-
The Jazz studies I am following has me starting out with a vertical approach to improvising. The instructor, along with others, feels this is the way many of the great Bebop players approached improvisation and I am taking them at their word.
Others teach a more horizontal approach.
Do you have any thoughts on this topic? Its seems to be very important to forming one's vision of the fretboard.
-
02-15-2017 09:38 AM
-
No, I disagree, Bebop is not really vertical. It's sort of a bit vertical when it wants to be. But it's less vertical I would say than Bach, and his music is perhaps for me the 50/50 balance between the two.
I would actually describe many modern CST oriented approaches as more vertical than bebop.
Really all intelligent line construction in changes jazz is based around a balance of vertical and horizontal considerations. Here are a few things I've learned about bop:
(By bop players I refer to Charlie Parker, Bud Powell who are the main guys I have transcribed - some second generation players might be different)
1) Bop players don't articulate every chord change, but deal in a mix of simpler material with clusters of highly descriptive detail. If they only ever played the former, it would be boring and noodling, if they only ever played the latter, it would be relentless changes running with no relief.
Bop blowing harmony is in fact somewhat abstracted. For example, we strip rhythm changes down to:
I V7 I V7 I7 IV7 I V7
While some heads do indeed run these simple changes, of course most bop lines treat the V7 as 'conceptual' and feature interesting substitutes such as tritone, bVII, backdoor and so on.
2) Bop players in common with swing era players don't ascribe too much importance to the vertical ramifications of passing chords. For instance, these progressions are seen as basically interchangeable, even though if some of these passing chords between IV and I are problematic from the point of view of vertical analysis (for instance F#o7 over Fm6?) There purpose is dynamic - to get into the next chord.
IV | I
IV IVm6 | I
IV bVII7 | I
IV #IVo7 | I
IV bVI | I
IIm bIIIm (or o7) | IIIm
IV #VIm7b5 VIII7b9 | IIIm
etc etc etc
Taking me a while to get my head around this as I always like Steve Coleman's term 'invisible paths' - taking a different root from a place to a destination. In this case going IV-I. So it's a horizontal path from vertical relationship to vertical relationship, if that makes any sense. Reg's term tonal target also rings true.
Experienced improvisers can widen the gap between the start and destination and make the parts extra circuitous and winding, which leads to what is commonly called 'outside playing.'
3) Bop players don't give a shit about upper extensions as written. They are all up for grabs. Furthermore, all major ii-V's can be turned into minor ii-V's
4) To me bop improvisation is a rhythmic realisation of the chord changes into melody - BUT - Parker's lines do show some evidence of using melodic improvisation. To my ears, many of his heads reference the original melody. Also he was a master of quotation. The most obvious example of this is his near obsessive use of the Honeysuckle Rose melody as a motif. Also famous is his use of Alfonse Picout's High Society solo as a motif, so Parker had deep roots into the earlier music.
5) ) Lastly, Barry Harris teaches out of scales, which surprised me after years of being told 'bop is vertical changes running.'
TL
R
Bop players are very relaxed about vertical clashes in their playing provided the line leads strongly into a rhythmically accented chord tone of some time.
Therefore, I don't think it can be called 'vertical.'Last edited by christianm77; 02-15-2017 at 10:54 AM.
-
Thanks, christian.
I wanted to hear from another experienced voice on this topic and get another perspective. I can see where you are coming from.
I have watched several players who come from the Bebop / Hard Bop days and to my eyes, they seem to play a lot of horizontal lines that cover at least two positions.
This has got me wondering about the assertions people make about the vertical nature of early playing. I realize there are no absolutes, but it really seems the traditional players I like were horizontal players more than vertical.
-
Let me just be clear about my reference points.
Vertical
The study of music at a particular instant of time. So a vertical relationship between a set of notes (for example F# A and D) related to a chord (Cmaj7) in accompaniment gives a vertical analysis - (#11 13 9 US of chord, prevailing C lydian modality, bitonality around C and D, use of the overtone spectrum etc)
Horizontal
The study of how music moves through time, including voice leading relationships in chords, directionality in harmony, rhythm and so on.
A horizontal understanding of harmony would point out that a II V I doesn't have the same sense as a I V II. In this sense, theories of
functional harmony are horizontal as well as vertical.
Descriptive
Descriptive lines contain many leaps, and, usually in the case of bop, outline an arpeggio. In fact even an interval is enough to describe a chord progression if used in the right way, take line cliches and diatonic thirds and sixths for example.
So, to my mind bebop (and jazz!) improvisation is highly descriptive, is only selectively vertical and highly horizontal.
It is my understanding that experienced improvisers all *get* this to some extent, whether they use CST or chord tone approaches or whatever.
HOWEVER - this is a big but. If you are an inexperienced improvisor, you probably do need to concern yourself with getting really good at vertical & descriptive realisation of the chords until you have this intuitively together. Then, you are in a position to relax and start to construct lines through the tune. So I am not quibbling with your teachers advice.
BTW I count myself as inexperienced on any new tune BTW - if it's a new tune I will always go back to the chord tones to start.Last edited by christianm77; 02-15-2017 at 11:36 AM.
-
don't think you guys are using the same definition of vertical and horizontal?
-
This occurred to me - see above.
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Early players (i.e pre bop) to my ears have three main three categories of improvising technique: Originally Posted by AlsoRan
- Harmony improv, playing out of chords
- Melody improv, coming from the older style of improvisation on embellished melody
- Blues improv
Guys obviously mixed it up, but most tended to lean one way or the other.
-
NB: I realise that while my answer is correct to the best of my knowledge from an academic viewpoint, it may not be the most useful advice for YOU.
I tell all my students to shed chord tones and scales over the progressions, strictly.
learning to play bebop is a bit like learning to write counterpoint. When you study Bach you realise he broke the 'rules' you are told when you are given counterpoint exercises. Why?
he's allowed, you are not
You are not allowed to break the rules, at least until you have attained intuitive mastery of all basic building blocks and can move on.
Shed your arpeggios like a good student! :-)
-
Things get a little crazy when you start talking about how players think. In my mind, that's largely what this kind of discussion can be. Many players talk about forward harmonic/melodic motion and movement in a horizontal way, while others describe the same type of movement using terminology of very fast subs. Depends on the specific style as well I guess.
Once you get to the point where you're covering a lot of harmony in a very short time, over what would otherwise be pretty simple changes, that's going to sound like horizontal playing to most of us I think. But the player may be thinking something very different. You start to get into philosophical semantic bs at some point. There's not really a clear line between vertical horizontal in much of jazz anyway. Things don't always line up rhythmically, even if the vertical references are the same.
-
Great question. I want to give this some thought and come up with a clear concise answer for you. Originally Posted by AlsoRan
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
As always terms have to be understood and agreed upon. I am out in left field on this one, christian. Originally Posted by christianm77
I will go back to my sources and see where they are coming from. My impression was that they meant vertical and horizontal in terms of position playing. For example, improvise in position one, picturing all the tones/notes in that particular fingering and then maybe move to position four and improvise primarily out of that area.
I am going to have to read your post a little later when I am ready to cram more info into the brain so I can get a distinct understanding of where you are coming from.
-
OK. I kept it simple and I can see some of your thinking. Being an advanced player as you have shown, I can see some of the ways you frame your improvisational thinking. As Matt says, you are expressing what is going on in your mind in words, which can be difficult. Originally Posted by christianm77
But it is a revelation to me to see the various factors that you key in on as the chords change through a song. I am going to keep things simple for myself for now, but I can see the myriad ways that one can approach a Jazz song goes beyond what I thought I knew.
Thanks.
-
christianm77,
Your description of vertical thinking:
Vertical
The study of music at a particular instant of time. So a vertical relationship between a set of notes (for example F# A and D) related to a chord (Cmaj7) in accompaniment gives a vertical analysis - (#11 13 9 US of chord, prevailing C lydian modality, bitonality around C and D, use of the overtone spectrum etc)
...is right in line with what that of my sources, which is basically looking at the chord tones of the present chord in a progression, and approaching them in different ways, for example chromatically, diatonically, etc...
I obviously glossed over this concept in my studies and came away with the wrong meaning. You have righted the ship, however.
Still, getting back to my question, you feel (if I got this right) that Beboppers used as much horizontal thinking, maybe even more than vertical. And by this, I mean the voice leading and rhythmic movement that make for those nice long lines they are known for.
Thanks for clearing this up.
-
True, but we are always in the process of 'reverse engineering' people's music in jazz. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
But with swing and bop my intuition just SCREAMS that these guys weren't in the business of micromanaging vertical relationships in chord progressions. They were playing melodic lines over chord progressions that themselves were descriptive of directional harmony and voice leadings, but not necessarily the same directional harmony and voice leading as found in the accompaniment!
Now we could talk about the vertical relationship between Parker, say playing an Ebm6 arpeggio on an Eo7 all day and I daresay someone on this forum might have the appetite to do it. But the important thing about both of these chords is that they involved common chromatic voice leading between Eb and Bb.
While there is no clear vertical relationship (to my mind at least, and I know a fair bit of theory.)
This use to confuse me utterly until I realised - bebop is not vertical in that way.
I have pretty strong anecdotal evidence that kind of backs up this interpretation of what we find on records.
I mean if you spend any time playing swing music this stuff is absolutely obvious where so much of the harmony is based around common tone diminished chords (III-bIIIo7-IIm, IV-#IVo7-I etc) rather than the ii-V's of modern jazz theory.
One of the first things to hip me to this was Jonathon Stout's blog. What he didn't mention is that these swing era practices are continued into the bebop era (and beyond) in the melodic lines. Once I saw it, I was like, 'OH'.
In the words of Coleman Hawkins (oft quoted by Barry Harris) 'I don't play chords, I play movement.'
Furthermore from a playing point of view the things that get an 'Ooooh' type of reaction in the listener are often things that are vertically 'wrong' but resolve with a rhythmic and harmonic vengeance in exactly the right spot. It's a mistake IMO to attribute the hipness of this type of phrase to what's going on with the dissonance and analyse that as some vertical relationship - it's more important to understand how it is resolved and when.
In this respect there is really no difference between modal inside/outside playing and bebop changes playing.
No it's not semantics. There is a profound cognitive difference between micromanaging vertical relationships between an improvised line and letting the line take its own shape intuitively and musically without worrying about the vertical aspect and trusting it to work. It's something I'm just beginning to feel and get into when playing.Once you get to the point where you're covering a lot of harmony in a very short time, over what would otherwise be pretty simple changes, that's going to sound like horizontal playing to most of us I think. But the player may be thinking something very different. You start to get into philosophical semantic bs at some point. There's not really a clear line between vertical horizontal in much of jazz anyway. Things don't always line up rhythmically, even if the vertical references are the same.
That said, without a thorough grasp of the harmonic structure of a tune, this would just be noodling, so to speak. Learn it inside out.
'Forget all that shit and just play' I guess.Last edited by christianm77; 02-15-2017 at 01:00 PM.
-
Sorry. Guess I missed the "bebop" part of the o.p. I would have assumed horizontal is standard bebop approach, while the opposite seems to be what he says is used by the teacher?...
-
Why should it be one or the other? Use whatever sounds best. Originally Posted by AlsoRan
-
If we're going by Christian's definitions, I'd definitely say situation, tune, progression, tempo, all of those things would influence approach, and I definitely use both depending on those things.
-
It is now clear that more advanced guitarist use both approaches and more depending on context. It was foolish of me to think a more advanced person would lean on one method more than another, or even be aware that they might be doing it. Originally Posted by ragman1
My question is more complicated than I thought since context, personal taste, experience level of the improvisor, and a bunch of other factors would affect the final answer - as it is with so many things in life. So many things are not cut and dry.
As for me, I will stick with the path laid out for me, which for now, is the vertical approach, and take it from there.
-
Just to make clear, this thread is discussing bebop. By bebop I understand to mean 'the music of Charlie Parker and those directly influenced by him.'
(That said in general I like the concept of playing I have outlined, but I do sometimes like to articulate chords in a very vertical way using perhaps CST. It's a flavour.)
If we widen the scope of the discussion it becomes 'well I do x' to which the only reasonable response is 'well OK then, cool.'
In terms of learning to play, it's helpful to many to have a stylistic model to follow. At some point, this model has to left behind, but that doesn't mean that it's not useful to start off with any more than it means you have to spend all your time slavishly imitating someone from the past.Last edited by christianm77; 02-15-2017 at 02:25 PM.
-
This has been a great lesson in Jazz Analysis and the "lingo."
-
TBH I think a lot of those 'funny notes' we see in bebop - for instance the Ebm6 on Eo7 example I gave - come simply from the fact that musicians of this era played progressions like I-IV-I so much that they amassed a huge wealth of lines that worked in that context.
Now when playing at 240 BPM + on a Rhythm tune or a Blues etc, the likelyhood is that the brain is not interfering and the actual pitch level of the playing is completely on autopilot. What is important is sheer flow. So naturally, what happens is some of the lines that are a bit 'wrong' pop up. Improvisers might not even realise they are doing it, especially if they are focussing on the overall shape and rhythm of their phrases.
If they do realise it, they understand they can get away with a generalised idea of the harmony.
So it's not a concept even, necessarily, it's just having the confidence to say 'well it might not be right harmonically, but who cares?'Last edited by christianm77; 02-15-2017 at 02:31 PM.
-
My question to you is : by vertical and horizontal do you mean harmonically and melodically or do you mean physically on the guitar ? I know that the Berklee books and Jimmy Bruno suggest playing scales, modes etc vertically. i.e. From the sixth string to the first. Whereas the Mick Goodrick approach and George Van Eps approach is more horizontally based. Originally Posted by AlsoRan
The vertical approach to my mind implies a more harmonic approach by its very nature. You are "seeing" scales within chord shapes and vice versa. A horizontal approach is more like "seeing" the fretboard like a piano. I think that this lends itself to more melodic playing.
I could elaborate more but I want to make sure that I am understanding your question.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I originally thought horizontal and vertical was in regard to physical orientation on the guitar. I had to go back and visit my course materials and I discovered it meant an approach to improvising. I understand now what was meant. Thanks for trying to help a fellow out. Originally Posted by Doublea A
-
I'd never heard of the notion of vertical vs. horizontal approaches until the last few years.
None of my teachers ever used that terminology. Frankly, I'm not sure I really understand how to differentiate them.
But, I have the vague notion that one approach sort of considers a scale for each chord, taking them one at a time, whereas the other is concerned more with melody going across chord changes. (I just got that from google). Obviously, these things shade into each other in every possible way.
The music I like, I think, is primarily horizontal. It's all about melody. I do not find myself gravitating towards players who take a melodic cell, like 1 2 3 5 (to give a common example) and cycle it through chord changes.
But, sometimes, all I'm doing in a solo is trying to avoid obvious clams. For that, there's nothing as helpful as knowing the chord tones and scale that will work.
-
Part of Parker's intutive genius was how he so deftly managed to combine the harmonic exactitude of Coleman Hawkins' approach with the more digressive quality found in Lester Young's solos. It would be simplistic to say one is vertical and the horizontal but as a friend of mine used to say, "there isn't a pigeonhole with at least a grain of truth inside it". Originally Posted by christianm77
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos