The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 118
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    We used to perform the tune almost a half century ago. Can't remember what I did or what the keys did, but every so often some know-it-all piano guy would tell us we were playing it all wrong. We probably were. Didn't bother the horn player (who worshiped the man), and the audience liked it anyway.

    It's like any other tune. Use what sounds good, simplify, or lay out.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Looks and sounds nice... and th solo sounds concinving... I would not think it scales-derived

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Jonah -

    I would not think it scales-derived
    You mean my soloing? It's not necessarily a 'CST' approach but one needs to know what sets of notes sound right over the chords. One could do it with triads and/or pentatonics, and all that, but I don't think at that speed it would give enough to work on.

    Since you seem to be posting music at the moment why don't you give it a go? Earlier here you wrote:

    I would not look at the chord symbols but rather listen to changes... Naima is pretty simple tune imho if you go through it by ear.
    Even Mr. Beaumont, who is not normally known for his hesitation, had to give this tune multiple takes. Personally I've done it now many times and I'm not perfectly sure I'm happy yet. It wouldn't be wise to dismiss its complexity too easily.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Jonah -



    You mean my soloing? It's not necessarily a 'CST' approach but one needs to know what sets of notes sound right over the chords. One could do it with triads and/or pentatonics, and all that, but I don't think at that speed it would give enough to work on.

    Since you seem to be posting music at the moment why don't you give it a go? Earlier here you wrote:



    Even Mr. Beaumont, who is not normally known for his hesitation, had to give this tune multiple takes. Personally I've done it now many times and I'm not perfectly sure I'm happy yet. It wouldn't be wise to dismiss its complexity too easily.
    Yes it is interesting...

    'll try to go through it by ear a bit later today and record

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    I gave it a try... not that I like it but some spots I lke... it is second try.

    the problem hear that I think even when PLAYED BY EAR it requires some STUDY BY EAR which I did not do...

    I think I'll do more tomorrow without conciously studying possiblities - just explore it more by hearing and trying some particular places...


  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Not easy, right?

    I couldn't have done it without working it out pretty carefully. It's not normal harmony. With the usual sequences my brain/fingers go more or less automatically to the right places but with this... it contradicts all the normal habits.

    Anyway, tomorrow?

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    I've just woken up with this tune in my mind and I have thoughts about it! So I think I'll share them.

    I don't think this is a jazz tune, I think it's a rock tune. I think (we) are trying to play it pretty-pretty but I think it needs a screaming overdrive electric guitar with lots of sustain, probably followed by lots of ultra-fast pentatonic-type licks. Something like Prince or Steve Vai would do.

    I actually think that's the soul of this song. It's like an empty hole that needs filling, except I can't fill it. I'm tempted to scrap that video thing I did because it's like saying 'This is it, the final version'. There's no final version, there's something inexhaustible about it, and not in a particularly good way, either. It's rather silly to try to fill a hole that can't be filled.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Not easy, right?

    I couldn't have done it without working it out pretty carefully. It's not normal harmony. With the usual sequences my brain/fingers go more or less automatically to the right places but with this... it contradicts all the normal habits.

    Anyway, tomorrow?

    I was talking namely about working by ear... it does not exclude that some work 'by ear' should be done.

    I still think it is relatively simple... at least the chorus for sure.

    I hear the realtions in chorus, but I was a bit lost in the bridge...

    The other thing is that analytical approach may bring 'new possibilities' - jazz players often like to derive new possiilities analytically and nothing is wrong with that.

    Playing this tune by ear depends much on how subtle the hearing is... how much the melody or bass line here stays in reference to hearing... otherwise it is also possible to reduce it to very basic changes.

    I think many obstacles come from the fact that people LOOK at the chords of Naima...

    I do not say I play it very well... but the chorus is quite passable by ear for sure..

    My problem here is the same as if I were playing Blue Moon.. I try to play everything that way... so there is a chance that Blue Moon with me would be no better..

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    I've just woken up with this tune in my mind and I have thoughts about it! So I think I'll share them.

    I don't think this is a jazz tune, I think it's a rock tune. I think (we) are trying to play it pretty-pretty but I think it needs a screaming overdrive electric guitar with lots of sustain, probably followed by lots of ultra-fast pentatonic-type licks. Something like Prince or Steve Vai would do.

    I actually think that's the soul of this song. It's like an empty hole that needs filling, except I can't fill it. I'm tempted to scrap that video thing I did because it's like saying 'This is it, the final version'. There's no final version, there's something inexhaustible about it, and not in a particularly good way, either. It's rather silly to try to fill a hole that can't be filled.
    Not quite with you on this, but I can imagine Allan Holdsworth doing it.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Not quite with you on this, but I can imagine Allan Holdsworth doing it.
    Yes, that would probably be interesting.

    I've got lots of thoughts about this tune but I don't want to hog the place. I mean, it was definitely written during Coltrane's drug and booze days, maybe in some ghastly hotel away somewhere. When I was getting into the tune I could sense it, probably not 'psychically', but one got a sense of what was going on. To be honest, it wasn't good. There was really a massive feeling of emptiness there. It may be described as a love ballad by some but what I get from it is a desperate empty misery, to be honest. Then he dumped Naima, of course - by all accounts a beautiful, sensitive woman.

    Musically, if you think of it, it's almost a set of power chords crashing about erratically. That's why it seems to bear resemblance to a rock song and invites that kind of treatment. I know many players have played it as prettily as they could. McCoy Tyner did his own version which was nice although the darkness is inescapable.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Jonah -

    I liked what you did but, you know, it's not worked out properly. I'm sure it would sound pretty good if it was.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Jonah -

    I liked what you did but, you know, it's not worked out properly. I'm sure it would sound pretty good if it was.
    I did another take and talked a bit instead of typing..


  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    I was talking namely about working by ear... it does not exclude that some work 'by ear' should be done.

    I still think it is relatively simple... at least the chorus for sure.

    I hear the realtions in chorus, but I was a bit lost in the bridge...

    The other thing is that analytical approach may bring 'new possibilities' - jazz players often like to derive new possiilities analytically and nothing is wrong with that.

    Playing this tune by ear depends much on how subtle the hearing is... how much the melody or bass line here stays in reference to hearing... otherwise it is also possible to reduce it to very basic changes.

    I think many obstacles come from the fact that people LOOK at the chords of Naima...

    I do not say I play it very well... but the chorus is quite passable by ear for sure..

    My problem here is the same as if I were playing Blue Moon.. I try to play everything that way... so there is a chance that Blue Moon with me would be no better..
    Yep

    Plenty people out there complaining about how chord scales and analysis doesn’t get them sounding like jazz and then prove remarkably resistant to suggestions of alternative approaches.... it’s like they know it’s not working but can’t think outside this framework of ‘good sounding notes on chords’ and theoretical justification.

    in general looking at harmony and doing the pitch set thing in real time is the worst approach in the moment - everything becomes disconnected - but if you got to do it on an unfamiliar set of changes, find some triads because you might hear those.

    Better still, ignore the changes and work by ear, perhaps quoting and varying the melody (the Brecker approach.)

    its extraordinary how resistant people are to this idea. Or to the idea that by doing it a lot one might get very good at it.

    Not sure what I can do in that situation as a teacher. Even when I show them, get them to do it, and they sound GOOD, there’s still resistance. They don’t think it’s honest or something. Like music is a matter of legality or professional ethics. The chord scales become edicts carved on stone tablets instead of what they were originally intended to be - suggestions.

    SMH
    Last edited by christianm77; 04-15-2020 at 01:18 PM.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Xtian -

    (edit: this is longish but it's not a rant!)

    Absolutely. I did say above that I wasn't using a CST approach.

    Doing it by ear, whatever that means, only works if you have the ear. And if you have such a cultivated ear you might well find yourself playing what the 'recommended' notes are anyway - for the simple reason random other choices aren't much good. I could do it by ear too but I know it would take an inordinately long time before I was happy with the result. So a lot, if not everything, depends on the ear!

    As for triads, I was using some triads. Also arps, subs, and god knows what. But triads by themselves? Fine if you want it to sound chunky or something. I mean, if the objection to using scale-based sets of notes is that they sound contrived (which isn't true because then all scale-based music would sound false, which it definitely doesn't) then exactly the same could be levelled at any formula one uses, whether it's scales, triads, pentatonics, or whatever.

    I also disagree with what you call the Brecker approach for the simple reason there's no backing. Who knows what he was doing? You'll say that's not the point - but it is if you're recommending doing it that way to every tune. He's basically just playing what he wants to play. Can't do that with a band. In any case, if you look at the transcription, he's using scales too. Of course he is.

    You talk about resistance to departing from a scale view of playing. That's because it's proved to work. But using it does not mean that one is dependent on it. A beginning player who is educated in chord/scales will inevitably depend on them, with the concurrent fear of departing from what they know. And, if you offer them triads - which, let's face it, is just a pretty sparse formula for making certain sounds, they're not going to like it. And quite rightly when their scales give them a whole running set of possibilities. It's the advanced player who can introduce other ways of playing, not someone who's just starting.

    The no-scales idea is a fraud, really, and I think it's part of some of the tripe that's talked about jazz and playing jazz. It presupposes that anyone who uses them is a robot who can't think beyond them, is a prisoner to them, and has to be helped to see another more enlightened view - by offering them something which will actually decrease their range of available notes.

    And I'm willing to bet you a million quid, not that I've got it, that you yourself still use scales. Or know what they are where applicable. Yessir.

    The fact is it takes a lot of skill to use triads instead of scales effectively. And unless they're in the hands of an expert they can sound dreadful as they try to fit them to the music. Same with pentatonics, that's another false hope for the same reasons.

    It's not a question of either/or, or right/wrong, or good/bad, it's about the best thing to use at the time.

    The chord scales become edicts carved on stone tablets instead of what they were originally intended to be - suggestions.
    But that's what I'm saying, they're suggestions in the sense: these notes work. They're not a rigid rule to be followed, they're simply useful. No one's suggesting they're set in stone. Only unlearned minds need a rigid can't-deviate-from-it formula.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Doing it by ear, whatever that means, only works if you have the ear. And if you have such a cultivated ear you might well find yourself playing what the 'recommended' notes are anyway - for the simple reason random other choices aren't much good. I could do it by ear too but I know it would take an inordinately long time before I was happy with the result. So a lot, if not everything, depends on the ear!
    Everything depends on ear...

    To cultivate hearing one has to listen to music a lot... but from my personal experience most people who have ears they have it from childhood.

    Techniques like modes are applicable of course... like painters could ab=pply mathematic perspectives or other rational methods... but not that much as one might think by the way... greats Renaissance painting using perspective usually has very deceptive and methematically wrong perspective. Botticelli or Van Eyck master it but they use it as articstic tool to create particualr meanings corresponding teh contents of the painting.
    So they anyway first of all SEE and construct it by SEEING..

    Same thing hear - one can study any tool and apply - but the application should be be HEARING... as I said in my video - modes can give interesting opportunities but it makes no sense with ears.


    What Christian meant (I believe) that in general guitar/jazz studets take scales for granted... they do not listen they just learn like Bible and think one day something will work...
    I recently saw a master class on scale (in Russian byt that guitarist kid who won jazz competition in the States that year)... I was scared actually.... it looked like a high math course with lots of figuers on the board... and people with notepads...
    It looked very complicated and this complication also created the feeling of solidity (scientific mentality again: complex must be most probably true)...

    But there was almost nothing about how to play music --- he talked a bit about that but mostly a few words about practicing scales in sequences and intervals ... same old stuff.

    Scofield in his master class 30 years ago did the same thing he demonstrated the scales and sad play them in intervals... but listen to how he plays it! Listen how Jukian Lage plays a scale in a masterclass!... there is definitely a contradiction in it...
    They have fantastic phrasing even playing a scale... this what makes them sound how they sound but they say nothing about it..
    Of course scales tuned out helpful to them becasue they are gifted musiciand with ears.

    What will those who do not have that gift do with all those scales?

    To me it is natural to try to play what you hear...
    Julian in one of the masterclasses told about 'not playing what you hear' about guitaristic approach when you do not know what comes out but I believe it is a bit different thing (he sayd 'how can I hear wht is not played yet' - it is a good point about different between the idea and the realization... but again it is not what I mean... I mean that 'when it sounds at least it should be listened and heard' not 'watched and thought')

    What stops people from just playing Naima by ear? Why do they think it is more complicated ? Becasue they do not trust hearing...

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    I've got lots of thoughts about this tune but I don't want to hog the place. I mean, it was definitely written during Coltrane's drug and booze days, maybe in some ghastly hotel away somewhere. When I was getting into the tune I could sense it
    Trane got sober before the end of 1957, and Naima was written in 1959.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    Ah, thank you, what I said was wrong. But the song is still empty and I'm going to maintain that. Maybe his brain was still screwed. Maybe it was ambivalence towards his relationship. He did just up and leave. Later he was back on LSD...

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Xtian -

    (edit: this is longish but it's not a rant!)

    Absolutely. I did say above that I wasn't using a CST approach.

    Doing it by ear, whatever that means, only works if you have the ear. And if you have such a cultivated ear you might well find yourself playing what the 'recommended' notes are anyway - for the simple reason random other choices aren't much good. I could do it by ear too but I know it would take an inordinately long time before I was happy with the result. So a lot, if not everything, depends on the ear!

    As for triads, I was using some triads. Also arps, subs, and god knows what. But triads by themselves? Fine if you want it to sound chunky or something. I mean, if the objection to using scale-based sets of notes is that they sound contrived (which isn't true because then all scale-based music would sound false, which it definitely doesn't) then exactly the same could be levelled at any formula one uses, whether it's scales, triads, pentatonics, or whatever.

    I also disagree with what you call the Brecker approach for the simple reason there's no backing. Who knows what he was doing? You'll say that's not the point - but it is if you're recommending doing it that way to every tune. He's basically just playing what he wants to play. Can't do that with a band. In any case, if you look at the transcription, he's using scales too. Of course he is.

    You talk about resistance to departing from a scale view of playing. That's because it's proved to work. But using it does not mean that one is dependent on it. A beginning player who is educated in chord/scales will inevitably depend on them, with the concurrent fear of departing from what they know. And, if you offer them triads - which, let's face it, is just a pretty sparse formula for making certain sounds, they're not going to like it. And quite rightly when their scales give them a whole running set of possibilities. It's the advanced player who can introduce other ways of playing, not someone who's just starting.

    The no-scales idea is a fraud, really, and I think it's part of some of the tripe that's talked about jazz and playing jazz. It presupposes that anyone who uses them is a robot who can't think beyond them, is a prisoner to them, and has to be helped to see another more enlightened view - by offering them something which will actually decrease their range of available notes.

    And I'm willing to bet you a million quid, not that I've got it, that you yourself still use scales. Or know what they are where applicable. Yessir.

    The fact is it takes a lot of skill to use triads instead of scales effectively. And unless they're in the hands of an expert they can sound dreadful as they try to fit them to the music. Same with pentatonics, that's another false hope for the same reasons.

    It's not a question of either/or, or right/wrong, or good/bad, it's about the best thing to use at the time.

    But that's what I'm saying, they're suggestions in the sense: these notes work. They're not a rigid rule to be followed, they're simply useful. No one's suggesting they're set in stone. Only unlearned minds need a rigid can't-deviate-from-it formula.
    So much to unpack.

    I'll just throw one thing out there - scales are not the same thing as chords scales. We are expecting people to make up music from theory. This doesn't work. Some people think it works, which is the worst thing.

    EDIT: another point - I don't personally teach beginning players to improvise jazz.

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Jonah -

    The whole thing is nonsense. Chords come from scales. Triads are chords. So triads are scales. If playing by ear was so easy everyone would do it. But it's not so easy, as you've found yourself.

    I don't actually know what playing by ear is. Guesswork?
    Last edited by ragman1; 04-16-2020 at 05:52 AM.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    I don't actually know what playing by ear is. Guesswork?
    Well, there you go. There's your problem.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Jonah -

    The whole thing is nonsense. Chords come from scales. Triads are chords. If playing by ear was so easy everyone would do it. But it's not so easy, as you've found yourself.

    I don't actually know what playing by ear is. Guesswork?
    Looks like we are coming to the regular point in the discussion with you. The point where I drop out.

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    Looks like we are coming to the regular point in the discussion with you. The point where I drop out.
    Apparently, you can't you can't get better at playing by ear by doing it a lot.

    I tell you what - really glad I wasn't on this forum when I was learning to play. It wouldn't have helped.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Neither of you understand what I'm saying. I'm not against a good ear or musical sensibility. What I'm objecting to is the idea that, without knowledge of basic music and the song, you can just 'play by ear' and pull things from the air. A chimpanzee can do that! And even a chimpanzee will get lucky once in a while.

    I know it's nonsense, you know it's nonsense, so what are we talking about?

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Neither of you understand what I'm saying. I'm not against a good ear or musical sensibility. What I'm objecting to is the idea that, without knowledge of basic music and the song, you can just 'play by ear' and pull things from the air. A chimpanzee can do that! And even a chimpanzee will get lucky once in a while.
    I'm having trouble seeing this as anything other than a daft straw man.

    An experienced and competent musician can busk a tune by ear and improvise on it and sound good. You can develop these things through practice and teaching - and they are all aspects of being a musician. If I didn't think this was true, I'd walk away from jazz education because all the theory is available online. There'd be no point to me.

    We aren't talking about beginners. Jonah is not a beginner. You are not a beginner. I don't teach people who don't know the basics of their instrument to improvise jazz. But I also don't think you need to shed every scale and arpeggio combination before you can make a valid musical statement on a tune. These are useful raw materials, not a process.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Apparently, you can't you can't get better at playing by ear by doing it a lot.

    I tell you what - really glad I wasn't on this forum when I was learning to play. It wouldn't have helped.
    Well... you can learn things by ear too. Not just bling-playing all the time without reviewing it)))
    Besides I have enough theoretic background even to name things by ear...

    But I know what you mean - if one do not find solution for the problems he comes unto he just will repete the problems.. in real music it is not enough time usually to figure out these things just through repetition.

    I do quite a lot of study - but it is a different thing... in the vids I posted recently I deliberately tried to do more or less 'blind search'.. I would say main focus was on trying to sing it or murmur on guitar...
    I learn form that too and I am glad that this strange idea pushed to record more (I have much problem with recording).

    I probably could look/sound better from outside... if had some more elaborated idea there...
    But I notice that I do not like doing that. I do not enjoy the result. Let it be wrong and awrkward but beween the garbage there will be some worthy fragmenst that stay and teach me... and these momemts worth it becasue they are true... if it all were elaborated I would have saved myself from mistake but also I would have been deprived of these little revelations

    You know.. in general I noticed that people doing music may have very different purposes behind it... I probably could do many things and better than others but why would I if would not be happy with it...
    I'd rather do what's worth for me even if awkwardly