Playing "outside" - jazz guitar trends

[mr. beaumont]

I don't think it's about qualifications...but how can you even call it outside playing if you don't have a firm grasp on "in?" What are you playing "outside" of?

[docbop]

I don't think it's about qualifications...but how can you even call it outside playing if you don't have a firm grasp on "in?" What are you playing "outside" of?

my dog likes to play outside.

[NSJ]

These discussions are not nearly as contentious to me any more. It's almost become a secondary question or issue (ALMOST). My jazz lessons I have received on this--right notes, inside/outside-- could be reduced to the following: "you can play any note against any chord and harmonize a note in a variety of ways; and if the note sounds 'wrong', move it up or down a half step or whole step". Music is heard linearly, not horizontally.


The real center of musical gravity has moved to an entirely differently mountain to move, per Hal Galper, Mike Longo, and Dizzie Gillespie.


Dizzie Gillespie: "I fill my bar lines up with RHYTHMS".

Now that shit is DEEP. I'm going to spend the rest of my life trying come to grips with this one little statement.

[Spirit59]

Music is heard linearly, not horizontally.

Confusion can arise when we speak of "horizontal", "Vertical", in a musical context - sometimes we're referring to the geometry of the fretboard, other times, the music as it relates to time, but....

To me, I thought that linear *was* horizontal. So I might say, "Music is heard linearly, not vertically."

Am I off in my own little world, or do other folks see it this way too?

(I very well may be...)

[NSJ]

Confusion can arise when we speak of "horizontal", "Vertical", in a musical context - sometimes we're referring to the geometry of the fretboard, other times, the music as it relates to time, but....

To me, I thought that linear *was* horizontal. So I might say, "Music is heard linearly, not vertically."

Am I off in my own little world, or do other folks see it this way too?

(I very well may be...)

Bert Ligon: "students often conceive of harmony as strictly vertical; as chords spelled up or down; chords are vertical, but harmony and melodies are linear and occur over time. Applying principles of harmony to melodic development helps us think of harmony and melody as one unified concept. Jazz improvisation often means creating counterpoint from a given harmonic progression; inventing a counter melody to the bass line.....etc "


See also, Ed Byrne's writings on Linear Jazz--I know you know of him.

In general, because music is heard as a function of time, notes dynamically come and go ever so quickly. This we can use to our benefit.

[JakeAcci]

I guess the question is, is there a universal standard that has to be met to fit the label? Without complicating or over- analyzing things, I think its fair to say that being "intentionally out of key" equates to being "outside", and that's what people meant in general when the term started being used.

But what might sound 'intentionally out of key' to you might be part of an organized harmonic approach that directly relates to the key.

I mean, a really really simple example is, over a Cmaj7 vamp, playing a line that implies G altered then resolves into notes of Cmaj7. Is that "outside?" We might have a Bb, Ab, and F notes over a Cmaj7. It's not in the C major scale, but it's directly in a very functional and "inside" reference - G7alt to Cma7.

Or here's another really simple example. Cadence to Cma7 in the key of C, then resolution to Cmaj7. Soloist plays the notes E F# G over the Cma7. F# isn't in the C major scale. Is that inside or outside? F# isn't in the key, so it's outside? Oh, it's in lydian, and the #11 is an acceptable tension for Cmaj7. So it's inside...because it's inside a system we are familiar with?

So what if when we hear things as 'outside' they are just inside a system we aren't yet familiar with?

to some degree what was formally thought of as "outside" has become "standard" or "modern" or "hip", while inside playing sounds un-hip, square, simple, corny, old-fashioned etc.

But this statement has been a truth throughout history. The players you may listen to and consider "inside" playing may have sounded very "outside" to folks 50 years prior or more, and certainly still do sound "outside" today to folks who've only been listening to top 40 their whole lives.

So when people are talking about inside/outside, it is entirely in reference towards what they are simply already familiar with.

But if you're off a half step, you sound way off. Its obvious that you need to resolve that one...

I'm not sure if that's true. Notes that are half step above or below chord tones may be extensions, blue notes, or possible extensions from less common scales. 6th mode harmonic minor is Maj7 and has #9, for example.

[dasein]

Criticizing someone's opinion or taste in music by suggesting that their musical comprehension "is just not good enough to hear what they're doing" is rather like explaining why you can't get your girlfriend to climax because she just doesn't appreciate your expertise. Maybe instead of playing her Giant Steps when you are trying to broaden her horizons, you should play her this music by Birelli Lagrene.

She'll feel it more.

Just joking! But I could not resist riffing on that line. See, to me that's what jazz can be. The improvisation of a theme and variation to me needs organization, tension and climax to 'tell a story' - otherwise it can begin to sound like just rambling, even if it is 'cerebral'. Giant Steps to me is a brilliant exercise, but not something I like to listen and groove to with when the lights are low with a glass of wine and a beautiful woman. It's just not sensual.

hahahahaha, are you kidding me?

you're trying to argue that the arrested development of your aural imagination isn't the issue at hand, and you do so by trying to liken this whole thing to an awful bachelor pad sex fantasy, like something rejected out of the Playboy Adviser?

(FYI, one of the first dates with my wife was to see Muhal Richard Abrams, Roscoe Mitchell, and George Lewis, so maybe you should just go on dates with people with better taste in music)

and no, my rhetoric is not "rather" like some strained cunnilingus metaphor, it is much rather like pointing out that you're just rehashing the same tired, specious, and yes, conservative points about jazz that have been vomited for close to 100 years now at every artist who plays anything remotely new or strange

"it's not melodic...it doesn't swing... they're just playing random notes... they're just running up and down... why can't they be more SENSUAL... why do they have to be so cerebral... you need to be able to DANCE to jazz..."

and if you go read "Lexicon of Musical Invective" you find the same shit being said about classical music, except that it sounds especially ridiculous reading it said about Beethoven or Chopin.

and then you get to thinking...

"hmmm... did all these artists throughout the centuries: Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner, Strauss, Mahler, Schoenberg, Webern, Charlie Parker, Monk, Coltrane, Ornette... did they all REALLY exhibit the same symptoms that are being attributed to ALL of these musicians, musicians with very different aesthetic conceptions?"

"or could it be that the commonality is not with the musicians, but rather with the listeners?"

yeah, we all got taste, but our taste is not as good as Joel Robuchon's.

and i get it... nobody wants to hear it's their problem they don't like music. nobody wants to hear that instead of recoiling from something they don't understand, they should face it head on. but are we not musicians? are we not supposed to be artists?

but then again...

For a forum that is populated mostly by folks claiming to be jazz guitarists, jazz being an art form that, at least to some extent, represents a certain level of creativity and freedom, I seem to detect a surprising amount of conservatism here.

[fumblefingers]

a simple test case:

assume that you have a long II-V. assume that its in major in terms of chord symbols, and how most artists have played the chords. also assume that the melody notes of the tune in that same spot (same measure and chords) implies major. but when you take a solo instead of playing the good old mixolydian, you use the altered scale.


Q. are you playing inside or outside, or is something else going on?

[JakeAcci]

hahahahaha, are you kidding me?

you're trying to argue that the arrested development of your aural imagination isn't the issue at hand, and you do so by trying to liken this whole thing to an awful bachelor pad sex fantasy, like something rejected out of the Playboy Adviser?

(FYI, one of the first dates with my wife was to see Muhal Richard Abrams, Roscoe Mitchell, and George Lewis, so maybe you should just go on dates with people with better taste in music)

and no, my rhetoric is not "rather" like some strained cunnilingus metaphor, it is much rather like pointing out that you're just rehashing the same tired, specious, and yes, conservative points about jazz that have been vomited for close to 100 years now at every artist who plays anything remotely new or strange

"it's not melodic...it doesn't swing... they're just playing random notes... they're just running up and down... why can't they be more SENSUAL... why do they have to be so cerebral... you need to be able to DANCE to jazz..."

and if you go read "Lexicon of Musical Invective" you find the same shit being said about classical music, except that it sounds especially ridiculous reading it said about Beethoven or Chopin.

and then you get to thinking...

"hmmm... did all these artists throughout the centuries: Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner, Strauss, Mahler, Schoenberg, Webern, Charlie Parker, Monk, Coltrane, Ornette... did they all REALLY exhibit the same symptoms that are being attributed to ALL of these musicians, musicians with very different aesthetic conceptions?"

"or could it be that the commonality is not with the musicians, but rather with the listeners?"

yeah, we all got taste, but our taste is not as good as Joel Robuchon's.

and i get it... nobody wants to hear it's their problem they don't like music. nobody wants to hear that instead of recoiling from something they don't understand, they should face it head on. but are we not musicians? are we not supposed to be artists?

but then again...

Yes, all that, what he said, this guy, I'm with this guy, listen to him, this is correct, +1, all that stuff.

[Spirit59]

That's the thing Jake & Fumble - it's kind of like once your ears get a tune-up, terms like "outside" begin to change their meaning or begin to lose their meaning altogether.

Like Jake was saying, if a guy is soloing over a Cmaj vamp, and plays notes that are not in the scale (and not simply passing tones), is he "outside"? Or is he a player who is putting himself in the driver's seat and taking control of the harmonic rhythm (actually creating harmonic rhythm)?


The importance of note choice is way overemphasized anyway and discussed here disproportionately.

[targuit]

Whoa, Dasein! Perhaps you missed the part where I said "Just joking!" I was 'riffing' on the metaphor of the "taste masters" who pontificate on their "musically advanced" harmonic conceptions and sense of 'connoisseur -ship". Nothing malicious was implied.

I stumbled upon a nice recent Birelli Lagrene video of a long concert where Birelli is playing a Fender electric (horrors!) with a killer group of musicians and is truly "playing outside". But when Birelli plays in that modern (jazz) manner, he manages to convey a sense of control and a sense of "being there" - Dasein.

Try this video clip on or what I intend by truly outside playing.

This whole concert is pretty interesting and the video work showing Birelli and the other musicians playing is nicely done. The sax player is a monster as well. This is an example of advanced harmonic concepts executed with a sense of control, tension and resolution. Even a climax or two.

But, I still prefer his Minor Swing style playing. Must be my stunted ears...

[Vihar]

And this is how "Autum Leaves" sounds like, when you don't quite know the tune:

[marcwhy]

And this is how "Autum Leaves" sounds like, when you don't quite know the tune:

Are you kidding?

[marcwhy]

I stumbled upon a nice recent Birelli Lagrene video of a long concert where Birelli is playing a Fender electric (horrors!) with a killer group of musicians and is truly "playing outside". But when Birelli plays in that modern (jazz) manner, he manages to convey a sense of control and a sense of "being there" - Dasein.

Great video, and I like the left-handed drummer. However, not unlike the original video you posted, I don't consider this "truly out" playing at all. OK, it's more "modern" sounding than Bernstein, but it's nothing far out.

I'd encourage you to listen to more sax and trumpet players -- past and present -- to get some different sounds in your ears. Enjoy the journey.

[Vihar]

Are you kidding?

Yes, but in a very sarcastic way.

[Reg]

This can be a very personal or subjective discussion... we base our comments on what we feel, hear or think at the moment. What we might have thought sometime in the past etc... post random examples of music with no compositional references or analysis... musical analysis with which to base your or our personal beliefs of what is outside or inside.

My point... outside has a definition... just because we don't know, can't hear, see or be aware of what inside is in a context... that context being the music being discussed and the performance.

I think jake posted an example of G7 going to Cmaj7. If the composition was composed within maj/min functional guidelines and the harmonic context both from the composer, performer and from analysis states what inside is.

So what is inside... do we even know what defines "inside" within Maj/Min functional harmony guidelines?

Now take that... about as simple as it gets example and change the reference... now add modal guidelines... Jazz common practice Modal guidelines, we're adding new functional guidelines to our first set of maj/min functional guidelines. What are those?

Probably don't like this process... you have to verbally explain musical concepts... that relate to what we're trying to define. Which is, what is "inside" .... so we have a reference to be able to call something "outside".

So what is the relevant method to determine outside?

I'm sure we all have different collections of knowledge which we use to determine what is outside. Is something outside because it accomplishes something, a goal?

Is identification of what is "inside"... needed before we can call something outside? Is this an empirical fact or real world discussion as compared to theoretical knowledge based discussion.

Or we can skip all the BS... use our ears at the moment and make personal decisions.

So maybe what's outside has more relationship to the skill of the performer... Great players can make anything sound inside.... who really cares why. (of course lousy players can make anything sound outside)

Reg

[targuit]

I think I understand some of what Reg is expounding as to the meanings of 'outside' and 'inside'. But it is a little like comparing 'tall' and 'short' - it's a question of 'relative to something else' along a spectrum.

In this instance, I am not suggesting that any of the guitarists mentioned lack very sophisticated skills. But I hear a difference in terms of having a sense of where the musical journey begins and ends and how the player navigates between point A and point Z. I mean we can all recognize the cacophony of players noodling at GC on a Saturday afternoon versus a player with a deep sense of musicianship.

I listened to the entire Birelli Lagrene Quartet video and played along. I would consider that music to be quite contemporary. Certainly it is not atonal, but the musicians all seemed to be on the same page, and some of the music was clearly written out in sections in the first piece where Birelli and the sax player played the same lines. I enjoyed many of the pieces and especially the last one where interestingly the chord progression was a relatively simple, classic blues progression, though the musicians took it further 'out' harmonically and melodically.

I happen to be a great admirer of Birelli, whom I think is one of the finest guitarists on the planet and tremendously gifted. I have an older CD of him playing Standards (might be the title) that I love. But he can coexist with just about any crowd from the most 'inside' to the 'less inside'. I think the definitions are relative.

[Jazzpunk]

This clip is probably not the best example of my comment, as on listening a second time, I realize that both excellent guitarists were not all that outside with their lines, and Peter and Randy can both play nice comping chords as well. There is another clip on YT of Peter playing Billie's Bounce that might be a better example. Anyway, something to talk about....

Jay

Is this is the cut you're referring to? If so, I'm definitely not hearing what you're hearing as far as Bernstein going too outside or noodling.

[JakeAcci]

Targuit I really do not understand the point of your thread here, especially the parts where you seem to ignore some pretty great points made all around by different members.

[targuit]

No, this cut of Bernstein's version of Billie's Bounce is not 'outside' at all and well played. Again, I'm not criticizing Bernstein as a guitarist. Maybe I just did not warm to the version of Darn That Dream. And I did modify my comment.

JakeAcci - The subject was about playing "outside". Seems we have pretty much established that the concept is hard to define. If you want, you can strike that word from your vocabulary. To me it is a nebulous concept, but reflects a sense of how you treat the melody and harmony. Not necessarily a matter of 'right' or 'wrong'. Even noodling as a term, while sounding pejorative, is hard to define, though some have suggested it is notes played without conviction or an underlying sense of harmony and tone centers.

Addendum - BTW, after I listened to the Quartet video all the way through, I started experimenting with a classic standard - My Foolish Heart - and tried to see how far "outside" I could take it without losing the thread. An interesting exercise. I'll try to do a video myself for the heck of it.

[fumblefingers]

I appreciate what Reg has contributed. And I would respond by saying that.... the more narrow the theory/acceptable practice parameters, the easier it is to declare it outside.

But I guess that's pretty darned obvious, and therefore worthless. Sorry 'bout that.


I will answer my own question from above, and from a late 50's early 60's perspective (I think): Yes. It's a little bit outside. Just a little bit. And perfectly good.

[Reg]

Now your talking targuit... post your examples.

Don't take Jake's comments wrong... he's a very true to his passion kind of person... as least as I've grown to know him on this sight. All the good stuff, really.

Like you somewhat said... we're just talking and playing Music. Not that far up the list of relevant save the world subjects...

We could pick a tune... define what the boundaries are with relationship to inside... and play examples of what outside is and play the camouflage or deceptive sound perception games. How we can make outside notes sound inside etc...

I've given my definition of how to define inside and out.... we could use some other definitions and compare results.

I'm sure the process and results would greatly influence our current perceptions of what we're talking about... or not.

Just the thought process must be of some value.

fumblefingers... great post...I always dig answering our own questions..... and thanks, I think?

Reg

[djangoles]

I have nothing to add to this other than a quick story....

Years ago a friend and I got totally trashed one nite, came home and passed out. He had to get up early to go to class at Berklee...so as a joke, knowing the condition I was in decided to put on a Cecil Taylor Solo CD. Looped no less.....whether or not that is considered "out", I can't say...but it can be a tad bit harsh at times.

Anyway...I was so hungover I couldn't muster up enough energy to even to turn it off....

The first pass was pure agony....my head was screaming with pain... but by the 5th or 6th time, I was really enjoying it, and when he would play "more inside" stuff momentarily....it just sounded well....average...making me really anticipate the more atonal stuff....


and amazingly my hangover was gone by the 10th listen...

[AlsoRan]

I have nothing to add to this other than a quick story....

Years ago a friend and I got totally trashed one nite, came home and passed out. He had to get up early to go to class at Berklee...so as a joke, knowing the condition I was in decided to put on a Cecil Taylor Solo CD. Looped no less.....whether or not that is considered "out", I can't say...but it can be a tad bit harsh at times.

Anyway...I was so hungover I couldn't muster up enough energy to even to turn it off....

The first pass was pure agony....my head was screaming with pain... but by the 5th or 6th time, I was really enjoying it, and when he would play "more inside" stuff momentarily....it just sounded well....average...making me really anticipate the more atonal stuff....


and amazingly my hangover was gone by the 10th listen...

What an interesting story. Just a further illustration of how we can be conditioned to like certain things, whether it is music, food, sensations, etc...

We may not like them at first, but after repeated exposure we can, within limits, develop a taste for it.

Kind of like I did with hard liquor.

[Vladan]

I can't hear any "outside" or noodling in PB's playing on this clip, but I can never find anything wrong in anything I've heard of his, no matter how hard I try: it seems to me like he has completely transcended the ego/hipness pitfalls so many musicians fall into. RJ does a little bit of the "cool pattern" thing here and there, but well within the tolerance of high level/quality mainstream jazz guitar. What bugged me about this clip was they aren't completely in tune.

Dark brown guitar even sound out of tune with it self on some chords, but let's attribute that to lame anbient recording, it'd be a shame for 150000$ guitar tu be untunable.

As for outness, I think I understand what OP heard and was addresssing. There are certain intervals deliberately played augmented (or diminished), compared to expected natural melody flow, to skew it and provoke the listener to think it's all much more serious than it really is. However, I think that's what jazz is all about, it's just a matter of taste where one puts the line.
On the other hand, there are people, mostly sax players, who are overdoing it to the point of headache.
They do that on piano, too, but on piano it sounds easier to the brain, due it's percussionic nature, ie. nothing's harmonicaaly out if played as solo drums.