-
The book doesn’t purport to represent a style, let alone as a path to greatness within said style.
It is mostly a mechanical realization of movements of 1,2 or 3 voices of 3 note diatonic structures.
It is a simple idea that he documented in a user friendly graphic style pretty exhaustively.
There is ample preview content provided to make an informed decision of it’s usefulness or lack thereof to you individually.
-
02-21-2024 12:09 PM
-
Do you hear how this reads to others? Something like "Y'all a bunch of dummies who don't know shit, why you trying to get into this?"
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Given that you (and I) have not heard how most of us play, you (and I) really have no idea what other people's levels of skill are. We have people in this forum who gig professionally, we have people who are just learning jazz for the first time and everything in between. I'm willing to let people calibrate that for themselves.
-
Damn right. :P Originally Posted by Cunamara
Yeah no, I don't think people are dumb. It's more just the technical skills of practicing the stuff into your facility. You don't need a giant book of advanced fugal movements to get chord melody together, you simply work your chord inversions on the bottom with scale melody movement on top. People may just not be informed. I didn't know how simple it was until my teacher taught me. Obviously, the beauty of jazz is that it can get very complex. But if you don't have command of the basics, there's no point in skipping ahead to stuff that won't ever be realized in time. I'm sure some players on here could work up arrangements with 3 part independent movement but I doubt many could play jazz that way. Just focus on the basics. If you get that down then make it more complex and focus on 2 voice movement, 1 more besides the top.
-
Ah right. They aren’t dumb. They just aren’t informed. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
i don’t know man. It seems like there’s “a point” to working on whatever wakes your ear up.
Working on new and interesting stuff is a great way to learn new and interesting stuff and to make your pursuit of music feel new and interesting.
You have to know the basics but beating the same dead horse for years doesn’t really do much good either. Consider leaving space for people to explore a little bit. What usually happens is they learn an interesting thing and then come back to the basics with a fresh perspective.
-
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Yeah not all learning is linear and not all basic knowledge and skills are a prerequisite to more advanced stuff.
-
This book is not about functional harmony; this book is not about rhythm; this book is not about any musical style. It’s basically an elemental expansion of simple concepts, ideas and building blocks. By the way, that’s exactly what Barry Harris’ system is, as well: an elemental expansion of essential, basic concepts, that when progressively mastered, allows one to possess powerful tools for improvising and playing.
The following clearly has NO IDEA what the Barry Harris system is, given that BH definitely allows one to form powerful chord with a a simple meldoy on top, using inversions.
”Most people need to just gain fluency with basic chord melody of simple melody on top and the appropriate chord inversion below. Rather than all this advanced stuff like BH or this that won't be used.”
-
^ Oh yeah, I have NO IDEA what the BH system is when it's all everyone talks about but never uses. Sure.
Yeah? Not being aware of something doesn't make someone dumb. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Yeah, I agree. Still, there are no jazz players alive that play jazz as a 3 part fugue. If you think you're going to integrate that into your playing when you can't even play basic chord melody have fun.i don’t know man. It seems like there’s “a point” to working on whatever wakes your ear up. Working on new and interesting stuff is a great way to learn new and interesting stuff and to make your pursuit of music feel new and interesting.
-
Well sure … not being aware of something doesn’t make one dumb. But assuming either one is pretty patronizing. Anyway … Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
That’s the second time you’ve mentioned a fugue, and a fugue is a pretty specific thing. Admittedly, a jazz fugue on All the Things would be pretty rare. But most jazz players alive play music with some motion in the lower and middle voices.
So I guess I’m still not seeing the problem.
-
Does the book actually purport to do that? Or when you say 'fugue' you just mean some sort of music with three independent voices? Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
(I may or may not have just bought this book. Sigh.)
-
-
Maybe you’re just not aware of what a fugue is? Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
EDIT: this was obviously a joke, but also it felt weird to type. Because of how patronizing it sounds.
-
And what are your reasons for buying the book? Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
Revenge. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
Also curiosity.
Also I mentioned before that I really like these kinds of books … things that feel more like Idea Anthologies than method books.
Also I’ve been working on chord melody stuff more lately because I’ve been subbing on a marathon brunch gig.
Also I’ve been working on a lot of Barry Harris stuff (again, without Mr Smiths permission, but I’m a rebel). I’ve been enjoying taking some of the harmonic stuff and finding other ideas to bring into it. It actually keeps me working on single ideas without getting bored. So contrary to the contention above, ideas like this often help me to squeeze more out of the basics, rather than distract me from them.
Well see
-
You guys are free to do what you want. For me, I wouldn't waste time or money on a 3 part movement book. I'd rather work on basic chord melody with chord inversion under simple melody on top. I can improvise this way but want to improve. After that is mastered, you can just work on this with 2 voices. No giant book required.
-
So we would all consider triads to be pretty basic material. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
You guys are free to do what you want. For me, I wouldn't waste time or money on a 3 part movement book. I'd rather work on basic chord melody with chord inversion under simple melody on top. I can improvise this way but want to improve. After that is mastered, you can just work on this with 2 voices. No giant book required.
So wouldn’t working on voice motion with that three voice structure be a natural part of working on The Basics, rather than moving to two voice stuff. Which might seem simpler (because two is fewer than three) … but in reality it’s kind of new material, whereas the three voice stuff gives you a lot of space to expand on what you have.
Is it also worth mentioning here that you don’t play guitar any more and might think about harmony differently?
-
Well that’s a load off. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
I think you make valid points. For me that's my goal what I wrote in post 40. I want to master just basic chord melody with the chord inversions to the chords to the tune below scalar melody on top. I also want to work in parallel getting inner or lower voices happening. If I can master all that, I will be happy. I am going off the example of my teacher. That's what he does and it sounds plenty advanced. I think stuff beyond that sounds very cool, but I'm not at that level and know I won't be able to integrate it into my playing to the point to where I'll be able to command it in time in the context of a tune. My teacher doing stuff with just a 2nd lower part. Sounds plenty advanced.
Last edited by Bobby Timmons; 02-22-2024 at 02:00 PM.
-
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this is literally what the book is about. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Do you need a book to practice that stuff? Of course not. Do I like how fancy my bookshelf looks when it’s full of music books with dense sounding names? I do.
But yes. It seems your end goal is probably pretty similar to that of someone (say, me) who might pick up this book and hope to get something out of it.
-
By inner/lower voices I mean adding in a 2nd moving voice/part in addition to the top rather than 3 total. I think that is plenty to work on at this stage.
-
Yep and the table of contents has that the book starts with one voice moving, then moves on to two … Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
Sounds good
-
Did I hear fugue?? :-)
Let me write an irrelevant 10,000 word essay on improvising baroque counterpoint
In seriousness I assume people sometimes say fugue to mean just contrapuntally textured music generally. Technically you can’t play a fugue on a jazz standard chord progression of course because it’s a different form. But you can do a sort of Bach texture like Ted Greene. Actually Ted’s students would be my first port of call from students who can probably do that on guitar.
Also Jimmy bn mentioned Wolfgang Muthspiel. I think Gilad is very accomplished at the jazz counterpoint thing (he isn’t trying to do a baroque pastiche) although mostly in two voices.
I would say that three voices is the upper limit of what you can do on guitar with some independence. In general it will be one active voice two passive voices and you juggle. Most actual three voice fugues for lute/guitar etc seem to do this.
For myself, I think that I would say that playing contrapuntal music like the Bach two part inventions has unsurprisingly helped with the technique of playing jazz more contrapuntally. A lot of this stuff is just very hard on guitar, of course and raises unique technical challenges unlike any other music I’ve played. It was Gilad of course that inspired me to work on this, and it has evidently helped him. This isn’t baroque counterpoint, just shifting between melody, bass and middle voice movement in solo jazz guitar.
In a totally different musical style, but perhaps working similar ‘muscles’ I’ve also got the Jimmy Wyble book but I couldn’t really get into the way those pieces sounded. Maybe should give it a try.
Anyway not enormously relevant.
As for the book, I understand Jimmy Smith’s resistance to an extent haha. Sometimes it just seems like there’s a million things to check out, and a book like this needs years of practice presumably. I already have a lot on my plate so I doubt I’ll check it out, but who knows? Books like this reflect a players personal journey and perspective on a subject. Their own personal rabbit hole….
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLast edited by Christian Miller; 02-22-2024 at 01:56 PM.
-
"... I want to master just basic chord melody with the chord inversions to the chords to the tune below scalar melody on top. I also want to work in parallel getting inner or lower voices happening. If I can master all that, I will be happy..."
No you won't...If you reach that point you will realize your next challenge is within reach - just one more domino to tumble..
I clearly remember saying the same thing when I first learned a basic 12 bar country blues..fast forward..I finally got Happy..after two years of
study with Ted Greene--He gave me enough to study for the rest of my life..and then some!
Learning does not stop..being happy is another matter.
-
I don't see myself advancing my chord work beyond what my teacher does in the near future. He does chord work with the top voice or he will bring in 1 inner or lower part for a total of 2 (check the video). There's so much stuff to work on with organ. I don't see 3 part independent work to be realistic. I guess left hand bass plus right hand top and inner is 3 voices. So if I get that mastered then we'll see about the fugues. :P To me, 3 part independent stuff is like Bill Evans level.
Reply With Quote
‘Round Midnight
Today, 11:07 AM in The Songs