Key Centered Approach to Improv and Nashville Numbers

[rpjazzguitar]

This may be a bit of a detour. It has to do with how language interacts with music.

One poster pointed out that he can't "hear" things by note name, but can by interval.

If you play a melody I can play it back if it's not too complicated. But, if you ask me what notes I played I have to think about my fingers.

If you play two notes, I can play them back to you. But, if you ask me to name the interval I have to think.

So, somehow, the sounds are in my head, but divorced from language.

And, for some reason, I can do it pretty well for melody and pretty badly for chords.

A lot of work on ear training made things a little better, but no massive leaps.

I get the impression that different musicians have different ways of relating sound to language. Note name, interval number, solfege, none-at-all, whatever.

If I could do it all over from a young age, I would probably go with the kind of teacher I'd heard about who did a couple of years of ear training before you were allowed to touch an instrument -- if that kind of teacher really ever existed. Now, I understand the logic of it. I doubt that I'd have stuck with it, in reality, but I get the idea.

[charlieparker]

Absolutely. If one is playing by ear you are hearing in your mind's ear what you want to hear come out of the instrument. Then the worst possible method would be one in which something you did not want to hear or play (the reference diatonic notes or their numbers) was always the basis for having to do a translation process to play what you want to hear (the nondiatonic notes or numbers) out of the instrument.
That might indicate a deep misunderstanding in what playing by ear means.

Playing by ear means never having to say
what key are we in?
what type of chord are we in?
what type of scale are we in?

Based on my personal experience of playing by ear, I sort of disagree with this. The problem for me is how to translate what I hear onto my instrument. For instance, I could hear the melody of a bop head in my head and whistle it no problem, but then I would have to think how do I play that? To do that, *I* have to use relative pitch. And for me, I use functional relative pitch instead of interval based relative pitch based on the root key. So, I translate what I hear into it's scalar position based on the root key.

[Christian Miller]

TBH I think most people would benefit from working out whether they are:
- working on their instrument
- learning jazz
- working on improvisation.

While these facts are all one and the same in the finished article, it is helpful to work on things separately.

In terms of the jazz side of it, the best course always seems to be, get over oneself, be a bit more humble and stop trying to express ones creativity all the time. I struggle with this TBH.

If it's unfettered creativity and improvisation that's your area of interest, some form of non-idiomatic improvisation might be more fulfilling. TBF a lot of that gets included in the jazz category anyway. And that's not a diss, there's a lot there to learn as well. I'm not very good at non-idiomatic improvisation, but I always learn something from doing it. The bar to instrumental ability is lower, and you don't need to learn specific idiom and language, so it allows you to focus on other elements.

(And I would say creativity is not something conscious really, I'm a bit skeptical about what gets characterised as creativity in modern culture, but that's another one.)

If you want to learn jazz, so that you sound like jazz, you do need to apprentice yourself to the music. That means learning a lot of music. And yes, this means licks. Peter Bernstein might be beyond licks, but the chances are if you are asking basic questions about what notes about the mechanics of the music, that you are not. It's not quite like classical music in that, the aim is still to find your own thing, but you do need to check out the music in depth and detail in order to be able to develop a feel for it. I always liked the way Hal Galper put it - you find yourself through the music. Your individual voice and sound are not in tension with learning more music. It won't spoil you.

And in general I find that working this way tends to make these questions about what to play on what chord and so on gradually less important. You've got all these people on records telling you what you need to know.

Another thing - not all advice is right for everyone.

For instance, there's a story Pat Metheny tells about his playing early on after he learned a mess of Wes licks from Smokin' at the Half Note, started gigging on his local circuit and then on the bandstand with older musicians being dressed down for sounding too much like Wes.

So the reflexive response is to think 'oh I should seek my own voice.' I don't think that's the takeaway necessarily. This was advice meant for a young Pat Metheny. Hal again is useful - he characterises practice as the buy-in to being on the bandstand which is the real learning process. Those Wes licks bought Pat the right to be told off for learning Wes licks haha.

It's the same thing as being told off for playing too many notes. Again, that's a phase you go through because you are able to play but it doesn't yet have a focus. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't work on technique, knowledge and facility and as Hal points out being a 'notey' player is a healthy and normal phase for most young musicians. It's just another stop on the way through your journey as a player.

Anyway, a general thought.

Anyway, I think a lot of people think they are too good for licks. I'm not sure if that's always true.

[Christian Miller]

I don’t know about this, my inclination here is that this way lies madness.

Going chord by chord through a tune can be counter productive for sure, but there are more musical and intuitive ways of simplifying a tune and trying to hear the movements.

Like djg mentioned, trying to hear the individual notes in a change is probably misunderstanding how aural memory tends to work.

For that II7 you listen to A Train a lot and sing it and sing the bass movement and sing the weird note and then you listen to other stuff and when you’re listening to Ipanema, you go “hold up” … and you realize they sound the same.

Then you notice that the V chord in the cadence is a little different and the bass movement is cool and you listen to that a gazillion times.

Then you’re listening to Satin Doll and you realize it has that bass movement in the cadence and then you think maybe you’ve heard the bridge to that one before and you go back to A Train and focus on the bridge.

Rinse repeat.

We hear in bigger chunks generally than our traditional ear training methods sometimes allow for.

Yeah as usual I agree.

It’s what you would call schema theory. It’s not like an experienced jazz player will be amazing at hearing every combination of notes, but they will hear a Parker lick immediately.

It’s what I get when I transcribe. Bop stuff on the whole I’m good at. Obvious chord scale stuff again, ok. Where I struggle is unfamiliar things - intervallic craziness, interesting combinations of chromatics and so on. Then I have to go note by note. But slowly you expand your zone of familiarity.

I gather that’s true whether or not you have perfect pitch etc.

It’s a bit like what you were saying about sight reading. Part of being a good reader is having seen an awful lot of music.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GuyBoden]

You've got all these people on records telling you what you need to know.

Very, very true, but listen and learn from easier Swing songs first, not complex bebop.

I started with very, very easy Swing melodies, the easier the better.

Info: I'm only a hobby player, with very little talent, but have enjoyed playing guitar for over 45 years.

[AllanAllen]

Anyway, I think a lot of people think they are too good for licks. I'm not sure if that's always true.

I don't think it's ever true, Parker pulled licks from tunes. It's part of the genre.

I think you were onto something at the beginning that people come to jazz for the improv without realizing how structured it can actually be.

[pamosmusic]

Very, very true, but listen and learn from easier Swing songs first, not complex bebop.

I started with very, very easy Swing melodies, the easier the better.

Info: I'm only a hobby player, with very little talent, but have enjoyed playing guitar for over 45 years.

You could go a very long while just learning Charlie Christian solos.

[brent.h]

Just wanted to share some things I have been thinking about. I struggle with Improv and I am trying to construct a system for me that is optimized around using the ear to improv.

To that end, I am thinking of changing the way I think about things like scales and chords, etc, when improvising.

My plan is to try a key centered approach to improvising. What do I mean by that?

First we have the parent key with 7 notes numbered 1 to 7. Then for chords, I will related their notes to the parent key so for a V7, it's notes would be 5, 7, 2, 4, and a II7 would be 2, #4, b7, 1.

Similarly, let's say I want to play a dominant sound over the II7, I would just think of the parent scale with possibly some notes sharped or flatted like the #4 above.

I wonder if anyone has explored such an approach. Really, I think the benefit is that it will really let me focus on the sounds in the parent key of the different parts and see and hear the movements and resolutions better.

I might be wrong about this.

The thing that you're describing here, the numbers and all that... this has to do with the the phonological loop in your working memory.

But what you actually really need is building that knowledge/library/catologue of sound in your ears.... this has to do with sensory memory (echoic memory). The jazz masters are right when they say you have to play something literally thousands of times... it takes quite a bit for auditory information to go from sensory memory to your working memory then your long-term memory: the body's ability to hang on to sensory stimuli can be quite poor... like trying to cup your hands and hang on to as much water or sand as possible.

I don't disagree that you need to 'math something out' to figure out stuff, but I hope that you don't focus too much on the mathing and the numbers. The focus on sound is the more important thing that requires a lot lot more work. (Plus, I'm not sure how recalling visual representations like numbers against a tonal centre will activate that part of the brain that deals with sound.)

But if you find that your method helps you remember things and play better, then by all means do it!

[charlieparker]

I might be wrong about this.

The thing that you're describing here, the numbers and all that... this has to do with the the phonological loop in your working memory.

But what you actually really need is building that knowledge/library/catologue of sound in your ears.... this has to do with sensory memory (echoic memory). The jazz masters are right when they say you have to play something literally thousands of times... it takes quite a bit for auditory information to go from sensory memory to your working memory then your long-term memory: the body's ability to hang on to sensory stimuli can be quite poor... like trying to cup your hands and hang on to as much water or sand as possible.

I don't disagree that you need to 'math something out' to figure out stuff, but I hope that you don't focus too much on the mathing and the numbers. The focus on sound is the more important thing that requires a lot lot more work. (Plus, I'm not sure how recalling visual representations like numbers against a tonal centre will activate that part of the brain that deals with sound.)

But if you find that your method helps you remember things and play better, then by all means do it!

Well, this idea hit me when I was trying to learn the melody for "In a Mellow Tone". I was looking at the notes, I could sing it but playing it wasn't obvious to me.

I also have a nephew in-law from Taiwan who plays piano at a decent level. But he can't read music, and apparently this is pretty common there they use music sheets with numbers instead of notes. His grandmother also plays a bit of piano and asked me what the numbers were to a piece I was playing once.

Then I thought, why don't I write the numbers down for the melody of "In a Mellow Tone". And, I did that and the fingerings became much easier and the melody stuck in my memory much easier like you mentioned. So then this idea popped into my head to do this with licks and other stuff.

Numbered musical notation - Wikipedia

[brent.h]

For me, my ears catalogued sound a lot quicker that I could math out stuff.

I kinda inadvertently turbocharged the process because I sing all my lines. And I sing them because there's someone on this forum (I can't remember who) whose signature had something about Herb Ellis saying how important it was to sing what you play. So I made it a practice since day 1. I sang my lines and sang Prez and CC solos so often that my ears learnt these sounds:

In the key of C

C = just the root, home
C# = 3rd of A7
D = just the ii, or the 6th of F6, or the 6th of F-6
D# = C blues
E = 3rd of C6
F = 3rd of D-7
F# = 3rd of D7
G = just the V7
G# = 3rd of E7, or 3rd of F-6
A = VI or vi or 3rd of F6
A# = C blues
B = 3rd of G7

I hear the notes this way till today.

[pamosmusic]

I don't disagree that you need to 'math something out' to figure out stuff, but I hope that you don't focus too much on the mathing and the numbers. The focus on sound is the more important thing that requires a lot lot more work. (Plus, I'm not sure how recalling visual representations like numbers against a tonal centre will activate that part of the brain that deals with sound.)

But if you find that your method helps you remember things and play better, then by all means do it!

Yeah as a very Systems-and-Analysis kind of practicer I don’t judge anyone for going that route with their practice, but I’ve also done it enough to know that you can start separating yourself from sound pretty quickly and not realize for a long while

[charlieparker]

For me, my ears catalogued sound a lot quicker that I could math out stuff.

I don't really like the term math out stuff, because it has negative connotation in artistic circles and in particular, I don't think that is what I am going for here. In my mind it is just an alternative to solfege syllables, but with each syllables position in the scale more clearly delineated. That's the way I hear things. That was a melody that started on the third and then walked up to the 7th.

1. I sang my lines and sang Prez and CC solos so often that my ears learnt these sounds:

In the key of C

C = just the root, home
C# = 3rd of A7
D = just the ii or the 6th of F6 or the 6th of F-6
D# = C blues
E = 3rd of C6
F = 3rd of D-7
F# = 3rd of D7
G = V7
G# = 3rd of F-6
A = VI or vi or 3rd of F6
A# = C blues
B = 3rd of G7

I hear the notes this way till today.

I also sing quite a bit, but not everything. I also tend to whistle licks I learn. But, I think what you described above is interesting in that you associate a note with a function in one of the chords of the key or it's secondary dominants. Food for thought.

[brent.h]

But, I think what you described above is interesting in that you associate a note with a function in one of the chords of the key or it's secondary dominants. Food for thought.

lol i can tell you where this was drilled home for me. it's bar 5 and bar 6 of Prez solo on Lady Be Good. this was the very thing that taught me how to play through the changes and foreground notes that imply a certain harmonic movement, no matter what the chords were in the background..

[charlieparker]

Yeah as a very Systems-and-Analysis kind of practicer I don’t judge anyone for going that route with their practice, but I’ve also done it enough to know that you can start separating yourself from sound pretty quickly and not realize for a long while

I find this comment funny, because the whole goal of this is to bring it closer to sound. The point is that if someone gave me the notes G-Eb-F-G-Ab, I would have no idea what it sounds like, but with solfegge syllables ti-so-la-ti-do it becomes obvious. Numbers are just an alternative way to write ti-so-la-ti-do, i.e., 7-5-6-7-1.

I find these comments a bit puzzling because a sound on it's own isn't that useful. You have to translate sounds to the instrument. Maybe some people can instantly do that. It sounds like rpjazzguitar thinks of sounds as fingerings directly. For me, when I hear sounds to translate them to the instrument, I do it via solfegge or scale degrees.

[Mick-7]

Howard Roberts covers this issue in depth in his Praxis books.....

[charlieparker]

Howard Roberts covers this issue in depth in his Praxis books.....

Thank you Mick. That is exactly what I am talking about. I will have to read that book!

[Mick-7]

Thank you Mick. That is exactly what I am talking about. I will have to read that book!

I shared it here [it's out of print]: Howard Roberts' Praxis System

That was from Volume 3, he addresses the subject in Vol. 2 also (see below). Intervals translate to patterns on the finger-board, you need to be able to associate one with the other instantaneously, i.e., they become "muscle memory."

[pamosmusic]

I find this comment funny, because the whole goal of this is to bring it closer to sound. The point is that if someone gave me the notes G-Eb-F-G-Ab, I would have no idea what it sounds like, but with solfegge syllables ti-so-la-ti-do it becomes obvious. Numbers are just an alternative way to write ti-so-la-ti-do, i.e., 7-5-6-7-1.

I find these comments a bit puzzling because a sound on its own isn't that useful. You have to translate sounds to the instrument. Maybe some people can instantly do that. It sounds like rpjazzguitar thinks of sounds as fingerings directly. For me, when I hear sounds to translate them to the instrument, I do it via solfegge or scale degrees.

Oh buddy don’t get me started on the inferiority of numbers as compared to solfège.

And I guess there’s no particular reason why you should take my (or Christian or djg’s) word for it, but I think for the most part, folks are cautioning you about this one because they’ve tried it and found it less than adequate for learning jazz.

I know that’s the case for me. Solfege or numbers or whatever in the traditional ear training context (intervals against key center) is really good for hear root motion and for hearing extensions over bass.

That’s absolutely nothing to sneeze at.

But Im not convinced it’s been helpful for me in improvising beyond those things.

[AllanAllen]

Like I said. It’s a path you can go down before you just suck it up and learn fundamental theory and harmony.

You can play Mary Had A Little Lamb with numbers, but you can’t play Sidewinder that way.

[rpjazzguitar]

I find this comment funny, because the whole goal of this is to bring it closer to sound. The point is that if someone gave me the notes G-Eb-F-G-Ab, I would have no idea what it sounds like, but with solfegge syllables ti-so-la-ti-do it becomes obvious. Numbers are just an alternative way to write ti-so-la-ti-do, i.e., 7-5-6-7-1.

I find these comments a bit puzzling because a sound on it's own isn't that useful. You have to translate sounds to the instrument. Maybe some people can instantly do that. It sounds like rpjazzguitar thinks of sounds as fingerings directly. For me, when I hear sounds to translate them to the instrument, I do it via solfegge or scale degrees.

If I hear a melodic line which is not too complicated or too long I can play it. Unless it's too fast, I don't conciously think about fingerings. I find the first note someplace on the guitar, in whatever octave, with any finger and I play it without thinking about fingering. I can't do it with chords, unfortunately. I never practiced this and it was never a conscious goal. But, I've been playing for 62 years this month and I've done a lot of reading charts. It just happened.

I do think it can be practiced. When you're noodling in front of the TV, play along with the background music.

[GuyBoden]

Very, very true, but listen and learn from easier Swing songs first, not complex bebop.

I started with very, very easy Swing melodies, the easier the better.

You could go a very long while just learning Charlie Christian solos.

Sorry, but you can go tragically wrong if you start with learning Charlie Parker solos, because they can be too difficult for the level of hearing ability you have at that time.

Start with easier Swing songs from recordings, not Charlie Parker solos. (Charlie Parker solos can come much later, after some experience.)

At first, keep it simple.

[charlieparker]

Oh buddy don’t get me started on the inferiority of numbers as compared to solfège.

Ha. No, I don't, though I am curious why you think that. I think solfege is better for singing because the syllables are easy to annunciate. But, I find numbers easier to relate to sounds in my head.

And I guess there’s no particular reason why you should take my (or Christian or djg’s) word for it, but I think for the most part, folks are cautioning you about this one because they’ve tried it and found it less than adequate for learning jazz.

Well, I feel like I have done a lot of the traditional recommendations, at least transcribing solos. I have found it hard to translate that to actual vocabulary in my playing. The part that I find hard and somewhat boring is taking a small phrase from a solo or something I have transcribed and practicing/using that bit in solos.

[pamosmusic]

Sorry, but you can go tragically wrong if you start with learning Charlie Parker solos, because they can be too difficult for the level of hearing ability you have at that time.

Start with easier Swing songs from recordings, not Charlie Parker solos. (Charlie Parker solos can come much later, after some experience.)

At first, keep it simple.

Well that would be one reason why I suggested Charlie CHRISTIAN

[TF]

I will never be able to understand or enjoy music theory. Over many decades I've bought many jazz guitar method books, gotten to page 3, then quit. You'd think that by now, I would know better than to try to learn this way.

Yet I can read music, I love to learn and play new tunes, and I can play guitar in a way that people enjoy. Even jazz music and improvisation.

I am lucky that a limited musician like me can sound good enough to please a few people, and make a few dollars.

There are a thousand roads to the same destination.

[charlieparker]

I will never be able to understand or enjoy music theory. Over many decades I've bought many jazz guitar method books, gotten to page 3, then quit. You'd think that by now, I would know better than to try to learn this way.

Yet I can read music, I love to learn and play new tunes, and I can play guitar in a way that people enjoy. Even jazz music and improvisation.

I am lucky that a limited musician like me can sound good enough to please a few people, and make a few dollars.

There are a thousand roads to the same destination.

That seems to be the general reaction to what I have posted here. I didn't do a good job explaining it because what I am proposing is the opposite of a theory based approach but just to use your ear.