Body and Soul Analysis

**jordanklemons** · 05-13-2015, 10:30 PM

That's cool. Like I've said several times, I didn't start the thread to convince anyone. And as I stated in the OP, I wouldn't expect ANYONE to agree 100% with my analysis. It's just how I'm phrasing it. And to me...rhythm has as much to do with phrasing, tension, release, and melodic movement as anything else. But, again...I don't expect the entire world to agree with me. Ask 100 jazz musicians to phrase a melody, and you're likely to get at least 100 answers. I honestly don't really respond very well to being yelled at, but more than happy to chat if you have other thoughts or ideas. Though feel free to yell if that's what you need to do. I just might disappear for a while.

Thanks for sharing the Coltrane version. So pretty. I haven't listened to this recording in waaaaay too long. Did you figure out the piano voicings at the beginning yet? I don't have the RB you're talking about. But that F note sitting on top of EVERY voicing is jumping right out of the speakers into my ear and singing sweet sweet min9 into my ear. Sounds like the 9 on top, with a chromatic descending line from the root down to the 6? I'd need to spend some time with it with my guitar in hand to try and work out the exact voicings...but it sounds like he's going straight for the 9 tonality as well. Like an Eb-(add9), Eb-Maj9, Eb-9, Eb-69. Perhaps? And again, I don't expect you to agree...but when he comes in with the melody and lands on the Eb note...it doesn't sound quite as in the sweet spot as it does when he goes up to the F note. It sounds cool when he hits the Eb. But daaaaaaaamn...when he gets to that F my whole body just tingles a little bit! Haha....love it. So killin!!! You can hear the Eb as stable and the F as tense if you want. But I just feel like he comes in and scoops me up with his Eb shovel and drops me off at home with that F note. Good God that note feels so home base in my ear. Disagree if you want. But man...am I REALLY the only one that hears that?? And then when he takes us up to the Bb...then it's like game over in my ear. Babe Ruth knocking it out the park!! The Eb he's pointing at the fence. The F note is making contact...loud pop...ball goes flying...everybody freezes and looks up....Bb home run!!! And the crowd goes wild!!

In case anyone on the thread is interested. Assuming my ear is right about the voicings...my 4 note upper structures to use would be

Eb-(add9) = Eb minor triad + F
Eb-Maj9 = Bb Major triad +Gb
Eb-9 = Bb minor triad +Eb
Eb-69 = F minor triad + Bb

They're moving pretty quickly...so I'd have to sit and shed them a bit...maybe find some common tones among all of them to lay into (wink F note....wink). I'm going to try this out in a bit once I get my guitar in my hands. And see if I can figure out these voicings.

Thanks for posting the video GZ!

**pushkar000** · 05-13-2015, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by Guitarzen

I'd say calling the Real Book "bunk" is a bit strong. There are errors. And some of the changes I feel the need to edit. But it's a good reference overall and many of us use it with success. It's certainly not a bad idea to try and find the first or most influential jazz recording of a tune and use as a reference. But I wouldn't be surprised if even in the first recording of something the artist was taking liberties with the written chart, even if the composer was there observing the recording session. That's a funny thing about music and jazz in particular, we are not slaves to the written notes or changes. And so I feel that fakebooks are just there to give me the basic melody and workable changes, and in that sense I think the RB succeeds with a passing grade. I'm probably going to change the chords and not play the melody exactly as written anyways so I'm not sure the small amount of errors matter that much.

Firstly - I am a student and this is coming from that perspective.
Basically my beef is not just that there are errors - it just stunts one's musical growth in some ways. Most importantly it doesn't promote ear training. I think also some tunes have certain important things that just don't get across on paper. Maybe a special voicing of a chord or some specific line/change that is particularly important. Ultimately it just feels like cheating/taking a short-cut to me. I kind of feel like unless I take a tune out by myself, I don't "deserve" to know it.

Actually it's not bunk, I can't say that. I do owe the real book some - I learned the first 7-8 tunes off the real book in
my school library, but then I started to hear errors after which I changed my approach. I do respect the fact that it is quite a helpful tool and as you have stated, many use it successfully.

**jordanklemons** · 05-13-2015, 11:24 PM

Woooo...Okay...been checking out the recording. Sounds like I was pretty spot on with the chords I was hearing.

Here's what I got:

x9886x x9876x x9866x x9856x

With the bass player pedaling on an Ab underneath all of it. Anybody else get anything different.

Also...I transcribed just a few bars of him blowing over these changes cause it sounded sick, and I was too curious not to figure out what he's up to. I'd be willing to put money on a wager that he was NOT working on the stuff that I'm talking about. I mean...there's only 12 notes, and we're all using more or less variations of the same ways to organize them as other humans have been doing for 100's of years. But I've never come across any literature that he was analyzing each chord type and limiting himself to 4 note structures... mixed in with chromatic stuff, etc.

That said...just in the few bars I've checked out. There's definitely some blatant triads he employing. Some that are quite run of the mill what you'd expect. He's also employing a bit of the 4 note structures that I mentioned in my previous post as a guess...as a starting point of how I would approach each chord. He's treating them much more freely and bringing out different tonalities at different times than the chords are changing. But that's allowed. And like I said, I'm only being this strict with myself now because it's all still new. My goal is to have all the structures deeply engrained in my eyes, ears, fingers so that I can mix and match them at will. I even see one little insane riff that I'm sure could be analyzed in tons of ways...and maybe it's just because I've been working on this stuff a lot...but I'm hearing it as seeming to be centered around a triad with a 4th note added...and then some weird whole tone note thrown in that add some bizarre colors which he then seems to resolve back into the 4 note structure. Again...I would NEVER try and pretend like I have the slightest clue what Johnny C was doing. That just how I'm hearing this phrase. Quite possibly because it's the way I've been thinking a lot lately. Though I've only considered adding chromatic ideas within my 4 note structures. Never thought about adding in whole tone. That's just a whole other world to check out. Dang. Always more wood to shed.

Thanks again sharing the video. Sometimes I forget why he's my favorite of all time. Then every now and then somebody comes along and reminds me. Much obliged my good man. Much obliged.

**Guitarzen** · 05-14-2015, 12:03 AM

PM'd you the charts from TNRB3.

**henryrobinett** · 05-14-2015, 12:07 AM

Hey man. It just seems wayyyyyyy too complex. It just seems like you're way over thinking everything. But that's cool. However and whatever it takes you to get to that place is great. I enjoyed your playing.

**jordanklemons** · 05-14-2015, 12:57 AM

@GZ...thanks man. Got it. Will take a look over it once I have some more time. Got a few tunes I need to learn that I've been procrastinating on. Palm to the face!

@Henry...I appreciate the compliment on my playing. Thank you. Too complex? Over thinking everything? Just curious how so and what you mean. Everyone's in their own spot, and I'm just wondering where you're coming from. To me it all feels quite simple. Hard to explain via typing perhaps. But relatively simple. Would you mind expanding a bit? So I can understand where you're coming from?

**Jonah** · 05-14-2015, 04:00 AM

Hi Jordan,

It's interesting how different that Eb-9 sounds right? Vs the basic Eb-7. The -9 makes me feel like some film noir detective smoking a cigarette, walking down a dark alley at night...and it's really stable and doesn't need to go anywhere. Whereas the Eb-7 at the beginning of the 2nd measure sounds brighter to me, less emotionally drenched...and really is behaving like a ii chord wanting to move to the V7 chord

I also felt that.. and I never liked straightforward minor turnaround at the beginning i-v-i...
When I first tried to play it by ear I atually played the first chords like Eb-7 Ddim Db6.. and it sounded better for me but the problem was that it looked like for the next phrase I had to play these chages again and it did not sound good any more)))

Another thing.... when I improvize over B&S I sometimes like to think the first chords the first chords like Fm7 - E7 - Eb-7 for melody... (yes.. simple ii-v-i with a sub) but as a result I think I get almost the same notes that you get...

so I really like think we probably come from the same hearing...

yesterday I was really charmed by this Eb-9 not only by the chord itself but how it appeared.. and Bb7sus9 gives just a great color in the context...

But as I said I will have to take sometime to get into it more and then come back

**henryrobinett** · 05-14-2015, 08:31 AM

All the explaining about notes choices and tensions. For me it's all very easy. I play. I don't analyze anything. For jazz, from my pov, that's death. Complexity just spoils it, for me. It's hard for me to wade through what you're saying. I just don't get it.

**pamosmusic** · 05-14-2015, 08:52 AM

I think the idea behind complex explanations (at least in this instance and in most where they are actually of value) is not to be some grand overarching philosophy for how you do everything ever. It's more like a way of codifying something you're hearing so that you can reproduce it in your practice and expand and draw upon it in different situations.

i doubt Jordan plays like the beginning of that video when he's at a jam session and I doubt that when you sit down to practice every day you literally just play. I'm sure you have things you work on and your own particular way of practicing them. Quite frankly sitting down at my desk and "just playing" is not practice at all for me so I think we probably all do this (develop principles and ideas we apply to our playing) on some level or another. I will say this does seem complex but I bet if I tried to explain to a remote audience how and why I practice the way I do it'd take a fifteen minute video or two as well.

**henryrobinett** · 05-14-2015, 09:02 AM

True. Kind of. I teach all the time. The explanations are straight forward - for me! - LOL!! It's how the student is learning to process new material that's the problem. That's where the complexity is. And from my experience the more complex a thing is the further from the source of it you are. I always figured one should be able to explain things simply. I'm just dense but I can't understand what's being said. And that's fine because it's working for him.

**Jonah** · 05-14-2015, 09:10 AM

All the explaining about notes choices and tensions. For me it's all very easy. I play. I don't analyze anything. For jazz, from my pov, that's death. Complexity just spoils it, for me. It's hard for me to wade through what you're saying. I just don't get it.

Hi Henry,

people have different minds, what's complex for one could be quite simple and natural for the other... (in any way.. be it student or professor)

I have always been accused in overcomplicating... but it was never actually complex for me.... natural way of thinking...
In this forum I saw when guys came out with 'very simple' appraoches which actually seemed so complex to me...

When I opened Jordan's thread and saw this long post i doubted I would go through... besides I am actually in questions of jazz analysis also very practical... and I am always suspicios when I see postc like 'here's how I can finally compose and improvize anything I want'... I am not sure actually I need it.
I am very intuitive and I usually go slowly by mixture of instinct and any knowledge I aquire...

I don't think I would do something like Jordan did.. I am too lazy for that.. and probably I am not looking for such a solid theoretical background.

So I always admire when people may have that systematic approach

But as I saw interesting posts from Jordan before I decided to try... and I kind of dig the idea... it's very nice feeling I was maybe even prejudiced a bit but suddenly I got what he meant.

I am not saying that I will use this approach.. but i am sying that it was really good to show very imnportant thing about how hearing can change.

And it's worth something.

**Reg** · 05-14-2015, 11:21 AM

Thanks Jordan...

So your using "sweet spots", as "tonal targets".... and the tonal targets, "sweet spots", are your triads plus whatever you decide to add. I like it, and yea... your not reinventing the wheel but sounds great. Looking forward to more applications.

The only thing I would add... when I checked out your vids, which were cool, What are all the other notes, there were many other tonal target references, or licks etc... are you trying to use the new Sweet spots as the tonal reference, give all the other notes, licks etc...a possible different perspective. Not that it matters, if it works for you and opens doors...

The comments, in general, about fake books are generally from lack of understanding what fake books are. Even in the example of Body and soul... they're just one possible suggestion of a harmonic approach for changes that work with the melody.

If your playing a gig and the tunes being called just don't happen to be tunes you've memorized, worked out the real changes or what ever you do to be able to perform the tunes with other musicians... fake books are just a useful reference. The basic changes are not like a backing tract or loop to practice over. There just to help you see and hear the basic harmonic changes.

You always need to be aware of the melody when your comping, that's like one of the beginning basic requirements of being in a rhythm section. And typical Fake Book changes are just the basic starting point. The default reference if you don't know the tune or don't really know jazz comping etc...

Sorry Jordan about stealing thread space... but I've worked on many fake books, and transcribe new tunes all the time.

**jordanklemons** · 05-14-2015, 01:01 PM

@Henry and others

If it feels like it takes you away from your source and inspiration, I wouldn't be happy. But again, I don't see any of this stuff as complicated. And frankly it's not really any different than you seeing a C major chord and having stored away in your fingers/ears/eyes/memory/intellect databanks the C major scale. And chances are good you have the sound, feel, and look of the C major scale, plus you have a C pentatonic scale, plus you have C lydian, and you probably have riffs and licks, and on and on. Anyone who plays has that stuff. You learn it, then you 'just play' as you say. But somewhere along the lines you learned the chords and scale and their relationships. Whether from a book, a teacher, your ear, experimenting, or somewhere else.

To me...what I'm talking about is a simpler version of all that. I'm not worrying about 7 note scales. I'm not even worrying about 5 note pentatonics. I'm just analyzing what's inside a given chord to find the 4 notes that are the most perfect in my ear. And then I 'just play'. Perhaps what seems complex is how I'm analyzing the chords or the tune itself? But again, to me I just don't see it as complex and really it only took a few minutes. Writing it out took longer than analyzing it. That said...while I LOOOOVE just turning my intellect off and 'just playing'...I also love thinking my way through new material. One common thread I see between all of my favorite musicians of all time is they never settled. They never reached a point in their playing where they said, "Ok, I've got it all figured out now. I'm done working on it." All of them seemed to push throughout their entire lives to grow and experiment and work new things into their music. Even if they don't talk about it publicly. You can hear it in their music. You listen to their early records vs their late records and it's almost like listening to 2 different people. I mean, there will always be their SOUND that connects everything...we'll always be able to hear that it's them. But their playing moves through different dimensions and galaxies. I have no reason to believe that their growth and those changes happened by accident on their own. As far as I can tell...it's almost always (and probably always) directly related to and proportional to the work they're putting in.

**henryrobinett** · 05-14-2015, 01:11 PM

I guess the question I have for this is why pull things down to any one dimension? The melody only implies certain aspects of a song. Sometimes the harmony expresses so much more, or different aspects. Body and Soul has so much more interesting stuff going on in it than the melody alone. When I improvise over that tune, one of my favorites, I love to play those other harmonies not necessarily associated with in the melody alone. For me it's the lines implied by the chords, not the melody, that make that particular song. It's rich in substitution possibilities and extensions. And those lead into interesting melodic journeys and surprises.

Just following the 3rds, 7ths, altered and extensions gives me all of those sweet spots without having to over think anything.

As I said each person finds their muse in their own way. For me, playing is about thinking LESS and not more. But you know, you have to think deeply and apply a LOT to get there. So maybe you have. It just seems so complicated. LOL.

**henryrobinett** · 05-14-2015, 01:22 PM

Sure. I still search and experiment and try different things. But for me, the place I'm at, it's not about over thinking. I'm at the place where it's about not thinking at all. It's come back around to when I started playing and had no idea what I was doing and occasionally magical stuff would pop out of the fretboard. Now it's the opposite. Now I KNOW all that stuff really, really well. I know the fretboard so I don't have to think about chord tones or harmonic ideas. But if I had to stop and analyze the melody I'd have to stop and think, rather than just play what I hear using the harmony I just KNOW.

It's just me. You're doing what you have to do and that's great. It just doesn't work for me. It's totally antithetical for me. But it works great for you. I'm not interested in finding the 4 tetrachords or sweet spot melodic germs that work best on any given chord or melodic germ. I KNOW that stuff for myself. And it will change, probably, every time I come back around to those particular set of chord changes. My point of view changes all the time in the course of playing a song. I'd hate to have a formula or any preset conceptions. Maybe that's part of it too. For me improvisation is about letting the muse lead you where it goes and getting away from preconceptions.

But that's me. This works for you and thats great.

**jordanklemons** · 05-14-2015, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Reg

Thanks Jordan...

So your using "sweet spots", as "tonal targets".... and the tonal targets, "sweet spots", are your triads plus whatever you decide to add. I like it, and yea... your not reinventing the wheel but sounds great. Looking forward to more applications.

The only thing I would add... when I checked out your vids, which were cool, What are all the other notes, there were many other tonal target references, or licks etc... are you trying to use the new Sweet spots as the tonal reference, give all the other notes, licks etc...a possible different perspective. Not that it matters, if it works for you and opens doors...

The comments, in general, about fake books are generally from lack of understanding what fake books are. Even in the example of Body and soul... they're just one possible suggestion of a harmonic approach for changes that work with the melody.

If your playing a gig and the tunes being called just don't happen to be tunes you've memorized, worked out the real changes or what ever you do to be able to perform the tunes with other musicians... fake books are just a useful reference. The basic changes are not like a backing tract or loop to practice over. There just to help you see and hear the basic harmonic changes.

You always need to be aware of the melody when your comping, that's like one of the beginning basic requirements of being in a rhythm section. And typical Fake Book changes are just the basic starting point. The default reference if you don't know the tune or don't really know jazz comping etc...

Sorry Jordan about stealing thread space... but I've worked on many fake books, and transcribe new tunes all the time.

No worries Reg. I really didn't have much of an agenda with this thread. Honestly, I figured it might spark a bit of a riot in the streets :/
Not that I wanted that. I just know it's a bit of a different approach and NOBODY likes the suggestion that they should use LESS notes...guitar players and others alike! Ha

So I wouldn't say all 4 of my notes are the sweet spot resolution points. It's a little tricky. USUALLY the triad notes from the upper structure will behave melodically as resolution points. And the 4th note I'm adding simply to give a little bit of bend and melodic movement to the triad. Whether it's the basic harmonic structure triad or the melodic structure triad...usually JUST the triad alone will not yield very beautiful, lyrical melodies. Enter the 4th note. There are a few exceptions I've found where one of the triad notes itself is actually acting like a tension in the melody, and in those cases when my ear notices that...I will select the 4th note to be where that note wants to resolve. This is where it gets tricky explaining something via typing rather than just sitting next to someone and playing it. A good example is the Ab minor triad I'm using to outline the Bb7susb9 chord in bar one. If you listen to the way I play it in either of the videos...or if you check it out yourself...you might notice that the 3rd of the triad, the B natural, sounds very tense. It's not stable at all. Because it's the b9 of the chord, it's just such a tense note against the harmonic structure that there's almost no way to force it to feel resolved in the melody. This is where all of these rules and structures and ideas get thrown out the window in favor of my ear. I use my ear to find the rules, to analyze the chords, etc. But as soon as we find an 'exception' the rules don't matter anymore. Yes. USUALLY the triad notes are the stable notes, and the 4th gives bend and tension to the melody. But in this case, the B natural is too tense. And it clearly wants to resolve down to the Bb. So I scrap the rules and the order of weight within the notes that I usually use to pick the 4th note...and I go with Bb. And what happens is that the 3 stable notes are Ab-Bb-Eb and the tense note is the B natural. It's a lot of talk. But if you listen to the videos or just try it yourself, you'll hear it.

As for all the other notes I was playing. Not sure which video you mean. In the first video, I believe I was playing a few harmonic root notes and mini chord structures peppered throughout just to give a harmonic reference to the melodic ideas I was playing through to keep my ears (and anyone else who would listen) zoned in on the tune's form. In the 2nd video I was staying as strictly as possible to the 4 note structures for each chord, except I allowed myself the one added benefit of using as much chromatic movement as I wanted whenever I wanted. That's sort of the next step with this stuff, for me. The idea being that you can get away with any chromatic movement as long as you resolve that movement into the 4 note structure of whatever chord you're moving towards. I wasn't playing any scales, bebop scales, riffs, or anything else...not on purpose at least. I was trying my hardest to only use those 2 ideas. 4 note structures and chromaticism. I'd have to go back and transcribe exactly what I played to see if I messed up at all and allowed anything else to happen. If I did...it's was very little. So chances are (almost) everything you're hearing is derived just from this stuff.

Right now this stuff is new for me, so when I'm at gigs and they call tunes I don't know so well, I tend to not worry about these things too much and 'just play' as others have talked about. I've been working at this stuff for a few months now and am just starting to find my feet. But the more I mess with it, the easier it's getting...just like with anything. Already to the point where my ear and fingers are starting to naturally WANT to go for these sounds. And that's really the idea. Eventually all this stuff will be internalized in the same way that the scales and arpeggios and basic chord grips are for us. I have no reason not to have faith in that. It's just a matter of putting in the work until it gets to that point. There really are not THAT many different chordal tonalities that are getting used in music. Once they're all there for me, then I can hopefully do whatever I want with them. I can sight-read charts using this stuff, I can mix and match them at will, etc. A big part of this stuff is the ear training companion to it which I'm not talking much about here. But the idea is that if I'm working with a piano player, when he hits his first chord on beat one of Body and Soul, I should immediately be able to recognize which type of minor tonality he's giving me...and to structure my playing accordingly. Or as a comping instrument, to be able to hear the types of chord tones a soloist is accentuating and be able to really work WITH them. We often talk about comping as doing the opposite of the soloist. They go high, we go low. They hit a note and hold it, we move around a lot. They play complex stuff, we give basic harmony to hold everything together. But many of my favorite compers can ALSO be totally zoned in with the soloist and sit right there with them. To be really empathetic to the soloist and help them tell their story. To work and play WITH them. That's one of my goals with this stuff as well. To be able to be a more deeply empathetic accompanist.

As far as your point about knowing the melody. I couldn't agree more. Its importance is often overlooked. Which is actually what sparked the idea to analyze the tune this way. Sure...most people won't be outlining a Bb7susb9 in measure one when they're blowing. But as well as knowing how to play the melody....I want to know that I've put in the time and energy on getting to know what the melody wants. So that I can be empathetic to soloists and to the tune itself.

**cosmic gumbo** · 05-14-2015, 01:44 PM

If an idea is simple, why must it be explained with an extended collection of essays?

**pamosmusic** · 05-14-2015, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

If an idea is simple, why must it be explained with an extended collection of essays?

If he just tells you what he's doing then you go "oh that's nice maybe I'll try that" and then forget you ever heard it ... If he shows you why he did it and how he came to the decision to do it and where you can apply it then maybe you can actually take the idea and use it yourself.

seems like he's trying to "teach a man to fish" as it were ... Good on him for taking the time.

**jordanklemons** · 05-14-2015, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Just following the 3rds, 7ths, altered and extensions gives me all of those sweet spots without having to over think anything.

I'm glad you found what works for you Henry! I just don't see why you taking the time, energy, work, and mental strength required to understand harmony, how chords are built, what 3rds, 7ths, and altered extensions are, which chords have which types of 3rds, 7ths, and altered extensions, where all of that is on the fretboard, and then how to make music and melodic ideas with all of that (which is an enormous amount of work...and I have respect for ANYONE who's ever taken the time and energy to do that for themselves!!!!!) is somehow not a big deal and simple...yet me looking for a triad in the upper structure of a chord to employ melodically is seen as 'over thinking'. Does that not seem a little off balanced to you? Or like a double-standard? If you can do what you're talking about you've clearly put in a TON of time and effort. Harmony like you're talking about doesn't happen by accident. You've got to put in a lot of work. Right? I'm just not seeing much of a difference. Except that the stuff you're talking about and the work you put in is in the textbooks, and the stuff I'm talking about (which is near identical in my view...possibly simpler) is not usually in them...perhaps as a passing side note.

**jordanklemons** · 05-14-2015, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

If an idea is simple, why must it be explained with an extended collection of essays?

Explain 'blue'. How about 'happy'?

If you're trying to explain something simple to someone who already experiences it...it's simple. If you try explain a way of hearing or experiencing that another person is unfamiliar with, it's basically impossible. That's why people sometimes spend 7 years in undergrad, masters, and phd programs studying music. And then dedicate the rest of their lives to self-growth in the field. Music is simple. It's just beautiful sounds. But simple things are often times the hardest to internalize...let alone explain.

"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture."

Architecture is not necessarily that complicated in essence. Designing physical structures for different human purposed and needs. But good luck explaining it to someone with an interpretive dance! Hahaha

That's why I always have to remind myself, both as a teacher and as a student, that music can be learned but it can't be taught. You can't listen to someone talk about music and walk away from that experience KNOWING how to play. You have to sit and put in the work. No aspect of music sounds simple and easy when being explained to someone who doesn't already study it. The 3rd and 7ths and altered extensions that Henry was talking about earlier nonchalantly as though they were no big thing, would make a beginners mind explode in frustration. But most of us on this forum probably look at them as simple now. It's all relative.

**henryrobinett** · 05-14-2015, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by jordanklemons

I'm glad you found what works for you Henry! I just don't see why you taking the time, energy, work, and mental strength required to understand harmony, how chords are built, what 3rds, 7ths, and altered extensions are, which chords have which types of 3rds, 7ths, and altered extensions, where all of that is on the fretboard, and then how to make music and melodic ideas with all of that (which is an enormous amount of work...and I have respect for ANYONE who's ever taken the time and energy to do that for themselves!!!!!) is somehow not a big deal and simple...yet me looking for a triad in the upper structure of a chord to employ melodically is seen as 'over thinking'. Does that not seem a little off balanced to you? Or like a double-standard? If you can do what you're talking about you've clearly put in a TON of time and effort. Harmony like you're talking about doesn't happen by accident. You've got to put in a lot of work. Right? I'm just not seeing much of a difference. Except that the stuff you're talking about and the work you put in is in the textbooks, and the stuff I'm talking about (which is near identical in my view...possibly simpler) is not usually in them...perhaps as a passing side note.

I thought I said I thought that was great for you! I never criticized this as something for you to do. I just said it wasn't for me. And that should be OK, right? For me it works for every song I work on, so I don't do mental gymnastics looking at each song. I said I thought this was great for you. No double standard at all. Its just not for me. And I explained why it's not for me.

**henryrobinett** · 05-14-2015, 02:16 PM

Oh yeah, the stuff I do isn't really in textbooks either. Or should I say I never read them in textbooks since I never studied that from any book whatsoever.

**henryrobinett** · 05-14-2015, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by jordanklemons

That's why I always have to remind myself, both as a teacher and as a student, that music can be learned but it can't be taught. You can't listen to someone talk about music and walk away from that experience KNOWING how to play. You have to sit and put in the work. No aspect of music sounds simple and easy when being explained to someone who doesn't already study it. The 3rd and 7ths and altered extensions that Henry was talking about earlier nonchalantly as though they were no big thing, would make a beginners mind explode in frustration. But most of us on this forum probably look at them as simple now. It's all relative.

I think music can be taught. I might be fooling myself but I think I teach it all the time. Music, like anything, is about getting the student to recognize patterns. I think that's the way the human mind works. Patterns and shapes.Once you get the student to grok that he or she is on their way. BUT they will always put the shapes together for themselves. That's like you, and me. You've come up with your own way of organizing these shapes and concepts, as have I. No one is wrong. Bt different as pertains to how we think and how we want to operate.

The 3rds and 7ths is difficult. I didn't mean to say or imply that it wasn't. Probably a damn sight harder. But not really complex, as I see it. Just difficult to master. And once you can see all the 3ths, 4ths, 7ths 9th anywhere on the neck, all at once -- no small feat, you're free. No complexity. But it takes many years to get to the place where it's all home, warm and fuzzy.

But there's no right or wrong. I'm sorry of you thought thats what I was saying.

**jordanklemons** · 05-14-2015, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

I thought I said I thought that was great for you! I never criticized this as something for you to do. I just said it wasn't for me. And that should be OK, right? For me it works for every song I work on, so I don't do mental gymnastics looking at each song. I said I thought this was great for you. No double standard at all. Its just not for me. And I explained why it's not for me.

Yes. You've definitely said several times that it's great if it's working for me. But that's exactly why I'm asking what you mean Henry. Because on one hand you seem to be very supportive that if it's working for me, it's great. But then you're also saying that it seems way too complex and that I'm over thinking and over analyzing things. And you also mentioned that analyzing things is death for jazz. And that the more complex something is, the further from the source we are, and that I'm stripping things down to one dimension.

Anyways...we're getting way off topic from the OP. You're welcome to think what you want, and your judgements are valid and welcome here. I do still see a double standard, but ultimately that doesn't change anything.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

**henryrobinett** · 05-14-2015, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by jordanklemons

Yes. You've definitely said several times that it's great if it's working for me. But that's exactly why I'm asking what you mean Henry. Because on one hand you seem to be very supportive that if it's working for me, it's great. But then you're also saying that it seems way too complex and that I'm over thinking and over analyzing things. And you also mentioned that analyzing things is death for jazz. And that the more complex something is, the further from the source we are, and that I'm stripping things down to one dimension.

Anyways...we're getting way off topic from the OP. You're welcome to think what you want, and your judgements are valid and welcome here. I do still see a double standard, but ultimately that doesn't change anything.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Two different things. I don't think there's any one way of doing anything. Only that which works for you. Or me. If it works, that's great. For ME over analyzing is the death of jazz. I don't think there's any generalizing. Whatever works for the individual works. I may have OPINIONS about what I think might be more or less efficient. Sure. I have opinions. How can I not? I'm a professional jazz guitarist and you're speaking about my field.

I don't know how you can believe there's a double standard, except you do what you do and I do what I do. We're going to do things differently. And that's OK, or should be. Never have I said you're wrong.