm curious if you do as well.

They all sing A LOT. Like you mention you like Bird's second chorus on All the Things from Massey Hall and they just hum you the solo and are like "you mean that part?"

So I think there's definitely a lot of osmosis and connection with the ear there, even with people who can sort of skip the part where they put it on their instrument explicitly. Not sure if that's true of you.

No. I’m a terrible singer. But I do hear in my head. And I can hum it in a sense. So maybe I do sing in my head I don’t know. But I see shapes and colors of sound. What are they called, synesthesia? A slight form of that I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joe2758]

That's so cool, you do mention "seeing" a lot