-
[QUOTE=christianm77;879871]The difference is - 'you don't need theory' as opposed to 'theory is something we should discuss in the hope that it will make us better musicians.' In the latter case, I would say it might be an interesting thing for its own sake, but after a point it won't help us play actual music. Most good players get on with it as best they can, learning as they go.
The theory they know is toolbox which they can apply and makes sense to them.
(Or you might have to pass a paper in harmony at college or something.)
The Bernstein name drop was just to point out that while the likes of Barry Harris have a system (which is at least in part a collection of rules of thumb, situations and musical ideas), a lot of players don't. They take what works for them and their choices are informed by careful and detailed listening to the music they love, as well as hints and information given to them by teachers, peers and mentors.
That's the real shit for a player.
And - the guitar is a map of a strange country and simple things can take ages to get on the neck. For instance - C major scale from bottom E to the highest note on the guitar, in tempo & without pause for thought. GO![/QUOTE/]
A little theory can go a long way and the last suggestion above for playing scales from the lowest point to the highest (in all keys) can go a long way as well. I think it's one of the most important fundamental things a guitarist can practice. To get comfortable playing along the neck and not just across it. It forces a player to get beyond position playing and not playing more than 3 notes on a given string. Joe Pass was a master at this and always had a chord handy no matter where he was on the neck. A basic goal of the guitar is to have the whole neck under your fingers and have as many options as possible at any moment. And to intimately know the neck. ie. without knowing the names of every note on the FB all the theory in the world, CST or otherwise, won't get you very far.
-
06-27-2018 09:35 AM
-
I think I saw an episode about CST on “Ancient Aliens” a couple years ago
-
Theory to me is ear training and knowing your instrument. That is demystifying fretboard by bringing some meaning and structure to it and being familiar with these structures aurally. For that I think a little theory really goes a long way.
These become tools that make you really get inside the songs, phrases you like and make them part of your own language.
Sorry I didn't meant to go all hippie on you guys.
-
I agree with this 100%. I have spent a great deal of time mapping out theoretical things on the fret board in order to learn how they sound - if there is a characteristic note or notes in a particular grouping (scale, mode, or whatever) - how that sound relates to chords or keys.
Originally Posted by Tal_175
The danger for me has been that the mapping out and practicing part can result in my fingers, rather than my ear, determining what to play. I guess that's the rock guitarist mentality that I am constantly fighting.
-
Today, I bought a book called Melodic Shapes for the Modern Improvisor by Lin and Murzyn. I know Alex Murzyn- who is a terrific reed player -- very melodic. Tim Lin is also a saxophonist - I haven't heard him.
It takes what seems like a mixed approach, which I like.
There's very little text. It covers the diminished and altered scales. Then it has a couple of sparse pages on chromaticism with some examples of chromatic approach notes. Half a page on half-diminished chords and playing harmonic minor over them.
Then, it has about 100 pages of examples over ii V I's, 2 and 4 bar phrases, major, minor and a few diminished. Each page has 12 lines - one for each key. Same phrase in every key
It's licks. They're all good. Nice sounding lines with some rhythmic interest. By the end of the book they include a lot of extensions creating some sophisticated sounds.
The tensions over dominants are printed in red ink
As I worked through it, I realized that the book is basically applying the handful of concepts covered in the text. One sound at a time, each within a good sounding lick.
For example, in the first few minutes I noticed the the licks in the book sometimes put the #9 and b9 in different octaves - something that I realized that I rarely do. I also noticed the liberal use of chromatics and non chord tones, mostly, but not entirely, on weak beats. And, those chromatics included minor against major, natural 7 and b7, and other "avoid" notes.
The text has a couple of paragraphs on how to practice the material, recommending singing it first, then playing it in 12 keys and then inserting it into tunes. One sound at a time.
What I like is the emphasis on learning the sounds in the context of cool sounding lines with just enough theory to make sense of how the lines are constructed. Easier than transcribing (a mixed blessing) and, I think, more effective than simply thinking about theory.
One nice side effect - the authors are not guitarists, so the material isn't constrained by what lays well on guitar. That means the lines don't sound ordinary for guitar.Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 06-28-2018 at 05:49 AM.
-
I think rock guitarists used to have the same mentality as jazz guitarists used to. Use your ears. They had to because they had no other way to learn. They weren’t any YouTube videos or books of transcriptions. Originally Posted by ScottM
Even the ‘theory guys.’ Think of Steve Vai - he was hired as a transcribed for Zappa. Satriani I studied with flipping Tristano. He learned to sing solos before he could play them. Didn’t matter what, Wes or Tony Iommi, Lennie didn’t care.
Sometimes people get a bit defensive as if I’m saying theory and fretboard mapping is a waste of time. It certainly isn’t, but listening and using your ears in combination with theory will make it all fall in to place.Last edited by christianm77; 06-28-2018 at 08:20 AM.
-
The point of modes or modal is to open your ears that the same collection of notes can have different musical organizations...
The organization is how notes react to each other and which notes in a group of notes control the reactions... with reference to a pitch.
Not everything is vanilla... Ionian Functional Harmony is not the only source of musical organization.
It's not simple or many more of you would actually understand the basic concepts.Last edited by Reg; 06-28-2018 at 11:17 AM.
-
Yeah, I agree with this. The RB has mistakes, some pretty glaring. It has some tunes in the "wrong" keys. But out of 500-ish tunes, probably 400 and some were the correct changes and melody in the correct key. As long as you understand that it shouldn't completely replace learning tunes by ear, and as long as you're aware that it might sometimes be wrong, it's a great tool and very useful reference, especially for people trying to learn a bunch of tunes in a hurry. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
John
-
Reg, just wondering if this is your personal synthesis of CST or is this the common established understanding around CST? Originally Posted by Reg
I am asking this because I would be interested in reading about this more deeper view of CST. Because none of the more commonly available texts that I've seen motivate CST this way. For example Levine or Bert Ligon talk about CST in a much more practical way (being aware of avoid notes and such).
You are saying one of the objectives is to get outside of the typical tonal system and functional harmony. Interesting that there is an article written by the author of the book Jazzology that criticizes Levine precisely for the book's neglect of the functional harmony as if that's an unintended omission, not a feature.Last edited by Tal_175; 06-28-2018 at 12:29 PM.
-
Two possible paths to pursue this:Sometimes people get a bit defensive as if I’m saying theory and fretboard mapping is a waste of time. It certainly isn’t, but listening and using your ears in combination with theory will make it all fall in to place.
1. Explore recorded music or scores. Analyze, put a name to what you hear. Apply concepts to additional contexts expanding
the idea in as many ways as ones imagination, knowledge and skills will allow.
2. Layout out organized theory concepts that allows the material to be heard in a comparative way.
Ex. Starting reference: Cycle 2 triads
CEG / ADF / GBE / FAC / DGB / CEA / BDF / GCE etc.
CEbG / ADF / GBEb / FAC / DGB / CEbA / BDF / GCEb etc.
CEbG / AbDF / GBEb / FAbC / DGB / CEbAb / BDF / GCEb etc.
CEG / AbDF / GBE / FAbC / DGB / CEAb / BDF / GCE etc.
Modulate to Ab Major
CEbG / AbDbF / GBbEb / FAbC / DbGBb / CEbAb / BbDbF / GCEb etc.
Both paths expand our ability to hear. Path #2 is a bit like studying the dictionary, path #1 closer to studying literature.
-
My favorite Reg quote ... EVAH! Originally Posted by Reg
-
Ligon on avoid notes?? He's mostly dismissive and annoyed with the term from what I've seen... Originally Posted by Tal_175
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
-
Yes and No... you know the tune? I graduated from berklee in mid 70's... I could already play and did gig while at berklee ... I also transcribed and did copywork for $... even though berklee was cheap... I was a poor kid, I needed the money.
I know Mark and have performed with many times.... not for a while, he's getting old etc...
We're both pre-CST. We both knew and studied with Herb Pomeroy, (I was fortunate to perform with) ... we're both older and can play, compose, arrange and have been doing so for longer than most of you have been alive...
I was fortunate to know, Berrie Nettles, Paul Wagner, Alex Ulanowsky and many of the faculty at berklee in the 70's... Much of my understandings come from discussions, classes, composing and arranging and working in Boston and later in LA with others in the business .... and continued for years... still going on.
I believe most on this forum don't even have basic traditional theory and harmony understandings beyond what they can quote from various texts, articles or web posts. My personal synthesis of CST... as you call... are from being around, and working with the concepts when they we're being formulated.
Avoid notes, all the guidelines etc... are just verbal tools to help those who don't practice music, compose, arrange etc... have a set of basic rules to help begin to understand the concepts. Like voice leading or contrapuntal rules to help one compose contrapuntal music... music with independent melodic lines, based on Ionian functional Harmony. Eventually you don't need the training wheels because you understand the goal... you understand the musical organization. Not just a collection of rules...
You don't really ever get it.... if you don't actually practice what your trying to get.
And then being able to realize these concepts on your instrument... and most don't even have the musical technical skills together on their instrument, Yea the results are simple to see.
Mark understands Functional Harmony.... Do YOU? If so who's version do you relate to.
If I'm pushing etc... sorry, Maybe you do have things together, from you posts in this thread... it doesn't look like.
-
Reg, I know a lot of people respect you around here, but you have to earn such statements by explicitly articulating what exactly is your objection to anything anyone said in the thread and why. Originally Posted by Reg
Just listing your credentials (which sorry but we have to take your word for) doesn't automatically make you right in the eyes of some.
-
How do I figure out if I understand functional harmony? Or whose version? Originally Posted by Reg
I googled it to make sure I understand the terminology -- which I do, at least as presented by the article I read.
Is there a quiz I can take?
A particular book that surveys the different versions?
I've read Nettles and Graf and Jazz Theory and some others.
-
I have zero doubt Mark Levine understands functional harmony. I actually love his book. I wish every text book was written like that. I took extra care not to make my comments seem like I was dissing Levine (I wouldn't dare do that). I consider his book one of the bibles of CST that's why I quoted it. Originally Posted by Reg
Originally Posted by Reg
I didn't post this thread so people can insult most members of the forum. Make baseless remarks about their incompetence. Brag about their background. Even if that comes from someone, some members treat like some sort of cult leader because I don't. Originally Posted by Reg
Last edited by Tal_175; 06-28-2018 at 03:33 PM.
-
I think Reg uses 'you' as a synonym for 'one', as in 'one should learn .....'
That's what I tell myself anyway.
Don't be such a cross patch Tal, we all know Reg can play basically all of us under the table with greasy groove and chops to burn, so his words carry weight even if I'm not sure what he's saying 100% of the time...
Anyhoo, it's making more sense over time. Sometimes you have to be in the right place at the right time for someone's advice to meaningful at all, much less helpful. Stuff that seemed like Woo Woo bullshit when I was 25 suddenly seems like the most practical and helpful advice.
I don't want to personally to have a pop at Levine. I recently reread the Jazz Theory Book - and you know what - it's a class product. I think its basically useless for learning bebop, but I know that many players have got loads out of it, looking into the language of post-Coltrane jazz. Levine tells you up front what his book is about anyway. His asides on Bud Powell etc shows that he knows that music, it's just not his focus: he was writing for a certain type of jazz musician.
I disagree with it pedagocially, but hopefully not out of ego.
I have heard it called by UK jazz musicians, perhaps unfairly; 'the American Cheese Manual' - so there's your Common Practice right there. Cheese = Common Practice. You have to be able to be Cheesy to know what the norms are.
Bebop cheese is different from post bop modal cheese. Strict counterpoint is Palestrina cheese. Bach harmony is Chorale cheese. I could go on.
Finally, I think CST makes much more sense as a resource for improvisation on piano (as does practically everything else.) Pianists love it. To them chord tones are like lesson #1. Once you know the notes in Dm7, you can play on them in any octave without an issue. Sure you have to put it in all 12 keys, but that's not so hard, just a bit more practice.
Not so for guitarists. We have to work with it a bit, I think.
-
PS: Reg, if you have a bit more info to offer about Herb Pomeroy I'd be interested to hear... I'm really interested to know more about the early history of CST.
-
When I first read Jazz Theory, I thought it was as good as any textbook I ever had, in any field.
Like any book, particularly in a field where there is no math (meaning, no right answer), there can be areas of disagreement.
But, he presents the material very clearly (with minor exceptions in my view) and includes a great many specific examples from recordings of major players to illustrate his points.
I found the book extremely helpful. It gave me a broader view of what advanced musicians are doing. And, it also gave me specific information that quickly improved the way I play. The best example of that was his discussion of melodic minor harmony -- all the chords are the same chord and can be used interchangeably. That's a powerful tool.
-
I also have been impressed with a number of other people who post here, including you, Christian. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
I can describe jazz in 6 words: Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Christian Miller
-
I would love to get a few more stories out of some of the more experienced players here honestly. I'd love one from ronjazz on his time with William Leavitt and others, Henry Robinett on playing with a lot of people. Joel had tons of stories and was very generous with them. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Honestly, of all of them, I think reg holds the personal part closer to the vest. Self-deprecating, in that sense of STORY, to a fault. apparently sees it as BS, unrelated to the actual content he's interested in sharing. There's never been a member I know of who has shared more , with that amount of experience , without anything to gain , and almost 100% anonymous. Mostly the opposite of attention seeking, name dropping etc. His sole purpose seems to be to contribute and share one-way.
Many of us, who live in various suburban jazz wastelands, would love to hear more of these old stories, and frankly, we'd love a little more of the no-BS approach which comes from those older players like Barry Harris, Robert Conti , Bruno, and yes, reg.
Sent from my SM-J727P using TapatalkLast edited by matt.guitarteacher; 06-28-2018 at 08:06 PM.
-
Speaking just about guitar players for the moment, Chuck Wayne certainly regarded jazz harmony as defined by four-note chords by the late '40s. He developed his brand of four-fingered hybrid picking technique - use of all fingers including the pinky with the thumb and index holding the pick - to accommodate this basic premise. Wayne found the existent guitar chord literature at that time (e.g. the Eddie Lang and Van Eps books) to be limited by its triadic approach. Wayne's systematic mapping of four-note chord inversions on the neck resulted in him playing voicings that surprised many of his contemporaries including Tal Farlow who considered Chuck to be the first guitar player he heard in NY dealing with modern jazz harmony. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
I recall hearing, many years ago, that Chuck Wayne wrote an article, perhaps in the early 50s, which explained his approach. I studied with Carl Barry, who was close to Chuck (I met Chuck at one of Carl's gigs). I learned parts of Chuck's system from Carl. In retrospect, it was a complete system. The parts I learned included the 4 note voicings on 3 groups of adjacent strings, arpeggios for the usual chord types in four places on the neck, and a fingering/picking system. The latter included a specific pick, specific fingerings and scales and arps and sweep picking. He was an absolute master of chord melody and could solo in 4 note chords (I recall being astonished when I saw him live). He had a system for that, based on harmonizing every note in the melody and then soloing on every one of those chords. Originally Posted by PMB
There's a wikipedia page that goes into a good deal of technical detail about his system. The parts I was familiar with are all the way I remember them. I don't recall anything about split and spread voicings, although the so-called spread voicings seem to be the ones everybody knows.Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 06-28-2018 at 10:03 PM.
-
Interesting stuff, keep it coming...
Reply With Quote
There will be another you changes
Today, 02:06 AM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions