How to Think About Chord Changes (suggestions from a horn player)

[Tal_175]

If you're sounding stiff playing the changes, one solution is to abandon playing the changes altogether. That would work.
Another option is to improve your phrasing and vocabulary by studying players who didn't sound stiff when they played the changes. Charlie Parker is the most obvious choice.

Playing the changes is one of the devices used in jazz improvisation. It happens to be one of the most important and difficult to master. But also nobody improvises by only playing the changes obviously.

[princeplanet]

If you're sounding stiff playing the changes, one solution is to abandon playing the changes altogether. That would work.
Another option is to improve your phrasing and vocabulary by studying players who didn't sound stiff when they played the changes. Charlie Parker is the most obvious choice.

....

Yeah, thanks for the tip! Can I ask, have you reached the top of the Jazz mountain? Which path did you take?

[Tal_175]

Yeah, thanks for the tip! Can I ask, have you reached the top of the Jazz mountain? Which path did you take?

Sorry, it seems like you took something I said personally. I didn't read your post. I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to something I heard in the original video.

[princeplanet]

And sorry if you thought I was being a smart ass in response, but it was actually a serious question.

[Tal_175]

And sorry if you thought I was being a smart ass in response ...

Yeah, I'm not convinced it wasn't. I don't like to engage with people who make nasty, personal remarks. It never gets good results and makes the thread unpleasant for everybody.

[princeplanet]

Hmm, interesting. FWIW, I wasn't totally convinced you weren't responding to my post, either...

[pauln]

What John Raymond didn't say: "You don't have to learn the changes because you are supposed to play by ear". He didn't say that, because it makes no sense. He makes the point that as a soloist you'll become stiff if you would try to keep up with every chord in real time and there's no need for it. Instead you play the key-centres. For this purpose one needs to do the homework especially since many standards are deceptive and would trick your ears until you've learned the changes.

I've been reading this over and over without gaining any clarity on what you might be actually thinking. The problem is your meaning of these:

"learn"
"play"
"keep up"

You are confounding these verbs in attempting to demonstrate that the following doesn't make sense:

"You don't have to learn the changes because you are supposed to play by ear"

[pauln]

As far as internalizing and hearing "how it goes", are the Roman
Numerals serving as "silent" symbolic proxies for how it sounds
(so, not aural) or do they aurally inform of the sound (so, they
are redundant, not needed)?

Maybe I missed it, but I would like to read folks' thoughts on this.

[charlieparker]

Maybe I missed it, but I would like to read folks' thoughts on this.

I am not sure exactly what you mean. I don't see chord symbols and then here it in my head. I read them and then play them on my guitar to get a feel for the sound. Then I listen to a recording to link the sound to hear which parts are identified with the symbols and see if they match my understanding.

The whole process for me is to be able to aurally identify the parts of the song associated with each symbol.

Now, I also like to do the reverse and listen to a song without knowing the changes and see if I can write the chord symbols for it.

The problem for me, is that for me, my ear isn't good enough to rely on an approach that doesn't involve something like I described. If I listen to a song in realtime I don't track what each individual note is in each voice. I may be able to hear the bass movement sometimes and the chord qualities.

[StringNavigator]

Django was absolutely illiterate only learning to write his own
name late in life - his first name he spelled out, his last name
shortened to only three consonants. His basic understanding
was below even that of naive flat Earth. His first travel over to
England he mentioned his surprise and pleasure that their sky
had a moon, too; like the one in the sky back home in France.

...and he also stayed off of the internet...
That's how he got so good!

Come to think of it, that goes for all the great ones.

::

[StringNavigator]

This thread is like the Tower Of Babbylon...
The higher the pile gets, the more confused it becomes.
Remember what happened when Father Ted tried to repair the dent in his car with a hammer...

Keep Your Eyes On The Prize!

::

[JCat]

I've been reading this over and over without gaining any clarity

OK, I rephrase;
The video posted in the OP is not suggesting that players are supposed to disregard chord changes. Nor was it suggested that theory is useless. (I like to stress this, as people use these arguments to deflect from the subject).

The clear message (to which I personally subscribe) is to "play the key-centres". If someone finds this boring, it's an indication that he doesn't understand the meaning of the concept. Because in order to play the key-centre one needs to understand the chord progression (learn the changes).
"Eb-major" is clearly not sufficient information. Until we have done our homework.

Example;
Up tempo, two chords per bar.
Assume someone is struggling playing scales, arpeggios and patterns in an attempt to nail every chord. The video offers an alternative approach, another way of thinking about chord changes.

[jameslovestal]

OK, I rephrase;
The video posted in the OP is not suggesting that players are supposed to disregard chord changes. Nor was it suggested that theory is useless. (I like to stress this, as people use these arguments to deflect from the subject).

The clear message (to which I personally subscribe) is to "play the key-centres". If someone finds this boring, it's an indication that he doesn't understand the meaning of the concept. Because in order to play the key-centre one needs to understand the chord progression (learn the changes).
"Eb-major" is clearly not sufficient information. Until we have done our homework.

Example;
Up tempo, two chords per bar.
Assume someone is struggling playing scales, arpeggios and patterns in an attempt to nail every chord. The video offers an alternative approach, another way of thinking about chord changes.

Many years ago this was the approach my guitar teacher used with the one-song-a-week method. Lead sheet with the chord progression. At the start he would supply the key-centers, as well as how each chord "functioned" within the key-center. I was advised to initially just focus on the key center changes. As I progressed the focus would be on individual chords, especially the two chords that "link" a key center change (turnarounds, last of the prior, first of the new, and their "relationship", how one can stress individual chord tones instead of just key-centric notes (E.g. 3rd and 7th), and arpeggios.

Today when I learn a new song I still use this approach. Now I wish I could just hear these key-centers as well as the chords but I can't. I only point this out since I can see push-back along the lines of: if you would have just tried to use ONLY your ears 35 years ago, you would be able to not use lead sheets.

[Christian Miller]

Horn players have always been happy generalise changes … I think it occurs less to guitar players because we are chords people.

[AllanAllen]

Weird thread, but I want to add my $0.02... So yet again we seem to be discussing theory vs ears, or at the very least, why a combination of the two is important. Well Duh... seems so obvious that it really shouldn't warrant mentioning it, at least not here on a Jazz guitar forum anyway.

I've said it before I think, that when I "freewheel" it based on tonal centres, I don't sound like Sonny Rollins or Dexter Gordon (or guitar equivalent). When I try to spell out every change, I don't sound like Sonny Stitt (or guitar equivalent). Playing on the TC is unsatisfying for me (not good enough to be consistently interesting), and nailing the changes sounds too forced or contrived or something (not good enough to be consistently interesting).

That said, I enjoy the challenge of making the changes more often than not, and trying to make it sound uncontrived. Noodling on key centres is fine, and works with players who have a ton of good language and a ton of good taste (but not too many guys around that can do that at a high level, in my opinion). In other words, I'd rather listen to intermediate Jazz soloing that is going for the changes, than intermediate Jazz soloing that "skates" over them. But that's just my taste...

What I've learned from reading these kinds of threads though, is that I really should try to not waste my time reading the thoughts of other intermediate players (obviously not everyone here) where they seem to be insisting that the way they choose to do this Jazz caper is the right way. If we haven't figured out yet that there are many different pathways up the Jazz mountain, then we still have a lot to learn. I reckon....

you really stuck the landing here. Keep in mind who is giving advice round these parts.

[Mikedisd]

Wow, I'm just trying to not play a note that sounds like ballsack over whatever chord is underneath.

[sgcim]

Bill Evans had a lot of formal theory and composition training (at least for a jazz player in the '50s), and I think it would be difficult to deny that that is part of why he played the way he did. But I think someone could learn what he played and develop a similar approach without as much formal training just by virtue of the fact that he made a ton or recordings that people can imitate.

A pianist friend of mine, who's spent his life studying, transcribing and playing like Bill Evans, went up to him at the VV to ask him if he could study with him.
Bill said he didn't teach anymore, because students refused to learn music theory.
So he wound up going to Andy LaVerne. one of Bill's few students.

[Jimmy blue note]

A pianist friend of mine, who's spent his life studying, transcribing and playing like Bill Evans, went up to him at the VV to ask him if he could study with him.
Bill said he didn't teach anymore, because students refused to learn music theory.
So he wound up going to Andy LaVerne. one of Bill's few students.

Bill's brother Harry would welcome Bill's visits because it was a rare opportunity for ANYBODY to pick his brain. Harry was a really talented piano player in his own right, his older brother from whom Bill learned so much. So when Bill wouldn't tell him anything, theoretical, stylistic, experiential or concrete, Harry felt disappointed. When he asked Bill why he wouldn't answer his questions, to deprive his own brother of this knowledge, Bill said something to the effect of "You know where the answers can be found but I didn't want to deprive you of the experience of discovering them for yourself."

This may not be the point you were trying to drive home, about theory, but it underscores the fact that the complex nature of high level improvising is a synthesis of many disparate elements. There is not shortcut to the integration of these elements. How you do it, in what order, what your own priorities are and the things you reject are part of that process. People tend to have the strongest advice when they themselves are focusing on one aspect (theory, kinesthetics, phrase vocabulary, lexicon, syntax, feel, listening abilities, intuitive confidence), these are all essential parts of a non linear synthesis.

If someone tells you there's one way to do it, they're right, but that's their story at one point in the big picture. The goal is YOUR big picture.

[John A.]

A pianist friend of mine, who's spent his life studying, transcribing and playing like Bill Evans, went up to him at the VV to ask him if he could study with him.
Bill said he didn't teach anymore, because students refused to learn music theory.
So he wound up going to Andy LaVerne. one of Bill's few students.

I feel like maybe what I meant here is getting lost. I was responding to Christian’s comment that in order to play like Bill Evans one would need the same level of training he had. All I meant is that a pianist might not need as much formal training, not none at all, because the style is now on recordings (and transcriptions) to be studied imitated. After all, it’s not as if Evans took a college class on the style of Bud Powell. He studied and analyzed Bud Powell on his own.

[Christian Miller]

I feel like maybe what I meant here is getting lost. I was responding to Christian’s comment that in order to play like Bill Evans one would need the same level of training he had.

Is that what I said? I don't think I made that as a statement. I don't know that that is true.

Your reply seemed reasonable. But I have no idea.

[Christian Miller]

Bill's brother Harry would welcome Bill's visits because it was a rare opportunity for ANYBODY to pick his brain. Harry was a really talented piano player in his own right, his older brother from whom Bill learned so much. So when Bill wouldn't tell him anything, theoretical, stylistic, experiential or concrete, Harry felt disappointed. When he asked Bill why he wouldn't answer his questions, to deprive his own brother of this knowledge, Bill said something to the effect of "You know where the answers can be found but I didn't want to deprive you of the experience of discovering them for yourself."

This may not be the point you were trying to drive home, about theory, but it underscores the fact that the complex nature of high level improvising is a synthesis of many disparate elements. There is not shortcut to the integration of these elements. How you do it, in what order, what your own priorities are and the things you reject are part of that process. People tend to have the strongest advice when they themselves are focusing on one aspect (theory, kinesthetics, phrase vocabulary, lexicon, syntax, feel, listening abilities, intuitive confidence), these are all essential parts of a non linear synthesis.

If someone tells you there's one way to do it, they're right, but that's their story at one point in the big picture. The goal is YOUR big picture.

Or; seek not emulate "Bill Evans" but rather Bill Evans.

This is a layer of complexity on the original question. That said, in terms of 'modern jazz piano' (and even guitar for that matter) most people are emulating Bill Evans to some extent even if they deny it. He's one of the main 'models' we tend to think about. I think that approach, typified by a richly coloured impressionistic harmony, an interactive approach to trio playing and so on, may require a different musical background than, say, playing bop or gypsy jazz. Whether or not this background includes a good understanding of theory, I don't know, but it seems likely and it seems Bill was of the same mind.

However, life's full of surprises.

So Bill's priorities as an artist were different to some other jazz musicians, and his priorities are ones I would think of as becoming standard more with later jazz. I certainly don't think everybody in jazz was interested in 'making a minutes music in a minute's time' for example. Bill Evans often gets quoted because, well, he was very quotable and articulate, but I feel was often voicing a very personal view.

Ethan Iverson for instance has questioned the importance of this ideal of 'instant composition' - I think he has issues with Bill in general though haha. In Ethan's case he wants to centre different things that he feels have fallen by the wayside such as groove and blues, and so on.

[Peter C]

John is wonderful player/composer, and also Mr effect,,,,Gilad.
......You ever check out Emmets Place, Emmet Cohen's vids.

Late reply here.

A Neanderthal standing inside a cave blowing into a dried-out bone or horn was likely considered a cool "effect" back in the day, lol.

Gilad in his collabs with John (the trumpeter featured in this thread, for those who don't know) is covering guitar, piano and bass parts. Delay really helps to fill the sound out and his looping is absolutely seamless. Guy is a veritable one-man orchestra!

He could lose the delay in some passages, but I suppose one can get used to an effect after a time and just kind of integrate it.

Great session at Emmet's Place, duly bookmarked. Thanks.