Bebop Chops?

[CC323]

To a degree, I agree with you - the "great beboppers" certainly do play what they hear - but what you are implying is that they don't ever rely on pre-worked-out ideas, and I disagree with that. One can hear the same cells, or phrases, or note combinations, or scale fragments, or arpeggios, or ideas, or whatever it is you want to call them, being played over and over and over again in Parker solos, in Coltrane solos, in Hank Mobley solos, in just about any bebop solo. What differentiates the one from the other is the order in which the ideas are stitched together, slight rhythmic variations, etc...all just simple permutations of a smallish number of fundamental building blocks. This is discussed in numerous treatises on bebop.

None of this takes away from the originality of the great bebop solos!

This is a great observation. It would appear that for the first 30 years after bebop, the innovators heard drastically different things every 5-10 years. It is too bad that that trend has not continued, not to say nothing new has happened. I can't emphasize how much getting just a few ideas really stuck in my head has benefited my playing and my aural abilities. Spending just a day or two on a tune with a new chord quality in it can open my ear more than hours dictating melodies. Too bad the brain can't keep up with the desire for more ear knowledge !

Take care,

Chris

[CC323]

Yes, this is true. At least every pro I know says this, and checking out Chris Standridge's "Play What You Hear" instructional method, it combines ear training with the obvious fretboard work.

If we took this way outside of what we hear in jazz, say traditional Indian music, I sincerely doubt we could play that stuff convincingly without some serious shed time.

So is Chris's method just combining the two things (fretboard knowledge and ear training)? I've been working on that through the Van Eps chord books, Bach Chorales (on guitar), sightreading, and solfeggio business, as well as memorizing tunes and examples of new devices from theory class aurally (Aug. 6th chords, specific voicings, the omnibus progression, etc.). Singing everything seems to really solidify it too.

Basically, would the course be all that helpful to me if I'm already working on associating physical shapes and experiences with sounds?

Thanks for input and guidance.

Regards,

Chris

[TommyD]

I didn't know that 5 letters had that kind of power. Sorry if my comment made your day any less enjoyable.

Warm Regards,

Chris

Chris,
I wasn't suggesting that the use of the word would ruin my day! I was just commenting that what I think of as 'shredding' (and I may have it wrong) is just noise to me, and very poor music.
Best,
Tommy/

[Jazzyteach65]

[quote=derek;70816

If we took this way outside of what we hear in jazz, say traditional Indian music, I sincerely doubt we could play that stuff convincingly without some serious shed time.[/quote]


Derek, a Sitar or Veena takes well up to 25 years to "master." My father is Pakistani, (Pakistan used to be western India about 80 years ago) and I lived there, actually taught Western Music theory at a secondary school. One of my colleagues was studying sitar, practiced four hours a day, and his fingers bled. He had been playing for a year and was nowhere NEAR mastering the instrument.

I also recall seeing Anoushka Shankar in concert when I was 18. She had such command and technique, then I later learned that she had spent most of her childhood practicing and working on the sitar.

Bebop and jazz is very much like this. Sure, they are just a bunch of patterns. Miles even said "all it is is patterns." HOWEVER, these patterns, phrases ect, are worked out ideas over time.

The difference between mindless shredding, wether it be bop licks or metal/rock stuff (we've ALL been to a music store where those guys crank up the amp to 11, sit down and go nuts on but aren't really saying anything) is that you're not getting a point across. When one learns a new "big" fancy word, one doesn't just try to use it on the spot without working it in to thier vocabulary, then applying it in context of a sentence/conversation. Same thing with a pattern or phrase in bop

Sorry I'm rambling, but I've just had my coffee

[C.A.JO.]

Bebop demands technique, good ears, and quick mind.

Practice your guitar-technique. Do this by learning scale patterns, arpeggios, licks, but also isolate both the fretting hand and the picking hand. I don't care that people say you should "play what's in your head", because that IS what you should do. The problem is just that if you fingers aren't as good as your musical ideas, you'll never be able to play what's in your head.

Along with technique, you should practice aural skills. Doing this while learning music theory is a good way to learn music on an intellectual level while the sounds get integrated in your head/inner ear. There are different ways of doing this. When Joe Pass said he was transcribing his whole youth, he was essentially practicing his ears. And technique. If you also understand the sounds you hear (comes from studying music theory), everything soon starts to click.

Practicing these things allows you do identify a sound in your head. Because you've studied both theory and practiced your ear, you instantly know that it's a dominant 7 lick you hear. And because your fingers are so well-prepared you quickly execute the idea and move further into the music. Of course this happens very quickly, and with time you don't think. You just play. To me this is what Charlie Parker meant with this quote: "Learn the changes, then forget them".

You integrate this skill by practicing technique, theory, and aural skills in isolation. Then practice integration = improvisation. It all comes together when you improvise. Therefor end every practice session with improvising. Better yet, find someone to play with.

[CC323]

Hey, speaking of ear training, a friend of mine told me that transcribing by ear exclusively (given a reference pitch only) is more beneficial to the ear. He has a badass ear, and I've found doing such transcriptions much harder, and the material sticks in my head better, than when I've got my instrument and I just guess and check. He says that then learning them after you've transcribed the full solo, or after a certain number of choruses, is the best way to get language into your ear and fingers. Is that good advice?

Thanks,
Chris

[TommyD]

Bebop demands technique, good ears, and quick mind.

Practice your guitar-technique. Do this by learning scale patterns, arpeggios, licks, but also isolate both the fretting hand and the picking hand. I don't care that people say you should "play what's in your head", because that IS what you should do. The problem is just that if you fingers aren't as good as your musical ideas, you'll never be able to play what's in your head.

Along with technique, you should practice aural skills. Doing this while learning music theory is a good way to learn music on an intellectual level while the sounds get integrated in your head/inner ear. There are different ways of doing this. When Joe Pass said he was transcribing his whole youth, he was essentially practicing his ears. And technique. If you also understand the sounds you hear (comes from studying music theory), everything soon starts to click.

Practicing these things allows you do identify a sound in your head. Because you've studied both theory and practiced your ear, you instantly know that it's a dominant 7 lick you hear. And because your fingers are so well-prepared you quickly execute the idea and move further into the music. Of course this happens very quickly, and with time you don't think. You just play. To me this is what Charlie Parker meant with this quote: "Learn the changes, then forget them".

You integrate this skill by practicing technique, theory, and aural skills in isolation. Then practice integration = improvisation. It all comes together when you improvise. Therefor end every practice session with improvising. Better yet, find someone to play with.

Wonderfully well put! That's why I practice "chord scales", as I call them - Joe Pass's suggestion; e.g. playing the chord and following with a scale based on the notes of that chord (but not ONLY the chord 's notes. It has to be the associated scale, all the way up and down. Or down and up.). I also develop my own licks based on the chords of any tune I'm working on.
Emily Remler used to record herself playing rhythm changes from tunes and then soloing over them. When she came to a lick she couldn't execute, she'd stop the tape and practice the lick until she mastered it. Sounds like a pretty efficient way to learn to play faster and learn the fretboard.
Tommy/

[C.A.JO.]

Hey, speaking of ear training, a friend of mine told me that transcribing by ear exclusively (given a reference pitch only) is more beneficial to the ear. He has a badass ear, and I've found doing such transcriptions much harder, and the material sticks in my head better, than when I've got my instrument and I just guess and check. He says that then learning them after you've transcribed the full solo, or after a certain number of choruses, is the best way to get language into your ear and fingers. Is that good advice?

Thanks,
Chris

Most of the great players (not only in jazz) have developed their ears by transcribing songs. That should be proof that it's a good way.

Is it the best way, though?

I think ear training can (and should) involve the following:

- practice singing intervals (you should be able to sing them from the root)
- practice singing scales (all the ones relative to your style)
- practice singing triads
- practice singing diatonic chords (other chords, too)
- transcribe (both songs, solos, chords, etc.)
- sing and solo at the time (meaning, sing what you play)

Doing these things (they all involve music theory, which is also an essential skill to master if you ask me) will enable you identify relative pitches automatically. You know the pitches and their relativity to the root at all times. Relative pitch is a skill that can be learned.

When do you know your ear is good? Basically, when what you play is exactly what you hear! But try these things to test your ear:

- sing a melody out loud - then play it - was it what you sang?
- imagine a melody - then play it - was it what you imagined?
- think of a melody - write it down - play and check?

What I do every time I learn a new lick, scale, chord, melody, etc. is that I sing along when learning it. This way I get the item at hand integrated in my inner ear. I do it until I can sing it correct only given a root note to sing from. This way I know a given concept on a theoretical level, a technical level, and (for improvisation, the most important) on an aural level.

An improvisers goal should be to be able to play what's in your head - what you hear. Can you do that? If not, practice you ear! Aural skills are the most important skills any musician can develop. That is if you ask me:-). If you have an advanced ear, but let's say not so great technique, you can express yourself more than a player with great technique, but with a beginner's ear. These kind of players play what's in their "fingers" and not what they hear. This type of player should focus on aural skills along with theory.
The task for most good players with good ears but only intermediate technique is to develop their technique, so that they CAN play physically what their inner ear dictates them to play.
Fortunately, both ear training and technique development is possible for all sane and normal- intelligent and functional human beings. Just spot your weakness, practice correct, and get to work! :-)