Pre "jazz theory" improv approach?

[djg]

I think I get it!!

where there's a 7th chord, the lick will work in the key for which that chord is the V. If that's the idea, I can see this opening up doors for sure.

just to blow your mind: the same lick (i.e. the same structure), played from different starting positions works for *all* chord qualities. it works for m7b5, maj7 and 7alt chords, too, and is used in all these instances by the greats. so all chords become equally easy.

when we study jazz from inside out instead of outside in (inductive vs deductive) we can use trivial licks and very limited material to develop a complex system of improvisation that does justice to the idiom we're trying to play. these licks become our fixed points from where we can move the world.

tl;dr: it's all honeysuckle rose.

when you listen to wes montgomery you can clearly hear that this is how the man practiced.

[Evml]

just to blow your mind: the same lick (i.e. the same structure), played from different starting positions works for *all* chord qualities. it works for m7b5, maj7 and 7alt chords, too, and is used in all these instances by the greats. so all chords become equally easy.

when we study jazz from inside out instead of outside in (inductive vs deductive) we can use trivial licks and very limited material to develop a complex system of improvisation that does justice to the idiom we're trying to play. these licks become our fixed points from where we can move the world.

tl;dr: it's all honeysuckle rose.

when you listen to wes montgomery you can clearly hear that this is how the man practiced.

Ladies and gentlemen the 'pre-theory' approach. lol. Maybe not the best was of putting it (inside-out makes a lot of sense) but anyway this is definitely what I've been wishing for. I realize it's not divorced from theory and I am beyond underqualified to criticize a theory-heavy method, I'm just talking about what seems to work for me personally.

I'll give 4 on 6 a go. Traditionally I just never knew what was going on in that tune and found it really frustrating, but maybe I'm better prepared now. I'll check out those other examples too, as well as Honeysuckle Rose, eventually...

And for the theory/structured practice advocates: just so you know I'm also meticulously drilling scales/triad/arpeggio shapes these days (for other reasons than learning jazz, though this is largely what once more sparked my interest), and am not of the opinion that such things are not invaluable. Obviously knowing your instrument inside and out is a necessary asset. I just think knowing the significance of the shapes/patterns is equally necessary.

Finally, two more questions:

1. re. the lick from different starting points working for any chord: do you mean that, for certain chords, the lick will still work as long as you start from a different position? And uh.. what would those be?..

2. this might be a can of worms, but I feel that an answer to this question will basically conclude the story the for me: what about more dissonant sounds, like Love Supreme-era Coltrane, e.g.

I always guessed he was just ripping through diminished scales, but if this is the case, which ones (I'm aware that there are essentially only 3 diminished scales)? I could see the answer to this being either very straight-forward, or very complicated, given that (I assume) Coltrane harmonies are not conventional

[djg]

Ladies and gentlemen the 'pre-theory' approach. lol. Maybe not the best was of putting it (inside-out makes a lot of sense) but anyway this is definitely what I've been wishing for. I realize it's not divorced from theory and I am beyond underqualified to criticize a theory-heavy method, I'm just talking about what seems to work for me personally.

I'll give 4 on 6 a go. Traditionally I just never knew what was going on in that tune and found it really frustrating, but maybe I'm better prepared now. I'll check out those other examples too, as well as Honeysuckle Rose, eventually...

all you need to know about honeysuckle rose are the first five notes of the melody and how they relate to the chord. it is a "cell"

4on6 is just summertime with some extra II-Vs since this is what wes enjoyed practicing (see above)

if you go back to the 16 bars i wrote out for you, you'll find the honeysuckle motif all over the place. instead of practicing large arpeggios we move small cells around.

And for the theory/structured practice advocates: just so you know I'm also meticulously drilling scales/triad/arpeggio shapes these days (for other reasons than learning jazz, though this is largely what once more sparked my interest), and am not of the opinion that such things are not invaluable. Obviously knowing your instrument inside and out is a necessary asset. I just think knowing the significance of the shapes/patterns is equally necessary.

Finally, two more questions:

1. re. the lick from different starting points working for any chord: do you mean that, for certain chords, the lick will still work as long as you start from a different position? And uh.. what would those be?..

Dm7 G7 E7b9b13 Db7alt Bm7b5 Fmaj7 all can be covered by the same lick E F A C E G, a Fmaj9 arpeggio with the maj7 as a pickup note, listen to the wes montgomery recordings above and search for that sound.

can you figure out what these chords have in common?

2. this might be a can of worms, but I feel that an answer to this question will basically conclude the story the for me: what about more dissonant sounds, like Love Supreme-era Coltrane, e.g.

I always guessed he was just ripping through diminished scales, but if this is the case, which ones (I'm aware that there are essentially only 3 diminished scales)? I could see the answer to this being either very straight-forward, or very complicated, given that (I assume) Coltrane harmonies are not conventional

pentatonics, intervals, big ears, more grind, genius.

modern language on guitar, transcribe, apply, rinse, repeat.

master guitarist rodney jones:

[rpjazzguitar]

I'm going to take a shot at translating the great idea that djg has been kind enough to provide, into Warren Nunes' system.

In Cmaj

Type I:

Cmaj7 = Em7 = Gmaj7 = Am7

and

Type II:

Dm7= Fmaj7 = G7 = Am7 = Bm7b5.

DJG: "Dm7 G7 E7b9b13 Db7alt Bm7b5 Fmaj7 all can be covered by the same lick E F A C E G, a Fmaj9 arpeggio with the maj7 as a pickup note, listen to the wes montgomery recordings above and search for that sound."

So, per Warren, the Fmaj9 lick will work on the five Type II chords. Db7alt is Db F G A D E. Look familiar? It's the tritone of G7, so it's a commonplace substitution.

Warren would also say that the lick will work on Fmaj7 = Am7 = Cmaj7= Dm7 (Type I, but in F).

The only chord left from DJG's list is E7b9b13 E G# B D F C. Could be called G13b9 G B D F G# C E. So, Warren might say it would work because it's just a fancy G7. If you buy that, you get Bb7b9b13 and Db7b9b13 for free.

Now, Type I in Bb: Bbmaj7 = Dm7 = Fmaj7 = Gm7. So, Warren would predict that the lick will work over those too. The E note may sound a little more outside than the others, so you have to be judicious.

[Evml]

Dm7 G7 E7b9b13 Db7alt Bm7b5 Fmaj7 all can be covered by the same lick E F A C E G, a Fmaj9 arpeggio with the maj7 as a pickup note, listen to the wes montgomery recordings above and search for that sound.

can you figure out what these chords have in common?

I don't think so...

[djg]

I don't think so...

they are all tension chords in C/Am. in jazz we improvise over the "function" of the chords and not their names. the sound of Fmaj7 in C is a sound of tension as we've learned.

so we can apply this one tension sound to all the other tension chords below.

Dm7 II in C, IV in Am

G7 V in C

Db7alt tritone sub V in C,

E7b9b13 V in Am

Bm7b5 IV in Am

Fmaj7 IV in C

[StringNavigator]

You pretty much nailed it. I'm 7 years in that mania. Still not quite there yet. But maybe I'm just too stupid

I think it's really important to have a dozen tunes, some jazz standards, as your "core" repertoire. To be played over and over, practicing sections, re-voicing the grips, making variations of the melody,, trying some different arpeggios, creating solos, trading-fours, chunking with guide-tone rhythm chords, chord-melody with top-four chords... Always improving, always advancing.

Instead of chasing after the latest guitar topic like upper structures and modes and scale superposition, maintain and develop a repertoire, but especially a core. Otherwise, you have nothing to show for your labours. It's different for everyone, but my favourite tunes that always stay with me, and reflect my age, are:

Major & Minor Rhythm Changes, Perry Mason Theme, Common Bridges & Vamps & Turnarounds(Sears-Roebuck, Montgomery-Ward, Ward-Montgomery, Tad Dameron), Introductions & Finales, Jerry Coker's 12-Bar Blues Variations, Jerry Coker's 84 Songs, Rosetta, Making Whoopee, Sweet Georgia Brown, Georgia, Fine And Dandy, Cheek To Cheek, My Old Flame, Whispering, Misty, Honeysuckle Rose, Tea For Two, Blue Room, Them There Eyes, Shine, Write Myself A Letter, Rockabye Your Baby, Up The Lazy River, Ain't Misbehaving, Liza, Button Up Your Overcoat, On A Slow Boat To China, Percolatin', Big Boat, Route 66, Basin Street, and a few more.

You may not be advancing in leaps and bounds, but you will be able to account for your time and effort, impress your friends, amuse yourself and prove to yourself that you can play jazz guitar on at least a dozen tunes. Prevents one from feeling self-effacing and discouraged as it reflects how far you've advanced. The latest theory rage is fine, but this is the beauty and practicality of repertoire driven practice.

[emanresu]

In football, each one of those players can perform 100+ impressive tricks. Even the goalkeeper. But in a game, no one does those.
Dunno how this matters. I've been drinking all night long.

[DavidKOS]

Just remember, Jazz was born in New Orleans whore houses. It’s a party music. It’s about drinkin, hollerin, smokin and screwin.

.

Thanks for mentioning New Orleans.

But it's an often-used simplification to say that jazz was born in the brothel.

Jazz was born in the streets for parades, funerals, advertising dances and other events; it was born in the dance halls and at the various amusement parks, camps, and picnic places at the Lakefront. It was born on the riverboats, and even in the towns around New Orleans.

Frankly very few jazz musicians actually played in "the District" - mostly it was piano players. The bands played in a few clubs on the edge of Storyville but not so much in any of the houses.

However, pretty much until bebop, jazz was dance and party music to a great degree, it took a while to get to concert, listening and "art" status.

[Donplaysguitar]

This has devolved into the typical "do this, not that", "either/or" nonsense that frequently occurs here, when the answer has always been "do all".

The truth is that any serious jazz musician will need to do ALL the typical musicianship tasks - technique, etudes, repertoire, reading, ear training, ensemble work, solo work, theory, a little arranging & composition, and some conducting wouldn't hurt - PLUS one more - improvisation.

This thread was the typical non-jazzer's starting out with jazz improvisation - jazz guitar improvisation to be specific. So improvisation study should have been the focus. The OP was confused by harmonic superimposition. (not "scale superposition", whatever the f@ck that is). And upper structures? These old musical concepts are far from being the "latest guitar topic". SMH. Such ignorant bullshit.

And the sage advice to "just learn tunes" means NOTHING when it comes to improvisation advice. Why? Because it never has any useful specifics. The person saying it may mean something, they may even mean a lot - but they almost always FAIL to effectively articulate what they mean. Yes we need tunes but the truth is that Tunes = Repertoire. BFD! Every single musician who plays every single non-improvisational style of music, learns repertoire. (Read that last sentence several times if needed).

So, can improvisation be taught? Yes, it IS taught. One is either familiar with improv studies or they aren't. Does one have to attend a college to learn it? No, but they can if they chose to. All one really needs is the same kind of intellectual curiosity that they might apply to any other profession, trade, or craft, then they should seek the best possible "education/information" that they can get their hands on. It's not rocket science, but one should not assume that there's nothing to it. One should never assume.

[Donplaysguitar]

Thanks for mentioning New Orleans.

But it's an often-used simplification to say that jazz was born in the brothel.

Jazz was born in the streets for parades, funerals, advertising dances and other events; it was born in the dance halls and at the various amusement parks, camps, and picnic places at the Lakefront. It was born on the riverboats, and even in the towns around New Orleans.

Frankly very few jazz musicians actually played in "the District" - mostly it was piano players. The bands played in a few clubs on the edge of Storyville but not so much in any of the houses.

However, pretty much until bebop, jazz was dance and party music to a great degree, it took a while to get to concert, listening and "art" status.

simplification or sequence?

[Jamesrohr1]

It's not rocket science, but one should not assume that there's nothing to it.

Not a rocket scientist or brain surgeon but I’d be curious to see if any of those folks play Jazz guitar.

From my perspective Jazz is infinitely more difficult than either.

At least everyone pretty much agrees on the correct way to teach rocket science. But again I’m not an expert.

Someone mentioned earlier that after 10 years on this forum they’d never seen a member go pro. That should give someone somewhere pause. Yes? Maybe? IDK. Food for thought.

[christianm77]

My experience has been that often academically brilliant, very clever people struggle the most with jazz because they assume it’s like other stuff they’ve learned. Published material gives the impression it’s primarily a technical pursuit.

Not saying I’m either, but with a science background my tendency was always to lean into the theory stuff, which is readily available. Astrophysics people want to automate all the boring stuff and concentrate on ideas. This does not work for music.

In fact it wasn’t until I just started working really hard at sticking down simple things that I started to make real progress. I realised quite slowly the difference between the embodied knowledge required to play jazz and the actual fairly simple theoretical material (you can spend years getting one simple idea fully internalised if you are concepts person.) And that’s not even talking about the real school, which is of course the bandstand.

So music as I always say is mostly artisanship. Not all musicians are intellectually oriented, but they are all have learned the craft. (I say ‘musicians’ generally because I do not buy this jazz mystique bollocks that’s done as far as I can see nothing but harm to our music.)

OTOH, A brain surgeon is someone with considerable academic but also very embodied , physical experience.... so it’s both I guess. A rocket scientist? Maybe if they get up close and personal with guts with a Falcon Heavy or whatever. There’s probably some old school spanner shit involved.

[christianm77]

Not a rocket scientist or brain surgeon but I’d be curious to see if any of those folks play Jazz guitar.

From my perspective Jazz is infinitely more difficult than either.

At least everyone pretty much agrees on the correct way to teach rocket science. But again I’m not an expert.

Someone mentioned earlier that after 10 years on this forum they’d never seen a member go pro. That should give someone somewhere pause. Yes? Maybe? IDK. Food for thought.

But TBF I have seen members improve, and that’s valuable. Those players tend to get on with it. There’s not much value in discussing theory really.

I have been trying to point people in what I think is the right direction, but TBH these explanations end up seeming hyper technical themselves, and people are often quite set in their ways anyway; it’s a microcosm of most discussions on the web.

Anyway here I don’t need to because djg is giving a solid masterclass in how to go about it that many JGO members would find useful.

[Danil]

djg is giving a solid masterclass in how to go about it that many JGO members would find useful.

This is very appreciated - I was shy to ask as continuation of JGBE Virtual Jam (Round 14) - Tune Up because I've sort of had a general idea. This thread adds a lot.
And the approach does feel as a bit of a shortcut if you were not aware of it before.

[Tal_175]

Someone mentioned earlier that after 10 years on this forum they’d never seen a member go pro. That should give someone somewhere pause. Yes? Maybe? IDK. Food for thought.

Not quite sure what you're saying here. No one in the world has reached the performance level in jazz guitar in last 10 years? Or those people who reached high level weren't members of JGF? It doesn't make any sense to me either way.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. There are thousands of members come and go on this forum, no one knows the stories behind each and every one of them. A lot of them haven't been members for 10 years. Moreover there are even more who are frequent lurkers who don't even have an account.

[Tal_175]

But TBF I have seen members improve, and that’s valuable. Those players tend to get on with it. There’s not much value in discussing theory really.

I have been trying to point people in what I think is the right direction, but TBH these explanations end up seeming hyper technical themselves, and people are often quite set in their ways anyway; it’s a microcosm of most discussions on the web.

Anyway here I don’t need to because djg is giving a solid masterclass in how to go about it that many JGO members would find useful.

If we are making generalizations, in my experience people who struggle with jazz the most aren't scientists, the are folksy musicians. I've known many folk, blues, country musicians who've dabbled with jazz all their lives never got anywhere with it even though they love and listen to jazz. They are the very definition of intuitive musicians. Every now and then they give it another go only to be disappointed again with their lack of progress.

[christianm77]

If we are making generalizations, in my experience people who struggle with jazz the most aren't scientists, the are folksy musicians. I've known many folk, blues, country musicians who've dabbled with jazz all their lives never got anywhere with it even though they love and listen to jazz. They are the very definition of intuitive musicians. Every now and then they give it another go only to be disappointed again with their lack of progress.

i think I have a pretty solid approach for learners like that. The bumps in the road are interesting though. The fingering v notes on the neck thing seems to a conceptual leap for everyone.

[StringNavigator]

This has devolved into the typical "do this, not that", "either/or" nonsense that frequently occurs here...whatever the f@ck that is..SMH...Such ignorant bullshit...And the sage advice to "just learn tunes" means NOTHING...they almost always FAIL to effectively articulate what they mean...BFD!...Read that last sentence several times if needed...Does one have to attend a college to learn it?...It's not rocket science...One should never assume... ...

Rocket Scientist say: Short fuse go boom...!

"What are you going to do, bleed on me?"
"Why, I'll bite your legs off!"

(It's not the abbreviated cursing and capitalised anger that annoys me as much as that confounded banging on the keyboard.)

[DavidKOS]

simplification or sequence?

a bit of both

[Donplaysguitar]

If we are making generalizations, in my experience people who struggle with jazz the most aren't scientists, the are folksy musicians. I've known many folk, blues, country musicians who've dabbled with jazz all their lives never got anywhere with it even though they love and listen to jazz. They are the very definition of intuitive musicians. Every now and then they give it another go only to be disappointed again with their lack of progress.

Precisely.

The casual musician can use a lot of talent and practice time to become competent (at one level or another) with almost any non-jazz style of music because they aren't tasked with being an extemporanous composer (i.e. an improvisor) of harmonically sophisticated music.

With casual jazz study they hit the wall and fail to cross over the barrier, primarily because they don't really want to. When they find out they can't fake it, they're done.

[Donplaysguitar]

Not a rocket scientist or brain surgeon but I’d be curious to see if any of those folks play Jazz guitar.

From my perspective Jazz is infinitely more difficult than either.

At least everyone pretty much agrees on the correct way to teach rocket science. But again I’m not an expert.

Someone mentioned earlier that after 10 years on this forum they’d never seen a member go pro. That should give someone somewhere pause. Yes? Maybe? IDK. Food for thought.

Yes, there is indeed a lot of variation in jazz improv teaching (pun kind of intended).

But "going pro" as a jazzer is not the litmus test, and that's a good thing. It's not 1952, and those guys couldn't afford to live in Manhattan anyway. To "become pro" most would have to quit their job or work around the clock practicing, then quit their day job (because they're finally a "pro", right?) Then it's on to; no pension, no 401K matching, no stock options, no paid vacation, no bonus, no health/dental/life/disability insurance - paid by the employer. Even then, pure jazz gigs are few, low paying, and if one is good enough to record, get ripped off there too. And you likely have to travel (and not in style).

Who in their right mind would sign up for that? Mick Goodrick asked "who's more important, a jazz guitarist or a short order cook?" Teaching at a good college is the fallback/safety net.

[Donplaysguitar]

My experience has been that often academically brilliant, very clever people struggle the most with jazz because they assume it’s like other stuff they’ve learned. Published material gives the impression it’s primarily a technical pursuit.

Not saying I’m either, but with a science background my tendency was always to lean into the theory stuff, which is readily available. Astrophysics people want to automate all the boring stuff and concentrate on ideas. This does not work for music.

In fact it wasn’t until I just started working really hard at sticking down simple things that I started to make real progress. I realised quite slowly the difference between the embodied knowledge required to play jazz and the actual fairly simple theoretical material (you can spend years getting one simple idea fully internalised if you are concepts person.) And that’s not even talking about the real school, which is of course the bandstand.

So music as I always say is mostly artisanship. Not all musicians are intellectually oriented, but they are all have learned the craft. (I say ‘musicians’ generally because I do not buy this jazz mystique bollocks that’s done as far as I can see nothing but harm to our music.)

OTOH, A brain surgeon is someone with considerable academic but also very embodied , physical experience.... so it’s both I guess. A rocket scientist? Maybe if they get up close and personal with guts with a Falcon Heavy or whatever. There’s probably some old school spanner shit involved.

There seem to be these repeatable learning states where guitarists first gain a basic grasp of chord/scale matching, then are told - "it's not about scales, man!". So then it's on to arpeggios! All I have to do is learn my arpeggios!

The truth is that both scales and arpeggios are foundational to jazz language, but only foundational. We don't live in houses where the construction stops at the foundation. From there it becomes much more efficient and effective to explore and describe concepts of the jazz language using written notation with explanations (gasp, books!).

Using verbiage alone (especially on the internet) to describe the further concepts of the jazz language is a boondoggle. Much more can be said - and said more effectively - with 2-3 measures of notation.

[DavidKOS]

Precisely.

The casual musician can use a lot of talent and practice time to become competent (at one level or another) with almost any non-jazz style of music because they aren't tasked with being an extemporanous composer (i.e. an improvisor) of harmonically sophisticated music.

With casual jazz study they hit the wall and fail to cross over the barrier, primarily because they don't really want to. When they find out they can't fake it, they're done.

I've met a lot of good folk players that have trouble with the swing tunes they want to learn to play, largely because they are not used to playing solos over changes like a jazz player. Partially it's because some of the chords that are the basic vocabulary of the "Great American Songbook" standards just are not a big part of the old-time, folk, Bluegrass, etc. world. Partially it's that they are melody based, not chord changes based, in their thinking. Fiddle tunes largely developed as a melody, with accompaniment on piano, banjo, guitar, etc. a later development.

Once they start taking the chord tones into account they get much better at it.

[DavidKOS]

There seem to be these repeatable learning states where guitarists first gain a basic grasp of chord/scale matching, then are told - "it's not about scales, man!". So then it's on to arpeggios! All I have to do is learn my arpeggios!

The truth is that both scales and arpeggios are foundational to jazz language, but only foundational.

I was taught to play the chord arpeggio/chord tone method first, THEN later studied the chord-scale concept.