George Benson's approach to playing chord changes

[RClegg]

Not to oversimplify here, but to me what we are talking about different ways of describing and understanding the same notes. I think the best way to learn is to listen, and play, like learning a language. There are a zillion ways to intellectually digest, describe and discuss what the relationships between the notes are, but at the end of the day it is translating sounds into concepts that can be discussed. It is easy to get that backwards--telling someone scales, or chord tones, can't replace listening and playing, and learning in small bites. Jazz is too big an elephant to eat in one meal.

[princeplanet]

I'm for it if it works for you, but believe only a few players can get away the approach. I also believe it misses way to much of what is possible when playing Jazz. And this is coming from a player that spends most his time making music groove harmonically. The concept of sub dominant as being tonic or dominant or a prep for.... just misses too much personally. Again not saying Schenker etc... or bottom line T or D doesn't work, I tried to give examples of how almost anything can work... but personally from a composers point of view... just doesn't cover enough.

Again I perform with that approach all the time, but it's generally for show, or a more mixed audience, or somewhat less jazz direction players. More players just playing jazz tunes.... again not wrong, right, good or bad....just different.

Yes, was hoping someone would bring up the problem of how to handle SubDominant sounds within the D vs T thing...
For a while I couldn't decide whether the IV chord had more in common with D or T, for example where it appears in Autumn Leaves, you could treat is as an extension of I, but very often it pulls to the 3rd degree, so in key of C maj, f pulls to e which is of course 7 to 3 from G7 to C, but the Plagal cadence - Fmaj to Cmaj also has the f resolving to e. Given also that Fmaj7 is a common extension played over G7, I'm finding the IV in many situations can be treated as D class. Not to say there is no distinction b/n IV and V- particularly in a blues context where they are really IV7 and V7...

Of course there are tunes where it won't be so black and white, but if we let our ears tell us when it's time to revert to "micro" from "macro", maybe we can have it both ways....

[christianm77]

Yes, was hoping someone would bring up the problem of how to handle SubDominant sounds within the D vs T thing...
For a while I couldn't decide whether the IV chord had more in common with D or T, for example where it appears in Autumn Leaves, you could treat is as an extension of I, but very often it pulls to the 3rd degree, so in key of C maj, f pulls to e which is of course 7 to 3 from G7 to C, but the Plagal cadence - Fmaj to Cmaj also has the f resolving to e. Given also that Fmaj7 is a common extension played over G7, I'm finding the IV in many situations can be treated as D class. Not to say there is no distinction b/n IV and V- particularly in a blues context where they are really IV7 and V7...

Of course there are tunes where it won't be so black and white, but if we let our ears tell us when it's time to revert to "micro" from "macro", maybe we can have it both ways....

Yes, this is what I have noticed as well from studying lines. It is also extremely common for people to play IV and very often iv in this context. It's something I noticed almost right away when I was transcribing, IV-I, iv-I, iim7b5-I, all very common.

BTW, if you play IV7 over V, you open up a different sound, with the b3 and a kind of augmented V7 area starts to open up. That sound relates, very interesting to a slightly different group of cadences (or D - T movement) - things like VII7 I, io7 I, #ivo7 I.

These movements are common, especially in early jazz (think Fats Waller.) I've found if I put these other cadences, particularly things like io7-I and VII7-I over D-T type things, the result sounds really, really cool. Even though all the vertical minded analysts would say, you are playing a major 7th on the V7 chord, and this is wrong. (A caveat is that I usually play without piano, but even then, I think it sounds good.)

(In Barry Harris theory these chords can be understood to originate from the 7th-o6 scale on V7, although I was playing them before I realised this)

Has anyone else found this?

[vhollund]

Yes, definitely ^^
Even though I don't know Barry Harris, I've gravitated towards the same subs you mention

2 consonant functions :
SD and T
And a 'million' dominants

Did Benson really talk about only T and D ?
I remember SD and T
That makes more sense

[vhollund]

Anyway, I'm going on a bit, but I think that the way different cadences of used have a direct relevance for the form of the line - as they would in classical music. If you think chord-chord-chord all the time 'micro' rather than puhskar's 'macro' approach you run the risk of being locked into the changes rather than creating lines with their own ebb and flow, which is the real challenge of conventional straight-ahead improvisation.

I do find myself in what you are saying
I definitely use my growing collection of patterns and subs a lot, and it is always a challenge to free the thematic developpement and create more of an independant statement

One can also be locked in, by the b6 5 sound as too obvious
I search for little cool melodic lines that can imply the harmony..like (In C) play the M7 to the Am on the ii to make it less obvious but still there

The whole idea of having (macro?) a concept like this, is of course to build a vocabulary that is versatile/"transposable" not just on one chord at a time, but on recurrent sequences of chords and functions
and then, when soloing to find ways to imply the harmony without being too "boxed in"
I guess it helps taking more chances on what one is hearing, and then trying to repeat and developpe the phrases transposed, and try to create a momentum with that

and then there's the rhythmic aspect of creating that momentum and developpement
When we listen to the greats, they have an incredible grasp of it...
Pretty Interesting topic

altered subdominant

What he does in the intro :

[christianm77]

One can also be locked in, by the b6 5 sound as too obvious
I search for little cool melodic lines that can imply the harmony..like (In C) play the M7 to the Am on the ii to make it less obvious but still there

I'm not sure if I understood you there... Sounds interesting ...

[vhollund]

It's just a small subtle thing, like instead of always playing the obvious b6 to 5 on the V,
you can imply it already on the ii, by playing the note g# (ab) to the a in the A minor (that you play as hybrid/sub over Dm/ ii)

Edit :Sorry about the mess it should be more comprehensible now ^^

[grahambop]

I'm self-taught, so I am both teacher and pupil! Trying to remember how I got started. I think the first thing I really got into was copying some Wes lines on a minor blues (probably because this form seemed closest to the rock stuff I was used to playing).

I spent a long time playing around with things Wes did when going from the I to the IV, for example minor blues in G minor, so going from Gm7 to the Cm7 chord. From this I worked out how he was using G7#5 notes just before entering the Cm7 chord, which struck me as something the rock guys never did. From that I started to understand better the whole V7 to I concept, and especially how to phrase it and get cool lines from it. (I had no books and this was before the internet!)

So I guess I started with a fairly simple concept with wide application, then over time from there I 'drilled down' into the more and more complicated possibilities of chords, arpeggios, scales etc.

But it took quite a long time so I don't know if there was a better way.

Also I have to admit my pupil is an annoying bastard at times. But then so is my teacher.

[Reg]

so... the basic tonic dominant or dominant tonic approach... personally isn't just about diatonic function etc...

It's just a method of controlling harmonic or melodic movement... I mean you can always rhythmically strong weak almost anything...right. If you set up the basic rhythmic pattern, and at least play whatever Dominant to tonic harmonic functional scheme you want... your off and running. Go to church... call and answer, tension resolve, dissonance consonance, rhythmic etc...

So still that's just one approach, maybe a million versions etc... but still just one type of relationship. I would hope there's more...

The teaching thing... Kids are kids... it's your job to be able to recognize where there at and do the best you can to not waste their time or give them a collection of BS which will only screw them up later, just to get the teacher through the moment and get paid etc.. tough job, especially if your not qualified to teach what your teaching. Not implying anyone's not qualified....just speaking in general.

[christianm77]

Whoops, I managed to delete my post from earlier regarding altered subdominants as I thought it was duplicated. I will recap here as vhollund responded directly.

Basically the gist of it was (in case any one is interested) is that you can take the Fmaj7 in the key of C and alter it by flattening (or less frequently sharpening!) notes in it and play over any dominant. If you flat the 3 and 5 (I know it's really a #11) you get a G13b9 sound, for example. This is what I meant by altered subdominant.

Also I alluded to Lester Young's use of a diatonic IV over V (check Shoeshine Boy) and the standard iim6/viim7b5 sub for V7 (this is far more idiomatic for swing and bop than using the V7 chord.) Actually playing explicit 7-1 type melody things seems to be used at the ends of sections, much like the function of similar cadences in classical composition.

If you transcribe and play by ear, chances are you will do this naturally.

This means that a line will have its own commas and full stops (periods) if you will, based around the use of these cadences. These can occur at the same places or elsewhere from the underlying progression. Eventually we should be able to think of things just thinking melodically, tensions within the key, b6 - 5 being an obvious one.

Anyway, that seems to have come out shorter, which ought to be a relief to everyone. :-)

[christianm77]

And here's another one - I've been practicing these types of things for a few weeks:

1 7 b7 6, 5 7 2 4, 3 2 1 7, b7 2 4 6 ad naseum (Dominant scale)

These types of patterns pop up in David Baker, Barry Harris and Sheryl Bailey's teaching among others.

Notice how you get a pattern of I7, iiim7b5, Vm7 and my favourite, IVmaj7 as you arpeggiate through the scale. Benson/Tags 'dominants' right?

You find all these sorts of things in Parker's music, even though I don't really buy the idea of him thinking in terms of a dominant bebop or added note type scales.

[christianm77]

I'm gonna get a little out there with this reply, just a warning. But jazz isn't just about the notes. I've always tried to remember the spirit of jazz - that is "you can't tell me what I can and can't do." It's true that jazz is a language. But as soon as the rules are so defined that it becomes a yes or no situation, it becomes a dead language. Or belongs in a museum.

Actually isn't this the spirit of jazz ;-)

I'm reminded of an Oz Noy video on YouTube (I took a few lessons from him a several years ago) and there was commenter ripping apart the way he played Autumn Leaves in a trio. He said that he wasn't playing the melody right and all sorts of stuff. But that commenter pretty much bit into an apple expecting it to taste like an orange, and then complained that it tasted like an apple. Oz wasn't trying to play it the traditional way.

Anyway, I'm getting a little off topic here, but I have had some experience on both sides. The whole idea of "it's either tonic or dominant" has helped me (20+ years into playing) as well as my students at beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels. That includes guitar and piano students. I think of it as more of a bridge between micro and macro. The concept can be brought up early in studies - I just try to stress to my students, "even if you can't figure it out right now, just remember that." The point is "are you landing, or are you headed somewhere."

The funny thing is that it isn't just a jazz thing. This is in pop, blues, jazz, rock, etc. And we can't forget that George Benson isn't just a jazz musician, but he's just a MUSICIAN. The man loves music. Folk music, blues music, pop music, soul music, R&B music, and so on. To me, that's jazz. The great melting pot. Improvisation. Communication that transcends ones own "language."

Yes I agree 100%. For me the purpose of the T/D thing is to get the changes *out of the way* so that you can make up phrases based on rhythm.

[princeplanet]

@ Christianm77 - Yeah, it's simply the Dom "bebop" scale mixed in with arps based upon each note of the V7 chord, ie (in C again), G7, Bm7b5, Dm7, Fmaj7. I do a similar thing for the T group, ie, the major bop mixed with Cmaj7, Em7, G7, Bm7b5.

Notice how against T (C) I'm using arps from Dominant class - ie: G7 and Bm7b5. The reason it works is simply because each arp resolves to a chord tone from C maj7 (with a bit of care). I could probably work the Am7 into the sequence, but don't really feel the need.

Of course, these sequences work (even better?) in reverse with more "bebop" scale notes (2x) required b/n each arp "reset" as the whole sequence descends. You even hear this stuff from the Swing era.

[Tag101]

Hey guys. Really nice to see that post come back from years ago. Really excellent comments on here as well. A few thoughts, and I did not go back and read the thread. Agree with everything said above about Richie Hart. (My former teacher) In no way was that suppose to be ALL he taught!!! He would work your ass off on everything, but it was all by ear. I had studied with him years earlier when he was a teacher at Ramapo college in NJ, and everything was written out and mechanical. Every mode, every chord, every inversion. Giant steps chord melody style with 9ths, 13ths, 11ths. SO much work, which was good for learning the basics. That class ended, and there was a 2-3 year time period until I started studying with him again 1 on 1. It was like a different person. No books allowed! You taped everything, and everything was learned by ear. Songs songs songs, just like stated above. Melodies, and Benson and Wes solos learned note for note, by ear. I remember having to learn bensons Bossa rocker, Billies bounce, and lots of early benson tunes and solos, and lots of Wes's solo guitar and solos. Sprinkled in would be Pat Martino solos, especially off of "El Hombre" which he thought was Pats finest recording. (And now years later, I totally agree) He would help you work on a tune or tunes you like on the side, and I remember him transcribing note for note a few "Steps ahead" tunes I needed for a band I was in, as well as some Scofield and Stern things I dug. Django tunes as well.

Anyway, back to the "method". I still feel it is by far, the simplest and best way to approach jazz tunes. Whether from a beginner or advanced standpoint. You can simplify tunes with lots of changes, or expand tunes with few changes, and like it or not, its the way everyone plays! You can transcribe Coltrane, to Benson, to Parker, to Abercrombie to Joe Diorio,(who also taught it, but with different terminology. Check out his lessons on the web. "You can play this line over A-7, C maj7, D7, and F#-7b5") and it comes down to the same simple concepts. No need for "sub dominant" they are just milder dominant sounds. Your ear will pick that up in no time when you are learning tunes. Like the OP here stated, it works for comping, chord substitution, and re harming as well. You can go as out or as in as you like, and it guides your ear to hearing all the leading tones and subs in a musical way. Of course once you can hear and play everything you can hear, you dont really "think" about anything. But this is still going on in the back ground, whether you use it or not, or like it or not. Its the way music works.

[christianm77]

@ Christianm77 - Yeah, it's simply the Dom "bebop" scale mixed in with arps based upon each note of the V7 chord, ie (in C again), G7, Bm7b5, Dm7, Fmaj7. I do a similar thing for the T group, ie, the major bop mixed with Cmaj7, Em7, G7, Bm7b5.

Notice how against T (C) I'm using arps from Dominant class - ie: G7 and Bm7b5. The reason it works is simply because each arp resolves to a chord tone from C maj7 (with a bit of care). I could probably work the Am7 into the sequence, but don't really feel the need.

Of course, these sequences work (even better?) in reverse with more "bebop" scale notes (2x) required b/n each arp "reset" as the whole sequence descends. You even hear this stuff from the Swing era.

Yeah that's how I normally do it but I couldn't be bothered to write out the extra notes.

What Swing era example did you have in mind - haven't come across this myself, if you mean the scale/arpeggio pattern, would love to know...

[princeplanet]

Yeah that's how I normally do it but I couldn't be bothered to write out the extra notes.What Swing era example did you have in mind - haven't come across this myself, if you mean the scale/arpeggio pattern, would love to know...

That's a good question, and I can't point to specific examples except to say that players like Don Byas and Coleman Hawkins seemed to be doing similar things, but perhaps the extensions you hear like the 13ths and 9ths are coming from pentatonic ideas....

[jzucker]

I don't think that captures benson's approach to playing over changes. Benson's approach to playing changes is much like Wes Montgomery's. They were both ear players that learned to play over changes by hearing the juice notes of the 3rd and b9 resolving (respectively) up a 1/2 step to the root and down a 1/2 step to the 5th. If you transcribe solos from both of them (I have transcribed dozens) you will see this pattern constantly in their playing. This is much like Bird's playing. There are no shortcuts. You actually have to hear the lines.

I think 99% of the analysis of jazz you read on the internet (including my dodecaphonics discussion) is way more complicated than it really needs to be. It's like hitting a baseball. See ball - hit ball.

My son learned to play jazz by copying wes, benson and joe pass. He had access to all the videos, books, dvds and a father who played jazz and what he found was that the most efficient way of learning to play changes was to just practice and catalog lines that outlined the changes. Starting by transcribing known good examples (this is where I was able to help) and then to begin stringing those lines together with 8th notes.

Here's one exercise I showed him which helped.

[MarkRhodes]

I don't think that captures benson's approach to playing over changes. Benson's approach to playing changes is much like Wes Montgomery's. They were both ear players that learned to play over changes by hearing the juice notes of the 3rd and b9 resolving (respectively) up a 1/2 step to the root and down a 1/2 step to the 5th. If you transcribe solos from both of them (I have transcribed dozens) you will see this pattern constantly in their playing. This is much like Bird's playing. There are no shortcuts. You actually have to hear the lines.

I think 99% of the analysis of jazz you read on the internet (including my dodecaphonics discussion) is way more complicated than it really needs to be. It's like hitting a baseball. See ball - hit ball.

+ 1.
Thanks for the video too. I had seen that clip before but it is more useful to me now in light of my current practice of working things out in five positions.

[Reg]

Hey Jack... as always great vid, but isn't that the point.... keeping it simple with basically call and answer, or tension release type of approach. That's basically what Dominant Tonic is right. Benson's approach is one version of this basic approach, or as in your example... create a few patterns for playing standard notes versions of this basic harmonic movement approach.

And the final product... can be the result of trial and error, coping from examples or understanding what make these jazz common practice note patterns or licks work... Obviously least amount of non playing work would be trial and error, just throw notes at the wall and keep what sticks with different tunes or chord patterns... use your ears, I guess next would be the the coping others approach... but at least your still just playing.... and then the geek approach... work out all the other shit that doesn't really matter, at least for 99% of all guitar players, and you still need the performance skills... it's like twice the work, and most don't really get it anyway... so why bother.

I tend to hear GB's playing to have more Blue note references, which to me also implies blue note influenced harmony. But it's an interesting direction, would be cool to go through some of his tunes... have you transcribed My Latin Brother or tunes from that period. I don't really pay much attention to his later playing, he was just covering and getting his due.

[West LA Jazz]

One of my favorites, the late Emily Remler talks here about Pat Martino's minor scale approach to improvising and addresses the issue of guitarists needing to change "scales every two beats" while improvising on a song. She admits (in this video) the thought of having to do this "scares" her just as it scared her students. Evidently, she found a way to sound great in spite of...

(Scroll to the 2 minute mark)

Her playing here is just gorgeousness personified.

[Tag101]

I don't think that captures benson's approach to playing over changes. Benson's approach to playing changes is much like Wes Montgomery's. They were both ear players that learned to play over changes by hearing the juice notes of the 3rd and b9 resolving (respectively) up a 1/2 step to the root and down a 1/2 step to the 5th. If you transcribe solos from both of them (I have transcribed dozens) you will see this pattern constantly in their playing. This is much like Bird's playing. There are no shortcuts. You actually have to hear the lines.

I think 99% of the analysis of jazz you read on the internet (including my dodecaphonics discussion) is way more complicated than it really needs to be. It's like hitting a baseball. See ball - hit ball.

My son learned to play jazz by copying wes, benson and joe pass. He had access to all the videos, books, dvds and a father who played jazz and what he found was that the most efficient way of learning to play changes was to just practice and catalog lines that outlined the changes. Starting by transcribing known good examples (this is where I was able to help) and then to begin stringing those lines together with 8th notes.

Here's one exercise I showed him which helped.

Hey Jack,

I think its really just about the same thing. Yes, Wes and GBs lines have lots of the 3rd and 7th (as well as the b9 and other tensions) resolutions, but those notes are basically what they are hearing in the dominant chords relations and the tonic chords relations. Also in my original gear page post, (those were the days! It was from 2004!) it was about transcribing as many bop and jazz lines as you could. They really outline the chords color and function, which is also more or less what you are doing in your clip. Like you, Richie was always about ears and hearing, and less talk. As he would say..."No notebooks! Record the lessons and learn them by ear."

IMO, its best to have a good grasp of the "why" things work as they do as well, and the approach Benson uses (and yes, its how he told RH he approached it) is a great one that is not taught very often! I think if you and Richie spoke, you would agree on most things. The terminology may be a bit different, but from following your posts all of these years, your thoughts seem to be pretty much right in line with his!

[christianm77]

I don't think that captures benson's approach to playing over changes. Benson's approach to playing changes is much like Wes Montgomery's. They were both ear players that learned to play over changes by hearing the juice notes of the 3rd and b9 resolving (respectively) up a 1/2 step to the root and down a 1/2 step to the 5th. If you transcribe solos from both of them (I have transcribed dozens) you will see this pattern constantly in their playing. This is much like Bird's playing. There are no shortcuts. You actually have to hear the lines.

I think 99% of the analysis of jazz you read on the internet (including my dodecaphonics discussion) is way more complicated than it really needs to be. It's like hitting a baseball. See ball - hit ball.

My son learned to play jazz by copying wes, benson and joe pass. He had access to all the videos, books, dvds and a father who played jazz and what he found was that the most efficient way of learning to play changes was to just practice and catalog lines that outlined the changes. Starting by transcribing known good examples (this is where I was able to help) and then to begin stringing those lines together with 8th notes.

Here's one exercise I showed him which helped.

What you describe is the same thing.

I don't think you fully understand it. You may find it easier to have the same thing framed in a different way (different people understand differently, of course), but perhaps if you read what is written here carefully you will see that what we are talking about is the precisely the same thing.

No one is suggesting that it is a shortcut. Of course you have to hear the lines. Otherwise you are not actually an improvisor. If you read the OP link carefully, you will find this is exactly what Tag says - you have to study those bebop lines.

When you say 3rd and b9 I assume you are referring to the notes of V7 chord. These are the precise same notes referenced in my early post regarding the altered subdominant degree. For completeness sake, I would point out 4-3 (b7 of V7 going to 3 of I) is possibly even more important.

The theory put here is more flexible because it amalgamates all cadences under one basic category, that can be used with freedom and creativity - and above all, by ear. Not a shortcut.

[mr. beaumont]

Lol. Popcorn time.

[Tag101]

What you describe is the same thing.

I don't think you fully understand it. You may find it easier to have the same thing framed in a different way (different people understand differently, of course), but perhaps if you read what is written here carefully you will see that what we are talking about is the precisely the same thing.

No one is suggesting that it is a shortcut. Of course you have to hear the lines. Otherwise you are not actually an improvisor. If you read the OP link carefully, you will find this is exactly what Tag says - you have to study those bebop lines.

When you say 3rd and b9 I assume you are referring to the notes of V7 chord. These are the precise same notes referenced in my early post regarding the altered subdominant degree. For completeness sake, I would point out 4-3 (b7 of V7 going to 3 of I) is possibly even more important.

The theory put here is more flexible because it amalgamates all cadences under one basic category, that can be used with freedom and creativity - and above all, by ear. Not a shortcut.

I agree with your post completely, with the exception of I do feel its a shortcut in that it gets you to the end point of hearing things correctly faster. No messing with modes, all different scales etc etc. Actually I guess you are right. Its not a shortcut. It just gets rid of hours, and in my case, actually years of wasted practice. In all honesty, for ME, I think I could have saved 6-7 years EASILY if I had been taught this from the beginning. Thats really the reason I posted it on TGP all those years ago. To try and help guys who were possibly struggling with the chord/scale or other methods. Its cool that it works in both directions. To simplify complexity if you want, or to expand on simplicity.

Adding: I have the utmost respect for Jack Z as a player, (And photographer. DAMN!!) and I know he understands this perfectly. I just feel as you do its really the same thing. Maybe he did not read my original thread or just glanced at it.

[eccegeorge]

Whoops, I managed to delete my post from earlier regarding altered subdominants as I thought it was duplicated. I will recap here as vhollund responded directly.

Basically the gist of it was (in case any one is interested) is that you can take the Fmaj7 in the key of C and alter it by flattening (or less frequently sharpening!) notes in it and play over any dominant. If you flat the 3 and 5 (I know it's really a #11) you get a G13b9 sound, for example. This is what I meant by altered subdominant.

Also I alluded to Lester Young's use of a diatonic IV over V (check Shoeshine Boy) and the standard iim6/viim7b5 sub for V7 (this is far more idiomatic for swing and bop than using the V7 chord.) Actually playing explicit 7-1 type melody things seems to be used at the ends of sections, much like the function of similar cadences in classical composition.

If you transcribe and play by ear, chances are you will do this naturally.

This means that a line will have its own commas and full stops (periods) if you will, based around the use of these cadences. These can occur at the same places or elsewhere from the underlying progression. Eventually we should be able to think of things just thinking melodically, tensions within the key, b6 - 5 being an obvious one.

Anyway, that seems to have come out shorter, which ought to be a relief to everyone. :-)

This makes a lot of sense to me. I've been working on a similar but less advanced set of V substitutions that I think has been really good for me and achieves something similar to what you are talking about.

Over the V:

- For a b9 sound -- play a diminished7 arpeggio from the 3rd (this is the fabled rootless 3 to b9 arpeggio that bebop teachers always go on about, its nice to resolve the b9 to the 5th of the I chord)

- for a 9 sound -- play the half diminished arpeggio from the 3rd (3 to 9)

The cool thing about the dim7 substitution is that it requires so little thought because of the symmetrical nature. The dim7 arpeggio from the 3rd of the V is the same as the dim7 arpeggio from the root of the ii and the dim7 arpeggio from a half step below the root of the I. So whether you are thinking the ii - the V - or the I its always easy to find yourself to the dim7 arpeggio.