-
I think it's easy to confuse a musician talking to peers with a musician workshopping a lesson plan. It seemed to me more like the former ... That's a situation where it's okay to just drop some knowledge.
-
05-15-2015 08:25 PM
-
Seems like the last video helped simplify things and show just how basic this stuff is. Glad it helped. And it sounds like (and assume this was the case) many of you guys are already employing quite a number of these. All the ones you guys mentioned are perfect examples of what I'm talking about. I'm simply going through and finding as many of them as possible. Making sure I know the chord spellings derived from each of them (so that if I see the chord spelling on a chart, I immediately and instinctually go there) and really slowing everything down and listening. There are a good number that I knew almost everyone here was probably already using. I've found a handful of uncommon ones. But these are present in any chord that has more than just a 1-3-5 triad construction. As soon as we hit a 7 or up...we can do this...from the simplest 7th chords, to the weirdest chords imaginable. I've even heard the really advanced piano players (guys like Chick Corea) reference the idea of stacking multiple different triads on top of a basic lower structure chord.
That said, Henry...I rarely talk about big complicated chords with my students. And while these structures are not a replacement for my students learning traditional diatonic theory...I find that it opens their ears super quickly and gets them playing really nice music much faster than scales. I actually have a way of using this stuff to slowly build a scale into their ears and fingers so they end up learning to play a scale, but it's broken down into triadic ideas first that they explore. Then by the time we get all of the notes in there...they're actually able to hear what's going on within the full scale pretty clearly. Not perfectly. But better and faster than when I used to try and show the entire scale to students in one diagram and expect them to make music right away with it. The triads I give them are not upper structure though. I start with lower structure. C major triad for them while I'm playing a basic C major chord. We build from the ground up.
Vhollund. I'll try and keep that in mind. I tend to be a bit more on the verbose side in general...at least when you get me talking about something I love and am passionate about. I could seriously hang out over beers all night and talk about these things with people. And do it maybe more than is healthy for my normal sleep cycle. Listening and exploring this way makes me feel like a painter finding shades and hues of colors that I'd overlooked for years. They excite me. I'll try to be more to the point. It's just tough to explain something simply when it's more about a sensory experience. The chord analysis I originally just wanted to share was simply my application and exploration of taking all these things which I've been messing with (and which many of you are already familiar with too) and putting them into action over a tune. The reactions I got regarding it being to complex and me over-thinking things just seemed like it needed to be addressed which required only more typing on my part so as not to leave anyone and any opinion feeling left out. I have no desire to be an elitist here. I just love the sonic possibilities here and wanted to share a few of them for others to check out if interested.
Glad the last video helped show how simple this stuff can be. At least in concept.
-
Yes, I know! But to even me, I couldn't understand it.
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
Cool
Well, i already know all that hybrid /superimposed stuff
I just don't play much B minor over Cmaj#11, because i find it is not what works best most of the time
and because it is very limited also as option
It is a good exercise to take each chord and learn the sound
We also used to ear train by singing each chord and the gregorian scales in my school
One can easily loose sight of the over all tune, though, by dwelling too long time on each chord/detail
Often the note you didn't like when played on the chord in isolation, might work well because of context /voicings / drones etc, and most the time the root works pretty well on the lVmaj#11 chord, even so obviously, that we might try to avoid it for that reason
You might find it interesting to take the sound of 2 chords and find the sound of that combined change
Sometimes very interesting sounds come out of it
Also, when you transpose an idea, like in the solo of Dexter Gordon, some of the most beautiful notes are "wrong" almost clumsy, notes that become right because it is the repetition of the structure the transposed theme imposesLast edited by vhollund; 05-15-2015 at 09:58 PM.
-
Dang! O_O Originally Posted by vhollund
All of them? Seriously?! I give you mad props for putting that kind of time in V. That is no small feat!!! I mean...I've been working almost exclusively on this stuff for about half a year, and I feel like I'm barely even scratching the surface! I've been mostly limiting myself to just chords with major triads in the upper structure and just with that alone I've found close to 30 different, unique tonalities to study! And the guy who sort of hipped me to this and who I'm studying with said that once he went through and found all the major triad upper structures, he also went through minor, diminished, and augmented as well and has roughly 100 different tonalities he uses in his harmonic and melodic palette. And he can pretty much hear any of them and tell you which one he's hearing borderline instantaneously...and play the hell out of any of them in any key on the spot. It's scary. Granted, I have to constantly remind myself that I've only been exploring this stuff for a handful of months and he's been at it for probably over 20 years. So...it's all relative. But I commend you greatly if you've put in that kind of time.
I'm curious though what you would use for the CMaj9#11. It sounds like you don't dig the B- triad sound and feel it doesn't work. Would you mind not just sharing the negative side but also filling us in on what you do feel works better? I'm always open to checking out new tonalities, and if you've got a better or more 'in' sound for that chord I would love to check it out and mess with it a bit to see what I come up with.
As far as most of your other comments. It's important to remember that I'm not telling anyone that I ONLY play B minor triad here. I'm simply finding the notes that are the most 'in' sound in any given tonality. It doesn't mean I'm not playing other notes ever again. If you watched the video of me playing over the A section of Body and Soul you'll hear TONS of notes that aren't in the upper structure triads. I'm using tons of chromatic movement and other chord tones. But I'm keeping in mind where my sweet spots are and always dancing around them. I think of it like body building. Those guys don't get HUGE by going to the gym and doing whatever they feel like because that's the most freeing. They go in and ONLY work on 1-3 muscle groups. Like all day. Exercise after exercise. Then the next day they go in and work on a different set of muscles. They focus down and limit their routines to very small aspects of their physique. And that allows them to become massive. I TRY to practice the same way. Though that type of focus and discipline is tough for me.
Anyways, if you really have all of the upper structure stuff worked out, you probably already know that just because notes are 'in' within a tonality, doesn't mean the tonality itself is 'in'. There are many tonalities I've found that are way out there! And all of them are fair game and usable at ANY moment. Just with the triads alone, the number of options we could pull out at any moment are staggering. Even just following basic harmony. If we're playing over a minor chord, I have 7 different types of minor tonalities I've found just with major triads in the upper structure and one new one I've been messing with with a minor triad in the upper structure. That's 8 different tonal possibilities. And some of them are ooooooooouuuuuuuut as crazy. Minor13,#11,9?!?!? Killin'! MinorMajor7#11?!?!?!? Killin'! Then I could also superimpose any of my dominant tonalities...not only the ones that resolve to the minor chord from a 5th above and its tritone sub, but also the ones that act as the V chord that the minor chord moves to and its tritone sub. I have 7 dominant tonalities. With 4 different dominant chords that I could apply them to, that gives me 28 different tonalities I could superimpose. Plus the 7 minor tonalities now we're well over 30 different tonal options for a single chord. And that's not including mixing scales and chromaticism back into the picture. Nor is it including other, less diatonic options and 'randomness'. How anyone can see this as limiting in the face of those types of options is hard for me to agree with. I definitely agree that on face value, it seems too simple and therefore limiting. But again, like those body builders, I find that my growth takes place for more intensely when I place limits around myself. They help me grow greater into my sense of musical freedom. Others may work differently. I think any system that's taken at face value and never fully explored will always feel limiting. And any system that's learned, integrated, and constantly explored and tinkered with will only lead to greater freedom. I'm choosing this system because it really is as simply as we seem to all agree now. But I see that simplicity as a door to countless tonal, harmonic, melodic, compositional, and arranging variations.
Sorry for the long post, I know you don't like them. But you sort of opened up a can of worms talking about how limiting this is. To me, the application and possibilities here are staggeringly vast. Like grand canyon style big. But I'm more than happy to agree to disagree on this point if you want.
That said, I am still super curious what you would use over the CMaj9#11 so I can check it out. I'm still in the exploratory phase of all this stuff and will be for a very long time...so if you've got a bunch, or all, of it worked out...some advice would be greatly appreciated.
And if there's any specifics you're willing to share from the Dexter solo, that would be awesome to hear as well. I know you said he's playing some really out stuff and that you transcribed it back in the day. Any particular phrases you could share so maybe as a thread we could give it a look and see what's going on in his playing? I transcribed a few bars of some of that Coltrane that GuitarZen shared and found a ton of triadic stuff in his playing. It was mixed in with other stuff. And much of it was definitely being superimposed giving several different unexpected tonalities...very 'out' sounds. But can easily be heard as 'in' if we take the time to hear the tonality itself.
-
I can't read all of that. But I've been putting this together since the early 80s. I'm sure I know them all too.
And when you open the triads and 7ths up to sus it really gets interesting because there are so many additional possibilities.Last edited by henryrobinett; 05-15-2015 at 11:02 PM.
-
I commend you both for the time and effort I know it took to learn all of them. I got nothing but respect for people who put in that level of work into ANY aspect of their playing! I hope one day you'll share some of the information to help others who are still working through it...or who aren't even aware that it's a thing to explore. But no worries if not. Just like everyone else...I gotsta work through this stuff on my own.
More power to you both!
-
What made it all work for me was KNOWING my arpeggios comprehensively throughout the fretboard. Then it's easy to see it all. Superimposing shapes -- triads and 7ths is easy. You just see them and how they interact with the 3rd and other chord tones. So after awhile it ceased to be a thing.
-
Well it sounds like aside from my inability to explain things simply, that you and vhollund just learn all this stuff naturally and easily...which is enviable. I've known my scales and arpeggios in and out all over the fretboard for a looooooong time and I never fully appreciated the simplicity and massive application potential of all of this until a pianist/vibraphonist sat me down and forced me to listen....and HEAR! Ha
That's great for you guys that it's so easy and natural. I still would really love it if either of you would be willing to share some advice or ideas that maybe are a little left field that you feel like I, and others, wouldn't have discovered yet on our own. It's a nice little thread we got going, and everyone here seems to be at least somewhat interested in this topic. My ideas and approach (and ability to express them) seem far too complex for most people's taste, but now that we've cleared up what's being discussed and see the simplicity, if you vhollund have all this stuff worked out I assume everyone else (but definitely me) is curious to get some ideas to shed on.
Is it worth starting a new thread for this? Since it's not just analyzing Body and Soul anymore? Or is everyone here cool if we shift gears a bit? Seems like we stepped back from Body and Soul to just basic, general upper structure stuff anyways. Yeah?
-
Jordan's explation gives the lead to another hearing... ont just tells 'do this chord and these notes fit the chord' ...but he say I listen to it I can hear it I try then to check how it works... what's behind it... that is what's important.
As per songs that's what I wrote in another thread dedicated to Peter Bernstein
That's why I do not like most teaching approaches... they do not mention hearing usually (maybe the teachers ca hear but they do not speak about it in the methods) and they focus msuch on chord or changes and they alsmost never say 'let's look at the whole song'...I think the question of form - so important in classical music - is often ignored in jazz - by quite understandable reasons connected with practice of few players plying solos consequently... I dont mean it's bad.. i think it's natural for jazz.. but for me it's more interesting when they see the whole song as one form not as a set of forms...
In that concern in jazz the best it comes out only when there is one soloist in the piece (or he dominates in soloing), or when the group has very strong internal connection so that they can build it up together... the case of Larry-Peter-Bill trio for example.
So one can practice any thery and approach.. but when he turns to the song first thing he should is care for the song...
And great that Jordan tries to put both together in one approach...
-
A thread dedicated to videos or presentations of peoples big cool ideas sounds like an awesome idea. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
I don't think anyone would be offended if you just used this thread for that but starting a new one might get more replies and stuff.
-
Jonah, it seems to me like the type of stuff I'm talking about and the serious, heavyweight application of it is generally more in the piano world...and sometimes crossing over into the horn players. Which is why I'm so curious about vhollund and Henry's take on things and hoping they'll share some ideas, as it sounds like they have a good grasp of it. It just physically very accommodating for piano players. They can literally play basic lower structure (R-3-7 or even just 3-7) in their left hand and blow crazy simple triadic stuff in the right hand and it will sound AMAZING! On guitar, everything is meshed together. Nothing is broken down that visually. We have to build a big picture. And then to see this stuff, we then have to break that picture down into pieces...which can seem limiting and useless. I felt like that when I first started. I'm much happier now that I've decided to give it a chance and stick with it. Piano players aren't breaking the big picture down. They're putting together simple ideas to build up into a big picture...but they can still see the big picture there in front of them. If you've ever studied piano you know that some of the first stuff you learn are your triads. On guitar...we generally learn big clunky chord shapes and then later, some of us take the time to learn our triads. And perhaps like Henry mentioned, extend those triads into full arpeggios, and then only some of those people will notice the upper structure triad and take the time to check it out as a separate entity that's not JUST treated as an extension of the lower harmony. Originally Posted by Jonah
The two guitar players that, it seems to me, are doing the most with this stuff is Rosenwinkel and Bernstein. I'm sure others guys do as well...but I hear it a lot in their playing. I've never met Kurt, but I know he learned a lot from Mark Turner who I have met and chatted with at length at a couple of masterclasses where I was able to talk with him for a while and ask a lot of questions. He is all over this stuff. And Kurt's talked about how much he got from Mark from working with him. Kurt was the first dude I ever saw who used slash chords where it wasn't a triad over a root note, but an actual chord sitting on top of another actual chord. He and Mark both talk about these bigger chords that often times, if you're going to play scales, you can (or maybe even should????) be playing different notes in the lower octaves than in the higher octaves of the scales. Because again...to get your melodic structure in line with the harmonic structure, we have to respect the fact that the C note in a low octave against a CMaj9#11 chord will sound great and very 'in'...but in the upper register, like I showed in that video, actually behaves as a tension note. So Kurt's all over it.
I actually used to study and play with Pete a bit, and he generally would steer clear of heavy conversations that got too intellectual...but you can hear in his playing that he's all over it too. He often times will do these big, fast runs down the fretboard...2 or 3 octaves over a single chord. And if you transcribe it, you'll generally find only 3 or 4 notes organized into a very simple structure that he's repeating through the octaves. He's just KNOWS the sweet spot notes to give the tonality he wants. Though I don't think he approached it as left brained as I am. But everyone's different. That said...when we were playing duo, he was always encouraging me to be more adventurous harmonically and create more movement...but the second I played a chord that didn't harmonize the melody properly he could hear it and he'd let me know...quickly. He was on it. Like subtle things. I'm not even talking about huge mistakes. I'm talking about little simple, subtle things that he would hear and just know didn't feel good. As far as I can tell...he just learned that stuff by listening and by playing..and by playing with REAL dudes.
I'm just a stubborn and impatient person. If there's a glass of water on the table and I'm thirsty, I don't want to wait...I want to drink it. I don't want to hear other people talk about drinking it, or listen to someone talk about how nice it is to have their thirst quenched...I just want to pick it up and drink it. That's all this is for me. If I hear a sound I dig...I'm not interested in waiting until I read about it in a book, or hear Coltrane using it, or discover that all I needed was to know everything else first and then it will be easy. I'm just going to check it out and chip away at it until I own it. That's just how I work. Everyone's different.
Anyways. You're right. Form is so important. To me at least. I like to explore sounds, and then as quickly as I can to put them into action in a tune. That's why I started all this off with the tune rather than just talking about standalone chords.
-
I actually thought about asking specifically for videos from vhollund and Henry when I requested to see if they'd share some of their ideas, upper structure triads they love, or uses for them (and practice routines) that they think might be less limiting and more valuable for some of us to check out. I thought it would be helpful to hear them rather than just talk...since it seems like my videos were far easier to understand and follow. I even thought it might be helpful to break things down into categories. Like...let's just talk about dominant7 chords. Or something like that. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
But making videos, posting them on youtube, etc. is a little bit more time consuming, and frankly I didn't want to ask too much of either of them...or of anyone else who wants to share any of their ideas. And the idea of asking people to restrict themselves to only sharing certain things seemed to controlling. Feels like my solo is coming to an end of this tune. You all have been great compers. I've enjoyed riffing over top. But I feel like this thread is starting to turn away from my intention and maybe go into other people's hands??? If there are any takers. Seems like there some very interested people.
-
Jordan,
back to your idea..
after plying it a bit this and that way...
why do you use 'upper structure triad + 1 note' to make mini -scale...?
Maybe I missed something but it seemed.... well quite optional to me...
-
@Jonah...
Man...that's a little tough to give a simple answer to. The simplest answer I can give is because that's what the guy I'm studying with recommended I start with. His system goes from 4 note structures, to 5 notes, to 6 notes, and then up to 7 notes and bebop scales. The idea being to find the sweet spot notes for any given tonality first...then to start to build the scales around them. Often times...many tonalities can be served much better when we DON'T play all the notes. It's often just as important to skip over certain notes as it is to play certain notes. Which is why learning scales is important, right? They not only show you what diatonic options you have...they also show you where the outside notes are. This system is just a little more specific. Usually we start with a scale and analyze it to find a group of chords that all work within it. What this means is that there will be notes that don't ALWAYS work great with every single chord. The notes and the chords are all related...and it's important to see that. But just because they're related doesn't always mean they're going to really jive well with each other in every situation. My brother and I fight all the time. We're related. I love the guy and love spending time with him. But sometimes it's really important to have space from each other. You know? Anyways...rather than taking a scale and finding lots of chords that exist within it and that it can work with...though sometimes they can be fishy...this method starts with the chord and and the ear and asks what is most important here. And build the scale to fit the chord. That's the easiest way to explain the starting point.
For example C-7, C-9, C-11/9, and C-13/11...many musicians would look at all of those and go right for the same scale. And the tonality of each does exist within that scale. But each chord is soooo different in quality. Not everyone can hear the different and knows how to define and accentuate that different within a basic C dorian mode. It's got all the right notes. But which ones really DEFINE each individual sound? The method I'm talking about throws C dorian out...at least for a while...and goes right for the notes the create this definition. Today I went to a rehearsal for a gig coming up soon. It's for a sax player. Tough charts. All original stuff. Very modern. He wanted very little comping....basically no chords. Just 1-2 note counterpoint style comping. But his chords were VERY specific. He wanted VERY specific tonalities. Fortunately, the stuff I've been practicing helped me quickly find the sounds he was after. And I suppose it worked because he seemed REALLY into what I brought to the table. Usually he has a piano player, but that guy can't make the gig...so I'm filling in. If I just lumped all my minor 7 chords into one bag and treated them all with the same scale...it would have be near impossible to give him what he wants. And I tend to like the same specificity in my playing. I don't like the sound of generalizations. I like specificity. It's what I'm after.
The triad +1 comes in because if you ONLY play the upper structure triad...the melody has no tension. No movement. Those 3 notes are melodically the most 'in' notes against the tonality. They're going to be VERY colorful and beautiful...but they don't create any rub...and friction. Music needs that. The extra note is thrown in to help build melodic momentum. And again...in time I will add a 5th note and a 6th, etc. But they will be added in with the understanding that they create tension against the U.S. triad. What's great about only using the triad +1 however is that it's soooo wide open you can get away with anything. If you haven't already watched the video I shared of me playing over the A section to Body and Soul, check it out. You'll hear a ton of chromatic movement. I was really going for lots of tension and instability. But those 4 note structure always give me a landing point. They're never controversial. I can do the weirdest most out lines...chromatic or otherwise...and I can keep them going as long as I want...and as long as I resolve them into one of the 4 note structures they're going to sound perfect. Because those are the sweet spots. So that's the starting point. For me.
But yes...you're right. It is all optional. All of this is. You don't have to check out upper structure triads. I'm just sharing the stuff that I'm working on these days. The stuff I love. But as I pointed out in the last video I shared (showing the CMaj9#11 chord)...what anyone does with the information is up to them. I can talk all I want about what I'm doing with it. Some people will dig it, some people won't. The simplicity of the whole things means that you can get creative.
-
What I do is try to think like a pianist. Looking at the fretboard mentally (left hand) and superimposing the upper structure triads/shapes on top. I like running half and whole step triads in series. On a C major chord: C, D, E, F#sus, G, Ab+ or b5, Am or Asus, Bsus. I really dig the sus triads: Dsus, Esus, Gsus, as well as the altered triads.
I used to put little progressions together on top of chords, if we were playing modally or hanging on the chord for a few bars. But now I just see them and hear them.
-
I haven't read all the posts but I saw the stuff about playing the first chord as Ebm9. That's what I've always done on Body and Soul, it just sounds right to me.
In fact I generally use m9 chords rather than m7, I just prefer the sound of them. Guys like Wes seemed to use that sound a lot which probably influenced me.
-
I've been playing since 88, so its not really that impressive that I have had time to study it.
And I'm sure a lot of people here have
I can think of a few, that have a acheived a lot more, who I was listening to and admiring as a kid, and who actually post videos here on the forum
With Cmaj#11, alot of the time, i think more of it in terms of voicings
I don't think like "E sus2", but see the form as a possible voicing of the Cmaj#11 that fits several places, and I relate the intervals/notes to C
Some voicings, i wouldn't really know what to call as hybrids at all
It would make for long add/omit names
The common obvious ones,
I do see/ think of.
Like G major, E minor (9)
D major
Bminor ...not so much
in terms of voicing, where does B minor really sit well as Cmaj#11 ?
I just don't think it does
D/C fits better
I know you could say it's kindof the same but.. not in terms of voicings
If you know where the #11 is, it doesn't take much to add it to your voicings though
For dominant chords there are alot more usefull options and I'm still discovering new ways to voice altered sounds
Just last week i've started looking at some scores of Bill Evans
He does some pretty incredible things with dominant chords
Check out his intro on All the Things You Are f ex
Of course sometimes its impossible to play on guitar, because putting an arm on the fret board doesn't sound the same
Don't get me wrong i have plenty/tons to learn, just not so much about hybrids
Which brings us back to what i was saying about dwelling on one chord in a song
It kind of takes it out of the context of the song
And then the sounds, you find are best, might not be the same, as when you put together the tempo, the context and the voicings
Cmaj#11 as modal sound is not the same as the chord as part of a more functional progression with faster changes
That's one reason why I posted all the great versions, to put some perspective on things
You don't think the melody works with the chords in Body and Soul
I mean ...that's pretty bold as statement for a song that has been standard for +50 years, and had all the greats play it, but that's ok
I think they work well as they where written in real book
Then you can rearrange and reharmonize and change the melody, and move things around
That's cool It's jazz
You listening and hearing it differently might bring new interpretation to the table
I just input what i think could make the listening more song-relevant and ultimately more interesting.
The original 1933 version, use a decend to b7 an 6 on the Ebm, instead of a Bb7
You can hear interpretations of that idea in many of the versions and the Dexter version
And you can find a million versions with Bb7
It's all goodLast edited by vhollund; 05-16-2015 at 08:29 AM.
-
Hey Jordon... from your last vid... isn't the reason the "C" note you play just creates a tritone with F# you played last... so really your just resolving a very strong interval, the last "C" resolves down to "B". Which just happens to have the F# below to create very strong tonal support...
So I would think if your trying to teach or create a method of organizing what your doing.... as I said from the beginning, wouldn't you want to base the understanding on the reference of why your hearing etc... Which looks like your using a tonal target, or sweet spots... whatever your calling it...and creating a separate analysis based on that tonal targets and then applying that analysis to the tune ... so you basically would have a layered or two part analysis going on.
And if your using the B- for a somewhat candy or resolution... that's pretty standard modal harmony, right B- is the resolution of Cmaj lydian, right.
So there are two really strong jazz common practices that somewhat already give you organization for how you might be developing your triad relationships.
I'm not saying that's what your doing etc... but sure looks and sounds like it.
I'm only bring this up for teaching or relating to other musicians etc... when we play, the music goes buy pretty quick, we all have musicianship together etc... who cares. And personally I dig the relationships, and the approach.
-
Maybe it is just me, but could one of the principles in this discussion briefly summarize just what they are trying to achieve or what theoretical issues they are dealing with here? Frankly, I have not had the time or patience to wade through the entire thread, though I got lost after the first few posts, and I do know theory. I am often dismayed by these attempts to create a system for playing jazz tunes, when the best system is what is lying between your ears. Your auditory cortex and hopefully a good ear for melody and harmony including extensions.
I mean I'm looking at a Hal Leonard transcription of Body and Soul in Db, replete with chords (eg, Ebm7) and the melody. There is that modulation to the temporary key of D with the 'chorus' - I can't believe it, it's hard to conceive it.... - and then to C, though HL gives an F signature to - Are you pretending, it looks like the ending.... . Now I do add my own modifications of the harmony, for example an Ab7#5 on the "...sad and lonely...", but is this the issue being discussed or am I in the dark? I guess I'm old fashioned in that my 'references' are the time tested organizational principle of "does it sound good or not?"
What is the grand systematic principle that is necessary to play this tune which I find rather bluesy in a jazzy boudoir torchy kind of way. Is this difficult or is the thread more about abstract theoretical issues in themselves?Last edited by targuit; 05-16-2015 at 11:26 AM.
-
jay targuit - there are aspects of playing jazz that go well beyond your ken or interest. And that's ok. But you make comments about Parker, Coltrane and wade into waters too deep and it's just kind of . . .
That said Jordon's way of presenting this is overly obtuse, abstruse and murky. Basically it's a way to approach improvisation by way of three or four note cells, i.e. triads or larger arpeggios. These can get access to the sound of the chord and/or the melody quicker than just giving te student a scale or overall chords.
-
Jay - I'd watch the videos. I'll admit the posts are long. The first two videos total about 17 minutes (and the second is just playing).
the posts are long but the videos make good sense.
-
I think Peter's right here. I'd go with checking out the videos first.
-
Saw and played along to your videos, Jordan. If those are the videos referred to. Some nice playing, though your backing track volume was too low to appreciate the melodic invention interplay. In any case, I just don't get the mental masturbation aspect of this discussion, which is ok, too.
As for Henry Robinett - give it a rest with the condescending attitude, my friend.Last edited by targuit; 05-16-2015 at 01:49 PM.
-
speaking of condescension ... Originally Posted by targuit
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Yesterday, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions