George Benson's approach to playing chord changes

[eccegeorge]

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.

Oh man, there is SO MUCH in this simple concept. Thanks for putting it this way, that really helps me. My guitar teacher played a lot with Benson and is self taught like Benson. He is also a guy who learned by transcribing Wes. This concept of the 3rd resolving up a 1/2 step to the root or the b9 resolving down a half step to the 5th really is a MAJOR part of his playing (although, he wouldn't describe it like that). He wouldn't give it to me that systematically, though. More like just know what the sound of each of those notes is, and know how to use them. It's a feel thing for him, but those resolutions really are what he's doing a lot of the time.

Also, for the record, my guitar teacher knows Benson, and he says that, no matter how much young players asked, Benson would never really explain how he played. Probably because Benson doesn't really have a good way of explaining it. I think if you watch his "instructional" videos that much is pretty clear . . . (don't get me wrong, I love Benson, he's just not the best teacher).

[MarkRhodes]

This is an amazing thread. The OP was from 2004 and is germane to the playing / thinking of many of us today. What is it the French say? The more things change.... ;o)

[princeplanet]

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.

TAG!! Welcome to the thread, which is kinda your own thread really. You copped a lot of heat in the original long running one, but you gave back as good as you got! . It's a giant topic and I'm sure it had an influence on many that read it. I just wish I could have come upon it myself in 2004...

Anyway, hope you stick around a while, I'm sure we all still have plenty of questions, or are you done with this?

[princeplanet]

...Was just thinking that for a lot of us, the D/T generalization thing isn't such a big deal if playing tunes that have lots of shifts b/n D and T anyway. For example, ATTYA, for all the changes through all the keys, the only "simplification" to be had is really just bunching together the ii's with the V's.... other than that, it's business as usual

So i suppose it's down to how you might apply the concept to particular styles or tunes. Yes, no? Thoughts?

[vhollund]

Well... that is kindof what i ran into with that song too because of how the melody is written on the minor thirds
But you CAN make the Fm a F7#9 and then there you have all your 6 2 5 1 vocabulary
I'm not sure fully I get how Benson thinks D T only
If had to apply it to my own way of thinking, which is SD and T
Then T stands for consonant and often downbeat and D for disonant often upbeat
So functionally you treat your ii as a Tonic /consonant / V l to SD

Vl is treated as D
ii is treated as T

So
V I to SD
And
V l to I

= 6 2 5 1

[christianm77]

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.

Aha, you must be the famous Tag who started all of this!

For me I don't feel the time is wasted per se because I rather enjoyed coming to this understanding over 20 years of playing and studying the music.

Of course there is the rather irritating possibility that I might be rather better after 20 years if I'd learned this concept near the beginning, as opposed to c***** s**** theory. But to be honest, any contact with a good teacher would have helped - I was more or less entirely self taught for the first half of this, beyond the basics of guitar playing, and how to play a solo on Little Sunflower.

Given I hadn't made a transcription until around 8 years ago, I don't really consider any of the prior 12 years as being anything more than learning scales and arpeggios. Useful, but ultimately just a small step.

It was contact with a jazz teacher that put me on the right track. So for all that I say I'm mostly self taught, those few lessons here and there have been tremendously important... But for me it's two things - actual transcription of the real music and playing with musicians who are much better than me (and being aware enough to realise it and listen to them) - which has taught me the most...

[christianm77]

...Was just thinking that for a lot of us, the D/T generalization thing isn't such a big deal if playing tunes that have lots of shifts b/n D and T anyway. For example, ATTYA, for all the changes through all the keys, the only "simplification" to be had is really just bunching together the ii's with the V's.... other than that, it's business as usual

So i suppose it's down to how you might apply the concept to particular styles or tunes. Yes, no? Thoughts?

I've started running ATTYA with Barry Harris scales, with a scheme looks something like this (chord symbols refer to scales):

(first A)
Fm | Eb7 | % | Ab |
Db | G7 | C | % |

This sounds good, I think.

So, I suppose you can replace Fm with Ab (especially as Fm7 is a minor seventh on vi, not a m6 or mmaj7) and use a Db on Eb7 (or an Eb7 on Db.)

Ab | Db | % | Ab |
Db | F | C | % |

Say

I'll give this a try!

I am transcribing a Clifford Brown solo on this at the moment. A lot of the playing is very diatonic actually, I haven't analysed it yet, but I have a feeling a T/D analysis might be revealing.

[christianm77]

I do think it works.

Here's a video of my fooling around with it

I stumble through the Barry Harris scale thing TBH - I think Eb7 would be a better choice of scale here then Db major.

@dortmund. Your substitutions are still rooted in the original root movement. If we are playing with we could go quite far away from the originals, for example:

Abmaj7#11/F | Dbmaj#11/Bb | G/Eb | Abmaj#11 | Dbmaj#11 | B/G | C

And so on.

With ample room for chromatic voice leading between without thinking about what the chords are called.

I hope I demonstrate that this makes for some interesting ideas in the video

[christianm77]

The whole analysis might be (using my I IV thing - you could equally use I II, iii IV or whatever. Or mix it up!)

| Ab | Db | Db (alt) | Ab | Db | F (alt) | C |
| Eb | Ab | Ab (alt) | Db | Ab | C (alt) | G |
| C | C(alt) | G | G (alt) | A | A(alt) | E | Db (alt) |
| Ab | Db| Db (alt) | Ab | Db | Db (alt) | Ab | Ab (alt) | Db | Db (alt) | Ab | % |
Or

Or, T D D T D in Ab, D T in C
T D D T D in Eb, D T in G
D D T T in G
D D T T in E
T D D T D D T T D D T in Ab


Where each letter lasts a bar....

We can put more alts in if we want - notice that these alts serve as chromatic voice leading or movement between the tonic and subdominant regions, rather than chords in their own right. There are many possibilities. There are fewer possibilities that support the melody.

You just do it by ear.

[vhollund]

Works ok.
You could start off with a dominant to add some flavor :

I Ab7b9 l Db l Db(#11) (alt) l Ab l Db l F (#11) alt l C

[destinytot]

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.

Great stuff! I think that's where Benson's approach to playing changes comes into its own; he swings like (insert simile here)...

This may not be everyone's cup of tea, but - for me - Lao Tzu explains it best (in fact, Tai Chi is jazz... there, I said it!):

“We join spokes together in a wheel,
but it is the center hole
that makes the wagon move.

We shape clay into a pot,
but it is the emptiness inside
that holds whatever we want.

We hammer wood for a house,
but it is the inner space
that makes it livable.

We work with being,
but non-being is what we use.”

Talking of being 'out there', I find it wonderfully encouraging to hear players who - having nailed Benson's articulation - bring elegance and poise to more 'outside' playing. For example, someone I've only recently started listening to, Adam Rogers. (We all have our favourites, and I'm sure there are other 'out-there' guitarists out there...)

With respect to the OP, my point is that the approach (good teaching, including self-teaching) makes of complex and abstract concepts - which might otherwise be experienced as difficult, boring and a chore - something simple, accessible and fun. This is surely as it should be; not for nothing do we say play the guitar.

I like this famous metaphor for the same reason.

[christianm77]

Works ok.
You could start off with a dominant to add some flavor :

I Ab7b9 l Db l Db(#11) (alt) l Ab l Db l F (#11) alt l C

I like it!

[Tag101]

...Was just thinking that for a lot of us, the D/T generalization thing isn't such a big deal if playing tunes that have lots of shifts b/n D and T anyway. For example, ATTYA, for all the changes through all the keys, the only "simplification" to be had is really just bunching together the ii's with the V's.... other than that, it's business as usual

So i suppose it's down to how you might apply the concept to particular styles or tunes. Yes, no? Thoughts?

Example for ATTYA. Look at the first chord. F-7. Thats the VI of Ab major. Both tonic chords. Play Abmaj, then instead of Bb-7 to Eb7 (II-V to AbMaj 7) Use G-7b5 to C7 back to F-7. Then the F-7 is the III of the next chord DbMaj7, so stay right on it, and also the relative minor of the next chord D-7b5, so stay right on it again, and that happens to be the IV chord of the up coming C maj chord, and the IV and V (in this case the G7) are both dom chords, so stay right on it. It also happens to be the IV minor, which gives a nice G altered sound (b9 #5) to the C maj 7! (Hope this is right, doing it in my head) You can change the tune up an infinite amount of ways just looking at it like this. If you have even 2-3 of them down, you can play a different one 3 times through the tune, and sound fresh and different. For an intermediate player like myself, or even an advanced player, it gives you lots of different ways to hear the tune. Of course once you are a master, you can hear so much, it does not really matter live, but it still gives you lots of ideas to work on it the woodshed, and feed your head with more ideas and increase the vocabulary. There are also lots of other ways of course, but this is a GREAT way!!! It made it easy for a simplistic mind like mine!

[christianm77]

You can change the tune up an infinite amount of ways just looking at it like this.

That's why it's good I think...

Also yes the F minor thing is lovely....

[mr. beaumont]

It's funny what seems simple to some...does not to others.

But it's a very cool way to approach things. But I still think the simplest way is starting with the notes in the chords themselves--no analysis...

[christianm77]

Example for ATTYA. Look at the first chord. F-7. Thats the VI of Ab major. Both tonic chords. Play Abmaj, then instead of Bb-7 to Eb7 (II-V to AbMaj 7) Use G-7b5 to C7 back to F-7. Then the F-7 is the III of the next chord DbMaj7, so stay right on it, and also the relative minor of the next chord D-7b5, so stay right on it again, and that happens to be the IV chord of the up coming C maj chord, and the IV and V (in this case the G7) are both dom chords, so stay right on it. It also happens to be the IV minor, which gives a nice G altered sound (b9 #5) to the C maj 7! (Hope this is right, doing it in my head) You can change the tune up an infinite amount of ways just looking at it like this. If you have even 2-3 of them down, you can play a different one 3 times through the tune, and sound fresh and different. For an intermediate player like myself, or even an advanced player, it gives you lots of different ways to hear the tune. Of course once you are a master, you can hear so much, it does not really matter live, but it still gives you lots of ideas to work on it the woodshed, and feed your head with more ideas and increase the vocabulary. There are also lots of other ways of course, but this is a GREAT way!!! It made it easy for a simplistic mind like mine!

Tag - how would you go about something like Out of Nowhere?

[Tag101]

TAG!! Welcome to the thread, which is kinda your own thread really. You copped a lot of heat in the original long running one, but you gave back as good as you got! . It's a giant topic and I'm sure it had an influence on many that read it. I just wish I could have come upon it myself in 2004...

Anyway, hope you stick around a while, I'm sure we all still have plenty of questions, or are you done with this?

Thanks! I was banned from TGP for a few months due to that thread! It was a lot of fun, and had some really good information IMO. It seems like it was a year or two ago. Hard to believe it was 11!! I was taught this stuff from Richie back in the late 80s I believe. Still have lots of the old lesson tapes somewhere.

[Tag101]

Aha, you must be the famous Tag who started all of this!

For me I don't feel the time is wasted per se because I rather enjoyed coming to this understanding over 20 years of playing and studying the music.

Of course there is the rather irritating possibility that I might be rather better after 20 years if I'd learned this concept near the beginning, as opposed to c***** s**** theory. But to be honest, any contact with a good teacher would have helped - I was more or less entirely self taught for the first half of this, beyond the basics of guitar playing, and how to play a solo on Little Sunflower.

Given I hadn't made a transcription until around 8 years ago, I don't really consider any of the prior 12 years as being anything more than learning scales and arpeggios. Useful, but ultimately just a small step.

It was contact with a jazz teacher that put me on the right track. So for all that I say I'm mostly self taught, those few lessons here and there have been tremendously important... But for me it's two things - actual transcription of the real music and playing with musicians who are much better than me (and being aware enough to realise it and listen to them) - which has taught me the most...

Thats me. I agree with you. If you look back at that thread, I believe I was saying to transcribe as much as you possibly could. Thats what makes you play music and not scale patterns. The bop lines of Parker, Dizzy, Brown and of that era pretty much force you at the beginning to play melodically. They outline the chords in the best possible way without being mechanical.

[Tag101]

Great stuff! I think that's where Benson's approach to playing changes comes into its own; he swings like (insert simile here)...

This may not be everyone's cup of tea, but - for me - Lao Tzu explains it best (in fact, Tai Chi is jazz... there, I said it!):

“We join spokes together in a wheel,
but it is the center hole
that makes the wagon move.

We shape clay into a pot,
but it is the emptiness inside
that holds whatever we want.

We hammer wood for a house,
but it is the inner space
that makes it livable.

We work with being,
but non-being is what we use.”

Talking of being 'out there', I find it wonderfully encouraging to hear players who - having nailed Benson's articulation - bring elegance and poise to more 'outside' playing. For example, someone I've only recently started listening to, Adam Rogers. (We all have our favourites, and I'm sure there are other 'out-there' guitarists out there...)

With respect to the OP, my point is that the approach (good teaching, including self-teaching) makes of complex and abstract concepts - which might otherwise be experienced as difficult, boring and a chore - something simple, accessible and fun. This is surely as it should be; not for nothing do we say play the guitar.

I like this famous metaphor for the same reason.

Change those Lydian scales to the relative Dorian/Melodic minor and you have Pat Martinos version!

[pingu]

I can't follow all of this ...

with the Tonic , Dominant theory
are we saying you're either home T or
away Dom

as a simple fast kind of music analysis ?

If so , I agree with that

sometime when i'm playing a diatonic
type tune I feel
like there's really only two places
you can be !

in C eg.

the home places C , Emin and Amin

and the away places Dmin , F , G7 and Bminb5

is that going in the right direction ?
might be BS

[princeplanet]

It's funny what seems simple to some...does not to others.

But it's a very cool way to approach things. But I still think the simplest way is starting with the notes in the chords themselves--no analysis...

Haha- I know what you mean, especially after reading christian's and vhollund's playful analyses ... But if ATTYA typifies the kind of tune one might find oneself playing a lot ( ie "standards"), then one could sound ok with just some Tonic and Dominant vocab (even better if you had a 3rd bag with some alt Dom tricks...).

However for me, as well as taking out 3 and 6 for T, and 2, 4 and 7 for D (which alone is big deal), I like the way you have more bars with which to weave your lines. So if you see any of ii, IV, V, or vii in adjacent blocks, then you can play longer lines, same for i, iii and vi.

I like long lines, but am not clever enough to create them against a tune like ATTYA without a bit of pre analysis, and some D/T reduction. Then, once I get my head around a tune, my improv seems more "off the hip" when there are less hurdles to slow me down.

[princeplanet]

I can't follow all of this ...

with the Tonic , Dominant theory
are we saying you're either home T or
away Dom

as a simple fast kind of music analysis ?

If so , I agree with that

sometime when i'm playing a diatonic
type tune I feel
like there's really only two places
you can be !

in C eg.

the home places C , Emin and Amin

and the away places Dmin , F , G7 and Bminb5

is that going in the right direction ?
might be BS

yes, I think that's the simple version. Enough to put this concept into practice. If some posts are confusing you, don't let it stop you...

[Tag101]

Haha- I know what you mean, especially after reading christian's and vhollund's playful analyses ... But if ATTYA typifies the kind of tune one might find oneself playing a lot ( ie "standards"), then one could sound ok with just some Tonic and Dominant vocab (even better if you had a 3rd bag with some alt Dom tricks...).

However for me, as well as taking out 3 and 6 for T, and 2, 4 and 7 for D (which alone is big deal), I like the way you have more bars with which to weave your lines. So if you see any of ii, IV, V, or vii in adjacent blocks, then you can play longer lines, same for i, iii and vi.

I like long lines, but am not clever enough to create them against a tune like ATTYA without a bit of pre analysis, and some D/T reduction. Then, once I get my head around a tune, my improv seems more "off the hip" when there are less hurdles to slow me down.

Its a huge help for that. It can help stop you from sounding like a "chord chaser" as Richie Hart use to say. As far as practicing and digesting a tune, Jim Hall said he use to work for months on specific tunes he would be playing prior to an upcoming tour, so he could play on them as well as he could.

[pingu]

yes, I think that's the simple version. Enough to put this concept into practice. If some posts are confusing you, don't let it stop you...

good I always dig the simple version of
most things in life !

I will carry on , no worries , I'm trying to just get the
'play only what you hear' thing going ATM

simple stuff tho

[vhollund]

Cool stuff
Is there a good example on you tube of someone using this sort of simplification
I just tried out Fm over ATTYA
It seems to work best when adding the most important notes of the changes, or it become a bit bland
Db "lydian" with alterations seems easier to make it work for me

As strange as it might sound, the goal as I see it, would be to get into a sort of modal vibe momentum