-
Originally Posted by mateo2006
Well we used to have a job to do, now we are just an annoyance.
But seriously, I am not a natural fan of traditional jazz guitar and listen far more jazz without guitar than with it as I am a much bigger fan of horn based groups.
Fortunately, there have always been exceptional players like Reinhardt, Wes, Burrell, Green, Benson to show me the err of my ways and I would add to this list ...Oscar Moore!
Attachment 63377
I love Nat King Cole and never found myself wishing that the tune didn't have a guitar break when Oscar was playing. I really liked the guitar sound he had in this era too with the L-5 into an old old octal amps.
But it interested me that Jimmy Page said he felt Django was trying to do feedback effects and so on before electric guitar. I like that - Django could be a very ‘sonic’ player.
Also the guitarists you mention (although no Charlie Christian) are kind of the most swinging ones, rhythmically creative... a lot of jazz guitarists just play very evenly accented strings of 8th notes... we all suffer from it, I can be guilty.... the crazy thing is you hear horn players doing this a lot now.... why????!
-
07-06-2019 03:15 AM
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
By adding more information to the chord symbol (in this case the lead tone), we can see how it fits into a larger modal context, (which most of the time would be something else than the mode associated with the individual chord).
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by JCat
Some would rightfully claim it would be wrong not to write A7/5+, still we see simplification of this nature all the time (for the benefit of those that don't like "complicated" chord symbols for one reason or the other). Whether the symbol A7/5+ is complicated or not, is all in the eyes of the beholder. Some may even find that Improvising over A mixolydian sounds cool and "outside".
As a product of the modern jazz education age, I have great trouble thinking of and audiating that first chord as anything other than an altered dominant. But to Wes, it's just a dominant. In some ways, this contradicts my earlier statement about the obvious extensions of the chords based on the diatonic key... But actually, the extensions of the chords are only relevant in so much as they support the melody.
When it comes to improvisation, we aren't limited in this way unless we choose to be, or have to deal with an accompanist who's spent more time thinking about theory than using their ears.
(I daresay Wes had good enough ears (!) to play the more obvious altered option if that's what he had heard. :-))
Actually there's also a lot of evidence in the music to suggest jazzers have always heard dominants as quite isolated things unto themselves and not necessarily part of the prevailing key. This is true in many of the tunes and songs.
Your statement, which stems from current theory and ideas of what common practice is, is a case in point to my broader argument. The chord symbol dominates our musical imagination, limits it in some ways.
I hope you realise I'm not being smug know it all here. I'm having trouble getting my head and ears around this as a player! But it does seem to be the case.
By adding more information to the chord symbol (in this case the lead tone), we can see how it fits into a larger modal context, (which most of the time would be something else than the mode associated with the individual chord).
-
Here is one of my favourite examples of where the melody and the chords are very much at odds, but because everyone is listening it doesn't matter:
That melody shouldn't work on chord IV in a blues right? Now listen to the piano chords. Should be major 7th over dominant, right?
But it's fine.
Some recordings of Cool Blues modify the melody to fit the IV7.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
John
-
Jimmy Raney Quintet. During the head, he reminds me of Jim Hall, except Jimmy R. was first.
During the solos, the piano does chord stabs and I can't hear the guitar clearly.
-
This is all very cool. I may steal it for another video... :-)
-
" Reification refers to the moment that a process or relation is generalized into an abstraction and thereby turned into a ' thing ' "
In other words , don't mistake the map for the territory .
Good video , there is a Hal Galper video on the same subject where he makes the point that chord-scale theory became popular because it was an easier ' product ' for colleges to sell , an instruction book , if you like , of how to play jazz . Of course the only real or authentic way to learn to play jazz is by hanging around with jazz musicians and playing with them .
It's the difference between music as culture and music as product - or , shall we say , music as a spontaneous creation of a culture ( largely arising through the extra-curricular musical activities of 20th c. black american professional musicians ) and music as product of focussed effort of will towards an end .
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Theory comes alive only when you can HEAR what's going on--I think this TOTALLY relates to the OP. It's not a matter of seeing what's on the page and calculating theory--it's a matter of seeing what's on the page and HEARING what's going on. That's my goal--Reg used to talk about that all the time. It's not easy, but it's more useful than learning the theory alone.
I still think that the difference between the pro's that we idolize and everyone else here (we have great players at JGF, but I'm talking about Jimmy Raney, Charlie Christian, or Wes Montgomery status) isn't technique or anything physical. The difference is in the EARS--what they were able to hear (even Jimmy, as he advanced in old age and lost most of his hearing--he developed his sound as he developed his EARS). None of these players had perfect pitch (most guitarists don't, though some do), so their ears were the same build and type as ours. But how they developed their ears... they played most of the music we love without chord charts like we know them.
Maybe chord charts ruined our relationships with our ears... I dunno
-
I don’t think any of the greats neglected theory, but I think the folks I most enjoy listening to were/are much more driven by their ears than by theory.
-
Originally Posted by KirkP
Most of my progress these days has been due to training my ears, not training my fingers. I have a WAYS to go, but I feel like I'm on the right track (finally!)
-
My transcription is usually limited to short passages that catch my ear. Time and again, after I've figured it out, the harmonic device is fairly simple. Often, it's an arp of one chord over another. Sometimes it will be something like an alt scale, but with the notes shaped into an intriguing melody. That is, the player is using a small, well-known scrap of theory but in a very musical way.
I often hear players running broken scales (eg 1 2 3 5, 2 3 4 6 etc) but I tend to find that sort of thing uninteresting, to be kind.
What I usually go by when I'm listening to music with a critical ear is whether or not I can feel anything. What theory helps with that?
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Of course, there are plenty of theories of music that go beyond ii-V-I and harmony. Almost every aspect of music you can think of has been examined by academics from all disciplines, and it may interest some to look into these.
But as an artist, I feel it's best to surrender to the process rather than question it. Listening itself is a creative act. What resonates with you is unique to you, and if you feel moved to work out a line, tune or voicing (or a whole solo) then you have made an emotional connection to music that is profound and genuine.
That's the way to develop as a musician, find your voice. It's an ongoing process.
-
"My research is clearly beyond reproach"
Why would anyone ever say such an egotist thing?
-
Originally Posted by jayv999
-
So, I think it's perhaps worth popping this up again
Compare this to the chart from the New Real Book (or Real Book for that matter).
This is the sort of thing that intrigues me.
-
Originally Posted by Irez87
-
Yeah I think you got to do both. I went through a bit of a 'music only' thing for a bit, but my chops got sloppy.
So, a good way I've found, is obviously - listen to a record, hear a line, play it. Try to do it at full speed.
-
Originally Posted by Irez87
It occurred to me that immortality wouldn't give you enough time to work through that. And, when you were done, you'd still have to figure out how to apply it to tunes.
I don't claim to have much standard jazz vocabulary (that's because I don't), but what little I do have -- in my playing, not in my dreams -- came mostly from live situations, performing or in lessons playing tunes. Not that much from records (my bad) and almost nothing from theory. That's not a suggestion, unless it's about figuring out the way an individual absorbs things most effectively.
I also don't claim to have had many breakthroughs, but one occurred, I think, when I decided to give up on trying to sound like a classic jazz player. I had tried for years with little success and with arthritis setting in, I decided that working on an individual style was more important than continuing to be frustrated.
So, hijacking the thread in yet another direction, here's what I did.
I sat with my ME80 until I found a tone that better allowed me to express what I began to think of as my style. Took about 3 hours. And, I started focusing on the stuff I could already hear in my mind's ear and not try to manufacture other sounds by thinking about theory.
Eventually, I did get tired of my own harmonic palette and lately I've been working on expanding it. But, in tiny increments. One little device at a time. And, always in the context of a tune. My basic practice routine (interrupted frequently by needing to learn things for the groups I play in) is to set IrealPro for 13 repeats changing key every chorus by a 4th, melody twice, improv and comping (the latter quite challenging for more complicated tunes).
Well, probably too much detail, but maybe this will trigger some discussion about ears, theory and style.
-
Originally Posted by KirkP
You play some great lines, and you never forget to GROOVE. I can definitely tell you are using your ear to create your improvisation.
Sloppy? I'll take sloppy and inspired over neat and totally contrived (like playing Coltrane patterns over every tune).
Chris'77, you really gotta take a vacation to Washington. You'd love it here. It's your type of weather, and the playing here is...well, I think I've posted about it before. The players here are no joke, my snarky bloke.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Oh boy...
I totally agree. I would rather see charts totally stripped down to their bare bones than the crap I see in the Real Book. I still use the Real Book when I need to accompany, I'm working on hearing harmony in a chordal manner when I play so I can play what "chords" I hear in my head--but it's not there YET (it will be ). That said, when I look in the Real Book--especially for Ballads--I get all types of messed up. What's up with all these extra chords that add nothing to the song? Thanks Berk-n-theorists!
Kirk is pretty good at simplifying tunes in the Real Book. Kirk, you should publish a simplified changes Real Book with the melody--for the iPhone and iPad.
At least the Chuck Sher Standards Book contains the lyrics to each song--that's extremely helpful when memorizing and soloing over these standards, at least for me.
-
Approach 1: Minimalistic notation. Like a painting of modern art, where the observer uses his imagination to fill in the blanks in whatever way his brain rationalizes the music landscape. Every musician has his own personal idea and interpretation of what he sees in the sheet. Notation is a sketch of the composers idea and we will never know if that idea ever reified from a state of blurry vision. The composer may regard his work as purposely uncompleted, for others to complete in whatever way they see fit. We may associate this approach with improvised music of sorts.
Approach 2: Comprehensive standard notation including notes for tempo, dynamics, key changes, accents and a score including all instrument parts. Like a sharp photography of an architecture. The observer is able to study the details of a finalized structure. The structure constrains space of free movement to some degree. We may associate this approach with classical music.
Most GASB material originates from the 2nd approach, much simplified in Real book. Approach 1 is associated with the later post GASB era.
We can use whatever approach we like, which for most people would be somewhere in-between the extremes and also depend on reading/writing skills as well as improvising skills. Note: there's no conflict between ability to read and ability to improvise.
-
Originally Posted by Irez87
Getting hung up on rhythms when transcribing
Today, 11:59 AM in Ear Training, Transcribing & Reading