Chord Shapes as a basis for Improv

[Mick-7]

Sure but I’m not sure they’re “visualizing” anything

Well, they "auralize" the concept (if that's a word). I don't visualize anything when I'm playing, do you?

[Tal_175]

Well, they "auralize" the concept (if that's a word). I don't visualize anything when I'm playing, do you?

Yes, the topic is visual references. I think we are talking about different things. Maybe review the original post of this thread?

[Christian Miller]

Well, they "auralize" the concept (if that's a word). I don't visualize anything when I'm playing, do you?

I definitely visualise stuff. But I'm basic, baby!

[Mick-7]

Yes, the topic is visual references. I think we are talking about different things. Maybe review the original post of this thread?

4 pages ago, you must be kidding?!

But seriously, let's do that....

I first learned a bunch of scales mostly devoid of their relationship to any chord grips.

But lately I have wanted to move towards an approach where chord grips are the primary source material for improvisation.

By that I mean, one approach to solo is to just play some of the notes in a chord grip maybe with a few additional notes connecting them.

Maybe I am wrong, but it feels like what Charlie Christian does isn't too far from this. I think Pass and Herb Ellis' Shape System are not to far off from this.

The problem I am trying to solve is that I right now have scale shapes and chord shapes and they aren't connected that well and I want chord shapes to be the primary source material.

I wonder if others think this is a fruitful approach.

There is a chapter in Vol. 3 of Howard Roberts Praxis System (out of print but I found a free copy online) in which he discusses this subject in detail, here's the first page of it:
( The Praxis System, Guitar Compendium, Vol 3 - Amazon.com )

[pamosmusic]

Well, they "auralize" the concept (if that's a word). I don't visualize anything when I'm playing, do you?

I'm a guitar player, so yes ... constantly

[Mick-7]

I definitely visualize stuff. But I'm basic, baby!

I'm a guitar player, so yes ... constantly

I'm sorry, but there's just no hope for you two.

[rpjazzguitar]

This is a complicated topic.

My goal is to think of a cool melody and play it instantly.

Thinking about fingerings, shapes and geometry seems irrelevant to that goal.

Of course, I regularly fall short of achieving that goal. And my brain is a hodgepodge from having learned different approaches at different times.

So, if it's a blues and the chord is a C7, I might play out of a shape. In another situation, I'll think chord tones and add in other notes by ear. In yet another situation I might think C7 scale (C mixo to some), or some other scale to juxtapose.

But, none of that is the goal. The goal is think of a good melody and play it right now.

[pamosmusic]

I'm sorry, but there's just no hope for you two.

I don't know man, I might say the same thing about a guitar player who thinks he doesn't use shapes to get around the thing.

[Mick-7]

I don't know man, I might say the same thing about a guitar player who thinks he doesn't use shapes to get around the thing.

With chords, comping, it's natural to do that, but I don't approach single note playing that way - but now that I've been reminded of Howard Roberts books, I will give it more thought. I'd been considering the limitations rather than the benefits of doing it, partly because, as he said in the page I posted, "possible designs on the fingerboard are as numerous as snow crystals."

[Tal_175]

With chords, comping, it's natural to do that, but I don't approach single note playing that way - but now that I've been reminded of Howard Roberts books, I will give it more thought. I'd been considering the limitations rather than the benefits of doing it, partly because, as he said in the page I posted, "possible designs on the fingerboard are as numerous as snow crystals."

When you're playing single note lines over a tune, how do you keep track which chord you're on and where you are in the form? I find that keeping track goes hand in hand with visual references.

[Tal_175]

This is a complicated topic.

My goal is to think of a cool melody and play it instantly.

Thinking about fingerings, shapes and geometry seems irrelevant to that goal.

Of course, I regularly fall short of achieving that goal. And my brain is a hodgepodge from having learned different approaches at different times.

So, if it's a blues and the chord is a C7, I might play out of a shape. In another situation, I'll think chord tones and add in other notes by ear. In yet another situation I might think C7 scale (C mixo to some), or some other scale to juxtapose.

But, none of that is the goal. The goal is think of a good melody and play it right now.

I think it can be both. Visual references can provide key notes to play good melodies around and notes to target. It doesn't have to be a constant, bar in, bar out process but rather an orientation tool that comes in handy when needed. There is overwhelming evidence in transcriptions that masters used certain chord ideas and extensions (superimpositions) consistently. Were they doing that all by ear all the time? I find it hard to believe. Ears and visual references are also not mutually exclusive. Visual references organize sounds for ear development in the woodshed. During performances they can both contribute simultaneously in my experience.

[Tal_175]

Also adding to rpjazzgutiar's point. I agree that playing the changes with shapes is itself not the goal. My fretboard references are developed well enough that I can do that all day, my problem is I often feel like the changes are playing me most of the time. I am too rigid in my adherence to them.

[rpjazzguitar]

I think it can be both. Visual references can provide key notes to play good melodies around and notes to target. It doesn't have to be a constant, bar in, bar out process but rather an orientation tool that comes in handy when needed. There is overwhelming evidence in transcriptions that masters used certain chord ideas and extensions (superimpositions) consistently. Were they doing that all by ear

I think it's possible to play terrific stuff while working out of chord shapes. I particularly like arpeggiating a series of 3 note chords (not necessarily the ones in the chart, but something that works) while letting the notes ring. It's a different texture. Lots of ways to come up with a solo, including, of course, geometry.

So, I'm not arguing the point, I don't think.

But, I'll add this. I can often scat sing a better solo than I can play. So, I figure, I might as well work on getting my scat singing onto the guitar. Where is geometry in that? Are great scat singers thinking about specific arpeggios or scales? I don't know. I'd guess it's all by sound, but maybe that's not true.

I've asked some brilliant players what they're thinking about in a particular part of a solo. Typically, they don't know. Apparently, that's not what's going on in their heads. My favorite answer was "I was thinking 'darker'".

At the beginning of a solo, I have to pick a starting note. I pick a chord tone, typically, which I do by knowing the notes in the chords I use. Not geometry. I have a vague idea of what that note is going to sound like, but it helps to hear it against the background provided by the band.

Then, on a good night, I sing something to myself and play that. When I have to fall back on geometry, I think of that as a failure, even though the solo may not suffer audibly. It's not my goal.

Of course, at high enough tempos, scuffling with any technique(s) is acceptable.

[Christian Miller]

I play most of my best stuff out of chord shapes haha. Something I learned from listening closely Peter Bernstein.... Arpeggiating a comping grip very often sounds more interesting than playing a normal arpeggio. But players been doing that since Charlie Christian (no doubt earlier).

If you do in fact hear what you play - and it's not that big a deal, it's work to get there but an achievable core skill, like getting good at learning your lines as a stage actor - then actually it becomes important to put new information into the system, because it expands the amount of things you can hear (and contrary to popular belief no one can hear everything).

Transcription is one way, theory is another, and on the guitar doing things like playing shapes, really can be cool.

It's a funny one though. You see these 'guitar shapes' in other music too. Lester used to arpeggiate Drop2 shapes. I was amazed when I caught him at it. Now look at Bach BWV999, popular with guitarists of course despite being a keyboard piece originally maybe in part because it has those shapes in.

Because it turns out that putting the notes in order in thirds all the time is kind of boring and you need things in different voicings even as an arpeggio. Because voice leading might want to be leading you in that direction, and sometimes you are putting voice leading into your lines.

[pamosmusic]

I read conversations like this and realize how much of a CAGED player I am.

Never had a teacher who called it that or emphasized it particularly, but that seems to be how it shook out

[Christian Miller]

I read conversations like this and realize how much of a CAGED player I am.

Never had a teacher who called it that or emphasized it particularly, but that seems to be how it shook out

I reckon because it's most helpful way to conceptualise the guitar if you intend to play over a lot of chords moving around and you need to anchor what you are doing in a bunch of changes. Like in a jazz standard. (IMO)

I think this stuff emerges by need.

[rpjazzguitar]

- then actually it becomes important to put new information into the system, .

I think this is an excellent point. When you get bored with what you're playing, how do you expand your palette?

My guess is that the tried and true way remains the best. Listen and lift. For reasons I can't explain, I'm more likely to pick something up by hearing a player live than on record.

And, then, there are lots of other possible avenues. Reading -- there are lots of transcriptions and lick books. Watching videos where you can see the fingerings may be better for some than just audio. Experimenting with juxtaposed chords. Etc.

All that said (and I wish I was better at all of it), I can still scat sing a better solo than I can play. Thinking about it now, it may be that I'm better rhythmically when I scat sing. If I'm not attentive to it, I'll end up serving noodles at a restaurant gig. I might also be better melodically, but not so much harmonically.

And, one last point. It's not so easy to get something new into an old dog's playing. I can barely incorporate one thing at a time. Large groups of possible combinatorics are just overwhelming.

[Mick-7]

When you're playing single note lines over a tune, how do you keep track which chord you're on and where you are in the form? I find that keeping track goes hand in hand with visual references.

My orientation is primarily aural, not visual, so the harmonic progression is my north star. If you stopped me at any point, I could tell you what note I'm playing and how it relates to the chord, but I think that's as much a product of sight reading as it is of harmonic analysis.

Visualization is helpful for remembering the structure of tunes - VI-II-V-I, etc., combining a visual mnemonic device with aural pattern recognition, but muscle memory of chord patterns plays a part too so it gets complicated.

[Tal_175]

My orientation is primarily aural, not visual, so the harmonic progression is my north star. If you stopped me at any point, I could tell you what note I'm playing and how it relates to the chord, but I think that's as much a product of sight reading as it is of harmonic analysis.

I hope you don't mind me asking but I am just trying to understand what you're saying. So, when you are improvising over a tune, you are aware of the chord you're on, and the next chord you are approaching in the progression. Moreover you know how the notes on the fretboard in different areas relate to these chords. But despite the fact that this information is easily accessible to you in real time, you do not in anyway make use if it. Not even when you are practicing a new tune. Is that right?

[Mick-7]

I hope you don't mind me asking but I am just trying to understand what you're saying. So, when you are improvising over a tune, you are aware of the chord you're on, and the next chord you are approaching in the progression. Moreover you know how the notes on the fretboard in different areas relate to these chords. But despite the fact that this information is easily accessible to you in real time, you do not in anyway make use if it. Not even when you are practicing a new tune. Is that right?

No, it's just that my visual cues are not based on chord shapes/forms, which is what we are discussing, correct?

You could say my visual map is much wider, I am not a position player, I know how to find the notes I want (more often than not anyway) and what they are named. It seems I think more like a horn player.*

* Or maybe a piano player, since my soloing is motif driven a la Keith Jarrett, see:
Playing the changes vs. playing over the key center

[wolflen]

No, it's just that my visual cues are not based on chord shapes/forms, which is what we are discussing, correct?

You could say my visual map is much wider, I am not a position player, I know how to find the notes I want (more often than not anyway) and what they are named. It seems I think more like a horn player.

Mick..much of what you have posted lately has been much of my harmonic/melodic foundation studies..which has reinforced alot
of the Ted Greene material-that I still review often-which seems related to this thread.

Ted would basically "create" chords to fit a melodic passage and/or harmonic function..but some of his extensive stretch chords are not
in any way a "chord shape" and for most players are just not a possible part of their playing. Now their are other players that have
used these very wide stretch chords in their playing Howard Roberts was one that used some in his book series that you mentioned

Ben Monder is another and he has some classical background and some of those pieces demand some wide stretch chordal movements.

My take on these type chords is they are "invented" shapes for the most part are a one time only use in the players need of the moment.

If one were to try and extend the logic of this type of chord-say using diatonic steps they would run out of fingers or frets .. or both.

So our main use of shapes is within the basic diatonic scale forms and their inversions, extensions and alterations..which should
provide enough shapes to cover most harmonic and melodic tasks.

Using scales, arpeggios and assorted symmetric and exotic scales over the above mentioned..should also work well together in creating
some very interesting music

As I am playing alot of fusion style now the use of the "slash" chord has its place..interesting shape and sounds..I usually name these shapes
after I use them..and only if I need to communicate to other musicians.

[pamosmusic]

No, it's just that my visual cues are not based on chord shapes/forms, which is what we are discussing, correct?

You could say my visual map is much wider, I am not a position player, I know how to find the notes I want (more often than not anyway) and what they are named. It seems I think more like a horn player.*

* Or maybe a piano player, since my soloing is motif driven a la Keith Jarrett, see:
Playing the changes vs. playing over the key center

Mick, this sounds like a bit of a superiority complex sometimes. I think if you refer to your own improvising as "a la Keith Jarrett" at any point, you might've taken a wrong turn somewhere.

And anyway -- a lot of people work regularly on stuff like Mick Goodrick's unitar or worked on string pairs, or three-note-per string patterns or all sorts of combinations thereof. It's a way of widening flexibility within what is kind of visual-tactile thing that is more natural to the guitar than to something like trumpet.

They might accept that the instrument is kind of shapes-oriented but it doesn't mean they accept it as a limitation.

[Mick-7]

Mick, this sounds like a bit of a superiority complex sometimes. I think if you refer to your own improvising as "a la Keith Jarrett" at any point, you might've taken a wrong turn somewhere.

Oh, I didn't mean that, Jarrett is a genius! I was referring only to his improvisational approach of developing motifs, which is outlined in that pdf I shared.

[Tal_175]

No, it's just that my visual cues are not based on chord shapes/forms, which is what we are discussing, correct?

You could say my visual map is much wider, I am not a position player, I know how to find the notes I want (more often than not anyway) and what they are named. It seems I think more like a horn player.*

* Or maybe a piano player, since my soloing is motif driven a la Keith Jarrett, see:
Playing the changes vs. playing over the key center

I am a bit confused. Earlier you said if you were stopped at any point you would be able to tell what note you're an and how it relates to the chord-in-the-moment.

So when you say "No", I am not sure which part of my post you are saying "no" to. You can play motivically and still have awareness of the form and the chords (chord in the moment, chord being approached to and where they are in the progression). That is not a contradiction.

Maybe what you mean is, if you were stopped, you'd probably figure this out after some thinking but that sort of deliberate awareness is not an automatically accessible resource that you use when you play or practice. Is that what you mean?

[Bach5G]

As a guitarist I am conscious of grips and arpeggios, whereas as a horn player, I am more conscious of scales and patterns.