-
Dadd9/F# // Fsus13 F13 // Bbmaj7 Bbmaj7#5 // E13#9 // Eb lyd // D13#9 // Db13#11 Db7#11b9 // Calt // Fsus13 // Em7b5 Aalt //
Sorry I find this difficult to parse in terms of structure (which is important to me when looking at a chart.)
Looks fairly straightforward functionally. So we are in Bb.
Dadd9/F# is the odd one out really.
Bb Major so
V7 --> I --> I7 (tritone) --> IV --> III7 ---> IV7 (tritone) --> II7 --> V7 --> II-7 V7 into with for it.....
D major (III major)
So
Dmajor
--> Bb ---> Eb lyd --> round the houses --> interrupted with a resolution back to D
So I could certainly spaff some bebop out on this one.
I could also spaff chord scales on it too.
D13#9 - D half-whole
Db13#11 Db7#11b9 - Db half-whole
Calt - fuck it, just do C half-whole
But that doesn't make it the best way to solo on this tune.
Now, all those busy looking extensions, what do they do? I'd be asking if there's something clever I could do with triads. This would probably need more examination. Could do like,
D13#9 - B
Db13#11 Db7#11b9 - Bb to maybe G
Calt - F#
Really it would help enormously to hear the melody on this (if there is one), because I'm sure there's some shit going on that would help massively with soloing on it. If Chico's gone to the effort to work out a pathway through it that sounds nice, why throw it away? If not, def something up with that voice leading. It's just chord symbols keep their secrets close sometimes.
-
03-26-2020 05:16 PM
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
From different points of view we both ended up in a similar place -- use the melody and think about triads. Chico often plays 3 note chords in his later material, so there may be a good reason for that working well.
In that guitarwank podcast, Chico talks about Brazilian composition being more melody based with the harmony developed afterward. I think that's one reason why a lot of modern Brazilian tunes are challenging to solo over. Prato Feito (Horta) would be a good example. Toninho found a melody that works with those changes (probably found the melody first, actually) but it's hard to construct another one that works as well. Metheny is the soloist on the recording and the story is that he shedded it for a weekend. Nails the solo.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
chords are add9/F# // Fsus13 F13 // Bbmaj7 Bbmaj7#5 // E13#9 // Eb lyd // D13#9 // Db13#11 Db7#11b9 // Calt // Fsus13 // Em7b5 Aalt //
But, to get the sound of the tune, you have to make a number of adjustments. First opportunity for a clam is if you play an F over Bbmaj7#5. Or a Bb against the Eb. Or miss the altered fifths and ninths on some of the rest.
How do you think about that? How do you go from your sketch of functional harmony to actually nailing the changes?
Here's a video:
-
Man... a young Scotty, mama would be proud.
So do you just play... I've always made quick analysis of all new tunes.... I always start with changes, or roots, and then the melody. I could start with melody first... but 99% of tune melodies use the harmony to frame notes of melody... the a 9th isn't a 9th or a chord tone isn't a chord tone without a harmonic reference.
It doesn't make a difference... the melody fills in the unknown of the changes... and the changes fill in the unknowns of the melody.... I mean after a while this takes... 10 to 20 seconds. Then while your performing.... you listen and finalize the analysis of the tune. Now you have the basic harmonic, melodic, rhythmic etc... Reference to start with.
I mean playing the changes is like the obvious, or at least it should be eventually if you go through this process. Eventually you'll have pre-fab or previous analysis to work with. Kind of like... C7 implies Rt 3rd, 5th and b7...and in different musical contexts... the extensions can change. Anyway probable for most this is a slow process now... but if you start... it becomes faster and eventually... yea 30 sec. or less. I mean most practice playing right, why not actually practice understanding what your playing?
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
also did you read my post?
in bebop playing you generally don’t care about the written extensions.
In more modern styles the extensions usually relate to the written melody in some way, and are honoured in the chord scale choices you make over them.
Jordan has a good approach of doing this while getting out of seven note scale mind set, which is good for making sure you get the sound while still playing melodically.
again, need to study the tune. But fundamentally: don’t ignore the melody, or you are being a right plonker.
EDIT: It’s a really nice tune. No written melody over the soloing changes right?
-
Also why the fuck are you asking me this question when you could ask Chico? I have to look after a toddler and have basically no time to sit down and play. Also he’s better than me. Also he wrote the tune. What does he play on it?
From my limited analysis of his playing so far he does both windy windy bebop and clever stuff with triads.
Last edited by christianm77; 03-27-2020 at 01:39 PM.
-
Solo is about 4m in (link is not good in vid is ok no one watched it anyway)
-
Over the years, I have occasionally asked a master improviser what they were playing over something.
I have yet to hear an answer which referred to specific scales, modes arps or etc.
Common answer is, "I don't know".
I've also heard "I was thinking about targets".
My favorite answer, "I was thinking darker". That's a real answer, not a joke.
Another, "I just heard it".
A good answer, "Don't ask what he did, ask what he practiced to be able to do what he did".
My question still stands. When you see a progression like Arabesca and (to pick a small instance) and the chord is Bbmaj7#5, how do you get to the F#? In
I do it by note name. So I know it's an F# and I know where every F# is on the guitar. I also know that Bbmaj7#5 is a D triad over a Bb, and I know each of those notes by name. So, when I see the chord symbol, I can jump right on any chord tone, if I need to. This is not making music, it's avoiding clams, but clam-avoidance is a worthwhile thing on the way toward music.
I'm just curious about how people do this without reference to note name. Do you have to think "Bb and the #5 is two strings up and one fret lower?" How do people do it? Do you have a maj7#5 fingering pattern so ingrained that you can leap to any note within it?
BTW, this is a real question, not a troll. I'm really curious about this. The only way I could figure out how to do it was by note name.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
When I transcribed the line, it was D dorian to Galt.
Suffice it say, when I play D dorian to Galt, I don't get his sound.
It reminds me of that Jimmy Bruno video somebody posted recently. He plays in Cmajor (all diatonic) against some changes and it sounds like good jazz. Other people, well, not so much.
So, I think it's melodic gift.
-
That shows nothing more than the limitations of boiling everything down to seven note pitch sets. There’s more analysis to be done than that.
Take the way I break down a couple of licks rhythmically, in terms of contour, rhythm etc. I’m not saying it’s particularly clever or unusual but there’s a lot you can learn from a small snippet of information. Doesn’t mean you’ll play like PG but you might learn why you like a line so much and be able to put that in your own music.
why does PG’s dorian to altered sound better than yours? What can you learn beyond that? Even, send me the lick, I’ll do an analysis when I am bored. I bet I can think of ten things I can tell you about that lick.Last edited by christianm77; 03-27-2020 at 05:06 PM.
-
Art Lande: "I was thinking shapes."
Mark Levine: "I was thinking making the changes."
Mark Isham: "I was thinking melody."Last edited by rintincop; 03-27-2020 at 11:07 PM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Don’t get that confused with the other side of it. The study of the music. Musicians can and will talk about what others play, even if they might not always use technical terms from jazz school. They have picked apart other people’s music and mined it for inspiration.
Look, for instance, Miles Okazaki recalls spending an afternoon while George Benson played his favourite Charlie Christian solos and pointed out little details, features and elements that interested or inspired him. Needless to say this was inspiring and fascinating.
if you’ve ever had the chance to sit down and listen to music with a really good musician you’d probably have had that experience right? They hear things you didn’t hear. Listening itself is a creative act.
(And isn’t a cheesy test of creativity? divergent thinking exercises?)
Analysis is any different to this, it’s just giving it a formal name and doing it with the ‘correct’ technical terms. I emphasise it is creative, and personal, because one person will notice different things from the next.
Every jazz musician has an intimate connection with the music itself. Analysis isn’t simply - ‘oh it’s that scale’. It’s about noticing all sort of elements.
That’s perhaps one think Jimmy means when he does the C major thing. It sounds good because of reasons other than the pitch set he uses. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing to learn from it.
And this brings me to my central point - CST is the only tool a lot of people have. And it’s of limited use because not all pitch sets in the same mode are fungible. I mean - what???? Seriously??? That’s what someone can offer to say on say a Bach extract say is that it is ‘diatonic minor’? Well it might be true, but it’s not even the beginning of the story. It’s such an incredibly stupid, philistine and barbaric way to view music it actually makes me angry. Grrrrr!
Ok I’ve calmed down. Analysis is always a reduction or abstraction of the thing you are looking at, but I’m pretty certain there are more interesting things we can notice about music than what scales it uses. I mean I’d think I was erecting a straw man of CST, but that is kind of what you are saying.
What elements do you notice in the Chico lick? What strikes you as interesting about it? Honestly, send it to me, or post it up on a new thread. My thoughts in exchange for yours. Let’s use this forum for something constructive.Last edited by christianm77; 03-28-2020 at 04:36 AM.
-
People can talk endlessly about art.
I doubt that the ability to do that correlates well with the ability to create great art. If it did, the critics would be great artists..
Great time, great harmonic ears and a gift for melody are the most important elements. There's a limit to the benefits of analysis, and the greats are all behond that limit.
Jimmy Bruno is fine teacher, but I don't think he can teach you to do what he did in the Key of C improv video.
I think the analysis allows people to play at a certain level. But, when you're around genius, it's very different.
As far as what strikes me about Chico's playing is that he achieves a certain sound via harmony ... and that he can achieve it on his very complex tunes but also on a ii V I. It is isn't the note pool or the time. Rather, it's the way he conceptualizes melody while achieving his own sound. I don't think I can describe it any better than that. To my ear, he doesn't sound like anybody else -- and he accomplishes that partly in a way that I think is unusual.
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
’because great musicians can’t tell you what they just played that means they’ve never spent any time studying and breaking down the music of their heroes.’
this is so obviously a silly position to hold, that I feel it’s hardly worth addressing.
You must realise this right? Is that a straw man?
So, lots of people confuse the creative process itself (grace) and what we do to work towards a command of art that allows that to happen (craft.) (This is why the guitar community is full of bedroom noodlers who never improve obviously. And in their own way they may even have a little grace. If we’ve learned anything from rock guitar you don’t need to be a virtuoso to have that quality.)
So the creative process which is as resistant to analysis as you say . the root of genius is interesting here. I think most musicians would identify with the older meaning, of a spirit that inhabits you, for instance, when you make music. (This is of course why organised religion has always had a complex relationship with music. They know it’s a form of divination. When daemons became demons become devils, and genii become djinn.)
needless to say the modern world secularises this. We talk about flow states and being ‘in the zone.’ We can use outdated neuroscience to talk about left brain/right brain. But the subjective experience remains the same.
We all do things we aren’t aware of if we are in the zone. plenty of times I’ve had students ask me to break things down and I have to really think about it, or observed something I am unaware of in my playing (often to do with rhythm) and I’m like - errr OK. And I’m obviously not a genius lol. But maybe a passing genius passed through me and made music for a chorus until I frightened it off by thinking ‘argh what chord are we on?’ or some such.
so let’s not get too hung up on the ‘greats’ bullshit. I’ve been around world class players and generally I am impressed by their depth of knowledge of the music and their listening even if this isn’t always academically framed (and given most of today’s name players are music school graduates and associate professors of this or that school, they usually have that language.) Of course they are inspiring and amazing, but there’s always a sense of craft as well as grace.
You obviously need both, right?
If you find yourself having to think on the bandstand, that brings us to point 2:
all the hard work that you have to do to prepare yourself to get to that position. While a great musician can’t tell you what they did to make music out of the C major scale they can probably tell you who they listened to and what they practiced. And if you are lucky enough, they can talk about the music with great perception while you listen.
And if you aren’t a purely passive learner you can dig into it and work shit out. That’s the main difference between my good students and the ones who don’t improve so fast tbh. (It’s humbling as a teacher, but maybe it is possible to teach self directed learning.)
why? Because it’s fun. Serious fun.
So the trick is - ‘to be able to forget all that shit and just play.’ That’s .... not easy. Why do you think there was such a mystique about drugs in the 50s, and less lamentably, Eastern religions in the 60s and 70s? Or the self helpy Kenny Werner thing in the 90s/00s?
But you do have to have something to forget because we can all just strum some chords at home and get into a meditative state. Not so easy when playing Giant Steps to a listening audience with great musicians.
But the process isn’t so different. Learn —> forget. Open chords were impossible when we first attempted them. So many hours just going from one to the other. Took me forever!
I mean, you must understand all this right?
As far as what strikes me about Chico's playing is that he achieves a certain sound via harmony ... and that he can achieve it on his very complex tunes but also on a ii V I. It is isn't the note pool or the time. Rather, it's the way he conceptualizes melody while achieving his own sound. I don't think I can describe it any better than that. To my ear, he doesn't sound like anybody else -- and he accomplishes that partly in a way that I think is unusual.
You don’t have to be able to put it in words for it to valuable obviously.Last edited by christianm77; 03-28-2020 at 06:02 AM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
My response to this is that many mediocre musicians have done all of that too. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.
I'm inclined to agree with the notion that truly great jazz can be learned, but it can't be taught. Journeyman jazz can be taught.
I think there are some well educated players who have difficulty transcending all that detail.
I'll probably elaborate tomorrow.
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
but I feel I’m starting to make progress with this. Actually this is as much of a Kolb cycle as anything else if you know what to look for.
I'll probably elaborate tomorrow.
I still want to take a look at the Chico stuff. I might not have time to sit down and work stuff out from recordings at the moment, but it’s always more fun for me to be talking about specific music in this context.
The philosophy of art is not actually that complicated intellectually. actually applying it is really hard lol.
-
Stan Getz was the first jazzer I really listened to, along with Bob Brookmeyer, and I have to say he contributed in a profound way to my musical foundations. Eleven years old, hanging out of my bedroom window looking at the dark trees and the moon, listening to Willow Weep For Me and Crazy Rhythm. As many of you no doubt know (sorry if it's way back in the post), he said
'It’s like a language. You learn the alphabet, which are the scales. You learn sentences, which are the chords. And then you talk extemporaneously with the horn. It’s a wonderful thing to speak extemporaneously, which is something I’ve never gotten the hang of. But musically I love to talk just off the top of my head. And that’s what jazz music is all about. '
IOW you need to have something to say, or you'll just be chopping wood.
Chords and scales have relationships which we can use or ignore. We shouldn't be trapped by them. I mentioned in another post Brad Mehldau's piano solo on a Sco contrafact. It didn't admit to there being any chords there at all yet it was stunning. I still think woodshedding your chords and scales (and technique) is a good thing, but it's only one of many important relationships that will enlarge you as a musician. It's 'key' but not 'the key'.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
I know there are some other transcriptions floating around, but I haven't found them yet. Anybody?
http://dannygreen.net/wp-content/upl...HJx5eeIFc8fmmMLast edited by rpjazzguitar; 03-28-2020 at 03:23 PM.
-
"My response to this is that many mediocre musicians have done all of that too. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition."
And my response to that is those mediocre musicians didn't work hard enough or weren't clever enough to focus on what was important.
"I'm inclined to agree with the notion that truly great jazz can be learned, but it can't be taught. Journeyman jazz can be taught. "
Jazz improvisation can be encouraged (taught). Barry Harris does it. To do so takes wisdom, experience, deep knowledge of craft, psychology, experience about knowing what works, and how to communicate what is important to a student.
I am in agreement with chrstianm77's opinions, not with rpjazz's.
-
-
-
Originally Posted by rintincop
Here's Scofield's:
AZZed: Flipside of the same question: what do you find to be most frustrating or un-enjoyable about teaching?
JS: Unfortunately, it’s teaching people who are not very talented. That’s always going to be a problem for any instructor students who really want to get it, but just don’t have what it takes to play at an advanced level. Then it gets very difficult, trying to explain to someone how to play jazz. What is it that makes jazz good? Because it’s way too intangible to try and explain.
John Scofield: This phrase is probably not very popular, because it’s a little too cute, but I do like it: “Jazz can be learned, but it can’t be taught.” I think when you have a talented student, it’s a pleasure and a very, very wonderful experience for a teacher. But when you have someone who really wants to know, but just doesn’t have the skills… it’s sad in a way, because you can’t help that person much past a certain point.
-
I know John by the way. Okay, so John Scofield says he can't teach jazz... that's him. I've known for a long time that most of the best players cannot teach because they don't have the patience, the time, or much insight into effective teaching methods for teaching melodic composition. I think Mark Levine doesn't really teach, he lectures his book. He doesn't get much into melodic composition. However he does a good job of demonstrating melodic sequencing.As christianm77 said, passive learners don't excel. I have always said learning jazz requires somebody who is a self starter and very dedicated to learning the craft which is rare. I am sure jazz can be taught by Barry Harris. And I am of the opinion it can be taught by christianm77. I know I can teach jazz as that is how I make the bulk of my income.
-
Originally Posted by rintincop
If you can, I'd say you're doing better than any teacher I've studied with -- and I've studied with some fine players with a lot of teaching experience, including three with published method books and another with multiple videos for sale. Four names you'd probably know. Of course, that's no guarantee they can teach.
OTOH, if even pro musicians/teachers at their level can't do it, and Scofield can't do it, even though somebody even more skilled can, what does that say about the "teachability" of jazz?
My own experience after a very long time trying is that there are important things I don't expect ever to be able to do -- based on a lot of effort with unacceptable results, including years with teachers. I also believe that my phone finally started to ring more often when I stopped formal, regular study and, instead, focused on being musical with what I already knew.
I think Jimmy Bruno's video makes that point beautifully. One scale, no sharps or flats. Fairly simple chord progression. Sounds like good jazz.
How is that effectively taught? I ask that out of genuine curiosity, not to be argumentative.
16" 1920s/30s L5
Yesterday, 08:44 PM in For Sale