Herb Ellis: Shape System

[MarkRhodes]

Couldn't make it this weekend... when is the second chorus due?

The due dates are negotiable. Next weekend sounds good for chorus two. The main thing is to keep at it. Do what you can do. Do SOMEthing. It's good to be moving forward.

[MarkRhodes]

Here's a take of chorus two using a BIAB track via cheap laptop speakers. Can't say I dig that sound. Think I'll use Aebersold play-alongs in the future.

[MarkRhodes]

Here is a quick take of chorus number 3 of Herb's "Blues in C." No backing track. I was recording something else---a Frank Vignola etude for that study group--and thought it might be about time to add another chorus here, so...

[Doublea A]

Here is my take on the first 24. Of course the rehearsals were better than the actual take but here it is at approximately 107 bpm.


Herb Ellis #2



AA

[dot75]

Sounds good - first few bars not as played by herb...(timing more than notes) but your version works so it's all good....I'm starting to get his chord shapes idea, probably because I've stopped consciously thinking about them while I'm playing his lines - I occasionally notice the shapes going by which (I hope ) means I'm getting it at some level...

AND

"MarkRhodes

I think I found a way over the weekend. Will give it a go later this week. Stay tuned!"

any news?

[MarkRhodes]

Here is my take on the first 24. Of course the rehearsals were better than the actual take but here it is at approximately 107 bpm.

Sounds good!

The rehearsals are always better, aren't they? ;o) I think the main reason we think that is that we don't record them and so we don't hear them again and notice flaws; also, we are less anxious when rehearsing.

[MarkRhodes]

Here's chorus number four of Herb's "Blues In C."
Tried to find a better recording set up but failed. I think I'll do the rest of these without any backing at all. (Perhaps a metronome.)

[dot75]

Me too....hope to get something down by the weekend - distracted by other stuff...

[MarkRhodes]

Nice to see everyone's still at it, showing good progress! On my end life interferred, had a crazy working week... also, working on other stuff doesn't benefit the keeping of schedule. Hope to be able to deliver asap.

As the Motel 6 commercials say, "We'll leave the light on for ya'." Everyone gets overwhelmed from time to time with work, family matters, even a bad cold. It happens. It passes. Then you're right back with it. No worries.

[MarkRhodes]

Short 'n' sweet (I hope).

[rlrhett]

I hope you guys don't mind a quick "shape" question that isn't directly related to "Swing Blues".

I was looking through my copy of the "Rhythm Shapes" book. I had what is a fundamental question on how to read the book. In the first pages Ellis describes his "Shape 1". It's a familiar shape. "Long A" or "G", whatever works. The root on the 6th with all the action down towards the nut from there.

So then I look at the first melodic example on page 10. We start with the Bb6 and you can clearly see the Shape 1 in that opening two measures. But, of course, the tune then goes to Bo in the next. But we have only learned that one shape. Obviously I can see he is playing essentially a Bo arpeggio with a G passing tone. That is not the "Shape", is it? Then we get a Cm7 with more arpeggios of the chord, C#o, etc. No more of that shape that I can tell.

The point is that only the first two measures seem to relate to the Shape we just learned, the rest of the example does not. It feels like the tail wagging the dog. Am I missing something? Is there some way that the shape relates to the rest of the measures that I don't get? Am I supposed to see the shape for the first two measures and then two measure of the seventh and four of the eighth, and the rest is just in there to make the example musical?

As I say, really fundamental question about how the book is organized and what the pedagogy is here.

Thanks!

[MarkRhodes]

I hope you guys don't mind a quick "shape" question that isn't directly related to "Swing Blues".

I was looking through my copy of the "Rhythm Shapes" book. I had what is a fundamental question on how to read the book. In the first pages Ellis describes his "Shape 1". It's a familiar shape. "Long A" or "G", whatever works. The root on the 6th with all the action down towards the nut from there.

So then I look at the first melodic example on page 10. We start with the Bb6 and you can clearly see the Shape 1 in that opening two measures. But, of course, the tune then goes to Bo in the next. But we have only learned that one shape. Obviously I can see he is playing essentially a Bo arpeggio with a G passing tone. That is not the "Shape", is it? Then we get a Cm7 with more arpeggios of the chord, C#o, etc. No more of that shape that I can tell.

I'll get my book out later today and look that over. Off the top of my head, I think the first example (if you're talking about the 8-bar phrases) is supposed to be seen as coming out of that one shape.

[MarkRhodes]

Here's that example rlrhett was talking about above. In the book it is called "Example 2" but it is the first 8-bar phrase Herb gives for the A section of rhythm changes, based on shape one. (It is played twice and better "the second time around.") The whole thing is out of Shape 1.

[MarkRhodes]

It may be a good time to see where we are as a group and where we want to go.

This group was slow to get rolling. (I accept full responsibility for that.) Now it's moving along. Is everyone okay with the pace and direction? (I guess we'll move on to "Bounce Blues" as more of us work through "Blues In C.")

[Doublea A]

I hope you guys don't mind a quick "shape" question that isn't directly related to "Swing Blues".

I was looking through my copy of the "Rhythm Shapes" book. I had what is a fundamental question on how to read the book. In the first pages Ellis describes his "Shape 1". It's a familiar shape. "Long A" or "G", whatever works. The root on the 6th with all the action down towards the nut from there.

So then I look at the first melodic example on page 10. We start with the Bb6 and you can clearly see the Shape 1 in that opening two measures. But, of course, the tune then goes to Bo in the next. But we have only learned that one shape. Obviously I can see he is playing essentially a Bo arpeggio with a G passing tone. That is not the "Shape", is it? Then we get a Cm7 with more arpeggios of the chord, C#o, etc. No more of that shape that I can tell.

The point is that only the first two measures seem to relate to the Shape we just learned, the rest of the example does not. It feels like the tail wagging the dog. Am I missing something? Is there some way that the shape relates to the rest of the measures that I don't get? Am I supposed to see the shape for the first two measures and then two measure of the seventh and four of the eighth, and the rest is just in there to make the example musical?

As I say, really fundamental question about how the book is organized and what the pedagogy is here.

Thanks!

Good Question. I am going to take a closer look at the book and try to say something intelligent later.

[Doublea A]

It may be a good time to see where we are as a group and where we want to go.

This group was slow to get rolling. (I accept full responsibility for that.) Now it's moving along. Is everyone okay with the pace and direction? (I guess we'll move on to "Bounce Blues" as more of us work through "Blues In C.")

I am currently working on the third 12 bar section. I know that I am a little behind the group but you can move move the group along to Bounce Blues. I find it inspiring to see and hear everyones work.

[rlrhett]

Thanks Mark. I guess I just don't understand what is meant by "Shape". It seems like the only thing happening is that all the improvisation is happening in one basic position on the neck (3rd to 6th fret). It still seems like he is playing "endless...arpeggios," to use his words. Nearly every other bar has notes that don't fall in either his Major Arpeggio, Major Scale, or Dominant Scale for Bb, but do make sense if you are arpeggiating each chord described in the harmony.

I won't highjack this thread, but I still don't understand what the Bb "shape" has to do with what is played in this example. I'll work through a few more and see if it clicks with me. Thanks for your help.

[Doublea A]

Thanks Mark. I guess I just don't understand what is meant by "Shape". It seems like the only thing happening is that all the improvisation is happening in one basic position on the neck (3rd to 6th fret). It still seems like he is playing "endless...arpeggios," to use his words. Nearly every other bar has notes that don't fall in either his Major Arpeggio, Major Scale, or Dominant Scale for Bb, but do make sense if you are arpeggiating each chord described in the harmony.

I won't highjack this thread, but I still don't understand what the Bb "shape" has to do with what is played in this example. I'll work through a few more and see if it clicks with me. Thanks for your help.

The "Shape" is an arpeggio. The solos lean heavily on these arpeggios. It doesn't mean that every note will be a part of that shape. It means that the solo is built around the notes of that arpeggio. It is a way of seeing the Scales, the arpeggios within those scales, and finally how to turn those arpeggios in to something musical.

When there is a chord progression like Bb to Bdim you can alter the "shape" to accentuate the harmony but the majority of the progression remains within the original scale/arpeggio/shape.

I hope that answers your question.

[Doublea A]

I find the concept behind Herb#s playing is easy to understand but very hard to apply as it needs an adjustment of the musical mindset to many people, first and foremost including me. I therefore decided to go "monkey see, monkey do for a few months" and see where it'll get me. I'll probably rather jump back to Herb's older "Blues Shapes" tutorial after tackling "Blues in C" because it's a bit easier and I'm not in a rush here... I'll then return later to continue with the next study in the current book. I really want to digest this, so I'll take care not to bite off more than I can swallow!

See my reply rlrhett. I think that might help.

[MarkRhodes]

I won't highjack this thread, but I still don't understand what the Bb "shape" has to do with what is played in this example. I'll work through a few more and see if it clicks with me. Thanks for your help.

This is not highjacking---it's what we're here for! Everyone will have trouble with something or other, whether it is a line or a concept or an ambiguous sentence in the book(s).

My understanding of this is that the melodic ideas are to be associated with the shapes. That's how you can move the ideas around. If you wanted to play that line in, say, Eb or G, it would be easy to move because you know where that shape would be for those keys (or any other ones).

[pants]

To me the shape concept mostly represents not necessarily a different mode of playing, but a more of a geometric visualization of the fingerboard and concentrating more on the feel and shape of a line than having to carry in one's head all of the underlying theory. You see C7 and visualize the shape outline to correspond and build off that, rather than spelling out the notes of the chord and then porting that theory onto the fretboard. You learn the feel and outline of a dominant arpeggio and visualize shifts that lead to the next shape instead of contextualizing them. If that makes sense. I would venture that most guitarists in practice employ "shapes" whether they think of it that way or not. It's kind of one of the traits of the instrument. Especially when considered relative to say a trumpet or saxophone (even piano, though there are more "port-able" shapes there) where you have no option but to choose notes from a linear set.
Thoughts? Comments? Maybe I'm way off base, but that's sort of my view on the overarching thought process.

[MarkRhodes]

The "Shape" is an arpeggio. The solos lean heavily on these arpeggios. It doesn't mean that every note will be a part of that shape. It means that the solo is built around the notes of that arpeggio. It is a way of seeing the Scales, the arpeggios within those scales, and finally how to turn those arpeggios in to something musical.

When there is a chord progression like Bb to Bdim you can alter the "shape" to accentuate the harmony but the majority of the progression remains within the original scale/arpeggio/shape.

I hope that answers your question.

I see it differently. I see the shapes as shapes, or grips. Consider a simple C arpeggio: C-E-G. It's not going to lay out on the guitar the same way in shape 1, shape 2, and shape 3. The notes will be the same in each case but the shape will not. The shape makes it handy to move lines from one key (or area of the fretboard) to another.

[rlrhett]

Coming from a blues/rock/folk background the concept of "shapes" as I think Mark is describing is not new to me. I always had the CAGED system in mind (although I didn't know what it was called and usually thought of C/D as one shape and G/A as one shape). Later in my playing life I had the 7 note major scale broken down into five two string patterns. What has been a real struggle transitioning to jazz has been to shift those patterns for each chord that rushed by. I can lock into a major scale and move it anywhere up and down the neck, but when I have to change it up every two beats I get quickly lost.

I guess I was hoping for a way to visualize those changes quickly and intuitively. When Ellis speaks of "no more endless arpeggios", I got excited. As I am understanding Mark's explanation, it is more about learning to find all those endless arpeggios as the chords race by WITHIN the larger major/dominant scale shape. So still a different arpeggio (let's call it an arpeggio "plus") every couple of beats, just visualized within a larger shape.

[MarkRhodes]

I guess I was hoping for a way to visualize those changes quickly and intuitively. When Ellis speaks of "no more endless arpeggios", I got excited. As I am understanding Mark's explanation, it is more about learning to find all those endless arpeggios as the chords race by WITHIN the larger major/dominant scale shape. So still a different arpeggio (let's call it an arpeggio "plus") every couple of beats, just visualized within a larger shape.

I don't think about arpeggios when I'm playing Herb's lines. The whole 8 bars of the A section to rhythm changes is Bb. (Or, as Frank Vignola put it in the video he made for our rhythm changes study group, it's all I and V.) I don't think it's about finding all the arpeggios----I think it's about learning the lines!

[Doublea A]

To me the shape concept mostly represents not necessarily a different mode of playing, but a more of a geometric visualization of the fingerboard and concentrating more on the feel and shape of a line than having to carry in one's head all of the underlying theory. You see C7 and visualize the shape outline to correspond and build off that, rather than spelling out the notes of the chord and then porting that theory onto the fretboard. You learn the feel and outline of a dominant arpeggio and visualize shifts that lead to the next shape instead of contextualizing them. If that makes sense. I would venture that most guitarists in practice employ "shapes" whether they think of it that way or not. It's kind of one of the traits of the instrument. Especially when considered relative to say a trumpet or saxophone (even piano, though there are more "port-able" shapes there) where you have no option but to choose notes from a linear set.
Thoughts? Comments? Maybe I'm way off base, but that's sort of my view on the overarching thought process.

I think we are all saying the same thing. We have have slightly different ways of seeing the shapes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk