-
Any have this that can give a review/critique?
http://www.byrnejazz.com/upload/portfolio/23_2.pdf
-
09-02-2010 10:26 AM
-
09-04-2010, 09:57 PM #2jeffstocksmusic Guest
I have it and have worked a bit out of it. It was good for me in helping me see triadic connections I hadn't really caught before. I look at it as an 'etude' book rather than a method, like say Bergonzi's Hexatonic book or Garzone's 'Triadic Chromatic Concept'. So, if you are looking for something to expand your ears and get some new shapes under your fingers, check it out. If you are looking for a 'method' book that will say use this triad pair over this chord (for example), it might not be what you want.
-
Okay. Thanks. I stumbled across a Garzone piece in Downbeat a few years back where he applied his chromatic triad method to "Mrs. Jones" and it sounded so crazy. Basically, the nearest triad within the slip of a half-step is what he was doing.
Originally Posted by jeffstocksmusic
I am just interested in going deeper into my apprach to dominants-which now is stacked triads and polychords. I have set a system up mixing all the triads found in the 13#11 chord a half step from the I chord, as well as all the triads and 7th chords from the diminished family over the V7 chord. I got this idea from an old book I had fromn college; "Dan Healre's Jazz Language" in which he talks about which polychords give which alterations.
-
I have been working bichordal triad pitch collections, Byrnes´s Book 4 for some months now. I loved it for many reasons. First, it expands your melodic vocabulary with super colorful intervals from the pitch collections the book offers. In fact, the book is an addition to the Linear Jazz Improvisation methodology, when we focus on the most important elements of the composition: Reduced melody, guidetone lines, root progression and permutated rhythms.
Seven note scales are too conjunct, and those of us who learn them have noticed we can't use all of them at all situations. Sometimes, you need only two, as in those Salsa solos. Pcs leave gaps, allowing the line to breath.
Pitch collections can be applied to chordal situations, but it might not be the case, since we decide not to think chord-to-chord in improvisation.
Now, the most important in all that are the Finale files, and learn to sing the etudes, improvising on them later. I takes you to the point of composing yourself through expansion of your tonal memory. That's hot!
I'm playing much more colorful and interesting lines since I started working on bichordal triad PCs, because my ears are much more open and muscular with these unusual intervals from PCs. I has also helped me compose my lines in eight bar phrases, giving it time to breath, thinking like a horn player, just like the way the etudes were written.
I totally recommend it.
-
It's funny how ljistudent's 5 posts are exclusively promoting Ed Byrne books...or is it?
-
09-07-2010, 07:39 PM #6jeffstocksmusic GuestI vote for it being just a truly amazing coincidence that every post sounds exactly like a marketing blurb. Truly, utterly cosmic coincidence.It's funny how ljistudent's 5 posts are exclusively promoting Ed Byrne books...or is it?
-
Well, if it is, I'm not getting paid for that, dude. Just doing my part to help others get out from this CST approach, as it has helped me. Don't get me wrong. Also, I am a student, man. I'm digging these books over a year. I can talk about this. Not like those guys who just gave a glipse at a book sample and were already giving full reviews of something they know nothing about. Originally Posted by jeffstocksmusic
Last edited by ljistudent; 09-09-2010 at 09:16 AM.
-
CST is an acronym for what? Chord Scale Tone/theory? Originally Posted by ljistudent
Polychords and triadic approach have been my thing for a while now. I think it all started when I heard John Abercrombie say that he doesn't think in terms of scales, but rather chord tones and triads.
-
Chord-scale theory.
Yeah, that's good. In fact, I had already given up playing Jazz, right after I finished Post-grad (pure CST based). I was struggling with the scales, and it made me feel dumb, after just 10 years of practice. I went through many of Aebersold's books, John Novello, David Baker, Ian Guest, Ondine Mello, Nelson Faria, John LaPorta, Mark Levine (both books), Peter Deneff, Jerry Cocker, Neil Olmstead, Randy Halberstadt, Kenny Werner, Arnold Schonberg, etc, etc, etc... All of these were great. I also recomend those books to any one. I loved to work with John Laporta's book, it's very interesting and very close to what I'm doing now, since he enhances your ears by giving you a thousand motives and development. Neil Olmstead is also excellent, but too based on CST
Guys, don't get me wrong, please. I know I have studied little compared to many of you, I've been on the road for 20 years only. Everything I did, took me to this very moment of my life when I look back and thank God for every little thing. I know (or used to know) CST inside-out. Been there, tried it and I think it's interesting, but I repeat, not as a basic improvisational tool.
-
I'm doing that book 5 now. It's difficult.
-
You know how crazy it is, that so many high-level guitarists stray away from scales/chord theory. I know Abercrombie shuns scales, Jimmy Bruno says scales and thinking which ones to use over which chrods don't work, he refers to them as "pitch collections." Pat Martino says scales are for piano players. I learned the hard way, that I should learn all the scales and arpeggios, THEN formulate a sound based off of how they sound, not apply the scales right at the moment. So, I was a victim of CST. In fact, those so-called modal tunes, the only tunes that would logically warrant modal scale application, with static altered chords really only need you to work from chord tones and the extended triads. Originally Posted by ljistudent
-
Even if one decided CST was the way to go, I just get weary of hearing that constant half/whole step approach to playing. It just gets tedious to my ears. I prefer wider intervallic gaps, and like being surprised by an improvisor.
-
Why would someone using a Chord Scale approach be limited to playing half steps and whole steps?
Scales contain intervals of all sizes and of course arpeggios as well. There are no laws requiring 7 notes be played on every phrase.
It is not the fault of the scale if a player doesn't use what is readily available.
Every approach has it's advantages as well as shortcomings.
I look forward to checking out Ed Byrne's books and viewpoint sometime soon.
-
Agree!
But listen, we should never exclude any approach. I think all are great. I have a Pat Martino book (sorry, but I forgot the title) that I bought sometime ago. Excellent stuff. I thought it was cool, but it sounded like CST to me. I sold it to a guitar fella, because I was interested in it, then. Also because his approach was really for guitar. I could translate some stuff to piano, actually voicings (I love guitar voicings translated to piano, because they breath. We pianists tend to fill the spectrum too much).
In fact, we have 12 notes to use, not only 4, 5, 6 or 7. But, to me, what counts is how you use them. Example, you can choose to use 4 notes only, but target those notes in different ways, with 1, 2 or 3 notes above or under, and the combination of them.
Talking about CST, it is was always very hard for me to improvise over a diminished chord, for example. When I was first presented to Jazz theory, it was through Mark Levine's 'Jazz Piano Book'. He presents the dim/dom scale and I memorized it in the half step/whole step fashion, because it was to improv over the V7b9,13 chord type. So, as it has only 2 transpositions, I memorized it by colors, so everytime I saw a, say, G7b9,13, Bb7b9,13, C#7b9,13 or E7b9,13 I would go "Blue". So, I invented three colors, black for C, blue for C# and red for D families.
The problem is that, as diminished chords require whole-half gamut, and it changes it upside down, so the color approach doesn't work anymore, only if you memorize it upside-down, of course. Also, diminished chords can go too fast, often one bar, or half bar, or less. I felt I was struggling with the piece, and even if I could think that fast and use the scale, I never liked my phrases over that type of chord. You could also use the harmonic minor, but if dim is not a dom substitute, the scale doesn't resolve into the next chord.
So, thinking of a dim chord as a tetrachord pc, example, Cdim: C Eb Gb A and play that or target the notes with chromatic groups, it will sound much more like you are coming home with the line, because you have the tetrachord and the notes outside of it. It you notice, we have used all 12 pitches here, but in a meaninful way. Also, if you think of the tetrachord and a chromatic targeting group with a note half-step under each pitch, you end up with the old diminished scale, but how you view it makes the difference. If you have only two beats to use it, you can pick one note off the tetrachord and target that alone and it will already come out with an interesting line!
Now, with book 5, it seems very hard, but outrageous! I'm just listening to the mp3 files, reading the introduction to really understand it. I'm getting down to business today, actually. Anybody who did that could share their experience?
-
If you find it hard to improvise using the notes of any scale, that is not the fault of the scale. All the notes, pcs, intervals, triads, triad pairs, etc etc are contained within the scale. It's up to you to see them.
You learn them so deeply, that you don't have to think. The thinking comes when you're first learning and absorbing the sound of the scale.
I don't think of scales when i play.
I don't find it hard to improvise with the Diminished scale. I don't find it hard to improvise with scales on Rhythm changes or Giant Steps. I can improvise with these things and play melodies. I extract the sound from the source. I am not special in the least. I don't say this with any arrogance in the least.
I really do not understand this thinking.
I get that some don't like scalar playing, but that is a completely different debate. That's the player, not the scale.Last edited by mike walker; 09-10-2010 at 02:17 PM.
-
Exactly, I mean, it's not hard to use notes or melodies. It's hard to think at all during performance about the nuts and bolts of any kind of thing, regarding scales, notes rhythm, chords or whatsoever theoretical.
So, the thing is: Do the nuts and bolts in the woodshed and believe it will evolve naturally by the time of performance.
In the bandstand, you have more important things to worry about: Interplay, audience, climax.
I dare saying you don't find it difficult to improvise like you said because you have dilligently done your homework.
By the way, Mike, you have a wonderful bio and I loved your website. Congratulations on the amazing work.Last edited by ljistudent; 09-10-2010 at 03:49 PM.
-
Totally. Originally Posted by ljistudent
It's nuts to say scales don't work because you have to think about them.
So, ya don't have to think about pitch collections? Or Arpeggios, or chord tones, or chromatics or upper and lower neighbours/enclosures.
Precisely. You learn that stuff so it's second nature.
And everything there comes from scales.
Do you think about every word you say in a sentence everyday?
No. That's because over time you absorbed the words and even your personal word phraseology. And so it is with music.
-
C Eb Gb A is not a tetrachord, it is a tetrad.
-
Tony for what it's worth I've read interviews with Abercrombie from years and years ago in downbeat when he was asked what he's practising at the moment. He replied "Mostly scales". Fact is, he's internalised his scales so well by now by countless years practice he's forgotten what it's like to practice them in a scalar fashion. He now waffles on about how he only plays "intervals" - how nice. This is really off putting to students who take this all literally when searching for "the secret" to playing hip sounds.
Mike Walker has put it beautifully (as always) - Couldn't have said it better myself.
People who strongly advocate these "NO MODES, NO SCALES, CHORD SCALES DON'T WORK" methods are always trying to make a fast buck selling expensive ebooks and dvds and preying on struggling students.
-
Absolutely this. (and not because i get a credit). Originally Posted by Rickh
I'm passionate about this. (really??
)
John knows his scales inside out. Playing Stella by Starlight on the top string only, right thru the changes is no mean feat.
It's a scandal to advocate 'Scales and Modes are useless' type ideas and plant them in the minds of folks who are trying to distil a lifelong study in, very often, a much too short space of time, in order to express themselves with something they love.
What i am categorically not saying is you cannot have a jolly time just using chord tones, arpeggios, tonal centres etc etc.
You can. And that's great. Just don't bag on someone who's diligently learning their scales and modes, and don't bag on the scales and modes themselves.
When i see stuff like 'oh forget all that scale shit, it never did anything for me' I immediately think 'oh....that's strange, it opened up so much for me, so many new colours, such a depth in fretboard knowledge'..... Can ya believe it?
Amazing..... a difference of opinion from our own mutually exclusive personal experiences. Who'd have thought it?
Rickh is bang on. Don't fall for someone else's experience, or lack of understanding, or interpretation of a chinese whisper. Walk the path for yourself. Don't be afraid of what you don't understand (yet) and don't let jealousy or envy inform, and eventually spearhead, your opinions.
I say this from a totally caring position.Last edited by mike walker; 09-11-2010 at 08:15 AM.
-
How do you improvise over scales,scales are scales, I thought you improvised over tunes, it's hard enough finding an audience for that let alone scales, is this solo in the toilet playing? Originally Posted by mike walker
-
Well ya can improvise over a single bass note, or a just a drum pattern or a fish or a boiled wig or a.... Originally Posted by larry graves
How do you improvise over scales,scales are scales, I thought you improvised over tunes, it's hard enough finding an audience for that let alone scales, is this solo in the toilet playing?
So yeah, you can totally improvise over, through, etc a scale.
But where in that post, do i say 'improvise over scales'..??.
I don't doubt you in the least, i'm just confused.
-
So in Abercrombie's videos and interviews where he says things like "realize that the chord you're soling over at the moment has chord tones that extend to other diads, triads, combos ect, not from a scale per se," he is not advocating scales? I just think that, like so many greats say, if you think in scaler terms when soloing, IT WON'T WORK! Thinking in terms of pitch collections instead, which do contain scales, modes, shapes, arps ect. If I wanted to play a simple ii-V-I phrase in "C", I WOULD NOT be thinking d harmonic, G whole-tone, C lydian. I would think in terms of the C pitch collection, and chord tones from the d minor and adding a Bb and C# to imply the b9 of A7-d-7, C pitch collection of G7 with the #5/b5 and a C pitch collection with a #11 over the I.
What I'm doing, is NOT thinking in scaler terms, but rather in terms of the chord tones, alterations and the respective parent pitch collection. I could easily think those as scales and modes, but it doesn't work like that for me, and a lot of others
.
-
John knows his scales. Believe it. What he's saying is he doesn't think scales. That is totally different. I don't either. But i know them.
Pitch collections come out of scales. Diads triads and everything else come out of scales.
So i much prefer to see the bigger picture and see pitch collections etc as embedded within that.
It works fine for me, but it doesn't work for you. That's cool.
Sco, Metheny, Abercrombie, Mclaughlin and countless others know them.
I don't advocate them for you.....but when you say they don't work, it's much better to say they don't work....for you, it makes no sense at all, to say they don't work in themselves.
I know you say it in the last paragraph, and you say 'a lot of others' but a lot of people who are wanting to get to a 'jazz sound' quickly and often too quickly, take that as some sort of flag they can wave "down with scales' or 'modes are useless' and that is utter nonsense. I know you don't advocate that, but so many do after misinterpreting many posts on the subject.
-
I know good and well John knows his scales, as every Berklee alum HAS TO! (lol) I never said scales and modes are useless. The problem with them, is that unless internalized fully, scales could be a dangerous regurgitating process. I remember my teacher at UNT Fred Hamilton once tell us that when he learned his scales, he sounded too academic. When he started applying chromatics, enclosures, arps and other devices, boom! Originally Posted by mike walker
Essential what he taught us was to learn then, then get them into your head as "sounds" which arps and chromatics come from. In fact, I was struggling with thinking too much in terms of "what scale fits over what chord" and it started hindering my playing. I asked Jake Hanlon via email what he would advise. He too studied under Fred. He told me to realize that melodies, intervals and arps ect come out of scales, and to think in terms of melodies, not scales. (Thanks Jake, still WAY HELPFUL to this day!) So in essence, I don't say scales are bad at all, it's just they can get players stuck on over-thinking. Let me ask you this, when you play a ii-V-I, do you think "dorian, altered/mixo whatever, Ionian/lydian?
Reply With Quote
Calling you Framus folk
Yesterday, 09:38 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos