-
Out of curiosity I opened the Charlie Parker Omnibook at random and in a passage of 8 bars he put non-1,3,5,7 tones on the downbeat 8 times. (i.e. he used 2nds, 4ths and 6ths). So 25% were not 'chord tones' if we only count 1,3,5,7. Doesn't really surprise me, I've always heard this sort of thing going on in Parker's solos.
Originally Posted by Richard Luther
-
05-16-2017 05:01 PM
-
I don't know if that's me. I'm not really seasons, knowledgeable , a player or anything else . But I did consider the conversation to be ongoing . I don't see any reason to talk about it in the third person , or more directly about other PEOPLE in the third person. Originally Posted by Richard Luther
Seriously, read his other books first.
-
Not you. But unfortunately people being people the tendency toward vibing does happen on this forum...from the usual suspects.
Jazz players are like nurses sometimes...we eat our young.
It's a shame because there's so few of us. I did it when I was young. Human nature I guess.
I expected in the Marine Corps, not so helpful in art.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Does anyone actually give a f**k about all these statistics?
I just do melodically what my ears tell me my musical heroes did. I don't do a frequency analysis first.
No doubt these 'rules' do help someone starting out. But eventually you need to go beyond that.
-
Not a new subject on this forum. A younger Matt Warnock even chimed in.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Rea llygo odjazz
Really good jazz
It's not a matter of not giving a f*^k, and playing what your ears tell you is melodic, it's a matter of placement.
Melodically rea llygo odjazz contain all the same melodic information as really good jazz.
One sounds authentic to the language the other off.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
But again, it's not a "rule". The real rule is more something like " all great players do this a lot and know how to do it. It's an important part of playing, and you should be able to do it. Work on it , and learn it as one aspect of playing, among many ." Originally Posted by grahambop
That's a "rule" I could live with, but it's not really a "rule".
-
Sorry not quite following you there. I agree that placement of the notes is important too. Anyway have a look at post 51, coincidentally I did do a quick check on the Omnibook just before you asked about it. Originally Posted by Richard Luther
-
[QUOTE/]
So, if one pays close attention, this book can provide a way forward to stronger more cohesive improv lines. It also offers an excellent alternative tool for analysis of solos, and Galper encourages the reader to go back and re-analyze famous solos from this different perspective. How do the notes stack up if we look at them as pointing to certain future notes rather than merely looking at them in the vertical context of the chord listed for that beat or measure? That Parker solo with complex chromatic alterations on each chord, might actually be one long line headed for a target note 2 measures in the future! No wonder Parker was known to tell his pianists "don't follow me, just stay with the changes, and it will come together."
To sum this up simply, I would say that Galper asks us to think of improvisation the way it was historically applied: Melody plus Embellishment. He shows us a modern twist where we derive our own strong half note melodies using the guide tones from the changes (or from superimposed chords) and then embellish them with varying degrees of chromaticism. He then shows us how to change our hearing so that we present our embellishment lines pointing strongly TO those future target notes, rather than crafting lines that merely trail AWAY from target notes in consonance with whatever chord of the moment. The more I think about this stuff in relation to the solos of the bebop greats, the more I think that Galper really is presenting a more realistic version of how bebop evolved into being and how it really worked in the minds of the greats.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
Great comments. My old jazz teacher said "If you don't know where you're going, playing either scales or arpeggios is just masturbating. Like some stupid rocker. Only more cerebral."
Loved the bit about *ending* as the important part, plus the half note melodies.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
-
I realize Harmonic Ambiguity is just a big part of jazz as Harmonic Specificity.
In the context of four bar phrasing, which I believe the essence of improv, one should introduce a motif, then pitch shift that motif through (not over) the changes towards resolution leading into the next four bar phrase.
If in bar two and three of four bar motivic development one was to play 11s, 13s on a downbeat in order to lead the listener along in your story, then great. That is Harmonic Ambiguity as a device.
But, using the principles of Forward Motion, setting up you next set of four bar phrases with chord tones on the downbeat is true to the language.
Like stated above by Ligon concerning Parker's Ambiguity as a device.
Scott Henderson used to tell us, say something, say it again up the neck (or down) say it a little different, then lead into something else and start all over.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLast edited by Richard Luther; 05-16-2017 at 06:07 PM.
-
I'm not going to argue with Hal galper about anything. It's an approach, and I'm cool with that. I still would wonder that he thinks of this as a "rule" of some kind. There's simply too much of vanilla older jazz heads that don't hold to it. There are plenty of other polyrhythmic patterns etc. There's a lot of accenting non-chord tones on the beat throughout all of jazz. Resolving on the and of the beat is very much a jazz thing in my opinion , not just in improvisation but in actual melodies to these tunes. Originally Posted by Richard Luther
It's all cool . I just don't understand why has to be a rule.
-
It's not a rule. It is native to a specific language--Bebop.
Maybe that's the problem. I'm sure none of this applies to Miles' Nefertiti album (like Madness).
Both are Jazz.
Here's an analysis of Joe Pass transcription and Forward Motion.
Tutorial on Forward Motion Application with Transcription and Video — Pianologist
Frankly I'm spent on this subject but glad I hung in there and forced myself to dig all that material out.
I do feel however, anytime one touches negatively on CST, the fangs come out.
Just look at the vitriol poured on the guys from Jazzadvice for their last post. All that work they did to further the community.
People will always be people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It's an okay conversation to be having, Richard. Just speak to the conversation , without making it about someone personally. I don't see how the "those people" kind of comments are helpful. Originally Posted by Richard Luther
The head to Donnalee is certainly bebop and the main phrase resolves after the beat . There are plenty of polyrhythmic phrasing patterns in bebop .Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 05-16-2017 at 07:03 PM.
-
Maybe you missed some of the past replies. I kept going back to the positive. In the end, I got sucked into the negativity.
It won't happen again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't have time to respond properly right now although please tell me where there is angst? I am asking a question, and trying to get a consensus. I am arguing where there is room to argue because I haven't been able to find people talk about this topic conclusively in a way that makes sense to me. I am trying to have a conversation, not an argument. You are acting like you have scientific evidence to support your view and I'm simply questioning that. I'm sorry if it came across rudely but I don't see any need for people to get emotional over such a topic. I will read everything properly later when I get home. Originally Posted by Richard Luther
Andrew
-
Downbeat:
I prefer to think of emphasized beats rather than textbook downbeats. Downbeats are based on a general consensus analysis of rhythmic tendencies within a given time signature and measure structure. Emphasized beats deal with recurring and single event accents as they occur within each composition. Although there is overlap, it is not always so.
Chord Tone:
A chord tone is any note presented in a way that helps shape the harmony.
Passing tones are notes that connect chord tones.
Suspensions and appoggiaturas present with a temporary emphasis but will then resolve to a chord tone.
Less explainable passing notes or suspensions can sometimes be referenced to an approach or passing chord.
I Got It Bad is a beautiful example of resolving suspensions.
It also has a few chord tone 9ths on Am7 and A7 and a 13th on D7.
Experiment. Don't just follow a rule. Try what it suggests. Try what it suggests not to do.
Form your own opinion based on investigation. Go for nuanced understanding.
-
Okay, let me outline what I am talking about with an example. I really don't want this conversation to descend into an argument because I think it is a really important one to have and there has to be an answer.
Here is a transcription I did recently of David Binney on In Love in Vain with Adam Rogers. ( ) I randomly chose this passage and can upload the whole thing if we decide to dissect it further, and perhaps we should with a range of solos. Forgive the notation as this program is terrible for notation, I just work with it quickly for transcription before taking it into Sibelius.
To me this is in direct contradiction with the concept of placing chord tones on the beat, however sounds incredible. As in my first post, I can see that he is targetting the 3rd of Dm and the 5th of Cm in the 2nd and 4th bars, however I don't believe he is thinking about putting chord tones on the beat.
Let's take the conversation from here
Edit: Just amended picture
Would also like to add that including 9 in the principal chord tones, only leaves 2 notes in the scale that would be considered non chord tones and to me this is meandering to far away from the question, because other tones like #11, 13 etc can be considered just as consonant as a 9 in certain circumstances. So for the sake of argument and to also ask the question in the way I have seen it proposed 90% of the time, let's just include 1-3-5-7. The question of altered chords is another interesting point because through the lens of how the altered scale is traditionally taught (b9 #9, b5 #5) you would literally always be hitting chord tones whilst playing this scale.Last edited by Drapte; 05-16-2017 at 11:06 PM.
-
Very cool. Definitely a lot of my previous category of "1357 of something". :-) D7 over F7 has definite chord tone on the beat if you accept that it's actually D7. There's also some displaced harmonic rhythm stuff as well. Trying to name everything literally in terms of chord of the moment and literal beats is where anything is going to break down.
I'll leave it to people smarter than me probably. Got to go to bed.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 05-16-2017 at 11:36 PM.
-
Well that may be true, I mean he's obviously outlining D7 in the first bar and mucking around with Bb7 in the 2nd and 3rd bars however superimposition is a totally separate topic and I find myself agreeing with you on this but it's not really the question. The point is that according to some people this is how we hear stuff so technically these lines should be amended by changing the 6s and 9s to chord tones of the corresponding chord. Because it makes no sense that just because you were thinking 1357 of something that it changes what is fundamentally going on. I mean, he's really playing b9, 3, 5 & 6 when playing D7 over F7. If we don't accept this then you could argue that you are always playing 1357 of something, and also simultaneously argue that you never are. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
-
yeah. I would mostly disagree with that notion, at least in terms of "how we hear things". I mean, what about re-harmonizations etc.? Strong melody has its own melodic logic and strength , without respect to the harmony, at a certain level. It may have different "meaning" against different harmony, but it doesn't ONLY work because of a specific relationship to vertical harmony. Great melodies don't become crap melodies when you change a few chords underneath. It's really its own thing. Originally Posted by Drapte
-
I Got It Bad: 2 versions that show how flexible beat placement and note content
can be in relation to the original lead sheet.
-
Bo thoft hesep ara grap hsconta in exa ctlythe samemel odicin for mationhe useo fthiswor dinthis spotv ersusan oth eris nottheiss uethe is sue isplacem entinrela tion toswin gas yo ureadthis para gra pheven tho ughthe yare simi laroneswin gsandthe ot her doesnti inja zzwecan pur pose lyfloat ove rthe change sto crea teambi guity Buttoo mucho fanyth ingdul lsthelist enersears ther eare time swhen wedo nt play atall which maybe eve nmoreim portant thanwhe nwedo thequest ionis whydoe sone of thes epara graphsfe el or swin gcorre ctlyan dthe oth erisoff?
Both of these paragraphs contain exactly the same "melodic" information. The use of this word in this spot versus another is not the issue. The issue is placement in relation to swing. As you read this paragraph, even though they are similar, one swings and the other doesn't. In jazz, we can purposely "float" over the changes to create ambiguity. But too much of anything dulls the listeners ears. There are times when we don't play at all, which may be even more important than when we do. The question is, why does one of these paragraphs feel, or "swing", correctly and the other is off?
Jazz used to be an oral tradition. Players played "straight" dance gigs all day, then at night they played bebop. They learned their craft on the bandstand. Like my young children, they learned native English at home. They never "thought" about why one of the paragraphs above sound right and other off. Same with the players. Before CST (which is play these scales over these changes), the apprentice tradition taught this language like a Daddy teaches his son. From hearing what was "right" authentically and naturally.
Theory came later to explain it.
Think of chord tones on downbeats as a horses legs on full straightaway gallop. The legs are not always touching the ground, but when they do there is a certain swing to the gallop. Are there times when the ground is uneven and the horse corrects? Are there times when the hooves touch down "off the beat" to compensate for terrain? Yes. But back to the straightaway, he's galloping with forward momentum.
Is the horse thinking about the variation in stride at a full gallop? No. He did when he was back playing and practicing in the pasture.
Here's someone who is thinking about placement in relation to rhythm...
Last edited by Richard Luther; 05-17-2017 at 05:43 AM.
-
That is an awful analogy that doesn't do a thing to explain the topic at hand. Look at what I posted earlier in regards to the transcription. I think what bako said makes quite a bit of sense. Originally Posted by Richard Luther
-
Great video but it doesn't exactly hit the nail on the head of what we are talking about here. Originally Posted by Richard Luther
-
Now explain to me how this isn't "angst" and serves to push the conversation forward? You originally asked a question. Your first response was "it's all bullshit". You responded by "thanking him". If the conversation would have ended there all would have been well. Originally Posted by Drapte
Confirmation bias. You weren't looking for other answers, you were looking for confirmation to what you already believe.
I'm done with this.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Yesterday, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions