Official Barry Harris Thread

[Petimar]

If you analyze Birds solos, you don't hear many ascending chromatic scale passages. Most chromatic scale passages are descending. It seems to me (from the aprox 100 Parker solos Ive transcribed) he ascends quite often on what Barry calls triads and chords and descends quite often on the chromatic "extra half steps".

Just my observation.

[rlrhett]

If you analyze Birds solos, you don't hear many ascending chromatic scale passages. Most chromatic scale passages are descending. It seems to me (from the aprox 100 Parker solos Ive transcribed) he ascends quite often on what Barry calls triads and chords and descends quite often on the chromatic "extra half steps".

Just my observation.

That is really interesting. So, to paraphrase, the iconic Bebop language is essentially always skipping its way up and tumbling down. There is no doubt that Bird has an instantly recognizable sound. This must be a key component.

I am sure for those with formal training this is “Building Jazz Lines 101”, but I had no idea it was so central and consistent. That would explain why BH doesn’t have any guidelines for ascending lines (chromatic or otherwise).






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[pcjazz]

Here is my little rant.
I see Barry Harris's teachings as a well selected set of tools among the broader elements and devices of the jazz language and harmony. I don't see it as self sufficient, alternative pedagogical universe. But it seems to demand to be treated that way. The mysteries of Barry Harris teachings will unfold over time and those who pursue it relentlessly will be rewarded for their loyalty and faith.
Let me give an example. How would you comp tonic C Maj 7 with movement?
Here are two descriptions. Identical concepts. One (to me) cryptic, the other conventional.

- BH school:
o First let's introduce an original theoretical construct called major 6 diminished scale. It's a major scale with a b6 or alternatively Maj 6 chord + it's "related" diminished.
o Now observe the diatonic chords of this scale. Same maj6 and dim chords alternating in different inversions.
o Next the catchy rule 6th on the 5th. Yes, you can play major 6 starting on the fifth of the chord, G Maj 6. Now use the 6 dim scale of this chord to create movement.
o You can also do the same starting on the root of the chord. C maj 6th.

- Same concept but using the standard theory (arrangement 101):
o Tonic C maj has two functional substitutes. A min 7 and E min 7. All three share the same tonic function.
o Any chord can be preceded by it's dominant to add interest and movement, called it's secondary dominant.
o So over Cmaj 7. You can play <E7 Amin 7> or <B7 Emin 7>
o Secondary dominants of minor chords are often altered. In particular b9 works really well.
o Dominant b9 without root is just the diminished 7 chord.
o Now we got <F dim Amin7> and <C dim Emin7>
o You can always play inversions of a chord and move it up and down to create movement.

Obviously Gmaj6 = Emin7 and Cmaj6 = Amin7.
So, which of the two explanations above is clearer? I have to admit, I haven't found a satisfying conceptual or practical use for the 6dim scales to prefer the first explanation. The concept almost suggests existence of an alternative unifying, elegant jazz theory. But it's proven too elusive and mysterious to me. I know there are other applications, but not strong enough to warrant abandoning the way the rest of the world looks at and talks about music. Same as brothers and sisters view of chromatic, whole tone and diminished scales. I'm not seeing a compelling connection beyond 12 being divisible by 3 and 4.

To me, the first account (the BH one) is clearer and apparently simpler (4 bullet points vs 7). Perhaps I am less well-versed in the conventional account than you. Which is not to say that Barry’s approach is entirely consistent, e.g. the distinction between scales for lines and scales for harmony. In my view, BH does not offer a comprehensive theory of music but rather a uniquely compelling pedagogy, which is not at all the same thing. It is not an ex post facto account of how music works so much as a wonderful toolkit for bebop improvisation.

[Tal_175]

To me, the first account (the BH one) is clearer and apparently simpler (4 bullet points vs 7). Perhaps I am less well-versed in the conventional account than you. Which is not to say that Barry’s approach is entirely consistent, e.g. the distinction between scales for lines and scales for harmony. In my view, BH does not offer a comprehensive theory of music but rather a uniquely compelling pedagogy, which is not at all the same thing. It is not an ex post facto account of how music works so much as a wonderful toolkit for bebop improvisation.

Fair enough.

[christianm77]

To me, the first account (the BH one) is clearer and apparently simpler (4 bullet points vs 7). Perhaps I am less well-versed in the conventional account than you. Which is not to say that Barry’s approach is entirely consistent, e.g. the distinction between scales for lines and scales for harmony. In my view, BH does not offer a comprehensive theory of music but rather a uniquely compelling pedagogy, which is not at all the same thing. It is not an ex post facto account of how music works so much as a wonderful toolkit for bebop improvisation.

This is absolutely true.

(I have long argued that a comprehensive theory of music is actually not a lot of use to the musician anyway)

[Tal_175]

To me the second one describes the device using more broadly applicable principles. It's based on chord function, substitution, expansion of harmony within a key with secondary dominants. These are central (tonal) musical dynamics that pop up everywhere and applied in various other contexts. They are very practical and very easily "hearable" theory concepts.
The first one on the other hand to me describes more isolated rules. Yes it might be easier to acquire and apply for someone completely new to music theory. But I think a little bit of investment in studying some basic theory (1/10000 of the time needed to master jazz) pays off in the end.
If you've already studied some theory as many people on this thread have I believe, doesn't it make BH concepts more readily relatable to view them in terms of the more conventional understanding of music?

[pcjazz]

To me the second one describes the device using more broadly applicable principles. It's based on chord function, substitution, expansion of harmony within a key with secondary dominants. These are central (tonal) musical dynamics that pop up everywhere and applied in various other contexts. They are very practical and very easily "hearable" theory concepts.
The first one on the other hand to me describes more isolated rules. Yes it might be easier to acquire and apply for someone completely new to music theory. But I think a little bit of investment in studying some basic theory (1/10000 of the time needed to master jazz) pays off in the end.
If you've already studied some theory as many people on this thread have I believe, doesn't it make BH concepts more readily relatable to view them in terms of the more conventional understanding of music?

I had a quarter century of exposure to what you refer to as theory before encountering BH and frankly I found it pretty useless in understanding how to generate pleasing sounds from the instrument. I had to unlearn quite a lot of it in order to make use of Barry’s teachings and even now, after more than fifteen years of trying to think like him, I still sometimes stumble over a conventional theory obstacle. But I do manage to squeeze some pleasing sounds from the box when I use his tools and that’s enough for me. If you haven’t already read it you might find David Berkman’s Jazz Theory Book helpful in sorting out the relative strengths and limitations of the two approaches.

[Tal_175]

I had a quarter century of exposure to what you refer to as theory before encountering BH and frankly I found it pretty useless in understanding how to generate pleasing sounds from the instrument. I had to unlearn quite a lot of it in order to make use of Barry’s teachings and even now, after more than fifteen years of trying to think like him, I still sometimes stumble over a conventional theory obstacle. But I do manage to squeeze some pleasing sounds from the box when I use his tools and that’s enough for me. If you haven’t already read it you might find David Berkman’s Jazz Theory Book helpful in sorting out the relative strengths and limitations of the two approaches.

Yeah I have the book. There is actually a nice article by him that's the shorter version of the related chapter in the book that you're referring to published in Downbeat. Page 78 if anyone is interested:
http://www.downbeat.com/digitalediti...art/DB1509.pdf

[Tal_175]

As I said, I like the tools Barry Harris provides. I benefited from them and still do. I'm not disagreeing with their pleasing sound making potential. But my point is they are perfectly explicable using the standard theory. I think it would make BH concepts more readily digestible and accessible to wider music community to talk about them in terms of more generally understood theory.
I see the benefits of his material, I just don't see anything that's lost in translation when they are discussed in the more conventional ways.

[pcjazz]

Yeah I have the book. There is actually a nice article by him that's the shorter version of the related chapter in the book that you're referring to published in Downbeat. Page 78 if anyone is interested:
http://www.downbeat.com/digitalediti...art/DB1509.pdf

I think the Downbeat article supports my point. He works through Barry's idea of running a scale of 6-dim chords borrowing one or two notes from the next chord in the scale. At example 5 he names the resulting chords according to conventional theory. Where Barry would say at each step, "borrow the top note from the next chord then resolve it", conventional theory names the chords as C6sus4, AbdimM7/D, AmM7/E, Bm7b5/F, CM7/G, Dm7b5/Ab, Em11/A and FdimM7/B.

First point: Barry's method and nomenclature is way simpler and more easily graspable than the conventional one.

Second point: Barry's method tells you how to generate and use these sounds. The conventional method doesn't.

Sure, as Berkman shows, it is possible (having first generated the sounds as Barry shows) to rename them in conventional terms. But it is far from clear that there is any utility in doing so. As Berkman says in the article, you don't need to memorize these unusual chord qualities because, using Barry's ideas, you can simply generate them on the fly.

[Tal_175]

I think the Downbeat article supports my point. He works through Barry's idea of running a scale of 6-dim chords borrowing one or two notes from the next chord in the scale. At example 5 he names the resulting chords according to conventional theory. Where Barry would say at each step, "borrow the top note from the next chord then resolve it", conventional theory names the chords as C6sus4, AbdimM7/D, AmM7/E, Bm7b5/F, CM7/G, Dm7b5/Ab, Em11/A and FdimM7/B.

First point: Barry's method and nomenclature is way simpler and more easily graspable than the conventional one.

Second point: Barry's method tells you how to generate and use these sounds. The conventional method doesn't.

Sure, as Berkman shows, it is possible (having first generated the sounds as Barry shows) to rename them in conventional terms. But it is far from clear that there is any utility in doing so. As Berkman says in the article, you don't need to memorize these unusual chord qualities because, using Barry's ideas, you can simply generate them on the fly.

I do agree that borrowing from the diminished concept is elegant. In fact seeing maj7 as a maj6 and a borrowed diminished was a great revelation for me. Seeing maj6 as consonant, almost triadic form and added natural 7th as a bit of tension explains how I heard maj 7 chords all along. But there are many other aspects of BH tools that I believe conventional theory provides more satisfying model to base things on. My post above was one such example in my opinion. Also borrowing from the diminished is easily understood concept even when looking at it from the stand point of the standard theory without the introduction of for example 6dim scales.

[joe2758]

It separates the wheat from the chaff for a particular style. The benefit being we can spend more time practicing and less time studying if this is the style we want to pursue. Otherwise, of course, you can never know too much. It can never hurt, but it might not necessarily help

[christianm77]

The main problem is that chord symbols are shit (necessary evil, but shit), and modern jazz theory is obsessed with them.

[joe2758]

The main problem is that chord symbols are shit (necessary evil, but shit), and modern jazz theory is obsessed with them.

do a jazz guitar scrapbook on this

[christianm77]

do a jazz guitar scrapbook on this

Yeah maybe.

[Petimar]

The main problem is that chord symbols are shit (necessary evil, but shit), and modern jazz theory is obsessed with them.

There has to be some written way to describe chord sounds. Have you run across a better way of using symbols to describe chords that the so called standard way?

[A. Kingstone]

Music is movement not chords.
-BH

[christianm77]

There has to be some written way to describe chord sounds. Have you run across a better way of using symbols to describe chords that the so called standard way?

No I don't think such a system would be worth promoting even if I did have one in mind. Chord symbols are a limited and annoying system but they are what we are stuck with. What I would promote is a healthy disrespect for them. (I mean, I quite like figured bass, but I am mental.)

Use them to communicate what is necessary, no more. So we can write out a simple version of a song that can be used for embellishment, or a more complex version, or obviously use staff notation where it would be easier to do so.

But at no point should any jazz musician imagine that any published chords for a song represent more than an imperfect rendering of one version of the harmony for the song, a cheat sheet at best. This stuff has gotten out of hand.

I don't have the scholarship to know for sure, but I would hazard I guess at the history of chord symbols to be that they originated as a very simple aide memoire - so like the verbal description you might make of a standard - 'oh yeah it's C, then E7, then A7, then Dm' - just basic chord colours. The rest is left up to your ears and taste.

Where the chords started picking up extensions would have been in the big band charts. Some arrangers for reasons I can't really fathom (these are swing charts where you are expected to play straight 4s) put the horn parts into the upper extensions of the chord symbols. This extends the system.

So later, you get the Real Book. The RB is written by musicians versed in chord scale theory, so they look at something like Chelsea Bridge and write out the chords, say Bbm(maj7) Abm(maj7), perhaps Ebm9, Ab13 - to reflect the notes in the melody. This is important to these guys because that chord symbol dictates which chord scale to use, whereas in the old days a piano or guitar would lay down a shell voicing and leave you a bit of room. (In fact Basie used to leave the 7th out of a IV7 chord and instead play a 6th to allow the soloist to improvise diatonically over the chord if they wished.)

But the RB is still inconsistent in using chord symbols this way even in the present edition - the older simpler approach prevailed at least a little. Today's charts - such as found in the New Real Book - fastidiously honour the melody notes in the chord chart.

Now there's nothing 'wrong' with any of this, but notice how the usage of chord symbols varies - from a simple sketch of the harmony of the song, to a style of symbol that integrates the melody and chord together into some chord/scale relationship. You don't have to know the melody, because the chart tells you which extensions to include to avoid clashing with it. However the same template is used for soloing - so if you see a 7#11 in the chart, you play the requisite 7#11 notes, never mind the function of that chord.

That's what I mean when I say jazz has become the study of chord symbols.

It's also a notation that presents a very vertical approach to jazz harmony. Each chord is an island. This is needless to say anathema to Barry's approach, and indeed the music of that period. 40s, 50s and 60s jazz musicians were not thinking in chord symbols in this way. Most of the old guys seem to have thought in straightforward basic functions.

Now you have iRealB which many musicians use on gigs - the song has become the chord symbols...

You know, people find it odd that Joe Pass couldn't or wouldn't name the chords he was playing beyond - that's a G7 - but I totally get it. I play loads of chords that I don't have a good symbol for, and it's all straight-ahead jazz stuff.

In the same way as we Barry students play on an F7 chord, but what comes out is all sorts of related harmony and melody, related by the chords, triads and arpeggios of the scale, the added notes, the intervals, the lower neighbours, surrounds, 5-4-3-2-1 phrases, the brothers and sisters, and so on. At no point do we really think about whether we are playing b9 or #whatever over what chord, because we are having way too much fun making good sounding jazz music.

Jazz is a decorative art. You can't decorate if someones done the place up for you.

[christianm77]

Music is movement not chords.
-BH

But he got that quote from Coleman Hawkins, no?

[A. Kingstone]

But he got that quote from Coleman Hawkins, no?

Indeed. He borrows stuff unabashedly.

[Petimar]

1. Are there any rules or guidelines that BH has for using chromatics on ascending lines? It can't always be triads/chords up -- scales down. I know I hear the odd chromatic tone on a ascending line.

I found a place where Red Garland plays against a C7 chord the notes D D# E C C# D Bb B C as all eighth notes and I do remember transcribing a Parker lick (sorry don't remember the tune) where he did the same. So my mistake in saying he didn't play chromatic ascending phrases!!!

[Squirrel]

Hey there thanks for leaving all these amazing resources. I had to edit this post because the Sucuri web protection is blocking my ability to reply from all my browsers and devices.

Basically, A. Kingstone was wonderful enough to post for me the Drop 2 voicings. But I can't understand how the heck to get my 2nd and 3rd fingers to spread wide enough to hit the notes. Is there a standard practice guitar players use to get those fingers to stretch, or is there some trick I should know about? I'm a new player, though I can play Barry Harris movements fairly well on piano and trumpet. Even this first chord seems impossible for my 2nd and 3rd fingers to stretch across the fret:

Here is the message that A. Kingstone has just posted:
***************
Middle 4 Strings - Drop 2

1- CGAE
2314

2 - Same
3 - Same
4 - Same
5 - Same
b6 - Same
6 - AEDC
1312
7 - 2314
***************

[A. Kingstone]

Middle 4 Strings - Drop 2

1- CGAE
....2314

2 - Same
3 - Same
4 - Same
5 - Same
b6 - Same
6 - AEGC
.....1312
7 - 2314

[A. Kingstone]

That stretch is the toughest of all . Try Drop 2 - Middle 4 Strings higher up, say F6 or G6.


This is easier - F6o Drop 2 - Top 4 Strings

1- FCDA
....1324

ALL Diminished Shapes 1324

[pcjazz]

Tough stretch but your hand will adapt with practice.