-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
This isnt stated in willies teaching, but, having seriously studied his concept. In a single sentence.
5 and 6 pull the ear to 1, much like a v chord acts in classical music.
if you understand how jazz harmony moves, you can get an idea of how powerful that simple concept is.
over a ii chord dm7, you (as a starting point that is only one of a million approachable) play d and e, that pulls your ear to g (the v), you play g and a and that pulls your ear to c.
once you realize a huge portion of the standards basically has the chords moving up a 4th, you can see how this pulls your ear to each new tonal center.
lets say your a beginner in jazz learning attya,
fg ..... to .....Bb c...to... Eb f...to ... Ab Bb... To Db, shift up half step, D E.... To ... G a... To... C
of course you need to play it with a swinging rhythm, f.. fg ,Bb.. Bb c .. Etc. but you should be able to see how this little melody chain flows through all the changes. There is of course much more to his system, but....
i I think if he named it something more complex sounding like,
The melodic solution to harmonies which move in fourths.... He would be selling books by the truck load.
by the end of his system, you end up with something similar to the T/D concept described here, though a little heftier in its application. In other words, you end up playing simalar things, but with a solid theoretical basis for which you get there.
Its deep, very very deep.
-
06-09-2015 11:49 PM
-
The simple answer is step two in his system is adding the third to each pair, Originally Posted by pingu
d e f = ii
g a b = v
c d e = I
the more complex answer is ab is the 56 of ii, and fg is the 71 of v. Though he just released a lesson on using those over dominant chords to explore different melodic possibilities. Like I said above, it's very very deep, but it's best to take it in using the steps he presents the system in. After all he has been teaching this system longer than most of us have been alive.
He is also an absolute monster player.
-
I agree with that. Not only a great player but one can be very accessible and still swing without sounding corny. He knows his stuff. He goes way beyond 'pentatonic pairs' but it's a nice starting point. I agree with you that it's best to get this from Willie. He's been teaching it a long time and knows how to bring people along. Originally Posted by vintagelove
-
Does Willie bring the student past Swing into Bop and beyond with his approach? I imagine that once you start adding in all 12 tones, the Pentatonic Pairs thing get left way behind right?
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
Well, if by that you mean does he get into using complex vocabulary, yes of course. That being said, the pairs concept never gets totally left behind because it's hugely important to the bebop vocabulary. What I described is only step one.
the easiest thing to do is listen to Willie play for 5 minutes, that will tell you everything you need to know.
-
Maybe I should. What's his main bag? What's a good example of his Bop or Hard Bop playing?
-
Youtube him playing giant steps with a big band. Listen to his solos compared to the others, much more harmonically complex, melodic, etc etc.... And he is 84!!!!!! Originally Posted by princeplanet
thats not to speak bad of the other players, btw. You can just hear every change in his playing. He is a bebop player first and foremost. However, he could play anything.
-
I will, cheers. Originally Posted by vintagelove
Do you find it interesting that by relying heavily on the 1-2 and 5-6 to outline changes, one is forgoing the time honoured 3rds and 7ths ?
-
"Step" 3 in his system is the first that introduces that. Basically diatonic bebop vocabulary. Originally Posted by princeplanet
One simple example is a scale in thirds over a ii v I (notice the similarity to the t/d system)
2435465761721324-3
It is used in other steps as well.
The part no one ever gets to, which is the best part of his system is the pairs are used to setup playing off the b7 of the dominant chords, in other words playing off the upper structures of the chord, a very important aspect to bebop playing. Like I said before it looks and sounds a lot like the t/d system, because in reality the t/d system, if you break it down, is also playing the upper structures.
Willie is always offering free trials to his website, the best thing to do is sign up and find out for yourself. Enjoy!!!
-
Another aspect of Willie's playing that I like is his use of musical quotations. Lots of players have favorite quotes they work into solos (-Kenny Burrell uses a snippet from "Lullaby of Birdland" that way) and I've heard Willie use the riff from "Jumpin' With Symphony Sid" and a lick for "Twisted" (-"I heard little children were supposed to sleep tight") and another thing I recognize as a quote---from Miles, no less---but I can't pin it down. Originally Posted by vintagelove
-
Speaking of Kenny Burrell, was listening to him playing with Kessel and G.Green the other day, and wow, I can hear where Benson stole some of his lines from. Kenny definitely had 'it' back in the day, you can tell he studied other jazz musicians well to build a vocabulary that wasn't very common on the guitar back then. On that piece, I heard him do some things on the I of a blues piece that made me go hmmm, interesting outside note choices...
Benson I'm pretty sure has 'taken' from everyone. One time he said this about Earl Klugh "I understand how he works harmonically..." Klugh then said something similar, and I don't know, I was less convinced about that, lol.
-
Not gonna lie, I heard him sneak in the circus/clown car music over a ii v I...... I had to steal that one!!! Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
The quotes we're drawn to are revealing. Sonny Rollins has a great sense of humor and will play things for comic effect. (I don't mean covering "I'm An Old Cowhand," though I always smile when I hear that recording.) Originally Posted by vintagelove
-
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
The famous Benson chicken cluck.... Does it get any better than that?
-
I first heard something like that on the "Full House" (live) album by the J. Geils Band. Originally Posted by vintagelove
-
Just wanted to re-open the discussion to test this "approach" that is discussed above. Not many have made the complaint that generalizing the ii as V lacks the voice leading that exists between these 2 chords, which is relied upon for thousands of melodies that have a cadential resolution (if I may put it that way?)...
Let me offer a specific example of where generalising falls short for my ears at least: Take a Blues-
C6 / F9 / C6 / Gm7 - C9 /
F9 / F#dim / C6 / Em7 - A7b9 /
Dm7 / G9 / C6 - A7b9 / Dm7 - A7b9 /
Now I know that the ii - V's are arbitrary and often just the V is played. But often the ii precedes the V's and if that chord is played in the comping but not alluded to in the soloing, then it sounds "wrong" to me. And this is coming from someone who is a recent advocate of "generalising" as I feel that in many circumstances it works just fine. But as I was running some patterns through the Blues above recently, I was treating each ii-V as V and landed a B note against the Dm7 in bar 9 and was just not digging it at all!
It seemed to be crying out for the C-B resolution in that part of the progression. Obviously hitting an F note then running through (embellished) G9 chord tones sounds a lot more acceptable, but a lot of my material for Dom chords start on the 3rd, so that's a bummer...
Then, having a look at the other 2-5's in the progression, I did notice they sounded less ambivalent when altering the line or pattern to accommodate just the one note change (the 7th in the ii chord). Again, bummer, I was really getting the "generalising" thing down and getting used to it's sound, and now I'm contemplating a total re think.
And so onto my question, to those that have followed this thread in the past (and anyone else): How strict are you with guide tone adherence b/n the ii and V? Are there some situations where you're happy to ignore the 7th over a ii ? Does it depend on context? What about in the Blues context as cited above? If you heard yourself or someone else ignore the ii's 7th and just treat it as a V, does it irk you?
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
Just wanted to re-open the discussion to test this "approach" that is discussed above. Not many have made the complaint that generalizing the ii as V lacks the voice leading that exists between these 2 chords, which is relied upon for thousands of melodies that have a cadential resolution (if I may put it that way?)...
Let me offer a specific example of where generalising falls short for my ears at least: Take a Blues-
C6 / F9 / C6 / Gm7 - C9 /
F9 / F#dim / C6 / Em7 - A7b9 /
Dm7 / G9 / C6 - A7b9 / Dm7 - A7b9 /
Now I know that the ii - V's are arbitrary and often just the V is played. But often the ii precedes the V's and if that chord is played in the comping but not alluded to in the soloing, then it sounds "wrong" to me. And this is coming from someone who is a recent advocate of "generalising" as I feel that in many circumstances it works just fine. But as I was running some patterns through the Blues above recently, I was treating each ii-V as V and landed a B note against the Dm7 in bar 9 and was just not digging it at all! It seemed to be crying out for the C-B resolution in that part of the progression. Obviously hitting an F note then running through (embellished) G9 chord tones sounds a lot more acceptable, but a lot of my material for Dom chords start on the 3rd, so that's a bummer...
Then, having a look at the other 2-5's in the progression, I did notice they sounded less ambivalent when altering the line or pattern to accommodate just the one note change (the 7th in the ii chord). Again, bummer, I was really getting the "generalising" thing down and getting used to it's sound, and now I'm contemplating a total re think.
And so onto my question, to those that have followed this thread in the past (and anyone else): How strict are you with guide tone adherence b/n the ii and V? Are there some situations where you're happy to ignore the 7th over a ii ? Does it depend on context? What about in the Blues context as cited above? If you heard yourself or someone else ignore the ii's 7th and just treat it as a V, does it irk you?
The whole idea (in the t/d approach) is that the ii is really the same thing as the V (and IV and vii) in that they are all tensions which resolve to tonic family chords.
i tend to play the ii a lot, however if I want a longer, more in depth phrase or pattern of tension, I just play the V. Tempo also plays a role in the choice.
my two cents....
-
This is alive again! Originally Posted by princeplanet
Just wanted to re-open the discussion to test this "approach" that is discussed above. Not many have made the complaint that generalizing the ii as V lacks the voice leading that exists between these 2 chords, which is relied upon for thousands of melodies that have a cadential resolution (if I may put it that way?)...
Let me offer a specific example of where generalising falls short for my ears at least: Take a Blues-
C6 / F9 / C6 / Gm7 - C9 /
F9 / F#dim / C6 / Em7 - A7b9 /
Dm7 / G9 / C6 - A7b9 / Dm7 - A7b9 /
Now I know that the ii - V's are arbitrary and often just the V is played. But often the ii precedes the V's and if that chord is played in the comping but not alluded to in the soloing, then it sounds "wrong" to me. And this is coming from someone who is a recent advocate of "generalising" as I feel that in many circumstances it works just fine. But as I was running some patterns through the Blues above recently, I was treating each ii-V as V and landed a B note against the Dm7 in bar 9 and was just not digging it at all! It seemed to be crying out for the C-B resolution in that part of the progression. Obviously hitting an F note then running through (embellished) G9 chord tones sounds a lot more acceptable, but a lot of my material for Dom chords start on the 3rd, so that's a bummer...
Then, having a look at the other 2-5's in the progression, I did notice they sounded less ambivalent when altering the line or pattern to accommodate just the one note change (the 7th in the ii chord). Again, bummer, I was really getting the "generalising" thing down and getting used to it's sound, and now I'm contemplating a total re think.
And so onto my question, to those that have followed this thread in the past (and anyone else): How strict are you with guide tone adherence b/n the ii and V? Are there some situations where you're happy to ignore the 7th over a ii ? Does it depend on context? What about in the Blues context as cited above? If you heard yourself or someone else ignore the ii's 7th and just treat it as a V, does it irk you?
Prince. I think you are missing the point in the above. When you say a lot of your "material" starts on the 3rd of the dom 7 chord and that sounds wrong over the II chord, it seems like you are forcing licks instead of using your ear. Depending on the line and accents, that WILL sound fine, but no approach just lets you force things in. Thats also why in the original thread I said this approach goes hand in hand with learning as many bop lines as possible. That trains your ear to hear things, and many times that 3rd sounds fine over the II. Its only making it a -13 chord after all! Still, as you know, in some lines, even the root of the chord can sound "wrong". Its ALWAYS about taste!
-
Would it be possible to use a smart phone camera, (train it on your guitar) and record train of thinking and share? Hearing the actual flavor of what you're hearing? Thanks Originally Posted by princeplanet
Just wanted to re-open the discussion to test this "approach" that is discussed above. Not many have made the complaint that generalizing the ii as V lacks the voice leading that exists between these 2 chords, which is relied upon for thousands of melodies that have a cadential resolution (if I may put it that way?)...
Let me offer a specific example of where generalising falls short for my ears at least: Take a Blues-
C6 / F9 / C6 / Gm7 - C9 /
F9 / F#dim / C6 / Em7 - A7b9 /
Dm7 / G9 / C6 - A7b9 / Dm7 - A7b9 /
Now I know that the ii - V's are arbitrary and often just the V is played. But often the ii precedes the V's and if that chord is played in the comping but not alluded to in the soloing, then it sounds "wrong" to me. And this is coming from someone who is a recent advocate of "generalising" as I feel that in many circumstances it works just fine. But as I was running some patterns through the Blues above recently, I was treating each ii-V as V and landed a B note against the Dm7 in bar 9 and was just not digging it at all! It seemed to be crying out for the C-B resolution in that part of the progression. Obviously hitting an F note then running through (embellished) G9 chord tones sounds a lot more acceptable, but a lot of my material for Dom chords start on the 3rd, so that's a bummer...
Then, having a look at the other 2-5's in the progression, I did notice they sounded less ambivalent when altering the line or pattern to accommodate just the one note change (the 7th in the ii chord). Again, bummer, I was really getting the "generalising" thing down and getting used to it's sound, and now I'm contemplating a total re think.
And so onto my question, to those that have followed this thread in the past (and anyone else): How strict are you with guide tone adherence b/n the ii and V? Are there some situations where you're happy to ignore the 7th over a ii ? Does it depend on context? What about in the Blues context as cited above? If you heard yourself or someone else ignore the ii's 7th and just treat it as a V, does it irk you?
-
To reiterate and expand on other's responses, it seems you are confusing the concept. Originally Posted by princeplanet
Thinking of only the V over a IImi7-V7 progression should not restrict you to only playing a V7 line. To an experienced improviser a V7 often involves many optional harmonic movements, one of which would include the IImi7-V7, but could also cover II7-V7, bVI7-V7, IVmi7-V7, V7-bVII7 and a long stream of others. Then it's left up to the moment of improvisation to take one path or another. To always play the IImi7-V7 as written limits your choices and inevitably sounds predictable.
Now the $64,000 question is how to make that sound musical, and there is the rub. That's where the hours of practice come in.
-
I think that's because the G7 is a bit of cheap sound and should be avoided. Bm7b5 is acceptable, but Dm7 and Fmaj7 against the G7 is where the gold is. Fm6 against G7 is even better. Originally Posted by princeplanet
Just wanted to re-open the discussion to test this "approach" that is discussed above. Not many have made the complaint that generalizing the ii as V lacks the voice leading that exists between these 2 chords, which is relied upon for thousands of melodies that have a cadential resolution (if I may put it that way?)...
Let me offer a specific example of where generalising falls short for my ears at least: Take a Blues-
C6 / F9 / C6 / Gm7 - C9 /
F9 / F#dim / C6 / Em7 - A7b9 /
Dm7 / G9 / C6 - A7b9 / Dm7 - A7b9 /
Now I know that the ii - V's are arbitrary and often just the V is played. But often the ii precedes the V's and if that chord is played in the comping but not alluded to in the soloing, then it sounds "wrong" to me. And this is coming from someone who is a recent advocate of "generalising" as I feel that in many circumstances it works just fine. But as I was running some patterns through the Blues above recently, I was treating each ii-V as V and landed a B note against the Dm7 in bar 9 and was just not digging it at all! It seemed to be crying out for the C-B resolution in that part of the progression. Obviously hitting an F note then running through (embellished) G9 chord tones sounds a lot more acceptable, but a lot of my material for Dom chords start on the 3rd, so that's a bummer...
Then, having a look at the other 2-5's in the progression, I did notice they sounded less ambivalent when altering the line or pattern to accommodate just the one note change (the 7th in the ii chord). Again, bummer, I was really getting the "generalising" thing down and getting used to it's sound, and now I'm contemplating a total re think.
And so onto my question, to those that have followed this thread in the past (and anyone else): How strict are you with guide tone adherence b/n the ii and V? Are there some situations where you're happy to ignore the 7th over a ii ? Does it depend on context? What about in the Blues context as cited above? If you heard yourself or someone else ignore the ii's 7th and just treat it as a V, does it irk you?
To me the B is a bit obvious. YMMV of course... Actually I do in fact play a lot of dominant sevenths against dominants anyway, but these sounds are interchangeable, in fact. CF Barry Harris scales yada yada
I couldn't care less about the ii-V thing. Too much ii-V sounds like jazz college bebop to me and does not square with what I hear the players I like doing. That said, this is my own interpretation of the music, and I am a little bit weird.
Slavish outlining of the changes is boring to me. While it is a good idea to learn to do it, it eventually leads to dead end - endless streams of scalar and arpeggio based eight notes with no rhythmic freedom. What I want is dynamic melody lines that have a strong rhythm and harmonic movement to them. From this point of view, it's not so much about playing 'the' changes as playing 'some' changes. This is what I see when I analyse Parker's lines, for example. There are a wide variety of possible ways to do this, and you have a lot of flexiblity. That's what I like the t/d system (although for me it's a t/s system haha.)
EDIT: others have said the same thing probably a bit clearer. I agree....Last edited by christianm77; 09-24-2015 at 08:43 PM.
-
Very interesting thread this.
I have to ask - how do you think George Benson would approach the changes to Stella By Starlight?Last edited by MarkRhodes; 10-02-2015 at 01:48 PM. Reason: Copyright violation
-
well, for one, he would play it in the original key:
-
How would one use Tag's approach to playing over progressions over a blues, a progression with almost all dominant chords??
-Max
-
Nice to see this thread bob back up to the surface.
Reply With Quote
On smaller speakers...
Today, 05:09 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos