The question of the value of exercise.

[pamosmusic]

It is very akin to a debate. There are certain protocols, certain forms to be followed, but you bring, not just the facts of the issue (your general and specific lexicon), but the ways in which they interact within contextual commonality (syntax), but in the end, it's yourself and what drives you in the moment and what comes through within the interaction in the expression of the ephemeral self (semantics) that it's about.
I see this as the biggest danger of neglecting or marginalizing the importance of creating one's own model of the medium. The emergence and the assertion of the self is not something that can be achieved without practice; it's not something that comes as a direct result from merely studying others.

I didn’t even see this one earlier.

You’re on a roll.

[Tal_175]

Christian posted a new video on this subject. It showed up on my youtube as a recommendation. I was just this morning thinking about something similar to what he covers in the video. Let's see if he is gonna post it as a thread. Are you planning to post it Christian?

[Christian Miller]

Christian posted a new video on this subject. It showed up on my youtube as a recommendation. I was just this morning thinking about something similar to what he covers in the video. Let's see if he is gonna post it as a thread. Are you planning to post it Christian?

wasn’t planning to but it’s the same video I posted a link to here a few days back

[Tal_175]

The part I was thinking about is learning a concept vs internalizing that concept on the fretboard.

We learn a concept, then we learn to access it on the fretboard and apply it to tunes, then we start hearing it. Also our fingers learn it which is not the same thing as muscle memory. Fingers learning is also being able to play ideas that you pre-hear. Association of sounds with fingerings and the fretboard geography.

There are a lot of "How to improvise in the style of jazz" threads on the forum. Does anybody disagree that if you can't:
- Connect chord tones in 8th notes through a tunes changes,
- Connect chord-scales in 8th notes through a tunes changes,
Then you've got to learn that first. You can simplify these initially. Use half notes instead of 8th notes, use triads instead of scales etc. Moreover one has to be aware of the intervallic relationship between the notes and the chord in the moment as opposed to seeing everything just as "dots".

Of course this is not music yet, but can we just safely and definitively say that the level of fretboard mastery required to do the above is a prerequisite to going further?

This is not easy. It took me several years of deliberate practice sessions to get to that level of fretboard internalization. The same thing also applies to chord voicings. Seeing chord voicings as vertical realizations of the notes used in building phrases (in a pianistic view).

I've never met anyone who can play (jazz) and who wouldn't consider what I describe above as very basic skills. You can pretty much take this all for granted.

Yet I've met many people who struggle with jazz sometimes for decades and don't have these basic fretboard skills.

[pamosmusic]

There are a lot of "How to improvise in the style of jazz" threads on the forum. Does anybody disagree that if you can't:
- Connect chord tones in 8th notes through a tunes changes,
- Connect chord-scales in 8th notes through a tunes changes,
Then you've got to learn that first. You can simplify these initially. Use half notes instead of 8th notes, use triads instead of scales etc. Moreover one has to be aware of the intervallic relationship between the notes and the chord in the moment as opposed to seeing everything just as "dots".

I think I agree with the sentiment here, though maybe quibble with the particulars.

Ive been working through some of Jordan’s basic stuff again, which I’d gotten before from some lessons I’d had with Brad Shepik a long time ago. But I’d been doing it for so long I’d kind of lost the thread, so it’s good to get things back to basics and stuff.

But that’s chord tones in half-notes, and then slowly and systematically adding chromatic embellishments and stuff.

Jordan is obviously triads only. My recollection of Shepik’s lessons were that it was seventh chords too (and even the occasional ninth). But I think the operative thing is the chromatic stuff. Making those happen musically and with a direct relationship to strong chord tones is probably more important than being able to do chord tones in a stream of eighth notes.

But again that’s kind of a technical disagreement. In theory yeah … scales and chord tones applied practically over a set of changes before those changes can be made to sound like jazz.

[Tal_175]

I think I agree with the sentiment here, though maybe quibble with the particulars.

Ive been working through some of Jordan’s basic stuff again, which I’d gotten before from some lessons I’d had with Brad Shepik a long time ago. But I’d been doing it for so long I’d kind of lost the thread, so it’s good to get things back to basics and stuff.

But that’s chord tones in half-notes, and then slowly and systematically adding chromatic embellishments and stuff.

Jordan is obviously triads only. My recollection of Shepik’s lessons were that it was seventh chords too (and even the occasional ninth). But I think the operative thing is the chromatic stuff. Making those happen musically and with a direct relationship to strong chord tones is probably more important than being able to do chord tones in a stream of eighth notes.

But again that’s kind of a technical disagreement. In theory yeah … scales and chord tones applied practically over a set of changes before those changes can be made to sound like jazz.

George Benson said that the fretboard lights up with the right notes for him when chords change. Of course what makes him great is what he can do with those notes, the lighting up of the fretboard part is not unique to great players. I can increasingly see the fretboard that way as well (there has been even a thread about it with many players also saying they have this skill to varying degrees.).

When people talk about using triads they mean two different things. Some people mean that they have internalized the fretboard really well but still use triads imbedded in the changes as inspiration for musical lines. On the other hand some people may be completely blind to anything outside of particular triad shapes they are applying to the changes. There are these dots and the rest of the fretboard. It may even be difficult for them to be aware of how the dots relate to the chord intervallically as they play around the shapes.

Imagine you are teaching someone to play over Cmajor on piano. You can show three fingerings that amount to the inversions of G major triad and say experiment with these shapes. Or you can say, use all the white notes but the 5th, 7th and the 9th form a triad (G major) and can be emphasized, embellished etc especially with the black keys for melodic effect and show them how other white notes relate to the chord. In the first case, the students view of the keyboard is that there are these shapes and there is everything else. I think this view introduces a low ceiling for learning the instrument. I think it might be very common in how people learn "simplified shapes" on guitar.


I'm perfectly happy to be wrong about the importance I place on the fretboard skills. Maybe that's just how some people approach their instruments and I'm one of them. But it seems counterintuitive to me that it would be otherwise when it comes to jazz.

[pamosmusic]

I'm perfectly happy to be wrong about the importance I place on the fretboard skills. Maybe that's just how some people approach their instruments and I'm one of them. But it seems counterintuitive to me that it would be otherwise when it comes to jazz.

Oh I don’t think this is wrong at all.

Im not a huge triad partisan, though I tend to think that way. Actually what you described above (seeing triads contained inside of things or linking together between changes) comes pretty close I think.

It was more the chord tones in eighth notes that I think is less essential. Eighth notes are the main subdivision we use, but think jazz guys tend to overestimate how often we get those continuous streams of eighth notes in music (as opposed to eighth notes in groups of four or five or six, separated by syncopations and longer rests). And when they do appear, we overestimate how many of the notes are chord tones. So the eighth notes on chord tones can be a lot. And counter-intuitively, I find it can reinforce the kind of rote playing you’re talking about where people just see the patterns rather than possibilities and embellishments. Half notes are the sweet spot for me because the muscle memory is gone. When you play through changes in half notes (whether triads or more extended chords) you never get to string together a whole arpeggio fingering and that can be super helpful for the kind of distinction you highlight in your piano example.

Anyway … I’m really not disagreeing with the overall sentiment here. Being able to visualize and access all those rudiments and stuff over a set of changes is a baseline. The tools and technical demands can be simple though. This is just a thought about the eighth notes in particular.

[Christian Miller]

TBH I’m personally finding I’m using chromatics less and less to play jazz lines. Good rhythm and chord tones goes a long way to making hip bop lines. Just look at some Bird heads.

Not that you can’t use all that stuff. Just a personal thing. Play vanilla harmonically and something as simple as a tritone triad really sticks out. A lot of bop is like this (not all.)

I think also digging into classical improv has given me a bigger appreciation of the basics, and also the rhetorical aspects of note choice which seem rarely discussed. Resolving to 1 has a different structural use to resolving to 3 for instance. There’s a lot there which I won’t ramble on about, but it’s interesting how much that stuff can teach you about bop if you look carefully, when to express the seventh, when to express the ninth etc.

[Christian Miller]

Oh I don’t think this is wrong at all.

Im not a huge triad partisan, though I tend to think that way. Actually what you described above (seeing triads contained inside of things or linking together between changes) comes pretty close I think.

My thing with triads is that seventh chords are often taught as a baseline and if you look at bop lines in the wild it’s clear right away that a lot of them are based on triads. So starting with triads and building up is a great idea, and I feel peeved that I started with seventh chords haha.

[pamosmusic]

TBH I’m personally finding I’m using chromatics less and less to play jazz lines. Good rhythm and chord tones goes a long way to making hip bop lines. Just look at some Bird heads.

Hmm. Interesting. Not sure I come to the same conclusion.

I would agree that the chromatics tend to be simple—leading tones and simple enclosures. And that they don’t do much without the rhythm and note choice. But they’re pretty ubiquitous still.

There’s a lot there which I won’t ramble on about, but it’s interesting how much that stuff can teach you about bop if you look carefully, when to express the seventh, when to express the ninth etc.

I mean ………. are you sure you don’t want to ramble?

[pamosmusic]

My thing with triads is that seventh chords are often taught as a baseline and if you look at bop lines in the wild it’s clear right away that a lot of them are based on triads. So starting with triads and building up is a great idea, and I feel peeved that I started with seventh chords haha.

Yeah I mean this is absolutely true.

[Jimmy Smith]

wasn’t planning to but it’s the same video I posted a link to here a few days back

I liked your video and thought it was really accurate. I've found myself forced to address all these topics.

1. No more theory books: you probably already know enough fundamental concepts. I've found this to be true for me. Knowing the theory is the easy part. Working it out into music takes the most work.

2. Take care of the simple stuff: make sure you can play through all the basics fluently. I've found this to be extremely important for me with Hammond and the hand independence. I'll tell myself, if I can't play through basics, how am I going to play through a tune well? I'll work basics such as 3,6,2,5s, or 2,5,1,6 and try to get everything correct between the melody or comp in right hand and bass line in left hand. I'll even go as simple as only working 1 chord to work out muscle memory. With a 1 bar bass loop in the left hand and melody material or blues riffs in the right hand.

3. Compose your way into improvisation: be more deliberate with creating more effective sounding parts rather than only practicing improvising. Work more and better vocab into your playing that would be impossible just running stuff in improv.

4. Textbooks are the records: don't have to transcribe a whole giant solo or even write it down. Figure out short bits or even only the rhythms. I've been working this 1 tune of my teacher and trying to transcribe different parts and get the whole tune up to his level of playing.

5. Rhythm first, notes second: Dizzy quote, fill your bar with rhythm and attach notes to them. Extremely important for Hammond where there must be exciting rhythm since there is much less touch and inflection than other instruments. Time feel and rhythm are essential. Of course still make an effort with notes but rhythm is essential.

Another one that I've been trying to incorporate is playing with your eyes closed to try to focus more intently on the musicality.

[Jimmy Smith]

I friggin just had an epiphany regarding the topic of how to actually be musical.

When playing, you want to sync your understanding of the structure of music (theory), how it should sound (ear), and how it should feel to play (technical skills).

And when practicing, you can build these up individually.

[Christian Miller]

Hmm. Interesting. Not sure I come to the same conclusion.

I would agree that the chromatics tend to be simple—leading tones and simple enclosures. And that they don’t do much without the rhythm and note choice. But they’re pretty ubiquitous still.

yeah I mean it’s always… compared to what?

What I mean is that chromaticism and subs etc while important resources are not where the jazz comes from. And I don’t think that chromaticism is more prevalent in Birds music than it is in, say, late c18/c19 western music or prewar jazz. Not that I’ve done the statistical analysis (yet ahaha).

I think I always got the impression bebop was about super hip note choices, and while there are distinct bop things to do harmonically, they are not what makes bop bop. (i think the ‘bop as note choice’ thing comes from an attempt to shoehorn innovations in jazz into a European modernist understanding of progress in music which was a thing in the 50s.)

Anyway for my own playing it’s been about clearing out a lot of the 8th note passage work and focussing in on the structural elements. Birds heads seem pretty structural in that sense to me. Otoh I think if you’re not careful Barry method stuff can point you towards being a bit rhythmically square, not that Barry was EVER rhythmically square himself.

I mean ………. are you sure you don’t want to ramble?

I mean, there’s a book in it. What I would say is that simply for any commonly occurring harmonic situation in bop (ii V I, turnaround, IV’n’back, cycle 4 etc) there’s effective and commonly used structural note choices that are not always 3rds and 7ths. Otoh things like melodic cadences serve a structural role. 5-7-1 is an obvious example. There’s a lot of latent (European) counterpoint in jazz, as well as subversion of those same harmonic/contrapuntal norms. But to subvert you also have to know what the norms are.

[pamosmusic]

yeah I mean it’s always… compared to what?

What I mean is that chromaticism and subs etc while important resources are not where the jazz comes from. And I don’t think that chromaticism is more prevalent in Birds music than it is in, say, late c18/c19 western music or prewar jazz. Not that I’ve done the statistical analysis (yet ahaha).

I think I always got the impression bebop was about super hip note choices, and while there are distinct bop things to do harmonically, they are not what makes bop bop. (i think the ‘bop as note choice’ thing comes from an attempt to shoehorn innovations in jazz into a European modernist understanding of progress in music which was a thing in the 50s.)

Hmm. I’m not sure I put the chromaticism under “note choices” exactly. I would agree that probably it’s rhythm and line shape that make bebop sound like bebop, but I think of enclosures and chromaticism kind of in that vein rather than as note choices. The target is the note choice, the chromatic approach or enclosure or turn or whatever is a means of displacing that note rhythmically or extending the line or whatever.

You’re almost certainly right that there is less chromaticism than people tend to assume, but it’s still super important to the idiom to my ear.

I think the rub is that it tends to fall flat or feel unconvincing when it’s separated from the rhythmic context. I mean … Au Privave is the prime example. Probably less chromaticism over all than a jazz text would make you think but the head cannot work without the chromaticism that’s there—the way it throws those square triad rhythms all out of joint and making the syncopations happen so the whole thing jumps. It’s perfect. And it’s also pretty simple, I think?

[Christian Miller]

Hmm. I’m not sure I put the chromaticism under “note choices” exactly. I would agree that probably it’s rhythm and line shape that make bebop sound like bebop, but I think of enclosures and chromaticism kind of in that vein rather than as note choices. The target is the note choice, the chromatic approach or enclosure or turn or whatever is a means of displacing that note rhythmically or extending the line or whatever.

You’re almost certainly right that there is less chromaticism than people tend to assume, but it’s still super important to the idiom to my ear.

Yeah I might walk it back a little, in that some bop chord progressions are quite chromatic and modulatory in ways you don’t see in classical/early romantic music. That said c18 music can be pretty chromatically inflected in the harmonic foreground .

But if you look at Mozart, Haydn etc all of the chromatic enclosure and passing tone techniques we learn as jazzers are already in play. Even in Bach there’s a lot of that stuff although his melody tends to be less embellished in this way than the classical era composers.

Jazz builds on that furniture but of course classical musicians are not usually involved in the construction of music so even if you come from a classical background you have to teach some of the classical stuff as well as the jazz in order to learn jazz, if that makes any sense. (I feel where the biggest differences are in the communal process of jazz, the rhythm and in form.)

I think this means that some elements that have been in circulation in Western music might sometimes be taken to be uniquely jazz elements. The so called bebop scales spring to mind as an example. (The other thing that complicates these sorts of historical connections is that jazz and classical theory often have a totally different technical vocabulary.)

I think the rub is that it tends to fall flat or feel unconvincing when it’s separated from the rhythmic context. I mean … Au Privave is the prime example. Probably less chromaticism over all than a jazz text would make you think but the head cannot work without the chromaticism that’s there—the way it throws those square triad rhythms all out of joint and making the syncopations happen so the whole thing jumps. It’s perfect. And it’s also pretty simple, I think?

Sure. It’s a way of organising melody and phrases that seems cryptic even now. Which is why you can play or tap the head without pitches and it’s still recognisable…. Clave plays a part…

[Christian Miller]

All of that guff aside, I do often find myself improvising mostly on the chord tones these days and being fairly content with that. Maybe I’m just a simple soul.

[Reg]

Yea... you are a simple soul Christian. And I mean that in a complimentary manor. I consider myself a very simple soul.

Here are a few things to think about....(everyone, not just Christian), why do you think most jazz teaching approaches use 7th chords for starting reference.

I'll skip all the actual methods of how teaching works... and get to the point why... Most musicians just don't have the time, skills or want to do the work to understand how harmony works when playing jazz.

7th chords have become the basic reference because they naturally create an organization for extensions and the rest of the notes... that reflect the bigger picture. For example... a tune.

If musicians could make an analysis and understand how that Analysis becomes the Harmonic and Melodic Reference from which to create Relationships (embellish)... or how ever one chooses to perform, improve etc...

The result is the tune become musically organized and just like the FORM is somewhat structured.... at least become the Reference from which to start from.... meaning you can add intros, outros... interludes etc... they are musically organized to the Tune or beginning reference.

An Analysis is the same thing... for how to fill in that Form...it creates a template... a harmonic and melodic template to use as a starting reference. A musically organized approach that helps one know where to pull from with.... extensions, embellishments, the chromatic notes etc... what chord patterns to use and how to use rhythmic tools.

I've never been a fan of BH approach.... but at least it's organizes. Just as 7th chords tend to do, and the use of scales etc.... they are not the final result... how one actually plays, they are just helping players get close to having musical organized choices. Triads are the same thing.... buy one needs to actually have a system for musically organizing their application.... and beyond ... what sounds right or feels good.

You get to the point of being able to play what sounds right or feels good etc... after you understand why.

And sure one can use trial and error, copy etc... for creating that "why". But their are reasons why more people like what one thinks sounds good.

[Christian Miller]

I presume mainstream jazz theory uses seventh chords to start with for a number of reasons, here’s four I can think of

1) seventh chords produce excellent sequential counterpoint in cycle 4 progressions, and this has been used for hundreds of years, since even before the era of Bach and Rameau. Cycle 4 progressions are of course a common feature of jazz standards and the 3rds and 7ths usually feature prominently in the melodies on these chords

2) seventh chords can be easily related to chord scales without ambiguity. A major triad might take a 7 or b7 in a scale; the 7th chords specify the basic nature of the chord and scale.

3) similarly, each basic seventh chord relates in an straightforward way to one specific chord function, eg maj7 to I, min7 to II, dom7 to V etc

4) seventh chords and up can be constructed from stacked thirds which is simple to teach as the basis of chord construction. This is also a feature of triads, obviously, but it is not a feature of sixth chords, unless one inverts them.

it’s systematically neat, and the academies, esp the American ones like their systems. Maybe this works well in the generalities? ‘Lies to children’ etc.

However this generates a few problems, and if course, when examined carefully in relation to real music, it’s too damn tidy and too damn simple. Making a one to one relationship between different musical objects in this way squishes out a lot of the jazz. Everything tends towards being nailed down.

One obvious fact is that comping requires a more extensive harmonic palette, and many effective comping voicings are not generated from inversions and drops of stacked thirds -ESP on guitar.

If the aim is to play music approximating Parker’s you have to deal with the fact that Parker did not always favour major seventh sounds on I chords and so on and his lines often describe triads, and often made creative use as with earlier musicians of that ambiguity in the 7ths… (allegedly he preferred simple comping chords for I functions iirc.) Otoh the major 7 family of chords are not always a good choice for the comper either.

One thing is that a ii V I cadence is actually in counterpoint/voice leading and grammar terms distinct from a cycle 4 sequence for example.

for a long time I assumed that this was glossed over in jazz compared to trad western music, but now i don’t think this is the case. I notice Bird observed this distinction in his lines for example. Peter Bernstein is VERY specific about this type of thing (though he didn’t discuss it in this terms.) This is often handled in a slightly different way in jazz, but the distinction is still there.

OTOH contemporary jazz musicians often make use of triads as ways of extending or playing outside superpositions over the basic harmony. Garzone, Lage Lund and Joel Frahm spring to mind. That said I think a lot of these modern players revel in the weirdness of things like inverted and strangely voiced maj7 chords. I would think someone like Kurt as a very seventh chord/chord scale oriented composer and improviser. It’s hard to draw sweeping rules with contemporary musicians.

Anyway the learning process can happen in a number of ways but I think an important commonality between the high level musicians I’ve been lucky to be in contact with are all very focussed on the details. Otoh a theory or model of harmony is always going to require a degree of simplification and generalisation.

To pick two alternative models of jazz harmony, Jordan (Stefon) and Barry’s approaches both have a lot of respect for detail, although both are concerned with slightly different aspects of jazz.

Is, say, Jordan’s approach a better option from day 1? I honestly can’t say. I haven’t taught it to someone tabula rasa. I think most of his students come from knowing the basics of mainstream jazz theory.

[Christian Miller]

Anyway if some here are still struggling to sleep, I might do my ‘interpretation of Stella’s harmony demonstrates the difference between late common practice and jazz harmony’ spiel. It’s extremely boring, but it does what it says on the tin.

[st.bede]

Some of the best exercise that can be usefully chromatic, I have found in a book that is dedicated to ligado/slurs. It also covers embellishments. However any set of classical oriented guitar exercises focused on slurs would have plenty of useful chromatic type exercises.

I have played the chromatic scale a lot and it has been useful for my ear and some technique, but not much for playing music itself. However, it did allow me a sense of more freedom, once I had the sound of it stuck into my brain. I did find that I was pushing tonalities with less fear after a time period dedicated to the chromatic scale.

[pamosmusic]

Yeah I might walk it back a little, in that some bop chord progressions are quite chromatic and modulatory in ways you don’t see in classical/early romantic music. That said c18 music can be pretty chromatically inflected in the harmonic foreground .

But if you look at Mozart, Haydn etc all of the chromatic enclosure and passing tone techniques we learn as jazzers are already in play. Even in Bach there’s a lot of that stuff although his melody tends to be less embellished in this way than the classical era composers.

Yeah I might walk it back a little, in that some bop chord progressions are quite chromatic and modulatory in ways you don’t see in classical/early romantic music. That said c18 music can be pretty chromatically inflected in the harmonic foreground .

But if you look at Mozart, Haydn etc all of the chromatic enclosure and passing tone techniques we learn as jazzers are already in play. Even in Bach there’s a lot of that stuff although his melody tends to be less embellished in this way than the classical era composers.

Yeah this is a useful distinction to make which can be confusing. I try to distinguish harmonic chromaticism from melodic chromaticism. Something can have some harmonic chromaticism, and very little melodic chromaticism. So maybe there are lot of chords with lots of distance from the original key center, but the melody or solo remains inside the chord of the moment. Or the reverse—melodic chromaticism without much harmonic chromaticism—where the chords are pretty inside, but there is a lot of half-step chromaticism that obscures or offsets that inside-ness.

I think of the latter as being more important for bebop. The quintessential bebop line, to me, is m5-6 of Donna Lee. Just a 2-5-1 but with that super cool rhythmic displacement and chromatic embellishment and whatnot.

Anyway … there’s not really an answer to this I guess. Rhythm without the chromaticism doesn’t really sound like bebop to me. Melodic Chromaticism without the rhythm sounds even less like bebop. The line shape stuff is also important. Time feel is important, some other underlying rhythmic things. So are some of those harmonic things (though probably less so).

It’s kind of a Theseus’s Ship problem or something. None of those elements alone could make it bebop, but it’s hard to know as you’re adding them together when it becomes a new thing.

[Reg]

... but all your reasons support why.... How long does it take for someone to make an analysis.

Most of your references are from... players who are exceptional. Not normal musicians.

I would guess most would have a difficult time coming up with 3 or 4 analysis for most tunes. The analysis just reflects how a tune can be played. Not right or wrong..... just a possible approach for performing. Which is generally what the goal is for jazz players. And I get it... some don't want to perform etc... the journey is what it's about. Cool

How long would it take for someone to make a big band arrangement for any of those analysis of that Tune. Probable just isn't going to happen.

How long for arrangement in Barry's dim 6th style.... or in style of Jordon or Stepon's triad approach. Is it even possible. I'm not talking something becoming someone's life project.

With nowadays technology etc.... one can basically trial and error your way through.

I remember... as a kid in Herb Pomeroy's arranging classes, he had very organized systems for creating voicings, which also cover use of triads, both diatonic and non-diatonic. Use of harmonizing with triads over bass lines and eventually arranging with lines... Line Writing with 29 rule and a number of context rules, using scales and composite scales.

And all this with reference To Function. Which was not just Maj/Min functional harmonic guidelines... modal, diminished and Blue Notes references which creates different possibilities of how chords or harmony could function.

The point was and still is.... you start with an analysis based on harmonic, melodic, rhythmic and FORM analysis.

All this leads to same old Shi* one isn't going to have a chance to use most... or any of these options with out having your technical skills together. And the value of exercise(s) can't be over stated.

Your level of technical skills should reflect what your playing or trying to play. One can hear anything in their head.... talk about etc...if it doesn't get realized... who's going to even know.


st. Bede
What harmonic reference are those chromatic note(s), ornaments, slurs... etc... implying. Or is/are they an effect.

Anyone with chops uses chromatic passages, personally they have harmonic implication(s) and the rhythmic patters or dynamic implications usually help imply them. Not trying to put you on spot... always looking for understandings etc...
thanks ... gotta go do that jazz work thing. (for the record... I still have way too much fun at gigs)
Reg

[Christian Miller]

Yeah this is a useful distinction to make which can be confusing. I try to distinguish harmonic chromaticism from melodic chromaticism. Something can have some harmonic chromaticism, and very little melodic chromaticism. So maybe there are lot of chords with lots of distance from the original key center, but the melody or solo remains inside the chord of the moment. Or the reverse—melodic chromaticism without much harmonic chromaticism—where the chords are pretty inside, but there is a lot of half-step chromaticism that obscures or offsets that inside-ness.

yeah maybe? Bop is bluesy as well. I don’t quite count that as chromaticism either. But yes I think modern players are often diatonic against chromatic chords. But there’s not much in birds chromaticism that you couldn’t find in other music, mostly it’s passing tones and enclosures and so on.

The primary thing I think that makes Birds music sound angular and unpredictable is where he chooses to place his accents and therefore, his chord tones. Also his use of diatonic dissonances. Take something like the first few bars of confirmation for example. The notes are mostly chord tones with some accented 4-3 moves, but the rhythmic emphasis makes things feel a little jarring and unpredictable. The notes are pretty simple. Similar for moose the Mooche and so on.

The thing is I feel I’m getting better at creating interest with these simple elements which can give me the false impression - oh jazz is easy, just take some chord tones and swing them.

of course it isn’t. I’ve been playing jazz for decades. That’s no help at all to the poor student. How do you teach that then?

I think of the latter as being more important for bebop. The quintessential bebop line, to me, is m5-6 of Donna Lee. Just a 2-5-1 but with that super cool rhythmic displacement and chromatic embellishment and whatnot.

Ah you see I am of the camp that doesn’t think DL was a Bird composition … I think it was Miles for sure. For one it’s much more 8th notey and rhythmically straightforward than Birds heads…. But it is an exemplar of bebop language and I use it as such when teaching. I learned a lot from DL…

But if we get into the choppy waters of what exactly bebop is I suppose we’d have to factor in other voices like Dizzy, Tadd Dameron and so on.

Anyway … there’s not really an answer to this I guess. Rhythm without the chromaticism doesn’t really sound like bebop to me. Melodic Chromaticism without the rhythm sounds even less like bebop. The line shape stuff is also important. Time feel is important, some other underlying rhythmic things. So are some of those harmonic things (though probably less so).

To my mind they are inseparable. You put the half step by and large on the 8th before the chord tone on the rhythmic accent, and so on. And then there’s ghost notes. But I see that more as rhythm dictating note choices. Dizzy straight up told us this is the way he played. And the fact the Bird’s rhythms have such an immediate identity outside any pitch associations seems to me to be a compelling case for the identity of bop lying in rhythm.

You can hear a drum solo and think right away ‘Yep that’s bop’ - just on the snare. It’s a different conception from the swing era drummers.

Otoh have you checked out in depth and transcribed much prewar stuff? I find it interesting comparing. There are characteristic melodic and harmonic elements to bop but compared to Prez and the Hawk, the real difference lies in the phraseology. Prez was rhythmically advanced for his time, but compared to bird he’s still very much locked into that dance beat.

So there’s a real rubicon that was crossed with Bird, and Barry harris was of the belief that a lot of the post Bird players represented a step down in sophistication especially when it came to rhythm, especially some of his peers and collaborators like Dexter and Stitt, of whom he could be highly critical (despite recording with them!) I don’t think many modern players with all the odd time chops in the world can match up to what bird could create apparently effortlessly in 4/4 when it came to rhythm and phrasing. It’s pretty sobering.

(But obviously I love dexter, Stitt, modern players etc etc.)

There’s a whole (characteristically eloquent and far ranging) Brad Mehldau article about this and connected issues that I might track down. He also talks about Brahms and really nails (imo) where jazz differs fundamentally from the rhythmic sophistication of that music.

It’s kind of a Theseus’s Ship problem or something. None of those elements alone could make it bebop, but it’s hard to know as you’re adding them together when it becomes a new thing.

I know it when I hear it?

[pamosmusic]

Ah you see I am of the camp that doesn’t think DL was a Bird composition … I think it was Miles for sure. For one it’s much more 8th notey and rhythmically straightforward than Birds heads…. But it is an exemplar of bebop language and I use it as such when teaching. I learned a lot from DL…

Me too. Reminds me more Half Nelson than it does Moose the Mooch. Still a great bebop head.

To my mind they are inseparable. You put the half step by and large on the 8th before the chord tone on the rhythmic accent, and so on. And then there’s ghost notes. But I see that more as rhythm dictating note choices. Dizzy straight up told us this is the way he played. And the fact the Bird’s rhythms have such an immediate identity outside any pitch associations seems to me to be a compelling case for the identity of bop lying in rhythm.

You can hear a drum solo and think right away ‘Yep that’s bop’ - just on the snare. It’s a different conception from the swing era drummers.

Yeah, so this is so interesting. I don’t want to quote a post you ended up editing heavily, but you’d mentioned being able to tap out a bebop rhythm and have it be distinguishable as bebop. I think that’s totally true. But it’s also true that you can have two sets of eighth notes and have one be bebop and the other not.

The rhythms and notes (in particular chromaticism) are really really inseparable. One of my favorite exercises for students is to give them a rhythm (any rhythm) and have them improvise the notes over some changes, but only with that rhythm. It’s super interesting to watch it start as super awkward, and then slowly become passable as they get a sense of what notes work with that rhythm, then start to sound almost like music as they get a sense of the dynamics and accent patterns and stuff.

It’s so interesting. We spend all our time thinking about what notes to play and then getting a rhythm that works with the notes. We don’t even think about the fact that it works the other way too and is just as important. That you can’t just put any old group of notes over a particular rhythm.

The opening of Au Privave is such a slammin bebop line, but that rhythm couldn’t be a diatonic scale or a pure arpeggio or something. It really needs that melodic bouncing to go with the rhythmic bounce.

Otoh have you checked out in depth and transcribed much prewar stuff? I find it interesting comparing. There are characteristic melodic and harmonic elements to bop but compared to Prez and the Hawk, the real difference lies in the phraseology. Prez was rhythmically advanced for his time, but compared to bird he’s still very much locked into that dance beat.

Lots of Charlie Christian and Louis. A little Coleman Hawkins and a little less Lester Young. Had a phase where I listened to tonnnnns of Ben Webster but never transcribed him.