George Benson's approach to playing chord changes

[princeplanet]

I am perhaps a little proud and very embarrassed to admit that several years back I figured this "system" out for myself. I couldn't wait to meet with my teacher and explain that…" there are only TWO chords", everything is a I or a V. That makes me proud to think that if only for a moment I was thinking on the same plane as George!!! But in actual practice, it hasn't done me all that much good, as I haven't kept up "thinking" in that simplified way. I think this "method" is probably put to best use by players who play very much by ear. Not that Wes and George were ignorant of the theory involved, they just didn't need to reference it while playing. They both HEAR it all on such a higher level. Their playing is very intuitive to them. Hacks like me are forced to be much more cerebral about it. It sort of similar to people (perhaps Astrophysicists) who do Nasa level math in their heads. Some of these folks can't write it down, or "show their work" when teacher asks to see it; they just DO IT, they KNOW IT. George and Wes just do it, very intuitively without analyzing every little piece (chord). I think for them, having such big ears, the very simple idea of "it's I or V", is all the thought they need to put into it.

This was Mr B's take as well, that it's an advanced concept. And while I agree it can be seen as such, if you read the thread, Tag shows how it's essentially an easy concept to put into practice. Take for example an exercise that involves all the diatonic chords of a key. IVmaj7 viim7b5 iiim7 vim7 iim7 V7 Imaj7

- so Dominant to Tonic resolutions are thus: D D T T D D T . Now for D or T you could use any line, device, arp or scale fragments that aligns with either a V or a I chord and substitute V for D and I for T. But further, pool together all your material for V, vii and ii and use any of it for D, and do the same for T where I iii and vi comprises your pool of ideas. There can be no "wrong" playing like this, it all "in", with some ideas inferring extensions 9, 11 and 13.

With chromatically embellished devices , the same thing applies. The tonal gravity is either D or T for any line, with a few exceptions where lines are ambivalent, ie they work in both contexts! Any line you cop from transcribing can be filed under D or T and used accordingly.

Sure, the overall concept needs a few adjustments here and there for minor keys as well as handling altered chords etc, but I see no reason why you can't be taught this from the get go. It's far less intimidating than learning all chord tones for every change. Even the guide tone exercises we all did were intimidating, after hundreds of hours, it still sounded like exercises. Then years later, you start to realise that many of your fave players don't always hit the typical guide tones, and that they're lines are looser, and hipper. So you hit the shed again and extend your GT work to cover all the extensions, only to realise, even more years down the track, that guys like Benson and Wes probably had a far simpler approach to yeilding all the hip sounds you went into deep training for. The kind of training that made you sound like everyone else's GT conscious, exercise-like, lines.

All those years practicing exercises could have been put to use using a simpler concept that encouraged off the hip improvisation! No wonder many over-schooled players sound stiff, contrived, and worse still, homogenous....

[mr. beaumont]

Cool ideas...

I think Joe Pass talked about their being only "major, minor, and dominant."

I personally throw in half diminished because I think it's an important sound and the chord is so cool with it's synonyms...

I still think all the people who arrived at simplicity--and really knew what they were doing--took a long windy road to get there. I'm guessing young GB, for example, often practiced more in a day than most of us do in a week.

And of course, never underestimate the teaching power of being thrown into the deep end at a young age. George swam.

[dasein]

Cool ideas...

I think Joe Pass talked about their being only "major, minor, and dominant."

I personally throw in half diminished because I think it's an important sound and the chord is so cool with it's synonyms...

I still think all the people who arrived at simplicity--and really knew what they were doing--took a long windy road to get there. I'm guessing young GB, for example, often practiced more in a day than most of us do in a week.

And of course, never underestimate the teaching power of being thrown into the deep end at a young age. George swam.

yeah, i think you're definitely onto something

Benson started out as a singer, performing in vocal/doo-wop groups. anyone who's sang in a choir knows that those kinds of experiences can really help your ears. and how many times are we told you have to sing everything? that's going to be something a singer just does naturally.

he also got a ton of performance experience from a very young age. thrown into Jack McDuff's organ trios, playing the chitlin circuit... that's an education in and of itself.

it took him some time. early Benson is still great, but it took a little while for him to become the unstoppable bebop machine that he grew into.

also keep in mind: Benson, for the most part, stuck to bop, blues, and R&B for his whole career. the sounds and ideas of Miles' Second Quintet, Coltrane, Ornette, Rollins and Mingus at their most adventurous... these don't really pop up that much in Benson's playing.

that's not a criticism of Benson. Benson played the kind of music he wanted to play, found a way to learn it as best as possible, and played it on the instrument as brilliantly as it's ever been played. would his decidedly non-theoretical, ears-and-streets smart approach have worked as well if he wanted to play the music of Andrew Hill? possibly, but it would have been much more difficult

at the end of the day, you have to decide what kind of music you want to play and figure out the best way to learn it. there's room for a blended approach: ears and theory, books and street smarts.

[christianm77]

Rhythm changes is pretty easy if you use this scheme.

Rhtyhm A section:

Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant etc

(it's even easier than the Bb - F7 - Bb - F7 - Bb7 - Eb7 - Bb - F7 scheme that I've seen for Barry Harris scales)

Now, what about the secondary dominants? In my understanding they are there to create movement to the various chords, really flavour.

Now you can put your own flavour on your lines by adding your own chromatics - enclosures, moving lines, secondary dominant arpeggios etc. This seems to match up with what I hear Charlie Parker and Lester Young doing on these types of turnaround tunes more than a complex system of vertical subsititutes.

A nice side effect is you realise that Ain't Misbehaving, Bewitched Bothered and Bewildered, Christopher Columbus and quite a few other stock A sections are doing the same thing, and can be handled the same way. Although It Could Happen to You always messes me up haha

[princeplanet]

Cool ideas...I think Joe Pass talked about their being only "major, minor, and dominant."I personally throw in half diminished because I think it's an important sound and the chord is so cool with it's synonyms...I still think all the people who arrived at simplicity--and really knew what they were doing--took a long windy road to get there. I'm guessing young GB, for example, often practiced more in a day than most of us do in a week.And of course, never underestimate the teaching power of being thrown into the deep end at a young age. George swam.

Yes, and for Martino, everything was minor! But of all the reductionist concepts, I personally like the D vs T. I think it can produce most of the sounds I want to hear. You mention Half Dim, my favorite chord, but under D vs T it files under D, in fact, in my world it IS D! Let me explain- The notes that underpin the gravitational bias toward T in, say C major, would be: c e g a but the anti-tonic (my other word for Dominant) is: b d f a. So C6 vs Bm7b5. Note that note "a" is common to both, and is arguably arbitrarily (b could have just as easily been the common note), but it's how I hear it. I reckon you could comp your way through a tune where you only use inversions of ONLY these 2 chords! the ii has an 11th, the V is a 9th, ii is Imaj9, and vi is I6. Least convincing might be IV which comes with the #11, but that still works. Point is, if it can work with chords (especially where they are constantly moving through inversions), then it can work for single line soloing. Developing language and devices based on either the I6 chord or the viim7b5 can go a long way in covering the bases you need covered in many styles of Jazz, certainly the older styles. Some will disagree!

[christianm77]

Oh something else - in the Barry scheme above the F7 and Bb scale are treated as different entities, as with the Benson approach. The rhythmic emphasis of the chord tones and the use of the added notes in the scales to ensure this are totally different, despite the scales having the same notes. So that matches up with the OP link...

[RClegg]

This reminds me of something Julian Lage said in a seminar: if you know that a series of chords is resolving to a target chord, there are a limitless number of ways to get there. Your playing should be about creative ways of creating interest along the way to resolving at the target chord.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily simplify anything, it may in fact result in more complications in heading towards the resolution, and how you do this and still maintain some framework of the original song can be an interesting choice. But it is a good way to refresh your thinking.

Russ

[christianm77]

Yes, and for Martino, everything was minor! But of all the reductionist concepts, I personally like the D vs T. I think it can produce most of the sounds I want to hear. You mention Half Dim, my favorite chord, but under D vs T it files under D, in fact, in my world it IS D! Let me explain- The notes that underpin the gravitational bias toward T in, say C major, would be: c e g a but the anti-tonic (my other word for Dominant) is: b d f a. So C6 vs Bm7b5. Note that note "a" is common to both, and is arguably arbitrarily (b could have just as easily been the common note), but it's how I hear it. I reckon you could comp your way through a tune where you only use inversions of ONLY these 2 chords! the ii has an 11th, the V is a 9th, ii is Imaj9, and vi is I6. Least convincing might be IV which comes with the #11, but that still works.

Point is, if it can work with chords (especially where they are constantly moving through inversions), then it can work for single line soloing. Developing language and devices based on either the I6 chord or the viim7b5 can go a long way in covering the bases you need covered in many styles of Jazz, certainly the older styles. Some will disagree!

Sure in Barry land (and David Baker) we use G7 as a substitute for Bm7b5 (or Dm6 as, I suspect, BH would put it)

So yeah cover almost everything with two chords. major (6,7,9 whatever), and minor 6 (or m7b5 if you prefer) possibly with a major 7.

I learned this from studying Charlie Christian.

You can turn it around - use dominant over all m6 chords. Use minor seventh sounds on all major chords. What ever you want.

In Pat Martinos' reckoning, I suppose we could transform the major chord into relative minor, and then there's just one chord.

I would play Am6 on Cmaj7#11

[Reg]

Yea.. I remember Richie, he's back at berklee... yea you need to make a livin.

So anyway... you can say anything when your a great player etc... but whether you choose to or not to be aware of what the organization is ... why your ears like something is just your choice, It's still going on whether you understand or not.

If your just going to try and become a great jazz player and maybe even make a livin, your going to need more skills than just great ears etc...

The thing about becoming aware about concepts, like the F# triad over the A7... well really the voicing was what A13b9 right, which has many different possible relationships as compared to A7.... and you would make the choice as to whether the possible relationships are part of the organization or just embellishment.

The thing about using the approach of each relationship, or what ever you want to call playing something different than what's notated or implied.... anyway when each event is an event in it's self, you might miss out on all the possible relationships that are derived from using that event as part of an organized approach... even embellishments can have organization, there are no chromatic notes etc... they all can have organization.

Sure if you went to church etc... and your ears really have developed an instinctive organization, a basic tonal reference from which you can always use as a default reference... you might get it together... maybe, 1 out of 1000, more like 1 out of a 1,000,000.

There are many levels of I and V chords... and the tonic dominant relationship also has many possibilities ... just change which notes create the function etc... if there is a harmonic groove going on which involves some type of strong weak harmonic pattern.... almost any other harmonic pattern will work simply because of the ability of the tension release, dissonance consonance etc... to create the same feel. Throw in very common practice material, blues, modal, any recognizable functional pattern from common tunes... it will sound great. And as always, great players can make anything sound great, and yea lousy players can make anything sound lousy.

So yea long story for ... the big picture as early or even earlier than when your ready.

[princeplanet]

Yea.. I remember Richie, he's back at berklee... yea you need to make a livin.

So anyway... you can say anything when your a great player etc... but whether you choose to or not to be aware of what the organization is ... why your ears like something is just your choice, It's still going on whether you understand or not.

If your just going to try and become a great jazz player and maybe even make a livin, your going to need more skills than just great ears etc...

The thing about becoming aware about concepts, like the F# triad over the A7... well really the voicing was what A13b9 right, which has many different possible relationships as compared to A7.... and you would make the choice as to whether the possible relationships are part of the organization or just embellishment.

The thing about using the approach of each relationship, or what ever you want to call playing something different than what's notated or implied.... anyway when each event is an event in it's self, you might miss out on all the possible relationships that are derived from using that event as part of an organized approach... even embellishments can have organization, there are no chromatic notes etc... they all can have organization.

Sure if you went to church etc... and your ears really have developed an instinctive organization, a basic tonal reference from which you can always use as a default reference... you might get it together... maybe, 1 out of 1000, more like 1 out of a 1,000,000.

There are many levels of I and V chords... and the tonic dominant relationship also has many possibilities ... just change which notes create the function etc... if there is a harmonic groove going on which involves some type of strong weak harmonic pattern.... almost any other harmonic pattern will work simply because of the ability of the tension release, dissonance consonance etc... to create the same feel. Throw in very common practice material, blues, modal, any recognizable functional pattern from common tunes... it will sound great. And as always, great players can make anything sound great, and yea lousy players can make anything sound lousy.

So yea long story for ... the big picture as early or even earlier than when your ready.

Hey Reg, glad you've chimed in here, but not sure where you come down on it all, would you say you're for or against the idea of reducing things to D and T? My guess is a bit of both, but what would you say are the glaring omissions of adopting such an approach to jazz improv?

[Reg]

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.

[vhollund]

Yes there are 3 basic functions

I'd say that often you can reduce the consonant sounds to functional variations of SD and T
and then add tons of takes on dominant-voicings
I do that

As long as you don't destroy the melody with it, it is go! for me

(And Barry Land is definitely my land too , who-ever that is)

The info in this thread ,is almost too good to be shared,
But then again it's what you do with it that matters

[pushkar000]

It's a pretty good read. I also think a "macro" approach, in this case, really just thinking "tension and resolution" is NOT beginner stuff. But it IS kinda where all good players end up...I'm seeing glimpses of it...maybe another 20 years or so!

I think jazz beginners should start as micro as possible...what notes are in the chord? what are the strong notes? how do different tensions/alterations sound?

There's a thread here going on about a dissection of "Body and Soul" right now...I think this is the kind of stuff one needs to do in order to eventually get "free." It's not overanalysis...it's teaching your ear to hear every possible combination...

I have to disagree - I think beginners should start macro. I think its paramount to develop a sense of melody in the solo you play even though the notes may not be the best. Having a sense of "Ok its this part of the tune, its the sad bridge, so I should play this appropriate thing which ties in with the other thing I just played..." as opposed to "Ok its this part of the tune, G7alt and I should now be superimposing these triads over it..."

I think having option 1 develop and then guide the development of option 2 proves much more beneficial.

Option 1 encourages the beginner to listen to what he's playing more than think of what he's playing. While all roads may lead to rome, one wants to develop that sense of judgement early on.

Basically you don't want to teach someone something they can't hear. So you don't want to give a beginner these micro concepts like "X superimposed over Y gives Z" and "here are JKL scales over Q chord". This was the approach my teacher took with me(still takes with me). He would only teach me something when I came to him with it. I'd ask him "Hey I don't get this thing so-and-so played...", then he'd explain it and it worked well for me. Otherwise the only thing he cared about was whether my time was solid, whether my solos made sense melodically and how much blues I was playing. If not, "Go trasncribe some Wes!" I feel like I owe him a lot - if Id've gone to some other teacher who of course well-intentionally would have taught me lots and lots of triads and scales before I was ready, I don't think I would have benefited.

Edit : On the other hand, the student himself matters. Many students don't like my teacher - they feel like he's "wishy-washy" (and they couldn't be more wrong about that!) and they prefer some of the other teachers in my conservatory who are much more methodical. I took to my teacher right away and some other students too and we all have a great rapport with him. I don't think a more methodical approach would've worked in my case, but yeah I definetely know guys who really appreciate the fact that they started from a really micro level.

[mr. beaumont]

So how do they hear the big picture?

[pushkar000]

So how do they hear the big picture?

I'm sure not everybody on this forum knows "insert really complicated concept here" but almost everybody can still appreciate the swing and melody of Wes burning on a blues.

I'm not saying they(and when I say "they" I mean "I") can hear the entire solo and all the ways in which it ties in or whatever but yeah a basic sense of "Oh yeah hey this is swinging - Oh no, that's just meaningless 8th notes" I think most of us can hear that - and if not its probably because the jazz bug hasn't caught on yet.

Also, what were meaningless 8th notes a year ago can be the sweetest melody today - that is exactly the sense of taste and judgement that should be taught or honed first.

[christianm77]

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.

True, even chord/scale theory works in the hands of a talented enough musician ;-)

The attraction of these generalistic concepts for me is they allow me to maximise my use of material. I don't think the OP link was suggesting that the T/D thing would be sufficient to generate that material on its own - you would need some lines, transcribed material perhaps, to start with... But I do find it pretty handy once I have some material, especially on tunes with fairly key-based harmony and rapid, conventional changes (such as Rhythm Changes.)

It doesn't make things like Bolivia much easier to solo on, although at least it widens the repertoire of possible cadential licks you can play on it as the harmony is essentially still quite conventional.

Non functional changes would require a different approach obv....

[mr. beaumont]

I'm sure not everybody on this forum knows "insert really complicated concept here" but almost everybody can still appreciate the swing and melody of Wes burning on a blues.

I'm not saying they(and when I say "they" I mean "I") can hear the entire solo and all the ways in which it ties in or whatever but yeah a basic sense of "Oh yeah hey this is swinging - Oh no, that's just meaningless 8th notes" I think most of us can hear that - and if not its probably because the jazz bug hasn't caught on yet.

Also, what were meaningless 8th notes a year ago can be the sweetest melody today - that is exactly the sense of taste and judgement that should be taught or honed first.

No offense, but you're getting esoteric. Appreciating is one thing. Can they hear it and make it come out of their insyrument?

[pushkar000]

No offense, but you're getting esoteric. Appreciating is one thing. Can they hear it and make it come out of their insyrument?

If you tell them to play around a simple motif or play based off the melody, then yes they can. And if you tell them to play E major over G7 to get a 13 b9 sound, they can do that as well. They can probably do both at the same time - at their own level of course. But my point is that one wants to focus on the former = teach them to play motifs or play based off the melody or any other device that cultivates ones melodic taste and judgement, and wait for the student to stumble across E major over G7 himself before teaching it to him.

It also starts from appreciation. Unless you appreciate it, you'll never make it come out of your instrument.
Even if you tell someone E major over G7 gives 13 b9, chances are they're not gonna sound good using it, unless they actually hear it in action and appreciate it. I should know - I'm one of those fellows who doesn't sound good using it!

[vhollund]

I've been teaching simple hybrids to a 15 y old for a while
And its going just fine

4 chords with upperstructure hybrids and 1 penta and tonal centers around the core harmony,

is better than 4 chords and 4 scales without a harmonic core

[pushkar000]

I'm not saying teachers who focus on micro concepts are wrong or misguided - I don't presume to know definitively that X method beats Y method. It's just that there's a time when a student is ready for that kind of thing and that time should ideally in my opinion not be in the beginner stages.

[vhollund]

Well yes ofcourse it has to be evaluated if he is ready
I'm not teaching him complex dominant hybrids either
The pupil is not even into jazz, I just started to push some 13th chords into poparrangements after 4 years

But instead of having him all confused about what to do with a million scales...
I'd rather give him one penta and teach him to use that scale + the combined notes of a given chord + those of its upper structure hybrid
Like a minor triad, with a major triad one step down from the root

One can quickly sense if they are overwhelmed by the work or the information and leave it for later if so

[mr. beaumont]

I'm not saying teachers who focus on micro concepts are wrong or misguided - I don't presume to know definitively that X method beats Y method. It's just that there's a time when a student is ready for that kind of thing and that time should ideally in my opinion not be in the beginner stages.

Not being a dick here--have you taught jazz beginners?

[pushkar000]

Not being a dick here--have you taught jazz beginners?

No. Maybe I should have put that in the beginning.
My teacher on the other hand has taught jazz beginners like myself for 30 years, I feel like his method has validity even if my presentation of it may not.

Edit : I'm getting a little defensive and stubborn - all I want to say before bowing out(since I think this was not the place for me to interject) is that what my teacher taught me has worked really well for me and it wasn't micro based.

[mr. beaumont]

And that's cool! Don't bow out, tell us more!

I learned micro...and simple...what notes are in the chord simple...and I teach that way too...to me, there-s nothing easier than the info the tune gives you...but that doesn't mean that's the only way...if your teacher's approach is working for you, I'd genuinely like to know more. Right now, starting macro sounds very difficult to me...relys on a lot of previous knowledge. ..

[pushkar000]

And that's cool! Don't bow out, tell us more!

I learned micro...and simple...what notes are in the chord simple...and I teach that way too...to me, there-s nothing easier than the info the tune gives you...but that doesn't mean that's the only way...if your teacher's approach is working for you, I'd genuinely like to know more. Right now, starting macro sounds very difficult to me...relys on a lot of previous knowledge. ..

Ok, even though I know it comes from a place with a lack of experience I'll just explain what I'm saying. And yes, definitely the micro thing is so important...that was never in contention. Man the last thing I wanted to do was pontificate about this teaching thing, just want to add my opinion to the mix.

Ok lets say there is this new student who comes in for a lesson.
If you take a blues, and you teach the student the blues scale - the next thing is not to teach him some alternative scale straight away, but maybe work on some basic call-and-response phrases.
So now he knows the blues scale and he has developed his melodic sense slightly with some call-and-response stuff...
Now he is asked to transcribe a solo he likes. He'll have learned the solo by ear, thereby ingraining(to some extent at least) whatever harmonic concepts are involved in the solo. Obviously the phrases he likes more will become the ones he can hear easier so those are the ones he will learn.
Then you sit with him and talk about both the macro and micro things going on - for example just noting what was played over the individual chords as well as noting instances of motivic development. The focus should be on macro - even while studying an isolated phrase, any connections to previous phrases or any kind of structural thing going on within the phrase or any such thing should be pointed out in addition what the specific scale or chord was. To use a comparison - show the blueprint of a building as well as the type of cement used.
Then you tell him - "Ok now take your favourite phrase and start using it/parts of it/ideas based on it in your own improvisations."
Once he's got the previous stuff down, then you can go even more macro - you can talk about how the player builds each chorus or some other thing. Really just the act of pointing something out is all it takes for a student to have his aural gates opened.

Summary : Basically the idea is that the student learns the micro stuff but not before he's heard it in action and his ears have transferred it to his fingers. The macro stuff on the other hand takes prominence as concepts to be taught or pointed out both in context of a solo and in general.