Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 51 to 84 of 84
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by dickbanks View Post
    The question often comes up in my chosen field, my "day job."

    "Are Engineers mathematicians?"

    The answer is, "not really. We only use the math as far as it helps to get the engineering job done."

    I see the same with music theory. It exists only to make the music better, or more accessible. It's a tool, pure and simple.

    It is NOT the music itself.
    I don't really see that analogy. I think that part of the problem is the term "music theory". Very often, what people call "music theory" is really more principles of practice and rules of thumb than it is like "theory" (which in other domains is usually a higher level of abstraction). There actually is music theory that is at that sort of higher level of abstraction (e.g., maybe George Russell as opposed to Jamey Aebersold), but the sorts of things listed in the OP really fall under what is more like "music engineering" than "music mathematics". That said, whether it's theory, or practice or practice, for some people it's much more integral to the creative process than it is for others. I know people who really dig very deeply into theory and work at bring ideas they study into their music (both composition and improv). For them, the study of theory (or also musicology and music history) becomes a seed for their creativity. I wouldn't say that doing this is better than not doing it (or vice versa). It's more a matter of how different people's minds work differently.

    John

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A. View Post
    I don't really see that analogy. I think that part of the problem is the term "music theory". Very often, what people call "music theory" is really more principles of practice and rules of thumb than it is like "theory" (which in other domains is usually a higher level of abstraction). There actually is music theory that is at that sort of higher level of abstraction (e.g., maybe George Russell as opposed to Jamey Aebersold), but the sorts of things listed in the OP really fall under what is more like "music engineering" than "music mathematics". That said, whether it's theory, or practice or practice, for some people it's much more integral to the creative process than it is for others. I know people who really dig very deeply into theory and work at bring ideas they study into their music (both composition and improv). For them, the study of theory (or also musicology and music history) becomes a seed for their creativity. I wouldn't say that doing this is better than not doing it (or vice versa). It's more a matter of how different people's minds work differently.

    John
    This thing what you said is a true thing.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Barney Kessel was there playing with Bird in the 40's, so you don't get much earlier for bebop guitar. In giving jazz improvisation instruction, he does mention having a basic knowledge of theory as being very helpful in learning. As Kessel was an original bebopper and not an academic, I'm going to assume that many players from that era and forward had a working knowledge of theory that was practical and complimented their great ears.




  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive View Post
    Theory, technique, playing by ear, reading music, it's all elements of good musicianship. It also helps to communicate.
    .
    I would strongly agree with that. I remember taking flamenco lessons with a couple of really great Spanish players, masterful playing, but neither could theoretically explain to me what was going on. They'd have me playing the patterns, clapping, singing and all, but when asked where the one was, I don't think they knew it! Same thing with some teachers in Berklee. They obviously all knew theory, but some would approach music in a practical, hands on and ear related way, others were more analytical and theory intensive. A big part of it is a personality thing, how you are as a person.

    I try to work on both approaches. I too have an engineering background (studied electrical eng. before focusing on music), so I try to relate to the mathematical aspect of jazz, and to the "soul" of the music as well. My usual conclusion when faced with choices in music, just work on everything..!

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    If You Know Harmony (chords), and you know modes, scales, interrelationships between certain scales and certain chords and how you can combine chords into progressions and knowing how to read numeric progression charts and how to know inversions Etc... Is in fact Theory.

    Whether you learn it on the streets or the you learn it in group sessions or in a formal classroom environment it is still Theory.

    How you apply the theory to your instrument this is what should be overcome to a degree where you know your instrument well.

    The old big bands that used to travel around the country and in the territories as they called it, a lot of times they had a musician on the payroll that knew Theory that knew Harmony that knew Rhythm and could read well, and what some of those bands did was employ this person to teach the rest of the band. So over time, the band became more knowledgeable in their craft.

    I think some theory is very important and as I said earlier you probably know a lot more Theory than you think because if you're working with your instrument and you can get around on it and you understand what works and what doesn't work you know Theory you just don't know the designations and the descriptions of what you're doing in a theoretical context.

    If you can pick up a rock and throw it, and hit a target with the rock you have just thrown you know the physical relationships of biomechanics but you might not understand the nomenclature behind those biomechanics. That doesn't mean you can't do something it just means that sometimes Theory helps to propagate your ideas to others in a language that is understood within the frame of reference that you were trying to convey.

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo View Post
    Barney Kessel was there playing with Bird in the 40's, so you don't get much earlier for bebop guitar. In giving jazz improvisation instruction, he does mention having a basic knowledge of theory as being very helpful in learning. As Kessel was an original bebopper and not an academic, I'm going to assume that many players from that era and forward had a working knowledge of theory that was practical and complimented their great ears.
    I agree with this and think the key word is "practical". It is like the apprenticeship undertaken in many crafts----one's aim is to raise one's own level of performance, not to become an academic student of the craft. (Some may wish to do both but most seek foremost to play.)
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    We don't need to be Edison to turn on a light switch. Or Graham Bell to use the telephone.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    When composing, theory is essential. Frustrating too since there are so many block and sequence sorts of things on guitar that seem to not map well to the chord/scale theory you can pick up easily on youtube. Always seems everything is an advanced topic and I'm sure someone who actually knows their stuff would know why something sounds right when it doesn't match the rules. But the answers are somewhere beyond secondary dominants and it can be frustrating for hobbyists to learn quickly and effectively. Still, if you write, you must have a basic grasp of theory to know where you've been and where you're going.

    Improvising, I put theory away as soon as I know the tune and understand the changes. I want my brain in neutral, not analyzing the progression in real time.
    Hell is full of musical amateurs - George Bernard Shaw

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Rereading Duncan Lamont's book 'Streetfighter's Guide to Improvisation'.

    Like 'Harmony with Lego Bricks', the title says it all....

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Rereading Duncan Lamont's book 'Streetfighter's Guide to Improvisation'.
    I've never seen a copy of this book. Is it still in print?
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    I've never seen a copy of this book. Is it still in print?
    I don’t know tbh

  13. #62

    User Info Menu


  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Thanks, Christian. Just ordered it. I read a three-page excerpt and liked that first scale mentioned (C D E F F# G# A# B) and the suggestion that one can play it over any chord. Played the scale and thought, "I like the sound of that!"
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    Thanks, Christian. Just ordered it. I read a three-page excerpt and liked that first scale mentioned (C D E F F# G# A# B) and the suggestion that one can play it over any chord. Played the scale and thought, "I like the sound of that!"
    To be honest, I've never tried the scale! I should do... It seems like a good get of jail free card for vamps and stupid changes no one can hear anyway.

    But the stories and advice - worth their weight.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    I know for certain that one of the greats didn't even know what a 'C' was, probably not helped by not being able to read or write.

    ..he managed to get by with just two fingers and an occasional couple of knuckles for chords.

    If you told him a song was in F he would be fairly confident that wasn't a suburb of Paris. He'd then play fluently and possibly make my eyes fill up.
    Whenever I get stumped I think of him.

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    This thread has been an interesting read as it's a conversation I've often had with students and colleagues both in and put of academia. First my background, I have both a Bachelors and a Masters in tuba performance and spent a majority of my advanced elective credits in theory. Ihave studied and taught everything from basic music theory to advanced counterpoint. With that, here's my take/opinion (I can't say that I think it's worth 2 cents, though):

    As has been already mentioned, we confuse two different aspects when discussing theory: tonal/intervalic relationships (something I've heard referred to as "applied theory" or "aural skills") and structural/abstract relationships (often the lecture/didactic learning associated with music theory as well as the study of acoustical physics).

    The first type, I find very useful and required to be successful in any form on an instrument, especially in jazz. I just think we learn/teach things out of order. Others have already mentioned this, but it's a reflective subject--a way to analyze what has been done. I know of no performer (regardless of classical, jazz, or otherwise) that thinks theory while they play or solo. It just doesn't work. And, it seems from my study and reading that a lot of the composers and players of yesteryear wouldn't understand our concept of theory. Bach new his theory and his intervals/scales but he probably wouldn't call a Neopolitan 6 chord (bII6) as such. He and others throughout history were taught music by imitating what they had heard and then developing their own ideas after that. Trying to teach structured and then have a student apply them is not only backwards but counterproductive as the listener doesn't care about if the music is theoretically sound (just take Schoenberg's music--without a strong understanding of his tonal/harmonic theory it is hard to appreciate it).

    The second form is like the science of music. It let's those that want to know learn why music is the way it is. This is useful, but unneeded for most performers. Understanding the Schenkerian Analysis of a piece of music doesn't teach you anything about what the composer wrote because it removed 99% of what is there. Understanding Schoenberg's Theory of composing and harmony will help you understand why he wrote something that way, but not why it sounds the way it does. And, acoustical physics will help you understand why something sounds the way it does in a particular environment but won't help you with how music is written. These three examples are abstract, or what I call real, music theory. They are taught in music schools to students that are often unprepared to understand their purpose or really make any use of them. I doubt that many of the greats that mainly performed dealt with much or any of this.

    It's a long, rambling post, I'm sure, but hopefully an interesting read. My experiences have greatly changed my impression and uses for these things over the years and, while I love real music theory, I find very little use for it in my daily life.

    P.S. This is my first real post other than selling a guitar years ago here. I really enjoy the variety in topic on this forum compared to others that I frequent. I'm hoping to find ways to be more active here as jazz guitar becomes more of a focus of my musical time instead of just lurking around because there really does seem to be some good conversations.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    Well my favourite nerd fact atm is how you make a Neapolitan 6th

    Back in 17th and early 18th century they didn’t have chord roots. Everything was from the bass and intervals above.

    So, 5 3 was obviously root position, but 6 3 is first inversion. But this generations thought of it as a different chord with a different function.

    Make a 6 3 on chord IV. Normally this would be - the jazzers favourite, IIm, in first inv - but that’s not how they though if it. They considered it a IV chord.

    Now, flatten both the 6 and 3 and you get the Neapolitan 6th. Beautiful. They thought of it as a colourful IV chord, nothing to do with bII.

    So if Bach thought in those terms, that’s how he would have viewed it.

    Anyway, as you were :-)

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thevillagetuba View Post
    This thread has been an interesting read as it's a conversation I've often had with students and colleagues both in and put of academia. First my background, I have both a Bachelors and a Masters in tuba performance and spent a majority of my advanced elective credits in theory. Ihave studied and taught everything from basic music theory to advanced counterpoint. With that, here's my take/opinion (I can't say that I think it's worth 2 cents, though):

    As has been already mentioned, we confuse two different aspects when discussing theory: tonal/intervalic relationships (something I've heard referred to as "applied theory" or "aural skills") and structural/abstract relationships (often the lecture/didactic learning associated with music theory as well as the study of acoustical physics).

    The first type, I find very useful and required to be successful in any form on an instrument, especially in jazz. I just think we learn/teach things out of order. Others have already mentioned this, but it's a reflective subject--a way to analyze what has been done. I know of no performer (regardless of classical, jazz, or otherwise) that thinks theory while they play or solo. It just doesn't work. And, it seems from my study and reading that a lot of the composers and players of yesteryear wouldn't understand our concept of theory. Bach new his theory and his intervals/scales but he probably wouldn't call a Neopolitan 6 chord (bII6) as such. He and others throughout history were taught music by imitating what they had heard and then developing their own ideas after that. Trying to teach structured and then have a student apply them is not only backwards but counterproductive as the listener doesn't care about if the music is theoretically sound (just take Schoenberg's music--without a strong understanding of his tonal/harmonic theory it is hard to appreciate it).

    The second form is like the science of music. It let's those that want to know learn why music is the way it is. This is useful, but unneeded for most performers. Understanding the Schenkerian Analysis of a piece of music doesn't teach you anything about what the composer wrote because it removed 99% of what is there. Understanding Schoenberg's Theory of composing and harmony will help you understand why he wrote something that way, but not why it sounds the way it does. And, acoustical physics will help you understand why something sounds the way it does in a particular environment but won't help you with how music is written. These three examples are abstract, or what I call real, music theory. They are taught in music schools to students that are often unprepared to understand their purpose or really make any use of them. I doubt that many of the greats that mainly performed dealt with much or any of this.

    It's a long, rambling post, I'm sure, but hopefully an interesting read. My experiences have greatly changed my impression and uses for these things over the years and, while I love real music theory, I find very little use for it in my daily life.

    P.S. This is my first real post other than selling a guitar years ago here. I really enjoy the variety in topic on this forum compared to others that I frequent. I'm hoping to find ways to be more active here as jazz guitar becomes more of a focus of my musical time instead of just lurking around because there really does seem to be some good conversations.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
    It’s a super important distinction to make

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Yeah there are a lot of street tricks and hustles that people don’t learn on college improv and harmony classes. You can listen to the records though - a lot of the jazz the courses are meant to be modelled on - Miles quintet and that - is rather badly behaved on the level of individual chords.

    Joe’s a case in point. Just simple functions - Dominant, Major, minor.
    I've never thought of that as simple. Rather I think of that as an incredibly elegant unifying theory that opens a huge number of doors.

    About theory in general, I know a reasonable amount and it has allowed me to build what I think of as my own theoretical extensions. My brother, who is a very fine keyboard player, knows a lot more than me and it has allowed him to build many more of his own extensions. When he and I talk music I have learned that I should listen to what he says more deeply because I will learn new things that will open new ideas. There has never been a single piece of theory that I have learned (or discovered) that has not eventually turned out to be useful in my pursuit of making music.
    My CD "Bare Handed" is available as a download at Bandcamp.com
    http://jimsoloway.bandcamp.com/album/bare-handed

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Soloway View Post
    I've never thought of that as simple. Rather I think of that as an incredibly elegant unifying theory that opens a huge number of doors.
    Yes that's a better way of putting it. I've certainly found that myself.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    As I said previously, I ordered this. However, I have since been informed that the book is out of print and it is not known when new copies will be made. My order was canceled by the seller. O well. One of these days....
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    As I said previously, I ordered this. However, I have since been informed that the book is out of print and it is not known when new copies will be made. My order was canceled by the seller. O well. One of these days....
    Darn, that makes me sad.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Darn, that makes me sad.
    Someone will bring it back. Perhaps because of Lamont's recent death, an updated version is in the works. (Just a guess.)
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Good questions all. These theory questions always bring me back to so many jazz instrumentalists who also studied keyboard.

    Dexter, Dizzy, Miles, Mingus, and countless others know jazz at the piano. It has always been my belief that ideas and theory is what sent jazz players to the keyboard. Miles is quoted to have replied to Trane's question of how he came up with that phrase..."study piano MF!"









    Even the great actor Jeff Goldblum, and Clint Eastwood know some jazz keyboard. The theory's visible and accessible.

    although, the musicianship of the great trumpeter Arturo Sandoval on piano is likely tough to top anyone can play piano.



    Jeff Goldblum
    "You've got to be in the sun to feel the sun. It's that way with music too." - Sidney Bechet

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    there's HUGE a difference between playing concepts and working them out on the piano and theorizing everything first and playing by those strict rules.

    I feel like I've said this too many times on the Jazz Guitar Forum:

    "there's nothing wrong with learning some theory... there is something incredibly wrong about learning theory in the absence of the ear"

    Too many people practice theory without sound. I say, any theory practice without sound is a waste of time...

    I'm a firm believer in the power of the ear because I used to study theory "in the absence of the ear" and you know what... it got me nowhere fast!

    Now I contextualize theory with my ears... learn a little piano and you'll do this automatically when you try out theory on the piano.

  27. #76

    User Info Menu

    Victor Wooten suggests that the most important scale for improvisation is chromatic. As we all know, there are only 12 pitches (ignoring octaves) and each pitch is within a semitone of on of the 7 scale tones for whatever key you happen to be in. If you know the sound of each pitch of the chromatic scale against any chord and you’ve got a good rhythm, and other elements of musicianship you should be able to start off with a random note and come up with a compelling melody.

    Of course, as a funk-oriented bassist he’s after something a little different than the rich harmonies of Ted Greene or Bill Evans. But I find it freeing to feel that all 12 pitches are available to me at any time when I’m soloing.

    Wooten explores this in his Groove Workshop starting around 42:00.

  28. #77

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by KirkP View Post
    Victor Wooten suggests that the most important scale for improvisation is chromatic. As we all know, there are only 12 pitches (ignoring octaves) and each pitch is within a semitone of on of the 7 scale tones for whatever key you happen to be in. If you know the sound of each pitch of the chromatic scale against any chord and you’ve got a good rhythm, and other elements of musicianship you should be able to start off with a random note and come up with a compelling melody
    This is exactly how I've been ear training for more than a decade, with one difference.

    The 12 chromatic pitches are sung against a key center, a progression, or an entire tune (while always being cognizant of the key of the tune).

    I practice singing this way, and I practice hearing pitches and dyads this way (I'm working up to triads since I LOVE triads)

    That's my huge secret to soloing as well. If I think chord changes or read changes, I get all types of conflabberghausted. But if I hear how everything, the melody, the harmony, and the note that I play "pull" on the tonal center of the tune--I'm golden.

    You know what seldom gets any air time in most of the theory circles? The theory of rhythm, phrasing, and rhythmic cadence. The theory of the drum. Maybe it's better that way. Or maybe I'm not part of the right "theory" circles? Paradiddles, hear I come (get it? "hear")

    That, and if I'm not totally intimated when I play with high school freshmen that play better than I ever could-- Kirk knows exactly what I mean!

  29. #78

    User Info Menu

    I don't know about the ' great ' players , but I was lucky enough to study and play with some professional jazzers who learned their craft before the sixties and the ' academicisation ' of jazz music .

    One thing I will say about them is that they could all read well . They had traditional musical educations so they learned ' common practice ' harmony and theory . I think they all understood jazz improvisation as a specific style or flavour of playing rather than a separate musical system . They all had somewhat idiosyncratic , non-systematic ways of explaining how they approached improvising but they all sounded ' authentic ' - and they all learned stuff from the classic records - that was the only way of learning .

    I was at a workshop with Alan Barnes once , we were playing ' Tin Tin Deo '
    The A section has some fairly fruity chords and someone asked him " what scales should I use for each of these chords " ?
    He said " o , I just play a minor pentatonic over the whole thing "
    Is that theory or is that praxis ?

  30. #79

    User Info Menu

    Tin Tin Deo, now there's a tune I wanna play!

    I haven't heard it in a while.

  31. #80

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Pycroft View Post
    I don't know about the ' great ' players , but I was lucky enough to study and play with some professional jazzers who learned their craft before the sixties and the ' academicisation ' of jazz music .

    One thing I will say about them is that they could all read well . They had traditional musical educations so they learned ' common practice ' harmony and theory . I think they all understood jazz improvisation as a specific style or flavour of playing rather than a separate musical system . They all had somewhat idiosyncratic , non-systematic ways of explaining how they approached improvising but they all sounded ' authentic ' - and they all learned stuff from the classic records - that was the only way of learning .

    I was at a workshop with Alan Barnes once , we were playing ' Tin Tin Deo '
    The A section has some fairly fruity chords and someone asked him " what scales should I use for each of these chords " ?
    He said " o , I just play a minor pentatonic over the whole thing "
    Is that theory or is that praxis ?
    Yeah. They took the street hustle out of jazz, led people to believe there’s a right and wrong way of doing it.

    As dear departed Duncan Lamont put it - use fair means, or foul. Play dirty.

  32. #81

    User Info Menu

    Bach new his theory and his intervals/scales but he probably wouldn't call a Neopolitan 6 chord (bII6) as such. He and others throughout history were taught music by imitating what they had heard and then developing their own ideas after that. Trying to teach structured and then have a student apply them is not only backwards but counterproductive as the listener doesn't care about if the music is theoretically sound
    I don't know about that - the big theorist of Bachs' time was Rameau and his ' Treatise on Harmony ' - I think musical practice of the time was hugely influenced by what we now call the Enlightenment with it's belief in an orderly universe governed by knowable rules . And of course this idea , that music reflects the metaphysical world , goes back to the Music of the Spheres , Boetius and ultimately ( allegedly ) Pythagoras . So I think that the musical culture of Bachs' time was intensely *ideological , without even factoring in the influence of the Church . We all know about the proscribed ' Diabolus in Musica ' - no matter what you thought sounded good , if you started playing Bebop in 15th c. Rome , you were getting excommunicated .

    A fascinating subject , perhaps a bit off topic .

  33. #82

    User Info Menu

    o , and another thing about the old school jazzers - they all served apprenticeships in dance bands - learning to blend timbre and rhythm with the rest of the band to create a whole greater than the sum of it's parts to get people dancing - now there's a dying art .

  34. #83

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Pycroft View Post
    I don't know about that - the big theorist of Bachs' time was Rameau and his ' Treatise on Harmony ' - I think musical practice of the time was hugely influenced by what we now call the Enlightenment with it's belief in an orderly universe governed by knowable rules . And of course this idea , that music reflects the metaphysical world , goes back to the Music of the Spheres , Boetius and ultimately ( allegedly ) Pythagoras . So I think that the musical culture of Bachs' time was intensely *ideological , without even factoring in the influence of the Church . We all know about the proscribed ' Diabolus in Musica ' - no matter what you thought sounded good , if you started playing Bebop in 15th c. Rome , you were getting excommunicated .

    A fascinating subject , perhaps a bit off topic .
    Apparently that's a myth about the tritone....

    Rameau I think was fairly irrelevant to professional musicians, but I think there was an idea that his theory would be like Newton's law of gravity for music... Apples have always fallen down, but this is why, sort of thing. I think Bach wouldn't have been interested in the why so much as the how, but I might be wrong. (Which is a philosophical distinction between the craft of composition and improvisation and music theory proper.)

    Not sure if that's what you meant, but to me the music of the spheres was fundamentally a pre-enlightenment concept. Newton (AFAIK) basically killed it... Kepler was a big fan, but essentially one of the last astronomers and natural philosophers to subscribe to the concept (again, as far as I know.)

    So ideology... maybe, but I feel this word is a little inadequate. When you are a musician working in the environment of the church and the court, with a huge amount of very specific social mores, some of which are articulated in music, that's a very different environment to what we are used to. Any restrictions we have in our music now are basically those we choose. This is a profoundly different situation to what it was in 17-18th century...

    But 15th century bebop? Well it was fashionable in late 14th century Avignon to write the weirdest music you could.

  35. #84

    User Info Menu

    Interesting segway into 15th century Baroq-o-bop.

    Who remembers that album that Artie Shaw did with harpsichord? That was an interesting timbre in a jazz quintet.

    Back to the OP...

    I've been talking with my mentor and I noticed two things:

    1. It is a lot harder to play with rhythms that are clean and concise than I initially thought, especially with single line playing.

    2. It is a lot harder to play basic material that clearly outlines the changes than I initially thought. My mentor listened to a recent solo I sent him from a local jam and he said I need to work on melodic and harmonic clarity. He also says that I really know my theory... See the disconnect? I tend to get excited by color tones, tension, and the ilk. My ear gravitates towards these sounds as well. BUT, I've noticed that I need to get better at playing "basic" material.

    Two things separate the amateurs:

    1. Impeccable time. Whether they play on the beat, pushing the beat, or behind--the time is ALWAYS rock solid.

    2. The ability to make "basic material" sound incredibly exciting.

    Here's my CST rant Part Deux:

    CST gets many guitar players obsessed with color tones and extensions (yes Chris'77, you said it first ). My mentor always emphasizes the triad, with a the 7th as a subsidiary. Right now, I have to revisit the rudiments. I've heard time and time again that most professional players are always finding ways to revisit and perfect their rudiments. A C7#11 doesn't mean shiz if you don't know how to approach the basic chord within the harmony that it exists within.

    Ah, there's the next tidbit that will get me in trouble round these parts. Even if you think of harmony as vertical--as Peter Mazza might--you have to square away a part of your mind to the study of how progressions work. That is, how each chord ultimately leads to some sort of resolution (whether it's chromatic ii-V's, back doors, tritones, etc.--I have this all on my mind because the next tune I'm working on with my mentor is... Stablemates! Yikes, but exciting!)
    Last edited by Irez87; 07-21-2019 at 11:12 PM.