Modern Jazz Guitar Improvisation

[Jazzyteach65]

So reading a thread here last night, I came across the term "modern improv." What exactly are the characteristics of modern improv, because I know the music is changing, and always has been? When I started out playing, I started with Christian and Django and Pass, then moved to listening to Wes, Grant, Herb ect. I remember buying a book when I was younger called "modern improvisation" by Joe Diorio, where he took old standards, and soloed over them using fourths and fifths ect. The most modern I get when it comes to listening to players is Kurt Rosenwinkle and Scofield. Kurt has a dark sense of harmony, but there is nothing "new" about his lines. Sco's lines are and have always been "outside" and using alot of bending. A guy like John Abercrombie can play lines with no chromatics or licks, and sound great, but that was 30 years ago.

That Diorio book was written in '79, and alot of the "fusion" ideas of quartal and quintal soloing has come and gone. So what am I missing as far as "modern line-playing?" I've been thinking about this for the last 12 hours. What are some new techniques? Also, what are some"modern" rehamonizations for old standards. Are ii-V's no longer cool? Often times I'll go see someone, and they won't play one tune with a swing feel. My biggest influences are guys from the 50's-60's. What am I missing?

[Jake Hanlon]

Modern is a terrible term to use imo. I had a teacher who described Parker as a 'modern' player. In the 50s he was...

It's a term that is used sort of like 'avante-guarde' it is always shifting.

I think most people look at 'modern' today as a Harmonic and Rhythmic device rather then melodic. Harmony since the late 60's is pretty much what we use now, polytonal harmony, non-functional changes (ie yes ii V I is no longer something you can hedge your bets on), pedal points and often times pointlessly difficult reharmonizations. Also compound meter and things like this.

Melodically many people are leaning towards the invervalic and hexatonic.

Jazz continues as it always had, an established scene of players who push their art and polish it (Metheny, Shorter, Hancock) as opposed to an underground network of younger musicians pushing the envelops (Heonig, Rosenwinkel, Turner, Benney)

However I notice these days that the underground players who we might be familiar with (because we're part of the culture of Jazz) are more receptive to Standard tunes then the previous generation. I see a lot of players my age embrasing Standards and playing them all the time.

[Jazzyteach65]

Jake, which hexatonic ae you refering to? Whole Tone, Aug, Blues Promethean?

[larry graves]

Modern is a terrible term to use imo. I had a teacher who described Parker as a 'modern' player. In the 50s he was...

It's a term that is used sort of like 'avante-guarde' it is always shifting.

I think most people look at 'modern' today as a Harmonic and Rhythmic device rather then melodic. Harmony since the late 60's is pretty much what we use now, polytonal harmony, non-functional changes (ie yes ii V I is no longer something you can hedge your bets on), pedal points and often times pointlessly difficult reharmonizations. Also compound meter and things like this.

Melodically many people are leaning towards the invervalic and hexatonic.

Jazz continues as it always had, an established scene of players who push their art and polish it (Metheny, Shorter, Hancock) as opposed to an underground network of younger musicians pushing the envelops (Heonig, Rosenwinkel, Turner, Benney)

However I notice these days that the underground players who we might be familiar with (because we're part of the culture of Jazz) are more receptive to Standard tunes then the previous generation. I see a lot of players my age embrasing Standards and playing them all the time.

Jake. How far can we go with this stuff ,before we vanish you
know where, is it infinitum ,or do we loop back to basic's periodically?

[Zhivago]

Modern is indeed a terrible term. I believe that categorizing players under "styles" is an awful and simplistic way of seeing things.

We put guys like Turner, Rosenwinkel, Potter, Monder, etc, under modern but they are SO different. It's true they are in the same context regarding time, players, etc, but they do sound different.

I'm not much of an expert on anything about Jazz, but I do believe that "modern" playing uses certain stuff. I can hear a lot of TRIADS, especially guys like Monder. He uses triads on a very strange way. I saw him playing live like 2 weeks ago, playing a blues, and on the last chours he destroyed the harmony using triads like crazy. Triads over bass notes, triad voice leading.

Harmonic modulation. Rosenwinkel, live village vanguard, life unfolds intro. He also uses CLEARLY lots of triads, and moves over a major scale (almanac guitar voice leading?).

It's hard to say why they are modern. I'm listening to Lennie Tristano right now and he sounds SOOOOOO modern ('49). I can hear Turner on Warne Marsh playing.

Potter is a huge motif user. He does superimpose triads (Solar, Presenting Chris Potter). Brecker !

About using intervals... Coltrane was doing that already right? How does it differs from how they are using it right now???

Last week I recognized an interval on Steve Cardenas playing. He used the first thing played by Coltrane on Love Supreme. I think it was F, Bb, C , F. The sus triad arpeggio??? An Ambichord (4, 2, 4) ??? Rosenwinkel plays a lot of chords that way, using different bass, Ex: Bass: Bb, chord: A, D, E, A

I do believe that serching for the "modern improv" is asking the wrong question...

Let's continue with this !

-Zhivago

[Jazzyteach65]

To be honest, I would like to see music "jazz" extend further in a way it currently is extending: into world music. I have always dreamed of a music that is maintaining standards, but superimposes exotic scales, bizarre time and feel over dissonant and hauntingly oblique harmony. Perhaps it is because my parents are Yemenite and Pakistani, respectively, but I would love to see how a group like Shakti or Ancient Future would treat a standard whilst reharming it and using scales as Hungarian Minor and Kaffi East Indian mode

[Jake Hanlon]

i think that the whole cyclical nature of the music is it's charm. There is no limit despite ourselves. Imagination is the only limit.

As far as Hexatonic, blanket that term over any 6 note scale derived synthetically, ie Triad Pairs, Whole Tone, Pentatonics with added notes etc.

If you listen to a lot of these "modern" players they are in fact using very basic things, just in not basic ways. It's amazing what you can accomplish with two major triads.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Jazzyteach, I agree. I am personally in love with the maqam system used in the Arabic states- and I'd love to see what they could pull over, say, 'So What'!

[jseaberry]

To me. "modern" means being able to weave lines into chords and chords into lines so that it becomes more like one concept than separate things. I start with throwing out that Carved-In-Stone rule you get from the classical teachers that ALL FINGERS OF A CHORD MUST GO INTO PLACE SIMULTANEOUSLY!!!! If you forget that, then find notes that fit the chord you want to build as you move across (either up or down), holding those notes you can or want to, you can build chords on the fly that, because you may keep one or two notes ringing, sound as chords without having the traditional "grip". For example, build an Ab ma7th chord: start on the 3rd, C on the 6th string; now Eb on the 5th string, holding the C; now the open D would be the b5th; now you have a dissonance with the Eb that may sound cool; now with your pinky, hit the Ab on the 5th string, letting the D keep ringing if you can; now hit the open G, which is the Ma 7th, now let the low C go and hit a Bb on the 2nd string, which is the 9th; hit the open E for the #5th (tres moderne, n'est pas?) then finish on the G on the 2nd string. You have built a chord w/o any preconcieved form, just from knowing what notes are chord tone, which are extensions and which are alterations, but it is simultaneously a Line! This is the entire theory behind John Stowell's marvelous CD set on Truefire, "Modern Chord Melody", which, incidentally, I was just working on before I took a break to see what's up here!!!! You also hear the same ideas from people like Gilad Hekselman, Ben Monder, Tim Miller, John Abercrombie, Steve Herberman, who also has an excellent class on this subject: http://www.mikesmasterclasses.com/in...mart&Itemid=32

I think this might be what you'd call "modern", I dunno.

[cosmic gumbo]

When I hear the term modern improv, I think of post bop jazz that started to move away from traditional jazz rhythms and harmonies and tried to explore new territory. I've heard Larry Coryell refer to the stuff he and his peers pursued through much of their careers as modern improv, rather than jazz, because it was straight 8ths stuff, and not swinging.

[Jazzyteach65]

Well after taking a look at one of my old Diorio books, where he uses fourths and chromaticism for lines over traditional standards, and alot the harmony is substituted to fit a "modern" style. Sus chords, 11ths and quartals harmony are all over the place, and substitutions like this happen:
origionally Bb- Eb7-to Fmaj7 in "Stella" is now bm7b5 to Bb7 to G-11

and in "ALL Things You Are" this happens:
origionally: f- bb- Eb7 now is f-bb- e- Eb7 to Abmaj

alot of this happens: G7 to Ab7 to C

then I came across this site:
Reharmonization (Part 2)

And realized how many ways you can reharmonize one measure or a turnaround. It uses a lot of classical theory I learned and then forgot from college. I now realize (I may be wrong) that it's up to the arranger to come up with those non-functional or odd substitutions like Metheny does that you REALLY have to work through before approaching to solo.

[jeffstocksmusic]

Steve Herberman, who also has an excellent class on this subject: http://www.mikesmasterclasses.com/in...mart&Itemid=32

Absolutely check this out for some ear expansion. This technique of taking chord fragments in various 'segments' really opened up my ears to new ways of looking at improv...away from scale, arpeggios, etc and more to large (and often simultaneous) intervals and melodies that move in unexpected ways. John Stowell is a wizard at this as well. To my ears, this type of stuff is very 'modern' because it isn't rooted in the bop language, nor blues. It is 'other' and extra beautiful to me.

James, it is a shame you are in Chicago. We seem to speak the same langauge!

[jseaberry]

Thank you, Kind Sir; that's the nicest thing I've heard in a long time!!!

[Jazzyteach65]

It's funny you mention this, because I've been listening to Stowell and Herbam, and Jay Umble. Those guys have reshaped some of my ideas. Stowell has this brilliant concept of superimposing the altered dominant scale up a fifth, and it's respective min/maj 9 arpeggio over a static minor chord. So, for example, if you take Green Dolphin St, play Ab melodic minor over the c- for two bars, and there are certain places where it resolves to the next chord, a D6/9 (I play an a-)

[jeffstocksmusic]

Don't even get me started on Stowell! The man is a master and a perfect example of dedication to art. He has absolutely re-shaped my approach in many, many ways. His melodic minor matrix approach has added so much to my sound and opened my ears to so many new ways of expanding harmony. If I could have one 'approach' to shed for the rest of my days, it would probably be his.

He is coming through the midwest next Spring and I am keeping my fingers crossed I can get a lesson with him. I have already put my name on the list! I am not sure I could handle sitting across from him for an hour. I am fairly sure I would just giggle the whole time like a school girl.....

[jseaberry]

Seen this?

[jeffstocksmusic]

Yikes!

It looks fairly accurate, as best I can tell by listening and following along. Someone has huge ears and lots of patience. Thank you James.

I would say there are plenty of modern improv ideas in that transcription...lots of interesting re-harms, rhythmic displacement, thematic stuff, etc. Not as out there as, say Monder, but a fairly good representation of some of the techniques I think of in 'modern' improv.

[timscarey]

My feeling is that this modern jazz idea has a lot to do with the sound of the guitars being used, as well as the use of keyboards, electric bass, straight 8th's, and non-diatonic harmony. Basically the overall sound of the music.

Also I think that for music to be modern, it needs to have been written (or arranged) by some one who is well versed in what has come before and is looking to do something new.

Kneebody, Hardcoretet, Reptet, the Teaching.... these are some more groups that have not been mentioned yet. (mostly seattle groups as I love my own music scene)

And yes, I would agree that 2-5-1's are getting to the point of cheesiness and most young jazz composers try to avoid them whenever possible.

Just My Opinion.

[Reg]

Great topic... What I've noticed is there are modern or new approaches to composition and then there are players who play over the new charts and also experiments with new approaches to standards. Players like Stern and Brecker take standards and compose new heads, stretch the existing harmony when soloing. Our ears have accepted or at least are use to the now standard jazz sound or harmony, (modal and Modal interchange) so were able to almost play over entire tunes as though there pedals. There are player/composers like Steve Masakowski,(Astral Project) that have stretched the harmonic use of Melodic and harmonic minors along with Har. Maj and play fusion like melodies and rhythm. Check out Florian Ross compositions, Like "By any Means Necessary" or "Platypus" for stretching isometric rhythmic ideas.
Amina Figarova writes cool traditional tunes with modern harmony, check out, "Open to the World" or "Come Escape With Me".
This use of expected or implied tonal resolutions or standard jazz function and using different control devices to deceptively resolve is interesting to watch develop... And there's always Billy Childs... As far as soloing.... most new or modern approaches tend to be harmonic in nature, still... There's the European guitarist like Jessie van Ruller or Martijn van Iterson who approach jazz through Melodic Minor as their base harmonic structure... not really, just having fun. I dig Mintzers Big Band Charts, some new forms, moving on from Shorters block compositions. Harmonically great use of parallelism, Pedals and melodic structures of the last ten years....I dig subject and play with lots of new player, I'll try and give some more technical theoretical examples of what I hear as "modern approaches" to jazz... I'm off but will try and post before gig tonight... Later Reg

[oilywrag]

You can find all the artists Reg quoted above on "You Tube",not done a link cos they are very easy find

Hey Reg thanks for the name checks some pretty cool stuff going on.

Cheers Tom

[Jazzyteach65]

I personally LOVE hearing guys that fuse exotic scales and techniques into thier playing ala Rez Abbasi, whom BTW I am friends with now (he's a hell of a nice guy!) as well as guys like Rosenwinkle that aren't afraid to use stacked triads against chords when soloing, guys that incorporate wide interval use, frequent change in direction of the line, and the pianistic counterpoint of Melhdau and Vijay Iyer are great. I like guys like Stowell and his harmony. I have noticed a lot more newer pieces are based on exotic tonalities, scales and modes. I think after Shorter and the whole Weather Report as well as Di Meola happenned, people took notice.

[orasnon]

interesting topic. i've heard of cultural historians who have categorized bebop as 'modern' music: that is, as related to "modernism" in 20th century art - picasso, james joyce, proust, schoenberg, stravinsky, expressionist painting, etc. Some elements of the 'modern' aesthetic include the rejection of romanticism, a move away from 'traditional' aesthetic tendencies (in our case, diatonic harmony), non-linearity and abstraction, and overall intellectualism. it's arguable that parker, dizzy and monk's music exhibits these qualities - or at least were trailblazing in this direction.

However, some of the stuff talked about here, such as quartal and quintal harmony, incorporation of exotic scales, chromaticism leading to atonality, and so forth, was present in music more than 100 years ago (for ex, Richard Strauss, Debussy, and many others). Hardly "modern" in the sense of being contemporary; yet modern in the sense of historical category. So..... I'm remain confused, just as some others here might be LOL

[JohnRoss]

So reading a thread here last night, I came across the term "modern improv." What exactly are the characteristics of modern improv, because I know the music is changing, and always has been?

Good question, one which lots of us ask ourselves constantly. But as far as I can tell, "modern improvisation" doesn't really mean anything very specific except possibly in terms of dance.

Are ii-V's no longer cool?

ii-V is eternal, far more so than jazz.

Often times I'll go see someone, and they won't play one tune with a swing feel. My biggest influences are guys from the 50's-60's. What am I missing?

Listening, I expect. The kids are in tune with what's happening now because that's their natural environment, we oldies have to make an effort. From what you say, you're still listening to guys from forty or fifty years ago, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if you want to be up to date, you need to tune in to what's going on. The swing feel was thought corny by many even back in the fifties, you can't expect it to be the norm half a century later.

[larry graves]

Trends come and go pretty quick, sometimes when you hear an old track you think jeez that's dated; listen to the original "Hoagy" version of Georgia on my mind,and then Ray Charles's version. No,this music will be around as long as we are. It will just be played in the style and mood of the time. I can't see it becoming "Top of the Pops" but who knows,the very fact that young players join this site every day is heartening..

[Reg]

Lets keep our main focus on jazz when we talk modern. So when were talking Modal interchange etc... were not making reference to 19th and 20th century, sacred imitation, folk or reactions against traditional classical harmony, early interchanging of modes, duel modality, poly and A..tonality, pandiatonicism or any harmonic synthesis... I'm aware that compositional techniques are usually source for traditional modern music and we can philosophically debate the def. of modern... But I believe we'll be better served keeping posts talking jazz context. But I may be totally off, and will gladly go through the history review again... What were we talking about... late gig last night... o yea improvisation Best Reg