Official Barry Harris Thread

[AllanAllen]

Now try this on a quick change blues in C. Blues is always a good vehicle to try out substitutions. Go up (or down) inversions (use quarters notes here for simplicity) C7 (or C6 for a different color) -> Do -> C7 (resp. C6) -> Do; now in the scond bar (quick change) play over the F7: Cm6 -> Do -> Cm6 -> Do; third bar back to C7 resp. C6. Sing the roots C and F along. You for sure no that sound. You use the same diminished passing chord and for the main chords you only change one or two notes chromatically. Already less vanilla.

I hear Blue Monk, and I want to learn more. Thanks

[Tal_175]

If the following sounds like you, Barry Harris's teachings is one of the approaches that you can benefit from IMO:

- You can play harmonically organized solos using chord tones, guide tones, appropriate extensions but it sounds like you're playing an etude.
- You can noodle 8th note lines and sound closer to playing bebop but when you do that you're just imitating the sounds you hear in the records and trying to adjust by ear with hit and miss results and often get lost as you're not present in the form or the harmony.
- You can comp with a limited chordal vocabulary but you have no idea how to create those more fluid, moving comping textures.

In other words you need to learn more vocabulary (both chordal and single notes). Like Christian said, a lot of people don't go all in on the BH stuff. They learn the basic pedagogical commitments of the approach and maybe translate some of the concepts to how they think about music. There are other approaches but I think all the good approaches align along the fundamental truths about the process.

[pamosmusic]

If the following sounds like you, Barry Harris's teachings is one of the approaches that you can benefit from:

- You can play harmonically organized solos using chord tones, guide tones, appropriate extensions but it sounds like you're playing an etude.
- You can noodle 8th note lines and sound closer to playing bebop but when you do that you're just imitating the sounds you hear in the records and trying to adjust by ear with hit and miss results and often get lost as you're not present in the form or the harmony.
- You can comp with a limited chordal vocabulary but you have no idea how to create those more fluid, moving comping textures.

get out of my head.

[mr. beaumont]

All you gotta do is learn the "chord section" to a Wes Montgomery solo to know this stuff is worth learning

[bediles]

All you gotta do is learn the "chord section" to a Wes Montgomery solo to know this stuff is worth learning

I always tell folks to learn No Blues and Gone With The Wind to get the essence of the Wes thing.

Maybe not exactly the BH thing, but I will try not to be the pedant here (however it may a prereq for the forum)

[bediles]

I spent about twenty years trying to learn to play jazz the shit way, and then I saw the light. Hallelujah!

Well I’m half joking?

SERIOUSLY - I think Joel summed it up well elsewhere. Many musos have taken what they need from Barry, and not necessarily hung around to learn everything. Fwiw I think that’s what I’ve done myself. But I would say if there’s a better way to go from scales to real jazz language I don’t know what it is. You are right that Baker has some similarities, but I would say that Barry’s teaching system has some clear advantages to the student in the way it is organised and is more open ended.

It’s thanks to this teaching approach working on relatively small amount of practical info that I can say with realistic confidence - yes I can play bop. I mean I’m not Pasquale Grasso obviously, but I’m very comfortable at least in that sort of playing situation that can intimidate many players. So I would recommend if that’s something you feel that you want and need to get together and emphasise that it is learnable.

I think if you want to learn straightahead jazz or bop chord scale theory is somewhere between a total waste of time and slightly helpful sometimes - it’s descriptive of small amount of stuff that could also be understood in a different way.

(It’s certainly not what I would start with day one, let me put it that way.)

If you want to learn post-Berklee jazz (why do people never call it that haha) I think a thorough understanding of it is necessary. People like Kurt Rosenwinkel very much apply CST quite transparently.

(Post bop OTOH is an interesting sort of transition, where a lot of chord scale theory is kind of being worked out and there are big variations between players. You also have other historical approaches like Tristano and Russell.)

For the former II V licks and language will get you a long way - and that’s what I began doing in earnest when I realised how effective it was. It’s taught everywhere including Berklee

what Barry does is allow you to go beyond licks. But it was transcribing bebop that led me there. I was actually doing more the Tristano* thing before, but gravitated towards Barry. If I’d transcribed different stuff I may have gone on a different direction. For instance atm I’m transcribing Holdsworth and it’s perverse not to use chord scale theory for that because he told us that’s how he did it (although his approach has somethings strikingly in common with Barry’s…)

Use the best tools you can find for the job. A job that needs a wrench will not suit a hammer etc.

PS: in the Classical theory world there’s a similar debate around Roman numerals and functional analysis as opposed to historical figured bass and so on. You get your hardcore people on both sides but most sensible people seem to know both and use whatever seems apt. Im gravitating towards that more myself… I used to be more partisan.

*another historical scale based approach. From what I’ve been able to find out I credit Tristano with the theoretical formulation of melodic minor harmony in the late 40s btw. Kurt is apparently a huge Tristano fan, unlike Elvis or Jimmy Raney.

I agree with you, bebop is a particular language that you dont need 28 modes for (maybe 6, or none at all), glad you found the thing that worked for you. I'm all for continuing to explore things even if maybe it's not the most effective use of your practice time and the BH improv system is pretty elegant. However, the added note licks and rules and what have you was like 1st or 2nd year impov class, I can't remember exactly when. Maybe not exactly the way that BH presents it but it was definitely not plug and play CST and enough to codify bebop line construction and make sense of what we were hearing or whatever... if you need to codify things (some don't). It definitely helped me. That's why I asked about Pamo's prior training as I assume some of this would have been covered.

Hehe, I don't know why I've decided to come to the BH thread and start mouthing off the converted, maybe my own ego, who knows??? But yeah, there's an element of messianism amongst some of you guys IMO... Many roads lead to Rome.

[Christian Miller]

I always tell folks to learn No Blues and Gone With The Wind to get the essence of the Wes thing.

Maybe not exactly the BH thing, but I will try not to be the pedant here (however it may a prereq for the forum)

(It might be worth saying that Barry never claimed to have invented block chords/mechanical voicings. They predate him.)

[Christian Miller]

I agree with you, bebop is a particular language that you dont need 28 modes for (maybe 6, or none at all), glad you found the thing that worked for you. I'm all for continuing to explore things even if maybe it's not the most effective use of your practice time and the BH improv system is pretty elegant. However, the added note licks and rules and what have you was like 1st or 2nd year impov class, I can't remember exactly when. Maybe not exactly the way that BH presents it but it was definitely not plug and play CST and enough to codify bebop line construction and make sense of what we were hearing or whatever... if you need to codify things (some don't). It definitely helped me. That's why I asked about Pamo's prior training as I assume some of this would have been covered.

Hehe, I don't know why I've decided to come to the BH thread and start mouthing off the converted, maybe my own ego, who knows??? But yeah, there's an element of messianism amongst some of you guys IMO... Many roads lead to Rome.

oh people usually settle down. I was quite evangelical for the first few years…

ultimately all I can say is studying this approach was helpful. The unfamiliarity of the terminology can make it a little harder to access, but it is used consistently and precisely once you’ve learned it.

[Navdeep_Singh]

Kurt Rosenwinkel just posted on his FB page: “ it’s always interesting, the diminished chord expresses the functionality of a dominant, and when you see a diminished chord because you ask yourself when you see it which dominant is it expressing?”. As Barry people, we know the answer. It could be one of four, lol.

[Navdeep_Singh]

The tried to bury us, but we were Barry People, who already had the seed planted within us, from the known universe, and the known universe, ie., the diminished scale, allowed us to play freely with our Brothers and Sisters, without a care in the world.

[Liarspoker]

Kurt Rosenwinkel just posted on his FB page: “ it’s always interesting, the diminished chord expresses the functionality of a dominant, and when you see a diminished chord because you ask yourself when you see it which dominant is it expressing?”. As Barry people, we know the answer. It could be one of four, lol.

No idea about Barry Harris concepts but I have grown to love diminished chords.

Add a b9 to a dominant and drop the root, viola, instant diminished!

[Bop Head]

I hear Blue Monk, and I want to learn more. Thanks

I do not know where you hear Blue Monk in my example (If I got you right) as it is based on the major 3rd chromatically up to natural 5th cliché. In my example the line (no matter in which voice) goes min or maj 3rd, 4, 5 regarding the key ...

In Alan K.'s book those clichés are one of two so called "Monk moves" IIRC. Monk did not invent them. Think e.g. "Basin Street Blues".

[AllanAllen]

You don't hear Blue Monk in this?

[AllanAllen]

I can’t tell if you agree or not.

[Tal_175]

What are the odds that Monk learned those moves from Freddie Green?

[Christian Miller]

(the chorus)

[Bop Head]

You don't hear Blue Monk in this?

No, because you are not going chromatically from the third to the fifth; the sharp four/flat five between four and five is missing for the complete Monk move.

[Bop Head]

Stream Monk Moves Cycle by AJK | Listen online for free on SoundCloud
Attachment 107171

I like to harmonize the 3-to-5 Monk move I7 IIm7 bIIIo I7/3. I think I got that from Mickey Baker 30 years ago.

[A. Kingstone]

I like to harmonize the 3-to-5 Monk move I7 IIm7 bIIIo I7/3. I think I got that from Mickey Baker 30 years ago.

I'm too lazy to play all that.

[Bop Head]

I'm too lazy to play all that.

It's almost the same as you do except for the second chord being a min7 shell voicing.

[A. Kingstone]

It's almost the same as you do except for the second chord being a min7 shell voicing.

I kinda like the Important Minor sound in my example but I'll give Mickey's suggestion a try.

[AllanAllen]

No, because you are not going chromatically from the third to the fifth; the sharp four/flat five between four and five is missing for the complete Monk move.

You can’t hear it because it’s not exactly perfect? I’m done. This is not conducive to learning.

[Bop Head]

You can’t hear it because it’s not exactly perfect? I’m done. This is not conducive to learning.

It has nothing to do with "not exactly perfect", it is a different thing. The 3-to-5 Monk move is a chromatic cliché. That (blue) note between 4 and 5 is fundamental.

Do you hear Blue Monk in Till There Was You as well? Because the melody goes up diatonically 3 4 5 as well ...

Error: Check network connection status.
Open in Google Translate

[Bop Head]

This is another example for 3 to 5 chromatically ("Pardon me boy")

[pamosmusic]

Sometimes specificity, context, and high standards are pretty good for learning, actually.