What is considered the standard way to look at extensions in terms of arpeggios?

[Jonah]

I think rpjazzguitar has slightly missed the point... To slightly rephrase what znerken is talking about, ER was entirely working with what Mick Goodrick calls derivative thinking, not parallel thinking. The advantage of this is the reusability of licks and lines without changing fingerings once a few are known. I work similarly... I suspect this is the more traditional approach.

I use it with chord shapes too... I actually even elaborated some excercises to play around the same shape in different contexts to create different chords and functions...

I think actually it is one of the guitaristis things that can be used as advantage (or being used mindlessly may turn into mindless mechanics).

In most cases it doesn't matter what the musician heard when they played a line, that's unknowable. Emily may have been hearing G altered, who knows? But her playing process mentally was, Ab melodic minor on G7, then practice a gazillion times until its intuitive. I don't think it really matters.

Absolutely.. that was a sort of controversy for me after classical... jazz theory often describes tools to organize impro instead of describing the resultative music (that concers the conception of improvization itself, people often ask if it was improvized really or not? and I always answer: does it sound improvized to you or not? -- because this is waht matters and this may change depending on experience and conditions)


One thing I like about Barry Harris by the way.. I think all of his theoretic stuff (to reasonable limits of course) is directly related to musical language: it is dom because it functions dom, it is scale because it sounds scalar in music... becasue it should sound scalar to be music music (at least in many contexts) etc

[znerken]

arrgh. just a minute ago you were asking good questions and demonstrated a desire to learn, and now you're already giving lectures?

Giving lessons? I just described what I learned(by having an interest to learn) from Emily. I have a huge appetite for learning, every day, and I am always grateful for those who take the time to teach me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[znerken]

she never used the whole-tone scale or the HT-WT over dom chords? does she explicitly say that anywhere?

I haven’t transcribed any of her stuff, so I can’t say for 100%. Listen to her sessions with students and her dvds. Anyway, what does it matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

I think rpjazzguitar has slightly missed the point... To slightly rephrase what znerken is talking about, ER was entirely working with what Mick Goodrick calls derivative thinking, not parallel thinking. The advantage of this is the reusability of licks and lines without changing fingerings once a few are known. I work similarly... I suspect this is the more traditional approach.
lol.

I reacted to the notion of needing to think about melodic minor in order to find those sounds. I didn't think about the idea of focusing on two fingerings and reusing them in a variety of contexts. Probably, it didn't occur to me because I don't think or play that way. In that regard, I think I'm out of the mainstream.

[christianm77]

I reacted to the notion of needing to think about melodic minor in order to find those sounds. I didn't think about the idea of focusing on two fingerings and reusing them in a variety of contexts. Probably, it didn't occur to me because I don't think or play that way. In that regard, I think I'm out of the mainstream.

Sure.

I found that type of conversion technique to be extremely useful for playing changes smoothly and easily. Knowing that dominant, minor and half dim are all related is a basic jazz skill IMO, whatever you call it.. Everyone seems to have a version of it.

In terms of audiating sounds on chords - I think that's a separate area of study. I don't know how and if Emily worked on this, but obviously picking through music and recognising chords, painstakingly at first and more and more fluently is the traditional way to do it. Depending on which music you dig into you will find different stuff. If you primarily transcribe the harmony of Blue Note recordings you will develop a different aural awareness than if you listen to a stack of Bill Evans....

Anyway, I'd argue because when you are thinking #11, b9 etc, you are thinking of a static harmonic relationship, you are hearing chordally in this instance, rather than

- linearly (as in the harmony described by the line, so the sax player describes a Cm or a B on a F7, etc.)

or

- in terms of voice leading (where that b9 might resolve to a 5th in the next chord, for instance, or a b6 to a 5 in terms of the central tonality)

This isn't an either or... CST terminology tends to make everything into the first category, vertical chords - it is Chord Scale Theory after all. (It is probably no coincidence that so much new writing in jazz is primarily chordal, with some interesting exceptions.)

[rpjazzguitar]

So, to take a specific but hypothetical example, suppose you have a lick that is based on the notes in Dm6 D F A B. Let's add a G, arbitrarily so it isn't just an arp. So, the lick might be D F D A G B A. Starts on the root.

Now, those notes spell G9, so, you're suggesting that many people would play the exact same lick against G9? This time starting on the 5th.

It's also Bm7b5, so you're suggesting that some would use the same lick, this time starting on the 3rd.

And, maybe you're suggesting using the same lick against Db7. Chord tones are Db F Ab B. So, the lick is now b9, 3, b5, #5, and 7. Most of an alt sound. This time starting on the b9.

Do I understand this correctly?

[christianm77]

So, to take a specific but hypothetical example, suppose you have a lick that is based on the notes in Dm6 D F A B. Let's add a G, arbitrarily so it isn't just an arp. So, the lick might be D F D A G B A. Starts on the root.

Now, those notes spell G9, so, you're suggesting that many people would play the exact same lick against G9? This time starting on the 5th.

It's also Bm7b5, so you're suggesting that some would use the same lick, this time starting on the 3rd.

And, maybe you're suggesting using the same lick against Db7. Chord tones are Db F Ab B. So, the lick is now b9, 3, b5, #5, and 7. Most of an alt sound. This time starting on the b9.

Do I understand this correctly?

Yes. Absolutely NOT hypothetical, that specific one comes up a lot in solos I've transcribed. Charlie Christian, sure, but even modern stuff like Seamus Blake....

Except there's no need to add in a G, don't bother with that. And mostly, the notes are lot less mixed up that that.

[rpjazzguitar]

The OP is about "standard" ways of looking at extensions.

I guess mine is non-standard.

I was influenced partly by a teacher who yelled "no licks!, make melody!". But, even before that, I didn't approach things by learning licks.

I did learn the sounds of intervals against chords. I learned some juxtapositions of arp X against chord Y. I did learn some applications of scales.

For example, I learned, from Warren Nunes to see the harmonized major scale as containing two sets of interchangeable chords, give or take the VIIm7b5.

From Mark Levine, I learned that all chords from a melodic minor scale are interchangeable.

And, I learned, somehow, to try to play what I might sing -- making melody that works with the harmony of the tune.

So, I understand that Dm6 and Bm7b5 both will sound good with the notes from DMM, as will every other chord from DMM, which includes G7#11. So, I might use those pools of notes, but it wouldn't occur to me to consciously try to play the same exact licks against each. I don't think I could make melody that way.

[christianm77]

The OP is about "standard" ways of looking at extensions.

I guess mine is non-standard.

I was influenced partly by a teacher who yelled "no licks!, make melody!". But, even before that, I didn't approach things by learning licks.

I did learn the sounds of intervals against chords. I learned some juxtapositions of arp X against chord Y. I did learn some applications of scales.

For example, I learned, from Warren Nunes to see the harmonized major scale as containing two sets of interchangeable chords, give or take the VIIm7b5.

From Mark Levine, I learned that all chords from a melodic minor scale are interchangeable.

And, I learned, somehow, to try to play what I might sing -- making melody that works with the harmony of the tune.

So, I understand that Dm6 and Bm7b5 both will sound good with the notes from DMM, as will every other chord from DMM, which includes G7#11. So, I might use those pools of notes, but it wouldn't occur to me to consciously try to play the same exact licks against each. I don't think I could make melody that way.

Ah you see that’s a similar idea, phrased differently.... but you can also do it with major modes in this specific case. D Dorian works great on any of these.

I wouldn’t focus on the importance of ‘licks’ it’s more like voicings or motifs that you see again and again.

Like; if I outline a minor triad that isn’t a lick but it’s a device that works well in all three cases and you hear people do it a lot. In practice triads are the basis of many strong melodic lines. The m6 on dom7 is a common choice in song melodies as well as soloing.

Remind me what Nunes interchangeable chord sets look like again?

[rpjazzguitar]

Ah you see that’s a similar idea, phrased differently.... but you can also do it with major modes in this specific case. D Dorian works great on any of these.

I wouldn’t focus on the importance of ‘licks’ it’s more like voicings or motifs that you see again and again.

Like; if I outline a minor triad that isn’t a lick but it’s a device that works well in all three cases and you hear people do it a lot. In practice triads are the basis of many strong melodic lines. The m6 on dom7 is a common choice in song melodies as well as soloing.

Remind me what Nunes interchangeable chord sets look like again?

A

Type 1 Cmaj7 Em7 Gmaj7 Am7
Type 2 Dm7 Fmaj7 G7 Am7 and I don't recall how he classified Bm7b5.

And he called them type 1 and type 2. Am7 was both. As I recall it he allowed the F# with the G triad.

[christianm77]

A

Type 1 Cmaj7 Em7 Gmaj7 Am7
Type 2 Dm7 Fmaj7 G7 Am7 and I don't recall how he classified Bm7b5.

And he called them type 1 and type 2. Am7 was both. As I recall it he allowed the F# with the G triad.

Yeah that makes sense to me. I would be surprised if he didn’t put Bm7b5 into the second category (and potentially Bm7 as type 1)

[rpjazzguitar]

Yeah that makes sense to me. I would be surprised if he didn’t put Bm7b5 into the second category (and potentially Bm7 as type 1)

He used a lot of 3 6 2 5 progressions when he taught. He'd refer to them as short, or long, turnarounds.

At high tempo, he'd solo through them and, afterwards, explain what he'd done as in, "I played 4 against 2, 3 against 1 etc". I'd record the lessons and check it afterward. He was always correct.

I don't recall him talking about 7 against anything, which is why I didn't include Bm7b5 as type 2, even though the notes are B D A F, aka rootless G9.

Bm7 as type 1 also makes sense, but I'm pretty sure he never mentioned it.

He taught that jazz has 5 sounds. major/"pure minor" (his term), melodic minor, harmonic minor, diminished and whole tone. And he taught applications for each. I have some old notes showing A HM against Bm7b5 and E7+-9+5.

[christianm77]

He used a lot of 3 6 2 5 progressions when he taught. He'd refer to them as short, or long, turnarounds.

At high tempo, he'd solo through them and, afterwards, explain what he'd done as in, "I played 4 against 2, 3 against 1 etc". I'd record the lessons and check it afterward. He was always correct.

I don't recall him talking about 7 against anything, which is why I didn't include Bm7b5 as type 2, even though the notes are B D A F, aka rootless G9.

Bm7 as type 1 also makes sense, but I'm pretty sure he never mentioned it.

He taught that jazz has 5 sounds. major/"pure minor" (his term), melodic minor, harmonic minor, diminished and whole tone. And he taught applications for each. I have some old notes showing A HM against Bm7b5 and E7+-9+5.

This all sounds straightforward and clear to me.

To be honest it’s not that different from Barry. The main difference is in the detail and handling of the ii v s by the sounds of it.

But jazz harmony is relatively straightforward: there’s not so many resources in common use that you can’t get it all conceptually quite quickly. The tricky bit is playing lines and melodies.

[christianm77]

And voicings lol. And learning loads of tunes haha.

Oh yeah

And playing in time, and swinging and finding your sound and approach lol

But the harmony is one small area of that... Soke players make it a big focus of course, but you don’t have to...

[rpjazzguitar]

There are great players who aren't harmonically highly sophisticated. But there are no great players who don't have great time and feel.

Warren Nunes played major and pure minor out of triads a lot of the time. I also saw him use major scale modes, which he called "patterns". My guess is that he was attentive to tonal center, but not mode. So, he didn't think about D dorian as its own scale or sound. It was all different fingerings of Cmajor in his mind.
Or, at least, that's my impression. I can't ever recall hearing him play a purely modal tune.

I don't recall him using triads to get any of the other 4 sounds of jazz. Frankly, I never really found out how he thought about finding the other sounds, except playing entire scales or fragments. He liked standards.