The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 81
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mateo2006
    Oddly, I often subscribe to the position Pat Metheny once quipped of jazz guitarists that "one jazz guitarist in a jazz band is one too many."
    Haha!

    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.
    Yeah I feel you. I think guitar is a tricky one in many ways. The unique things the guitar does are often rejected by jazz players - things like string bending, strumming, open strings, using different sounds, percussive sounds and so on - which is something that seems to be almost essential for the style.

    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????!

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I don’t understand how that very routine minor key dominant is in any way unusual. It’s just d harmonic minor, one of the diatonic minor scales.

    I can think of an example of this in a tune btw, first bar of the middle 8 of Stella. The #5 resolves down by a half step.
    Harmonic minor, melodic minor or used as substitution for a varity of different chords. Not unusual, but when the only information given is A7, it's hardly obvious. 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".
    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).

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Haha!

    Well we used to have a job to do, now we are just an annoyance.



    Yeah I feel you. I think guitar is a tricky one in many ways. The unique things the guitar does are often rejected by jazz players - things like string bending, strumming, open strings, using different sounds, percussive sounds and so on - which is something that seems to be almost essential for the style.

    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????!
    Usually, you hear about jazz guitarists wanting their single note lines to sound like horns. But, I tend to think that many of them sound more like single note lines on a piano. Players who play pure, well articulated notes with clean tones. Saxes do that too, but an acoustic pianist is sort of stuck with it. Vibes too. Blues and rock players use bends, vibrato, slides, pinch harmonics, fx etc. (Django did some of that -- more than a lot of jazzers). I like players who create emotion in the way the note speaks. Mimi Fox does some of that, but in her case, it's in her hands. It's the way the notes pop when she plays. Not a diss. My all time favorite jazz guitarist is Jim Hall, who created all kinds of things with a straightforward sound.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    Harmonic minor, melodic minor or used as substitution for a varity of different chords. Not unusual, but when the only information given is A7, it's hardly obvious.
    I'm struggling to understand the value of this statement beyond thought experiment.

    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".
    Well given this is the type of sound - mixolydian/dominant scale on a minor key dominant - you often hear from players like Cannonball Adderley, Wes Montgomery and Charlie Christian on a minor key dominant, I would hardly describe it as 'outside.' Take a listen to Wes's solo on Caravan for instance.



    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).
    But you know, we can ride a bike without stabiliser wheels? And if you can't, surely that's your aim?

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    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.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    But you know, we can ride a bike without stabiliser wheels? And if you can't, surely that's your aim?
    Sure, the question is what information is useful to whom in a specific situation. I could simplify to a point where information is lost (get rid of alterations and extensions etc) to please some people by relieving them from information overflow and at the same time please the improviser that likes to reinvent the wheel. Win-win perhaps. For me personally, I like to read the music in the chord symbols and I like to express my intentions in the chord symbols (in addition to standard notation). Maybe this also applies to others that are a part of the massive trend you have observed? Melody is still important. If someone would re-harmonize something I wrote, and he only had a lead sheet, hopefully he would better understand my intentions before re-inventing.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    I got curious about the evolution of comping.

    This is from 1950. Not Jim Hall, but not FG either.



    This is one from the late 30's. You can hear FG in the guitar, but the piano is something else.

    You beat me to the Punch with Tal Farlow. The jump blues guys sort of comped also. For instance, T-bone Walker did a lot of stabs and hits, and did not do FG style rhythm guitar. But that's a somewhat different lineage. I suspect most of the late 40s-50s guys (e.g. Raney) non-FG comped when they did pianoless gigs, but there aren't a lot of records of that sort of thing.

    John

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    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.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    This is all very cool. I may steal it for another video... :-)

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    " 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 .

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    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'm not gonna derail the thread, but I wonder what would happen if music colleges spend 80% of their time on formal and informal EAR TRAINING and maybe 20% of time on theory. I'm talking about my experience at CCNY, and my friends' experience at New School. Theory isn't hard to learn--but training the ear (whatever method you take) takes time--and should be individualized to the musician... kinda like how I individualize my instruction to my students (it's called an Individualized Education Plan; it's not my idea--though I fully endorse it, an IEP is an idea of Special Education in the US).

    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

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    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.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by KirkP
    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.
    Exactly. I've never said throw out theory with the kitchen sink. I've always said, train your ears to hear the theory you understand and the theory you want to learn. And when you improvise, rely on your ears and don't get theoretical at all.

    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!)

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    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?

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    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?
    Yes, absolutely...

    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.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    "My research is clearly beyond reproach"

    Why would anyone ever say such an egotist thing?

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jayv999
    "My research is clearly beyond reproach"

    Why would anyone ever say such an egotist thing?
    Because they were joking?

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    So, I think it's perhaps worth popping this up again
    How jazz became the study of chord symbols-cjoemspwuaandp1-jpg

    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.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Irez87
    Most of my progress these days has been due to training my ears, not training my fingers.
    Me too, but I’ve turned out to be a sloppy player. ;-)

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    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.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Irez87
    I'm not gonna derail the thread, but I wonder what would happen if music colleges spend 80% of their time on formal and informal EAR TRAINING and maybe 20% of time on theory. I'm talking about my experience at CCNY, and my friends' experience at New School. Theory isn't hard to learn--but training the ear (whatever method you take) takes time--and should be individualized to the musician... kinda like how I individualize my instruction to my students (it's called an Individualized Education Plan; it's not my idea--though I fully endorse it, an IEP is an idea of Special Education in the US).

    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 recall a post on another forum which promulgated an approach involving triad pairs and bass notes. So, organize the following. Every possible triad juxtaposed over every possible triad and all that juxtaposed over every possible bass note. And, since the sounds are different in different octaves, I suppose you needed to play each combination in different octaves.

    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.

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by KirkP
    Me too, but I’ve turned out to be a sloppy player. ;-)
    Kirk, I'm gonna post some of your solos at our local jam session if I hear you say that again!

    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.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    So, I think it's perhaps worth popping this up again
    How jazz became the study of chord symbols-cjoemspwuaandp1-jpg

    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.
    Exactly, Sir Chris--harris--parker '77!

    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.

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    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.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Irez87
    It's your type of weather
    Eh?