Your Favourite 'Imposed Pentatonic' or 'imposed arpeggio'

[Mick-7]

Being able to hear the #11 against II7 will make one a better jazz player, I think. Luckily you don't need to know what a #11 or a II7 is to do that - you just hear in your head 'when you take the A TRAIN". And then after a while just be able to hear 'TRAIN' on its own.

I suspect most of us learned that from the blues though, original home of the b5th and other "blue" notes.

[Christian Miller]

Id be interested to hear your thoughts on David Baker.

I used to love David Baker and then had a long phase where I did not, mostly for reasons you cite here. Now I’m back on team D-Bake for a lot of reasons.

Better try to be like David Baker than read David Baker maybe? Emulate the process by which these books were written as much as one can.

Obviously, he was an amazing and very learned musician so it's a high bar. Plus you can obviously take useful things from books etc, so it can be taken to a perverse degree, reinventing the wheel

Same with Levine, Aebersold etc. Still not sure about Barry. Thing is so much of Barry's teaching was about being in a room with Barry. The info is all great, but when it comes down to it, he made it sing, and we copied him.

[wolflen]

Well, it's "arcane" to those who don't understand music theory, as I did not when I began playing jazz, and in respect to your previous comments about theoretical vs pragmatic systems of learning, is knowing all that likely to make me a better player?

ahhh..it seems there are many ways to see/hear this:

I don't know what I'm doing..but it sounds good

Theory-is just that!--Its AFTER the fact.

Joe Pass didn't know about modes? Really.

Yes..you can break theory "rules" and still sound good!

I remember my teacher asking me in a stern voice.."..who said you could do THAT?.
So I looked at him timid and puzzled..then he smiled and said..if it sounds good that what counts
we can figure out the why (he meant theory wise) later.

Yep theory will help you understand the mechanics of music better..

No..It will not make you a better player.

When I read some comments from young beginners who are in a hurry to play fast and are sure knowing theory and how to read notation
is not necessary, I have to remind myself of when I also felt the same.

The learning process in music is a mysterious as music itself.

Are you sure THIS is how Hendrix did it??

[MinToyTot]

So rather than give them the answers on a worksheet, tell students to learn three hundred jazz standards and look for patterns lol. Takes a little while to get to the first hundred. But OTOH they will know a hundred tunes and they'll probably spot the patterns too.

I like this because it doesn't put the systematic and holistic aspects of learning in opposition, which is something I struggle with esp. when it comes to ear training type stuff (aka the actual musical part of music...)

[Christian Miller]

I suspect most of us learned that from the blues though, original home of the b5th and other "blue" notes.

Sure - that’s usually on the I chord (I’m thinking of a lot of Benny Goodman style stuff too). It depends how you hear it, but from the perspective of the overall key the A Train example is a different. But I can also hear it that way.

That’s said Parker was playing this sound on the bridge of Rhythm changes a few years later so ….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

I've known high level music teachers who recommended regular use of a metronome, but, who in a private moment, will admit they never used one. Same for transcription. Sure, it's the classic way but some players have done very little. And, of course, whatever you did with the metronome and transcription, you may, or may not be, a great player. Although, to be fair, probably most great players have transcribed a lot - possibly because they already had good enough ears to do it efficiently, thereby making it more fun.

In these conversations the border between theory and is-it-theory? becomes blurred.

I'd say that posts listing a dozen or more scales that can be played over a particular chord (or the reverse) fall into my idea of theory. And, speaking just for myself, I'd much prefer just one option at a time, preferably heard played live.

[Christian Miller]

I've known high level music teachers who recommended regular use of a metronome, but, who in a private moment, will admit they never used one. Same for transcription. Sure, it's the classic way but some players have done very little. And, of course, whatever you did with the metronome and transcription, you may, or may not be, a great player. Although, to be fair, probably most great players have transcribed a lot - possibly because they already had good enough ears to do it efficiently, thereby making it more fun.

In these conversations the border between theory and is-it-theory? becomes blurred.

I'd say that posts listing a dozen or more scales that can be played over a particular chord (or the reverse) fall into my idea of theory. And, speaking just for myself, I'd much prefer just one option at a time, preferably heard played live.

Without getting into the (surprisingly complex) stuff about metronome use….

Transcription is something you do at music college for course credits haha (well not quite.)

Learning to listen to music is another, more holistic thing. In the general course of one’s life as jazz musician you will be expected to learn songs, for instance. Some of them come on paper from the composer or arranger, but a lot of the time you are expected to learn repertoire by listening to recordings and learning by ear.

All the serious jazz players I know use recordings as their primary source for learning any tunes in this way. It’s just a natural part of musical life.

In a way it’s very natural. Ray Brown told stories of his group of friends all learning to sing the solos from new records and testing each other on them. I hear kids doing the same on the street corner, only now it’s their favourite bars from hip-hop tracks. Same thing really.

In terms of learning how to improvise, that’s more diverse.

What always has to happen though is that the person improvising has to play musically. That means that it has to be heard and felt to come out through the instrument. The feeling of the swing has to be there, the sense of the phrase. Otherwise it’s not jazz, it’s just notes. Obvious, really.

That’s something that is nurtured with an intense aural connection to the music, much more active listening than most non musicians do. Transcription of solos is one activity that focuses that connection and many great players have transcribed a great deal. Not all, though.

(And some are blessed with a very natural relationship to all of this, perhaps down to very early heavy exposure to the music.)

For the rest of us, learning solos and tunes by ear as much as possible seems a very complete way of working on this.

Otoh no pro jazz musician can get by without learning music by ear regardless of how many solos they’ve learned by ear.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

When I go out to hear jazz, I usually see players using charts. Established groups who are touring the same show for many nights, maybe not, but even some of those use charts.

The players may know a few hundred standards, but they aren't playing head arrangements of those tunes.

And, then there's the issue, maybe not at the highest level, of having everybody transcribe the recording the same way.

So, I'm not so certain that players always learn new tunes from recordings. One question that occurs to me is, which recording? The composer's? The one that's most widely known? Your personal favorite?

Right now, I'm preparing for a gig where I'll have to play about 20 tunes that I don't know or I've played once or twice with this band years ago. I have the charts and I listened to the composer's version of most of the tunes, while following along with the chart. That allowed me to get the rhythmic feel and whatever else wasn't in the chart.

Unfortunately, the band couldn't provide a recording of their versions of these tunes. That would have been better. When trying to fit in with an existing band, the best thing is to have recent recordings of the band playing tunes the way they currently play them.

If I had to learn them all from the recordings, it would take too long, probably I'd miss some things and I wouldn't have the exact arrangements the band intends to play.

[Christian Miller]

When I go out to hear jazz, I usually see players using charts. Established groups who are touring the same show for many nights, maybe not, but even some of those use charts.

The players may know a few hundred standards, but they aren't playing head arrangements of those tunes.

I can only speak to my local professional scene - and I am lucky to play with many exceptional musicians - but players who use for charts for jazz standards are probably more from the reading/pit orchestra/pop side of things - or maybe they are used to playing originals projects or some other branch of the music. It's not that they are bad musicians or can't play a bit of jazz, it's more that it isn't their specialism and haven't been playing straight-ahead jazz several nights a week for the past ten years. We all forget stuff after a while too - I'm constantly relearning tunes lol. It doesn't mean they don't have good ears or can't learn songs by ear from recordings. Far from it - they literally wouldn't be working musicians if they couldn't.

Your hardcore jazzers are invariably off the charts for standards. It's a bit a shibboleth in the world, really - especially places like NYC, But also, increasingly London where the straightahead scene seems to have got a LOT more serious and New Yorky in a the space of a few years. There are mistakes or questionable choices in many commercially available charts too, most famously the pre 6th edition Real Book. You have to go to the primary sources to learn a tune properly.

But then, people use charts for all sorts of reasons. Originals and arrangements are obviously charted, or someone simply hasn't had time to learn a tune that the band leader called, or needs an aide memoire. Or maybe the leader has a preferred version of the changes for that tune and that's why they have a chord chart. OR singers and their weird keys (some players make it a point to be able to play everything in every key tho...)

But let's get away from the rarified world of jazz weirdos for a minute. Here's a very normal situation for working guitarist. You are subbing for a soul/funk function band on the Saturday. Someone sends you a list - no charts - for around 24 songs on Monday (if you are lucky). 12 of those songs you know already, the other 12 you don't. So you have to learn them for the gig. (Obviously if you've been playing those sorts of gigs every weekend since you left college, you'd probably know all of them, same as with the jazz thing.)

Or a singer songwriter sends you their album and you need to learn their originals off the record. Then you definitely can't do a cheeky google for charts.

This has happened to me on quite a few occasions and I'm not even really in that scene. I assume it's pretty standard practice.

And, then there's the issue, maybe not at the highest level, of having everybody transcribe the recording the same way.

So, I'm not so certain that players always learn new tunes from recordings. One question that occurs to me is, which recording? The composer's? The one that's most widely known? Your personal favorite?

The answer is very much yes. (For those who aren't simply slogging through the real book for a Sunday afternoon lunch gig.) Increasingly I'd say it's an expectation, actually, especially among players who play straightahead (and early stuff) to a high standard.

Here's a website that gives the recorded history of any Jazz Standard you like, and streaming services make it possible to check out all of them
Jazz Standards Introduction: Origins, History, Theory, Musicology, Biographies, and Books

Here's a website that has original sheet music so you can compare the original song book changes to the jazz recordings
Sheet Music Singer – Bringing vintage songs back to life

This is how the serious kids are learning their standards now. It's never been easier to do your homework. Unfortunately that also creates the expectation that you have done your homework haha.

In the old days people still did that research but it took a lot more work. Brad Mehldau recalls Peter Bernstein going to the public library to hunt down old sheet music for show tunes.

Right now, I'm preparing for a gig where I'll have to play about 20 tunes that I don't know or I've played once or twice with this band years ago. I have the charts and I listened to the composer's version of most of the tunes, while following along with the chart. That allowed me to get the rhythmic feel and whatever else wasn't in the chart.

Unfortunately, the band couldn't provide a recording of their versions of these tunes. That would have been better. When trying to fit in with an existing band, the best thing is to have recent recordings of the band playing tunes the way they currently play them.

If I had to learn them all from the recordings, it would take too long, probably I'd miss some things and I wouldn't have the exact arrangements the band intends to play.

And yet, that's something working musicians have to do. It's a muscle you build. But I would say learning music is the biggest challenge I come up against as a working player. I've not always been the best at it, and many many people have much better ears than me.

This is all context dependant. These days the big band world and jazz originals world are based around scores by and large. (Except from Tigran Hamasyan haha - you have to learn his stuff by ear apparently. FUN!). So reading is an important skill for this and it's less important to listen to stuff unless you know it's going to be hard music (which is often the case with originals). OTOH the pop covers and songwriter/artist world isn't very score reliant for obvious reasons, unless you are lucky to have a proactive MD who has charts for everything to make subbing easier - which is by no means a given.

I think one thing I've learned slowly is it helps to always prioritise the listening side of it away from the instrument. If you can really hear a tune and its form and arrangement details, playing it is going to much easier. Plus if you are used to taking down jazz tunes the pop stuff is usually relatively simple to actually play - the issues usually come from the form of the song and instrumental details that are important, including any solos that fall into that category.

EDIT: What is kind of unanswered here is how this relates to the hobbyist. TBH, I think any ear work you can do is beneficial at any level of ability. It does make one a stronger player generally, and a lot of people are intimidated by it. The more you do it, the easier it gets.

[Christian Miller]

I mean it can be ridiculous as you know. I know some players who seem to listen to a thing once or twice and come to the gig and nail it COLD. I mean that's not me.

[rpjazzguitar]

I haven't encountered a standards gig without charts in recent memory, neither as a player nor as an audience member.

I know plenty of people who could do it (and I could too, if I get to call the tunes), but I don't know anybody who actually does it.

I think standards gigs of that kind are passe, at least in this area (Northern Ca).

To be clear, I've played, and heard, some standards gigs, but there were charts in every case.

For example, I got called for a Corporate Christmas party with some players who are really at a level above. Nonetheless, they had books for all the tunes (including, to give you an idea, Autumn Leaves). At first, I figured they were for my benefit, since they didn't know what I knew. But, in fact, the bassist opened his book for every tune, including Autumn Leaves, which he could have played by memory, post-mortem.

Similarly for other gigs, including well known players.

That wasn't true in my NYC youth. I recall gigs where the pianist had a notebook and used it -- and everybody else was supposed to know the tunes. I've seen it more recently at a local jam session -- the organist (kicking bass) had his phone out and everybody else was supposed to know the tunes, all of which would probably appear on a top 20 list. The leader, a Grammy nominated player, seemed to know all the tunes and would have worked in the NYC of my youth.

I recently did a corporate trio gig, bass guitar and alto. The altoist was the leader. He showed up with 3 copies of a book (wrong word, it was a stack of paper) and we played them alphabetically.

My point is that, despite the fact that many players could manage a standards gig without charts, it simply isn't done, in my recent experience.

One exception is audience requests. If an audience member wants to hear Girl From Ipanema everybody knows it and we play it from memory. We have an elaborate arrangement too, but nobody remembers every detail, so we only play it with charts out. There are a bunch of other tunes we could do that with, but even for some of the chestnuts, you'll see players pulling out their phones and using Irealpro.

On learning tunes: Warren Nunes once told me that if he heard a tune on a jukebox in a bar once, he would know it for the rest of his life. Warren knew all the standards, although he didn't always know them as originally written. Since he didn't read that was what he needed to do.

For us mere mortals learning tunes is much about learning the sound of chord progressions. You hear the tune in your mind and your fingers go to the right place with as little intervening thought as possible.

While I'm on a ramble, it's one thing to have to figure out All of Me but it's another thing to have to figure out tunes by composers like Toninho Horta or Wayne Shorter. Horta's harmonies are exquisite and the chords are rarely anywhere near vanilla. This gig I'm preparing for -- if I had to figure out all those tunes in less than a week, I'd have turned the gig down. I don't find that sort of thing to be quick or easy.

If I could start all over from the beginning I'd have focused on ear training above all else. At the time, I'd never heard of it. I think the players who were good enough to gig back then all had gifted ears. Nowadays I think it's easier to get to that level with "regular" ears.

[Christian Miller]

I haven't encountered a standards gig without charts in recent memory, neither as a player nor as an audience member.

I know plenty of people who could do it (and I could too, if I get to call the tunes), but I don't know anybody who actually does it.

I think standards gigs of that kind are passe, at least in this area (Northern Ca).

To be clear, I've played, and heard, some standards gigs, but there were charts in every case.

I mean the other week playing at a local pub, sax calls 'Ask Me Now' and I say, "I love this tune but I can't quite recall it - can I glance at the changes for a few minutes, and give it a go"... and the guy says 'no man, let's play something we all know.' It's not unusual for people to be like that.

Not in a nasty way (well mostly). They just want you to play something you know because the music is always better.

And then we play Like Someone in Love with the first half in C and the second half in Eb. Fun if you've never tried it.

It's not like EVERYONE is like this, but it is common enough a professional experience for it to be pretty normal for me at this stage.

But it depends, another time I got a call and the sax player had a book of Paul Desmond compositions, none of which I knew. That was him being organised so he could play the music he wanted to play, and I respect that a lot.

But - if I get the call for the one again at some point, I would like to go and learn some of that rep because those tunes are gorgeous and I know Id play them better if I wasn't reading changes. Plus, do I need more of an excuse to go and listen to a bunch of Paul Desmond recordings? The answer is of course no.

Right, that's what I'm doing tomorrow haha.

For example, I got called for a Corporate Christmas party with some players who are really at a level above. Nonetheless, they had books for all the tunes (including, to give you an idea, Autumn Leaves). At first, I figured they were for my benefit, since they didn't know what I knew. But, in fact, the bassist opened his book for every tune, including Autumn Leaves, which he could have played by memory, post-mortem.

Similarly for other gigs, including well known players.

That wasn't true in my NYC youth. I recall gigs where the pianist had a notebook and used it -- and everybody else was supposed to know the tunes. I've seen it more recently at a local jam session -- the organist (kicking bass) had his phone out and everybody else was supposed to know the tunes, all of which would probably appear on a top 20 list. The leader, a Grammy nominated player, seemed to know all the tunes and would have worked in the NYC of my youth.

I recently did a corporate trio gig, bass guitar and alto. The altoist was the leader. He showed up with 3 copies of a book (wrong word, it was a stack of paper) and we played them alphabetically.

My point is that, despite the fact that many players could manage a standards gig without charts, it simply isn't done, in my recent experience.

One exception is audience requests. If an audience member wants to hear Girl From Ipanema everybody knows it and we play it from memory. We have an elaborate arrangement too, but nobody remembers every detail, so we only play it with charts out. There are a bunch of other tunes we could do that with, but even for some of the chestnuts, you'll see players pulling out their phones and using Irealpro.

On learning tunes: Warren Nunes once told me that if he heard a tune on a jukebox in a bar once, he would know it for the rest of his life. Warren knew all the standards, although he didn't always know them as originally written. Since he didn't read that was what he needed to do.

For us mere mortals learning tunes is much about learning the sound of chord progressions. You hear the tune in your mind and your fingers go to the right place with as little intervening thought as possible.

While I'm on a ramble, it's one thing to have to figure out All of Me but it's another thing to have to figure out tunes by composers like Toninho Horta or Wayne Shorter. Horta's harmonies are exquisite and the chords are rarely anywhere near vanilla. This gig I'm preparing for -- if I had to figure out all those tunes in less than a week, I'd have turned the gig down. I don't find that sort of thing to be quick or easy.

If I could start all over from the beginning I'd have focused on ear training above all else. At the time, I'd never heard of it. I think the players who were good enough to gig back then all had gifted ears. Nowadays I think it's easier to get to that level with "regular" ears.

Well trying to figure out Wayne tunes by ear is great for the ear. I learned a few that way. It's not THAT bad - most of the chords are in root position. Listen for the bass and the melody.

Half an hour spent trying to puzzle out a beautiful chord is half an hour well spent - and you can be certain that the charts won’t always be right for stuff like this.

Anyway this is all a bit of a massive side bar. The point is not that we should all play tunes by memory - although aural memory is the most robust and long lasting way to learn music and learning music by ear is the best ear training there is - but rather that we should all be working on our ears and hearing what we play. An orchestral player might need the dots, but they'll be able to hear them from the score. Same with a good section horn players.

It all goes back to the ear. I 100% buy Hal Galper's thesis that we all play how we hear. Hear weakly, play weakly. Absolutely true and it's BRUTAL.

[rpjazzguitar]

Well trying to figure out Wayne tunes by ear is great for the ear. I learned a few that way. It's not THAT bad - most of the chords are in root position. Listen for the bass and the melody.

It all goes back to the ear. I 100% buy Hal Galper's thesis that we all play how we hear. Hear weakly, play weakly. Absolutely true and it's BRUTAL.

I mentioned Wayne Shorter because I didn't think most people would be familiar with Toninho Horta's work. Toninho's harmony is harder.

As far as the idea that the ear is absolutely foundational, well, I couldn't agree more. Is there anything else that all great jazz musicians have in common?

One of the most eye-opening experiences I ever had was in a combo class. I played an incorrect chord. The pianist, another student, who wasn't even a particularly strong player, then explained what the correct chord was and named the chord that I'd played instead. I thought, "is that what I'm supposed to be able to do?". The answer, sadly, is yes, that would be an excellent thing to be able to do.

Another time, in a room filled with the music from keys, guitar, drums bass and vibes, the teacher said "the chord is F13". I looked at my hand, which was holding 1x123x. I said "I am playing F13". He said, correctly, "I don't hear the Eb". I wasn't pressing hard enough on the D string.