The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 78
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    There's (1) theory and (2) applied theory (on your instrument/instruments). It's not either/or, it's both, even if one's ambition stops at the guitar. Learn both and you'll learn faster/better.


    And - if one intends to compose or arrange for ensembles that are anything other than tiny? Possessing only a geetar picker's knowledge of harmony/theory ain't gonna get the job done.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Alan Kingstone says ‘you are either a gripper or a mover.’ (Grips as in chord shapes.)

    The former can be characterised as vertical harmony, the second as counterpoint.

    Guitar by its necessity starts off as a grips oriented instrument, and some carry on in that vein. But you aren’t limited to that in the long run. Chord grips and voicings (including extended voicings) are like frozen instants in musical time, still images in a movie.

    (Practically, it’s good to become flexible in your fingerings if you want to develop a more moving version of harmony.)

    however, starting with grips is a time honoured way to go about things. So if you’re new to it, do that for a few years. You can use grips as a basis for chord melody, soloing and comping without necessarily having to know a ton of theory. Many greats of the past have done exactly this.

    Theory is the map of the piano not the guitar, in a way. Or, should I say, it is much easier to put theoretical ideas onto the keyboard. Hence, learning at the piano is the best way of learning theory. I’ve got a lot from taking things from the piano onto the guitar (I’m a terrible pianist btw.)

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gladders
    I've been playing guitar on and off for years. I play trumpet to a medium grade, but my theory is useless. I'm learning jazz guitar and having a great time playing the licks and chord studies, but I know I'm going to have to confront the theory at some point.

    The question is, where to start?

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Christian... that gripper and mover analogy... really. I don't think Gladders a kid. It's almost like there are two flavors in life... Vanilla and chocolate.

    Piano is just a visual tool.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Thank you everyone. There's some really helpful stuff here.

    My main take-away is, don't worry about it. Just play. So I'll do that and let it all fall into place gradually. That suits me just fine.

    Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Yeah. One of my teachers compared music to a building site. I like that analogy.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gladders
    I've been playing guitar on and off for years. I play trumpet to a medium grade, but my theory is useless. I'm learning jazz guitar and having a great time playing the licks and chord studies, but I know I'm going to have to confront the theory at some point.

    The question is, where to start?
    Honestly, I believe the piano traditionally has become the go to instrument for theory because it was the go to instrument for VOLUME.
    Whether it was necessary for drums to be loud enough ( back in the jungle days ) or orchestras to be loud enough
    ( back in Victorian days )
    big bands ( 40's 50's ) or just Franz List banging away in a parlor, volume was vital.

    It doesn't make the piano the perfect learning machine and can lead to guitaritis ( why am I spending so much time on guitar when the knowledge is on the piano? ).

    Ironically the instrument laid out CHROMATICALLY ( well designed to teach music ) is used to teach Western TERTIARY theory.
    So we all start out the same and then piano players head right for drop two voicing which is probably introduced in book 1 of the Mel Bay Guitar series.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Well historically it was the quietest instrument - the clavichord.... so ...

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Don't play standards if you don't like them.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    On the other hand, don't keep choosing tunes that you can play blues and pentatonics over and kid yourself you're playing jazz... cause you ain't.

    Besides, categorising hundreds of tunes under one name as 'standards' and thinking all standards are boring and old fashioned is an excuse.

    ('You' means anyone. Not being personal to you, Litterick)

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Well historically it was the quietest instrument - the clavichord.... so ...
    clavichord:
    an early keyboard instrument producing a soft sound by means of metal blades
    attached to the inner ends of the keys gently striking the strings.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by WILSON 1
    clavichord:
    an early keyboard instrument producing a soft sound by means of metal blades
    attached to the inner ends of the keys gently striking the strings.
    The best thing about it was the ‘bebung’ - you could play bebop with bebung on one!

    Bebung - Wikipedia

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1

    Besides, categorising hundreds of tunes under one name as 'standards' and thinking all standards are boring and old fashioned is an excuse.

    ('You' means anyone. Not being personal to you, Litterick)
    I mean the tunes that are called standards, here and elsewhere; the tunes one finds in Ted Gioia's book of standards or in fake books and real books. If one does not like them, one should not practice them, because they will make one unhappy. I like some of them, although not enough to learn them.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by WILSON 1
    clavichord:
    an early keyboard instrument producing a soft sound by means of metal blades
    attached to the inner ends of the keys gently striking the strings.
    Nerd that I am I went to a clavichord concert once. It was incredibly quiet.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Whoa, that's a fascinating instrument.


  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    David Berkman's The Jazz Harmony Book is all about practical application with no indulgence in theory for theory's sake. I find it very good and very clear. The Open Studio website, run by two other master piano players, is also very good IMO.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    I mean the tunes that are called standards, here and elsewhere; the tunes one finds in Ted Gioia's book of standards or in fake books and real books. If one does not like them, one should not practice them, because they will make one unhappy. I like some of them, although not enough to learn them.
    They're just tunes, they have chords and a melody. Many of them are masterpieces of compositional skill. Why should they make anyone unhappy? I don't get that at all!

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    They're just tunes, they have chords and a melody. Many of them are masterpieces of compositional skill. Why should they make anyone unhappy? I don't get that at all!
    Spending hours learning a song one dislikes is almost bound to cause unhappiness. In the real world, outside jazz, the standards are largely forgotten. Young people, or even middle-aged people, do not enjoy listening to songs from Broadway musicals of the 1920s and 1930s. Why should we be expected to enjoy learning such songs?

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    Spending hours learning a song one dislikes is almost bound to cause unhappiness.Why should we be expected to enjoy learning such songs?
    The standards are just harmonic functions in the form of songs; some more likable than others.

    We study them to understand those functions which are then applied to other "more modern" tunes.

    I never liked a musician who didn't know what he / she was rejecting.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Music aside, the social aspect of the music is so important Miles called jazz ‘social music.’ Standards are a lingua franca. They allow the social music to happen.

    Without them we’re jamming on vamps. (Or we could do free jazz I suppose.)

    Standards are also super flexible. You can change a lot about them and the melodies are strong enough to support this.

    unless someone comes up with a new standard repertoire that is. (Are pop songs today good jazz vehicles?)

    if Litterick can teach me something he likes in a few minutes, grand, we can play some music. Works with singer songwriter and so on. But OTW modern jazz compositions are complicated and require elite level sight reading or rehearsal (or both)

    So you lose that conversational aspect of the music. I’m open to a new repertoire but I don’t know what that would be exactly. Perhaps the schools are standardising everything too much.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    Spending hours learning a song one dislikes is almost bound to cause unhappiness. In the real world, outside jazz, the standards are largely forgotten. Young people, or even middle-aged people, do not enjoy listening to songs from Broadway musicals of the 1920s and 1930s. Why should we be expected to enjoy learning such songs?
    I think that's going a litte far. 30s anyway. Kind of depends on what kind of music a kid grows up with in the home, don't you think?

  23. #47
    Bert Ligon' s Jazz Theory Resources Volume 1 is the best beginner jazz chord theory text IMO. Basic functional harmony starting point as opposed to CST. We used to have a lot of people on the forum triggered by the Jazz Theory Book by Mark Levine. Anyway, Ligon is somewhat a balancing source.

    Anyway, it's largely what Reg always talks about.
    1) Learn 7 scale degrees of major, spelled as 13ths.
    2) 7 scale degrees of harmonic minor, spelled as 13ths.
    3) 7 scale degrees of melodic minor- spelled as 13ths.

    Honestly, those cover almost everything, at least basic theoretical starting points. Secondary dominants and their tritones will imply a chord from one of those scales.

    Harmonic minor is especially important from theoretical standpoint (because it's functional), but melodic minor may have more practical use from a playing perspective. It's important to understand things, like the fact that altered "references" harmonic minor's functional application, and doesn't make much sense without understanding that relationship. (Most #'5s are really b13' s, or at least that's their functional basis, again, most of the time).

    Anyway, Ligon is highly recommended.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    Spending hours learning a song one dislikes is almost bound to cause unhappiness.
    Then don't do it. Do a song you like :-)

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Then don't do it. Do a song you like :-)
    That is what I was saying.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    I think that's going a litte far. 30s anyway. Kind of depends on what kind of music a kid grows up with in the home, don't you think?
    Yes, but not many parents would be playing music of the thirties and, in any case, children tend to react against their parents's tastes.