-
I do notice the difference between Van Eps pre war book (all triads for major and minor) and the post war stuff (maj9 etc.)
I dunno though, my suggestion was not that jazz guitarists and pianists didn’t play added note chords, more that it wasn’t a given.
Also 6th chords are often used, not 7.
When I comp I’m a little aware of not including the seventh in some chords, for musical reasons.
The modern teaching approach suggests a tidiness to basic chord construction that to me isn’t borne out by what people actually play, but then that’s why it’s just educational materials.
Along with the altered scale and melodic minor modes I’m curious as to the genesis and mainstreaming of these ideas, so any info (such as the Chuck Wayne stuff) is really great - but I suspect to get into it properly you really need to look into the pianists...
-
06-29-2018 03:52 AM
-
It says on the Wikipedia page that Chuck was thinking in 6th chords for major and minor. Is this so?
Obv Barry Harris thinks as 6th chords as the basic sound as well.
I remember reading an article that suggested 6th chords were introduced by that great forgotten jazz innovator Eddie Durham in his arrangements for the Basie band in the late 30s. You can certainly hear these chords in these recordings.
Given Durham was also Charlie Christian’s mentor and CCs heavy use of the min and maj 6 sounds in his lines.... well it’s interesting.
That said a Gypsy Jazz guy would tell you that Django was a heavy user of 6th chords in the early 30s, so it’s obviously not that neat....
So yeah the origin of 6th chords in jazz is kind of mysterious too...
-
I think the real mystery is why Maj7 is considered the "default" implied tonic major sound in the more modern times. Last year I studied some orchestral arrangements of some classical pieces. During major chords various voicings, 6th's, 9ths, 7ths and 6/9 are implied as well as the triads. Moreover these "extensions" often have harmonic rhythm of 2 beats and they move, connecting with the voices of the adjacent chords.
Originally Posted by christianm77
Minor 7 being a lot more common than Major 7.Last edited by Tal_175; 06-29-2018 at 11:39 AM.
-
... given that according to Barry Harris, harmony in jazz comes directly from classical music.
-
I am a jazz newbie but I understand where most people come from when they critique the CST approach. On the other hand, there are a lot of interpretations of CST, some which in my opinion aren't really correct but what do I know right? This is also partly because of the Levine book IMO. A lot of people say that CST doesn't really looks at functional harmony but if you take the Berklee Jazz Harmony book they analyse and choose scales based on the function of the chords. In Levine's book he doesn't really talk about functional harmony but that is his interpretation of CST, there are others.
Also what is the alternative? What are other methods to choose the correct notes on the correct chord? Chord tones with passing tones (from the scale), chromatic enclosures etc? You also have the "Benson approach" (based on the thread on TGP by Tag about how Benson plays changes) where a chord is either in the tonic group (I, iii, vi) or in the "dominant" or tension group (ii, IV, V, viim7b5). And you can substitute lines.
In addition, on this forum there are always a lot of discussions about how to learn jazz. Some people suggest just transcribing, learning lines by ear, learning tunes. Others say that his is BS that you will become a copy cat and you should learn all your scales, modes and arpeggios first. There really isn't a consensus. I got some teaching materials from that say that you should just learn lines and that the theory is easy. Learning to play is the hard part. First I thought this was BS but now I realize it is probably right. You need to learn and internalize the language.
Its the same when learning to play the blues... I could give you the blues, I-IV,V chord progression and the blues/pentatonic scale. From a theoretical perspective you now have everything you need to create amazing blues solos. I was dissapointed when I couldn't solo like BB, Albert and Freddie... You need to steal licks and build up a vocabulary. Same thing with jazz I think.
If you know the line and the chord it is being played over you can analyze the stuff you transcribe and probably will see patterns or the "scales" they use. But from a real melodic point of view.
Anyway, sorry for this long ramble lol. I visit this forum everyday and its one of the best guitar/theory forums on the web IMO, most other forums only talk about gear and how to get out of the pentatonic box lol. But sometimes I can get lost reading all this theory instead of playing the guitar...
-
Yeah it is a real mystery. Here's something I noticed... A big example from the rep of the major 7 is of course Misty. In 1954, Errol obviously plays (in Ab!) the G in the RH against a straight Ab chord in the LH. Traditional thing - major chord harmonising a major seventh in the melody... Goes back to the '20s. Originally Posted by Tal_175
In this version (no idea of the date, but maybe late 50s or 60s) seems to be thinking more maj7?
Sometimes he does a 1-7-b7 line cliche into chord IV in the left hand.
Which scores did you study just out of interest?
the practice of appoggiaturas, suspensions and so on comes from the fact that classical harmony was always embellished - started off in fact as counterpoint.... Chord symbols are always a very reductionist, basic representation. Figured bass is obviously a better system.
The Real Classical Fake Book (no really it is a thing) gives the chord at bar 3 as Fmaj7 for a beat, followed by F major for a beat. We see the same resolution in the tunedex chords to Poor Butterfly, above.
Of course it's a long suspension on the E from the C major chord on the upbeat, finally resolving to the F...
Anyway, there's a long history of fleeting dissonances becoming chords in their own right.
I think now, people just write chord symbols based on seeing an E in that bar and going, oh well the overall harmony is Fmaj7. Of course, even according to basic jazz arranging, writing Fmaj7 to harmonise F is considered a bad move...
-
Last year I played in a concert band. It was really a 30 piece classical band. Some pieces (most) didn't have guitar parts, so the conductor jotted down chords for me to play based on the implied harmony for some of them, others I had to figure out the chords myself or play other parts. Originally Posted by christianm77
The only truly classical piece was a collection of Tchaikovsky compositions. Others were still arranged by classical arrangers so had the same more classical tradition to them.
Tchaikovsky was full of passing dim 7ths (a la Barry Harris
), minor 7th's and major 6 and 6/9's (of course many more triads).
Other than that, I did harmonic analysis of Air on G String which I play fingerstyle. Which also (according to my analysis) has ii-7 V7 I's. As well as half diminished 7's and major 6's.
I know that romantic and baroque era composers didn't think minor 7, major 6/9 etc. They were thinking them as tensions over triads that resolve as suspensions.
Let's face it, rest of the world outside of jazz still hear them that way. That's why your country or blues playing friends ask you "What's that lush jazz chord you played there?" every time you play a maj7.
-
When I learned some of Chuck Wayne's system, we went over 7th, maj7, maj6, minmaj, min7, min6. Both in four note chords and in arpeggios.
I don't recall any others. Maybe we never got to them or maybe I've forgotten. I'd assume that he must have had something for diminished chords and other alterations. And, there's no reason why his system wouldn't work for them in the usual way it worked, ie starting with four basic arp fingerings (starting on each note of the 4 note chord) for 7th chords and then adjusting the 3rd and 7th. One could adjust 5ths and 9ths as well, perhaps with some changes in fingering.
I don''t recall hearing that he thought more about 6ths than any other chord type.
-
+1 for that. The idea is to steal them not borrow. Originally Posted by Lark
I don't think anybody in their right minds would advise against transcribing and assimilating language (that is not to say nobody is saying it)
What some more reasonably advice against is abandoning composing your own licks based on scales and chord tones early on and just move on to play memorized licks.
With regards to CST as way to learn improvisation. Gary Burton's course I linked earlier starts out with 10 essential scales. 7 modes of major scales, two modes of melodic minor and a diminished scale.
Now I think most people:
1- Would recommend learning the straight ahead language first (bop, Charlie Parker, and even earlier Charlie Christian, Lester Young exc.). Especially focusing on chord tones and embellishments.
2- Think it's ludicrous to do that by first nailing those 10 "essential" scales on your instrument.
EDIT: On second reading I see that wording isn't clear in the second item. I am not calling Garry Burton's approach ludicrous. If you agree with 1 (initial focus to traditional language), then it would be "ludicrous" to do that by first learning those 10 scales. Garry Burton's course as the description says aims at teaching the "modern improvisation" not the traditional.
But clearly there are others who disagree. I think it's a simple problem with an obvious answer but everybody gotta decide for themselves.
But of course CST isn't just learning these scales. Another way CST is used that I'm aware of is what I would say passing tone analysis. This is where chords in various harmonic situations have suggested "extensions". For example over a dominant that's functioning as backdoor dominant use b9 and #9 but unaltered 5th or something (just making it up, I think I read it in Berklee jazz harmony book sometime ago, don't have to book with me). This will give you a scale to play over that chord with a particular sound and interaction with chords around it. Exactly what chord scale is suggested will depend on who is telling you this and what language they analyzed. To me, one should experiment with different passing notes and what passing notes they like the sound of is their artistic preference.
EDIT: I don't think anybody is criticizing CST "passing tone analysis" as I call it. If somebody has gone to the trouble of analyzing bunch of language and presenting their findings about certain common tendencies and describe the why those tendencies occur, people can learn something from it. If they like it they'll use it. Also these passing tones are also available tensions to be played by the rhythm section.Last edited by Tal_175; 06-29-2018 at 10:36 PM.
-
Yea the vanilla school of Jazz... and now we're insulting Gary Burton. Wow... It's a wonder jazz is still around... but wait, it's also beginning to be supported by $. And pretty soon you'll go to a jazz concert and the same music will be performed... note for note andzzzzz sorry I fell asleep. Oh wait I love that chord tone and ohhh the feeling of that embellishment... I'm moved... I think .... maybe I was still sleeping.
-
In retrospect, I suspect I'd be a better improviser if, when I was a teenager, my teachers had me spend the bulk of my practice time transcribing licks and finding ways to get them into other tunes.
In fact, I spent a lot of time practicing scales and arps (and still do, for better or worse) and not building jazz vocabulary.
My improvisations, of course, include what I practice -- which is okay, but not great. The better part is what I can scat sing (and get onto the guitar immediately) which is more directly influenced by sounds I've heard and less by patterns I've practiced.
Here's a sort of example. I learned melodic minor scales. I use them in the usual ways. But, it wasn't until I transcribed something that I found that some players use them, but very differently. I'd tend to play a string of notes or a fragment of the scale. But, I heard another player avoid the root, which hadn't occurred to me -- and then arp chord tones of chords within the scale, while avoiding the root. Sounds great that way.
-
I dunno, I think I might give Gary Burton some benefit of the doubt when it comes to jazz education ... Originally Posted by Tal_175
+1 for that. The idea is to steal them not borrow.
I don't think anybody in their right minds would advise against transcribing and assimilating language (that is not to say nobody is saying it)
What some more reasonably advice against is abandoning composing your own licks based on scales and chord tones early on and just move on to play memorized licks.
With regards to CST as way to learn improvisation. Gary Burton's course I linked earlier starts out with 10 essential scales. 7 modes of major scales, two modes of melodic minor and a diminished scale.
Now I think most people:
1- Would recommend learning the straight ahead language first (bop, Charlie Parker, and even earlier Charlie Christian, Lester Young exc.). Especially focusing on chord tones and embellishments.
2- Think it's ludicrous to do that by first nailing those 10 "essential" scales on your instrument.
But clearly there are others who disagree. I think it's a simple problem with an obvious answer but everybody gotta decide for themselves.
John
-
Let's not get too hung up on the names. If you think learning 10 scales is a better way to of introduction to improvisation than more traditional language, you can say so and may be even state your reasons (for a change).
Garry Burton is a jazz great as a player. That doesn't mean his approach to teaching is some untouchable dogma.
-
Are major seven chords the default for what people PLAY or merely for what's on a chart? I would imagine this kind of way of talking about these things is more the unintended consequence of someone just having a default chord symbol for major? other fake books have a lot more detail , regarding chord qualities from what I see. The the real book defaults to "7" for all unaltered dominants for the most part. Doesn't really matter if the original's a nine or 13 as much. It just means dominant.
Off the top of my head, seems like all major types are maj7 , unless the melody is the root or 6? To me, the "Why maj7 instead of 6?" It's a little like "Why 7 instead of 9 or 13?". Ambiguity is kind of a real book thing, they're mostly defaulting to seventh chords . I think if you want more specificity , look to other sources , or if you want more vanilla look at original charts which aren't jazz at all and have multiple bars of a single three note chord .
Knowing what to play can be a long way from what's on the chart.
-
I wouldn't judge Gary Burton's teaching on the basis of a free course offering from Berklee on Coursera.Garry Burton is a jazz great as a player. That doesn't mean his approach to teaching is some untouchable dogma.
This is a five week session, he made some decisions as to what material to share and it was well presented.
Why presume from this microcosm sample of his knowledge to know what his teaching method is?
-
who, who, who? This sounds made up. Beginning to read like moon landing denial or flat Earth theory . Originally Posted by Tal_175
Who are these people who say you have to learn 10 scales BEFORE you transcribe? Whoever actually said that? What teacher and great jazz player? did Gary Burton actually say don't learn from transcription until way later? What's the original statement, and what's the context? It's one thing to question the order if someone explicitly laid it out that way. I mean, yeah. Let's discuss it, if they did. Nobody's got a problem with that. It's another to infer priority and meaning through some made up idea.
Let's flip it around. Should you EVER learn the scales? At WHAT point should you? Is there a certain amount of transcribing which MUST be done before you ever THINK about learning a major scale? or are these silly questions , to be 100% one way or the other?
Meanwhile, horn players and pianists learn ALL scales and arps before they get to HIGH SCHOOL . So if you're seeing some "prerequisite" regarding scales from some non-guitarist teacher, that means something DIFFERENT for other musicians who aren't illiterate guitarists. 10 scales doesn't HAVE to mean 10 years, again,... especially if you're NOT a guitarist.
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
-
Misty is an interesting case. As a sign of how Imaj7s later became default, consider that the more recent cliche for the opening to that tune is to resolve from a Io7 (or D/Eb = Ebo with a borrowed maj7th) to Imaj7. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
I use the same approach in dealing with diminished/augmented scales..finding all the embedded chords and use them as source material..with symmetrical patterns mixed with some interval jumps you can create some very unexpected twists and turns in solo lines..works very will in fusion formats and even over some standards Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
it's not a matter of dogma. If someone with his track record as a teacher and performer says "here's how you do it" I wouldn't call it ludicrous. Also, to even understand what Burton is saying you need a baseline of musicianship and knowledge that puts you well beyond the beginner stage. If he (or any teacher) is literally telling people who have never improvised, don't know tunes, don't know chord tones and have no concept of phrasing "here, just play these 10 scales" that would be ludicrous. But that's not the target audience for this kind of material. Originally Posted by Tal_175
I actually don't have an opinion one way or another on the "best" way to learn improv. I got to where I am kind of ad hoc. Probably ANY method would have been more productive, but that's not how it has worked out.
John
-
Phil Moore might be an interesting starting point. His incorporation of four-part harmonies via 'block chord' technique was a big influence on George Shearing. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Who said don't learn scales? Is that your take away from everything I said. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
I don't even know where to start responding to this. It's as if you don't stop and try to understand what's been said and just want to argue. Keep leaving and coming back to the thread.
-
My point is not to reach conclusions about Burton's teaching. I put a link to an online course happened to be designed by him. Assumption is that content is representative of a particular teaching approach. This assumption is not a stretch for anyone bothered to look at the course content. You either like it, or you don't. Originally Posted by John A.
-
Like I said above, the post is not about driving conclusions about Gary Burton as a teacher, rather a particular Berklee course deemed to be a good, representative content for introduction to jazz improvisation. Originally Posted by bako
Last edited by Tal_175; 06-29-2018 at 09:14 PM.
-
Also I didn't call Garry Burton's teaching ludicrous. A somewhat careful reader would notice that what I called ludicrous is if you want to start improvisation by learning the traditional language(which was my first assumption), starting off doing that by learning those 10 scales is ludicrous. Very likely Garry Burton's course is not aimed at the traditional language.
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
OK. That's fine statement of fact... Originally Posted by Tal_175
OK. WHO said "Don't? Originally Posted by Tal_175
And does a single course description on a specific topic somehow imply that the teacher's entire philosophy is OPPOSED to everything OTHER THAN that single topic? How can you know anything about that from the table of contents of a course description? Why jump to that conclusion about his overarching philosophy?
Who said "first"? Who assigned PRIORITY in the way that you are implying here? Originally Posted by Tal_175
Clearly? Who? It's not clear to me at all. To be fair , that's exactly what I'm asking about in my previous questions in my other posts. Originally Posted by Tal_175
I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic here. I'm being absolutely sincere with my questions, and you're not answering them. I have a big problem with using "Those people" statements and accusations, without sighting anything which was actually said, by ANYONE, EVER.
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
There will be another you changes
Today, 02:06 AM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions