-
Thanks Christian and Reg,
Thats clear now .....
I hadn't heard of the 'family of four' before (although I do use those kinda subs)
looks complecato but I know things like this get easier with useLast edited by pingu; 05-08-2016 at 11:27 AM.
-
05-08-2016 11:25 AM
-
It really shouldn't be. All you are doing (really) is exploring the possiblities of the mixolydian mode.
Originally Posted by pingu
Bear in mind BH is literally thinking Db dominant scale, and running language patterns, triads etc on that.
The BH system of improv isn't too hung up on 'sub this chord for that using this relationship' - it's all in there in the scale. Barry emphasises again and again in his teaching that it's all scales...
He refers to these chords as the 'important chords' of the dominant. Sheryl Bailey uses the term family or four IIRC.
It's simply a matter of learning these four triads and four seventh chords of 1 3 5 b7 - or whatever pattern you like - on all the dominant chords. Then practice resolving your phrases into the major or minor chords.
Here are your resolutions/cadences:
V7-I (same as a major II-V-I)
bVII7-I (same as a minor II-V-I or a IV IVm I)
bII7-I (tritone sub)
and finally - useful for Blues and Rhythm changes
IV7-I (same as a IV #ivo7 I)
As I have mentioned before these are all interchangeable in the heat of the moment.
(The next step would be to master the same sort of thing, but for the melodic minor, but one step at a time. There's also many more fun things you can do with the mixolydian/dominant scale.)
It's nice because this gives you a finite roadmap that nonetheless has endless possibilities. In addition, it's a really clear process you can apply to any material and apply to tunes right away.
Jazz harmony has been described (I can't remember where) as the study of dominant chords. I'm beginning to see why.Last edited by christianm77; 05-08-2016 at 01:48 PM.
-
Yea... that's basically why I don't like BH harmonic movement... It's all the same... Symmetrical approaches become muddy or didn't you like colors Christian, maybe brown, like mixing everything into One.
I hear much more than Dominant chords, It's is One type of movement etc...
Didn't Barry call minor third relationships... Sisters and Brothers
Chromatic scale... the universe or God
Whole tone... Man and Woman
and Diminished.... the children
I don't believe the goal is to have one system that covers all things...
-
that was really helpful thanks Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by Reg
Okay, you don't like the theory but do you like how he plays?
-
No. But if you want to internalise something, there's something to be said for rigorously and rather academically applying one thing over everything. So, ATM, I'm focussing on creating melodies out of the dominant scale and finding ways to apply them through the chord progressions of standards. Originally Posted by Reg
The added bonus is that this very simple harmonic approach seems to form around 80%-90% of the bop language I see. IMO if you want to study bop - study the dominant scale. It will get you off to a great start if old school bop floats your boat.
BTW - for me the primary focus of bop harmony with reference to improvisation is not colour - rather to do with the facilitation of melodic ideas through the changes. Parker was primarily a melodicist - at least according to Dizzy. I hear him that way. I even think of the concept of harmony - static instances of vertical pitches - a bit suspect with respect to bop.
Harmony - chords. 19th/early 20th century obsession. Exotic harmony does not mean more advanced.
Colouristic harmony is ... nice... but colour doesn't create structure, form or musical grammar. Colour without musical grammar has never interested me. I would give the example of Mozart or Bach, for example, whose music has a relatively limited palette of colours compared to say, Wagner or Debussy, but is full of structure, clarity and musical meaning. I don't see their music as more primitive because of the limited palette of chords in use - in fact I would argue Bach is the most advanced musician in the Western tradition.
There's plenty of guitarists playing all sorts of modes out there, but I'd rather hear a cat with a real sense of line play boring harmony. Any day. You can have both, of course.
Anyway - a thorough study of bop is meant to teach you how to construct lines, not necessarily interesting harmony... Many people see it as academic, which is fair enough, but I'm not into the 'let's let it all hang out and be creative' school of jazz education. That's OK for some people, but I enjoy having a strict and clear area of study. More freedom can actually be stressful when applied to practice.
The secret IMO is to practice strictly and perform freely.
The flip side is I am also practicing much more modern style colouristic and open scale use. But BH won't teach you about that. He regards that sort of thing as the work of the jazz devil :-)Last edited by christianm77; 05-09-2016 at 08:25 PM.
-
That's interesting... my understandings of parkers playing was he became aware of harmony... which opened the doors for his soloing... and I always believed the dominant reference was generally more from blue notes.
Bop... basic swing changes, with harmonic and rhythmic development using blue notes.
-
A) I'm just going from what Dizzy Gillespie said. Originally Posted by Reg
B) I've seen, so far, nothing in Parker's note choices that would be unusual in swing. His rhythmic choices and phraseology are something else entirely. If you believe you have a counter example, I would be interested to see it.
"my understandings of parkers playing was he became aware of harmony... " I suspect you may be referring to this quote: "I realized by using the high notes of the chords as a melodic line, and by the right harmonic progression, I could play what I heard inside me. That's when I was born." In fact, Conrad Cork went to some lengths with the scholarship to show that this is a misattribution. This was written by a journalist, not a direct quote from Bird.
In any case it also depends what you mean by harmony. Harmony could mean the changes of a tune (in which case Bop represents a simplification of earlier material - check out the changes of Quasimodo and compare to the original changes for Embraceable you. It reminds me of what you do over Body and Soul in your video, for instance - knock out biiio7, and replace with a VI7b9.)
On the other hand harmony refers to the construction of melodic lines. Well I think we all know a bit about the harmony side of that, sure.
The actual mechanics of constructing musical lines that sound like adult musical language, as opposed to regurgitated transcribed licks or scale patterns is a whole separate area of study. I have found this neglected in my contact with the jazz education world with the exception of BH.
As always - I think it depends who your teacher is. I'm sure there's some great guys in the college system...
But in any case, how did you learn language Reg? I could randomly permutate the scales you talk about in your posts. But it wouldn't sound like you ;-)
-
Yea Dizzy wasn't in the rhythm section. Another example of how we see differently which is always a good thing, right different perspectives, different results etc.... When I think of bebop... I actually think of the band and interaction, yea I also see and hear more that embellishments.
Sure you could look at many of the swing band soloist, generally tenors, and find some bebop like solos... but not rhythm sections...Those embellishments, altered and extended etc... became interaction from the rhythm section, very different changes and organization of changes...
I learned the language from being in rhythm sections and not being a backing tract. I listened and interacted when I could. I've performed with many of the old school players... not Bird, but with many who were in those swing bands on the road with Bird., lots of storys.
Scales, arpeggios, chord tones, extensions are all just terms with out references. And they're just teaching aids, terms, a method of explaining how one can be aware of what's going on and what can go on.
Yea I would hope I have a sound that's me... that's what many of the musicians I gig with say. There aren't that many players that can make a rhythm section groove like I do... even when it's simple etc...
I had to cover this working Big Band gig last week... the rhythm section, had another gig, better money. Go figure. Anyway... the band had two books, one tpt book and a trombone book. Anyway no big deal I can read etc... I became a piano, that's what I do. Anyway the bone book was old swing charts... really straight, to the point of being just lousy, and short, to the point of feeling like I was at a senior center. I stayed straight for arrangements but when I could open up and with the solo sections... we, the rhythm sections... fixed... no modernized the changes and obviously listened to the soloist and it was fun. the horn sections were really having fun, the charts were alive...
And what made the charts come alive was the rhythm section interaction with the horns. And yes I'm talking about the changes, rhythm and Blue note references. That's how I approach performing when I have a choice.
Another note... the old swing charts really use natural minor and maj/min functional harmony, 6th chords and yea diminished. I still imply dim. changes all the time... it's just, as I do with all changes when I feel appropriate... I create layers of harmonic movement from lead lines.
It's all good... I always dig your posts and vids. really.
-
Interesting post... This is going to be a long one I'm afraid, lots of things touched on...
Yes - the way I see it is you can't learn everything and shouldn't try to - there's not enough time. One's style is defined as much by the stuff you don't master as the stuff you do. As a working player there are obviously external pressures, which I welcome. For example, I doubt I would have started playing acoustic or swing stuff if there hadn't been bread in it. Was never terribly interested in that music as a listener, but in the process of doing the gigs, started to get interested and learned a lot. Originally Posted by Reg
The guitar tradition (as I see it) is about exploding the chords out into single note lines, which makes sense - we learn chords first. That's what we see from the tradition of Charlie Christian, but also I think from the CST approach, in a different way. Harmony out into melody - it's how I've learned so far.
But I'm interested in becoming more of melodic player that implies harmony, don't know why, it appeals to me. It seems freeing somehow, and if it's one thing I've learned, it's follow your intuition.
As far as Dizzy not being in the rhythm section - well.... He could play piano pretty well! That's not what I am talking about here. I am talking about how horn players think, because when I play solos I want to be more like a horn.
There is an actual theoretical separation between harmony/rhythm section comping and melodic improvisation. I believe that's why BH divides his classes into a harmony workshop and an improvisation workshop.
I don't in fact think you could find bebop like solos. But the thing that makes bop sound like bop is not the harmony. The single biggest example I can think of would be in the compositions - what's the difference between Now's the Time and a straightforward swing riff tune? Sure there's a cheeky b5 at the end there, but that's not the main thing. It's to do with how the phrases are structured. Originally Posted by Reg
That's why your run of the mill swing dancers couldn't deal with bop rhythms. Swing dancers dance to phrases. (Although BH is quick to point out the links between dance and bop. In his opinion the worst thing that ever happened is that the music moved out of the dance halls, because that meant that the rhythm sloppy! But that's a whole different thread :-))
The accompaniment thing is awfully interesting. Why is that it's perfectly stylistic for swing horn players to play 7s, 9s and 13s over major chords, while if I play a major 7th in the accompaniment in a 30s/40s style rhythm section it sounds wrong? Again, it suggest a separation between soloing and rhythm in the way that the harmony was understood back then.
To me it seems like a lot of the development of jazz harmony comes from the loosening of the rhythm section/front-line division.
In the piano, I suppose you could view that as a loosening of the left hand/right hand divide -
- In swing, left hand plays stride rhythm, right plays melody - perhaps trumpet style like Earl Hines...
- later on we have left hand comping/right hand horn like soloing in trad, Bop piano.
- Then later, Bill Evans, Herbie etc... who were coming from a more holistic classical approach... The modal/CST system works really well here because it allows the two hands to become integrated?
Argghhh! Sounds horrendous. I'm meeeeeeelting :-)I had to cover this working Big Band gig last week... the rhythm section, had another gig, better money. Go figure. Anyway... the band had two books, one tpt book and a trombone book. Anyway no big deal I can read etc... I became a piano, that's what I do. Anyway the bone book was old swing charts... really straight, to the point of being just lousy, and short, to the point of feeling like I was at a senior center. I stayed straight for arrangements but when I could open up and with the solo sections... we, the rhythm sections... fixed... no modernized the changes and obviously listened to the soloist and it was fun. the horn sections were really having fun, the charts were alive...
And what made the charts come alive was the rhythm section interaction with the horns. And yes I'm talking about the changes, rhythm and Blue note references. That's how I approach performing when I have a choice.
The modern big band thing is certainly not the same thing as period 1930's big band. Most big bands I've played in come from the Basie Second Testament period (which I love) with some more modern charts and the obligatory Manyard Ferguson. I play a Telecaster on these gigs. The horn section is usually pretty loud (pop session & pit players) and the rhythm section has to be amplified.
On the other hand the period 30s/40s thing could seem really corny compared even to Neal Hefti if you try to play it with a Modern Big Band hat on, but actually I'm starting to appreciate the hipness in it. I do like the way that if it's done right the horns are really soft, and the accents just pop out. Acoustic rhythm guitar, of course. Finding a drummer who can really play this period is extremely difficult - in general you need the right kind of players to do it and they tend to be specialists.
I mean bebop and Blue Note is corny and old fashioned to some people, and fusion sounds pretty embarrassing to the modern mainstream rock listener. It's all relative.
Sometimes that stuff is written in, but yes for some of this stuff you could practically chuck away the guitar pad and work by ear :-) Embellish away (not that anyone will hear it lol). Especially for the period (1930's) Basie stuff. Not so much for Ellington lol. Incidentally Ellington's harmony in the horns is certainly not major 6/min 6 stereotype swing, but most of the time the guitarist is playing simple stuff...Another note... the old swing charts really use natural minor and maj/min functional harmony, 6th chords and yea diminished. I still imply dim. changes all the time... it's just, as I do with all changes when I feel appropriate... I create layers of harmonic movement from lead lines.
TBH unless it's a big band gig in which case I listen to the chart, or a super swinging rhythm section where it's just a pleasure, I don't think swing guitar is ultimately my thing.... I think you need a different personality - more like a lynchpin bass player - to be a great swing rhythm guy.
I (like you I suspect) came into jazz to improvise.... But I have to say the rhythm stuff's been very good for my playing.
Cheers! Likewise :-)It's all good... I always dig your posts and vids. really.Last edited by christianm77; 05-11-2016 at 06:52 AM.
-
Yea I hear ya...
I tend to play from the melody when covering old swing charts, extensions and altered notes tend to be embellishments, more of the 10 step melodic process, when playing bebop, the melodies gone pretty quick and I tend to start developing melodically through harmony. All the extensions and altered notes have harmonic references, personally very different approach to improve.
And yea the swing rhythm section, What's pretty cool now... most jazz rhythm section players are good, they've been around and understand the strong/ weak harmonic rhythm concept... the layers of harmonic organization that can be going on and still imply basic functional harmony. Most amateur players can basically just perform at one harmonic level, if that.
I guess for me the improv thing is just as much fun and generally more interesting when the rhythm section can improve as a section, the interaction and reaction thing along with the actual soloist. Having harmonic layers of organization with tension/ release etc... It's like performing with old school bassist in trios... if they can't get the harmonic thing going... I'm basically forced to play that style of improv.... not good or bad, but big difference between where the music can go, which is... again personally what playing jazz is about.
I was trying to help this thread get into that....layers thing. I though that was what the OP was after. It's been around for a long time... and is generally how jazz players perform.
-
Get into it. I'm interested. Originally Posted by Reg
-
Sure... the standard basic starting reference.... your playing a tune in say Cmaj and you start developing another layer of harmonic movement but using the relative Minor as a tonal target.
So your using Tonal Target of Cmaj as on layer of harmonic relationships and developments, subs, II V's, basically whatever you and the band decides to play, that would be One Layer.
Then you start a different layer of harmonic movement with Amin as the tonal target of reference, so all the harmonic relationships etc... now have Amin. as reference, that would be the 2nd layer.
Obviously this is one of the standard relationships, the diatonic relative relationships. as well as the diatonic parallel relationships. You can get into extended diatonic relative and parallel relationships and add a 3rd layer of harmonic relationships...
Cmaj. relative minor or Amin, extended diatonic relative would be Emin.
Then when one begins to see and hear changes as functional, example being Instead of just Imaj being Tonic , you also see and hear VI- and III- as same functional reference, and say,
II- as SubDominant as well as IVmaj. and extended diatonic or VII-7b5, anyway you begin to open different doors, chords can have different function depending on the organization. Then start using Modal Interchange which basically just changes the Root movement relationships and yea, open the Melodic Minor door, which typically has different functional relationships, more from the Modal organization as well as Blue Notes. Well there you have it... my personal approach to verbally explaining jazz Layers of harmonic organization.
You end up with lots of possibilities... and when you have layers of harmonic organization going on, the use of micro tonal target really comes into play.
Then help organize rhythmically... anyway, you then begin to understand what performing in a jazz style can or has the possibilities of being. I'm not really saying anything new.Last edited by Reg; 05-12-2016 at 01:25 PM.
-
Yeah that's kind of how I view it - if I understand right.... Originally Posted by Reg
Analogous to the BH approach in many ways. Steve Coleman calls them 'invisible paths.' I suspect there's many names.
-
Reg, I think I understand what you're getting at, and it's not too different from how I see them.
Question: When you say, " so all the harmonic relationships etc... now have Amin. as reference," does that mean you're thinking of Amin as the tonic? If so, are you looking at it in a sort A Melodic Minor kind of way? I.e., would you playing E dominant stuff?
I'm used to substituting II-Vs. So, in C for example, I'll use Dm-G7, Fm-Bb7, Abm-Db7 or Cm-F7, depending on how I'm hearing the line. Less commonly, I might use A7 or B7. I'm not really thinking of resolving them, respectively, to Eb, Gb, Bb, E, or F#. I think of them all as resolving to C. Are you saying that I SHOULD be thinking about resolving them to their respective tonics?
-
Yeah, I think it was basically. I'm with Groyniad in my fascination with it lately. One thing I love about these concepts/approaches is that they're basically bolt-on, and can be very entry-level-accessible for amateurs (like me) as well. With a little consideration for secondary harmonic references, my not-so-hip melodic minor sounds much better without having worked on anything "separately". Originally Posted by Reg
The main things I guess I need to work on are my melodic minor voicings generally, and then, for the single-line stuff, harmonic references to relative major and min7b5. I'm pretty cool with playing over Cmaj7 by referencing A minor or E minor (and it's II V's etc), at least the conceptual, aural part of it. (The playing is coming along I guess).
But if I'm subbing things for A minor, I mainly reference the dominant (E altered). I don't really understand how you reference the relative major. It always seems to be going the wrong direction on the hip scale. Subbing relative minor from major always seems to add all kinds of great blue notes etc, whereas playing C over A minor... , I'm probably not understanding the kinds of approaches.
Same thing with m7b5 as extended diatonic sub. If I sub Bm7b5 for G7, I'm mostly at G altered, basically. I just don't know as much about that approach. I know a basic vanilla mm from the 3rd for m7b5, but that's basically altered, and I'd assume pretty vanilla.
I've really enjoyed all of your ideas. I swore I'd get some MM together this year, and it was originally just on a "something I have to do" list. It's turned into something much more satisfying musically. Much more enjoyable with a wealth of application possibilities. I never thought that I'd hear things the way that I do now or be playing using some of the ideas I do now. I'm still pretty basic, but I have a whole new palette for my basic stuff. I'm grateful. Thanks always.
-
i think the main difference between the sort of music bh helps us play and the kind reg. seems to play (at least very often) is that for bh the melody comes first and the chords are arrived at as what is required by a pre-given melody
and for reg (and most other more 'modern' jazz players) the harmony comes first and the melody arises as a result of a pre-given harmonic structure
the other thing is that the pre-given harmony in the more modern stuff tends to be more 'open' or less intricately structured.
its as if someone found a single voicing for a nice change - or maybe for a pair of nice changes - on a keyboard and then wondered what melodic device might be used in order to accentuate or bring out the beauty of that change
---
there's no doubt for me which music i prefer. its the modern stuff that sounds very samey and flat harmonically to my ear and the bh stuff that seems full of colour, variety and space
sound based:
melody based:
-
It's a difficult one. I think Kenny Wheeler was a good composer - I really like some his tunes. He was properly trained in the art too, so he wasn't just playing chords and assembling pieces out of them like some jazz college students. It seems silly to compare music in a way. Originally Posted by Groyniad
But yeah Bud Powell does sound like a breath of fresh air even today, like Mozart. I have to say Gnu High isn't a favourite, I got a bit bored about half way through, it gets a bit stale to my ears. Kenny sounds fantastic though, of course. I really like Angel Song. I think having Frisell and Konitz on the date helped a lot, I don't know why I'm not into Jarrett here - perhaps it's just too much harmonic info!
It's that awful boring thing isn't it? Here's a set of chords, and now we go round and round them and play out of the chords. It's like the treadmill of tedium.
However nice your composition sounded at the outset, after 10 minutes of repeating the same chords, it's going to sound a bit stale.. Unless.... You have a killer groove!
I'm trying to find ways of improvising that doesn't require this concept, but doesn't end up sounding like Ornette or something. It's difficult though. So much of the idea of what modern jazz is seems to involve blowing on sets of non-functional changes.
I have to say I find Middle Eastern and early music useful in giving ideas for directions that don't involve thinking harmonically, or allowing harmonies to arise between instruments in a non-repetitive way. The ME thing is interesting. Some jazz guys get it while others go 'oh it's just phrygian dominant for the solos, what shall I do harmonically?'
The thing that was different about bop IMO is that everyone knew the global changes to I Got Rhythm, but you could get so many moods by writing a melody with a certain feeling- Anthropology sounds so bright and positive, Moose the Mooche sounds cheeky and mischevious, and Celia sounds wistful and pensive (to my ears) and that's even without thinking of improvisation.
You can move up and down through levels of detail in the chords too... It's much harder to do that when the changes are non-functional. No doubt some people can.
-
it is like mozart
for me the answer is not different musical forms from different places but really trying to learn to do the sort of thing bud powell is doing here - and on e.g. strictly confidential
(hard not to hate yourself with that sort of goal)
i think the soloing has whole dimensions of interest that most later music (even later 50's music) just lacks
its as if he's playing in 3d (what with all the doubling and tripling of time) as opposed to 2d
same with bird of course (but i can't think of many others that can do it)
i like sonny rollins very much largely because he can generate a contrast between foreground and background in his solos
he'll have strong ideas boldly stated and off-hand remarks filling in and generating depth. so the solo - like bud's - is not 'flat'
-
BTW - I'm not convinced the harmony/melody thing is a contemporary/classic split.
There were plenty of lesser bop players of the 1950s obsessed with chordal correctness. We've forgotten them.
I would actually pick Wayne Shorter as a great modern melodic improvisor (no surprise his background was in bop originally I guess) his music of the past 15 years or so has so much light and shade, drama and suspense.
-
i think modern stuff tends to sound like it was written that way - and classic stuff tends to sound like the melody came first
so its not a strict thing
and i picked the kw kj thing because i think its one of the best of its kind - i like it a lot
-
You are very close to my thinking re: foreground and background. In a lot of contemporary jazz, to my ears, the burden of playing this level of detail stuff is given to the rhythm section in fact - metrical modulation and so on... Originally Posted by Groyniad
I like to see the commonality. Changes based jazz is my centre of my playing, but I have a lot of interest in other forms, and I like to see the connections.
However, jazz we have this peculiar tension between the western and non-western elements though. Middle Eastern improv, for example, is purely melodic, so they don't have to worry about going to the bridge after 16 bars haha...
But there is an element of bop (the African element) which wants to do its own thing, expand out in irregular rhythmic phrases, while the 4-square harmonic structure of the Tin Pan Alley standard - written by European trained composers acts against this. The result, I think, is unique, and why standards are still inspiring to musicians today.
TBH I'd rather hear any jazz musicians play standards than originals. That's 'the game' to me :-)
The elephant in the room, as far as pros are concerned, is the issue of copyright. The jazz musician's art is not recognised in law, and musicians are heavily incentivised to write and record their own music whether they have any interest or talent for composition.Last edited by christianm77; 05-14-2016 at 02:40 PM.
-
Incidentally, in theory there's no reason why we couldn't do this with non functional changes, but to be honest, it's so much work, that even world class guys sound better on standards IMO.
(EDIT: unless it's someone like Allan Holdsworth who has essentially dedicated almost his entire career to playing his own music, or someone who never really learned to play standards jazz to begin with, like some of the more recent fusion guitar guys....)
I like Kurt's compositions, for example, but for me his best playing is always on standards or originals with straightforward changes. I think it's basically true of everyone, no?
On the other and the KJ standards albums are the high watermark of modern piano jazz in the past 30-40 years, right?Last edited by christianm77; 05-14-2016 at 02:51 PM.
-
i'd rather hear them playing standards too
holdsworth sounds like a mathematician to me not a musician
that sort of thing doesn't happen if tunes arrive first in the creative process rather than patterns or changes etc.
and its the tune that - if used well in improvisation - keeps the 3 dimensionality in the solo by establishing a contrast between something like a refrain and something more like an embellishment or a flourish
i've been working hard recently on playing fills in all the gaps in a tune - fills which hit the relevant change. and its immediately obvious how much musical good this does - you have to connect your filling idea with the refrain at both ends and the filling material has to present the appropriate harmonic events simply and directly. you can use mostly 8thnotes for the fills if the melody is mostly quarter notes - and you immediately start to generate the 3d effect of foreground and background in the solo.
i'm appreciating how each tune is broken up into phrases in its own distinctive way - and that this will require one to learn how to dip into the underlying harmony at critically different times. the points (and passages) at which the tune will allow you to hit the change with an 8th note figure will vary tune by tune - and this makes you learn to find all the nooks and crannies of the 32 bar landscape you're in. one of the most important things to learn is how to place phrases in the bar and 4 bar/ 8 bar / 16 bar structures in hip and interesting ways - and using the tune to dictate to you when you can and when you can't hit the changes pushes you around these structures in very creative ways.
Reply With Quote
"Why Do The World's Best Guitarists Play On the...
Today, 11:50 AM in Guitar Technique