-
Yeah it’s a chromatic walk down from D if memory serves.
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
This is neither here nor there … but but the solo is super triad-y and cool … I remember talking to Jordan Klemons and telling him it was the first solo I’d worked on that really felt like it illustrated all his triad plus one stuff. So that’s cool.
-
03-07-2024 01:22 PM
-
That record is so cool because you can hear Jim Hall becoming Jim Hall. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
The way I read Rick was that organization and analysis are tools that help a person internalize a way of hearing. In that context, whether a person analyzes a single note as x or y is “small stuff.” Originally Posted by Reg
Of course details matter, but we’re labeling things in order to practice them and better hear them in context. More than one way to do that. For example … what happens if you analyze the first two beats as pure intervals … C down a sixth, enclosure around the note that’s up a fourth.
Then you can change intervals to be sevenths and fifths or whatever the heck you want to and make some wild sounding lines that have the same rhythmic character. Did Jim Hall hear it that way? Almost certainly not, but it’s specifically useful because it’s *not* the way I would hear the line normally. It would be training me to hear other possibilities. I don’t have to live there, but visiting for a while can be productive.
As for single note players not understanding harmonic motion, that might be right generally, but (1) this particular teacher of mine was an exceptional composer and definitely did understand harmonic motion, and (2) hearing guitar players talk about melody can also be a bit of a bummer.
As for the point at which I’d hear something as an implied chord, I’m not sure there’s a hard and fast rule. Definitely if it’s clear that a chord is being outlined. Like if that E in the line above (C down to E then B G# A) were an F, then it would probably sound more like a diminished passing chord to me. It being an E, it feels more like melodic interest inside of an A minor, even though the E B and G# on their own spell an E.
Theres also just broader context. I was working on Grant Greens solo on Green Dolphin recently and he does this great huge arpeggio lick up an Ebmaj7 and ends with D going up to Eb, which is not outside the context of the chord at all, but the rhythm section follows immediately with a side-slip from below the Eb chord. So it kind of retroactively turns that “D” from a “7” into a chromatic embellishment that implies some other motion. So that’s cool as well.
-
Yesssss. He sounds like Space Charlie Christian Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Tbh, I'm so accustomed to hearing that half step move on the and-of-4 that it never occurred to me to consider that it is, or could be considered, part of a larger harmonic organization. And, even saying that much implies that I understand the term "harmonic organization", which I'm not sure I do. I guess I just thought of it as sliding into a note from a half step up, or down. So, I'm trying to gain a better understanding of all of this.
I recall an interview with a guitarist who described an early lesson. In the course of comping he played a chord a half step up and slid into the chord on the chart. Later, when he soloed, he didn't play on the half-step-up chord. The teacher stopped him and told him to play on it. He said that it never occurred to him.
Chuck Wayne worked on a tune by harmonizing every note of the melody and then tried to solo on every one of those chords. I got this from Carl Barry, decades ago.
-
And to clarify too …
Not sweating the small stuff also doesn’t mean small things don’t make a difference.
The way we conceptualize things can result in a very different sound.
Nir Felder plays the heck out of standards (I once heard him take 38 choruses on Au Privave at Bar Next Door) but he’s talked a bit about how he thinks very intervallically. So you get a very modern sound very above and supplementary to the changes happening underneath. It’s awesome but quite different than, say, Yotam Silverstein, who is a similarly skilled guitarist of about the same age, but who conceptualizes things differently and sounds very different.
A small decision like “this is an interval skip of a sixth” or “this is jumping from the third to the root of a triad” can make a big difference in the way vocabulary sounds.
It’s just that both are valid and sound good.
-
Love this. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
There’s definitely that sort harmonic density thing which is awesome. Peter Bernstein has talked a bit about how thinking more about landing points and fewer changes is a big thing for him … like rather than playing the first four bars of How Deep is the Ocean … he might play Eb7 and D7 back and forth and land on Gm at bar 5. Or whatever.
Something to consider I guess is that …
If everything is melodic embellishment, then you miss the way a diminished arpeggio or can sound so cool over a minor chord … or all the implications, dominants, related subdominants, etc.
If everything is harmonic implication, then you miss out on all the chromatic embellishment you might be able to do of those dominant or diminished chords etc.
-
The life of a jazz musician...taking tunes with a few chords and making them more complex, taking tunes with a bunch of chords and simplifying them. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
This has been discussed on this forum before. I can't recall the proper term, but it's the notion of playing over a different set of changes from the changes in the chart.
So, for example, if the tune goes from Cmaj to G7, you can get to the G7 by playing C B7b13 Em7 A13b9 Dm9 and then G7. It will work in comping and it will work in soloing. I wish I spent more time working on this way of soloing. When something catches my ear and I take the time to figure it out, it's often this type of line.
The idea is getting from point A to point B by an alternative route. It could be a string of specified changes, like the above. Or it could be the idea of starting on C, going into outer space and landing on G7.
That said, very little of this potentially useful information about melodic and harmonic organization has made it into my playing. I think it requires more focused work, one simple device at a time, than I've been willing to do. Diminished arpeggio over a minor chord? Probably sounds great, but it would take me an enormous amount of time to practice with a low probability that it would ever make it into my spontaneous playing. It's a shame, I suppose, but there are a lot of ways to play music.
-
Yeah I suppose the blues is a good place to see this. Lots of those more active blues changes are these kinds of reharmonization written into the tune … basic blues to Sonnymoon Blues to Jazz Blues to Bird Blues. Different layers of complexity with those same signposts at m1, 5, and 9 Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
Steve Coleman called this 'invisible pathways.' I'm sure there's a load of other names for it. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
I think the term I heard that made it click was just "superimposition." Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Invisible Pathways is much more poetic. I love it. Because that's exactly what it is.
Again...making the simple more complex...making the complex more simple...
-
Well at least some possibilities or door might have opened.
It's obvious that the note... the Db is an approach note to the next bar and the "C" note and A-7 chord. It is from the previous bar. The whole tone chord E7#5 . Which as Rich brought up as very typical... It's very typical because we are use to hearing Dominant type of harmonic and melodic movement of V7 or it's sub bII7.
And we also accept using chromatic movement, Melodic as well as Harmonic in this very typical location, weak to strong rhythmic location.
My original comment was... that Db wasn't just a chromatic melodic device. It reflected and implied harmonic content change.... could be a change in the notated V7 of target I-... But harmonically sounds like the obvious and very common Chromatic approach chord.... the Bb-7.
Root motion is generally very strong... melodically, harmonically as well as rhythmically.
Labels are fun... but really this is not complicated, it's very common etc. And the more time one becomes aware of common melodic.... devices that have harmonic implications as well as rhythmic... well, the more simple the complex becomes.
Again being aware of longer section of space and how they are connected ... and how the organization of use of those connections is a tool etc... is how they become simple common practice. Superimposition...
or Invisible Pathways... sound like tools to help promote youtube vids LOL
-
Something else relevant:
This is a continuing thing I’m teaching. And for very advanced high school students. But for high school students.
So this is part of a sequence.
It’s coming off of several weeks talking about line building and components of a line and that sort of thing.
And next week we’re talking about targeting chord tones with scale runs.
and the week after we’re using Fly Me To the Moon to look at guide tones in melody lines. So at that point using scale runs and ornaments becomes pretty useful for building melodies based around guide tones.
So these are sharp kids who are still developing a vocabulary over the chord forms they hear in the band. Implied chords is a bit beyond the scope at the moment. Once they have a vocabulary and can create lines over simpler progressions, the complexity of additional harmonic motion comes more easily.
-
Yeah I think superimposition always made it feel a little more like complexity to me. Like instead of Dm G7 C, you can play Ebm Ab7 Dm G7 C … or whatever and it always kind of stressed me out. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
I like the “movements” framing because it sort of suggests that whatever changes are agreed upon are just sort of the most common route from A to B. So it’s just stripping all the other stuff out and leaves open the possibility that a “reharmonization” or whatever might be simpler. Like it could be that descending thing w a chord every beat or just … Bb7 - - - C.
-
Thanks Peter...
So... ya think maybe that's taking the dumbing down approach to extremes.
Just seem backwards...
Again we are in different worlds.... which helps keep things interesting.
-
No I don’t think it’s dumbing things down. No I don’t think it’s backwards. I think a lot about the order in which I do things. I’m well aware of what it means to imply harmonic motion and I teach a lot and teach young students a lot in particular, and I chose to teach this the way I did. Originally Posted by Reg
Teaching young students and intermediate students means taking small steps and making them thorough.
-
Thanks peter...
yea I get the same feeling...
-
Here's how I discovered the invisible chord concept.
Some time back I played Desafinado at a jam. I had somebody's arrangement of the tune, which I was reading.
The rest of the band was playing the RB version.
For the chords F^7/ Dm9/ G7#11 // in the RB chart, I was reading, insteadm, Dm9/ Bm9/ Abm9 / Db9.
Best 4 bars of improvisation I ever played.
What happened?
So, Dm9 is F^7/D.
I'll come back to Bm9 in a minute.
Db9 is a tritone sub for G7, and has the #11. Abm9 is a iim that leads to Db9.
So, we have, in a way, F^7/D, then the chord I'm skipping for the moment, then a iim leading to the tritone. All of that is pretty standard stuff.
But, why does Bm9 sound good? The melody at that point, (bar 2) in F is E D C# D F.
Bm9 is B D F# A and C#.
But, the chart says Dm9, D F A C E. So the difference is C vs C# and F vs F#. Seems like a big change.
So now, the novice soloist sees Dm9 and plays his usual Dm stuff or F^7 stuff. It works, because the piano and bass are playing F^7 from the RB chart.
When he gets to the Bm9 though, the pianist and the bassist are going to be playing Dm9 (per the RB chart) and the soloist is going to be playing in effect D^69. That is, he's playing F# against F and C# against C. That "sounds" bad on paper and sounded great in the solo.
I'd explain it as follows. Since I thought the changes were the ones I was reading and I'm an inside sort of player, I played a good inside line. But, since I played it over very different changes, it sounded outside.
Every good outside line is, I think, a good inside line when played over different changes.
That is, it was easier to play outside when I wasn't aware that I was going outside.
This leads to a conclusion that for some reason I never really followed up -- which is work on improvising by taking the chart and writing in alternative harmony (tritones, sideslips and maybe this sort of modal interchange if I'm using that term correctly) and then playing against the vanilla backing track. You play all your boring overlearned inside stuff - against different chords - and you thereby renew it.Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 03-08-2024 at 08:35 PM.
-
I see it (looking at the transcription rather than using my ears, since I where I am at is too loud to listen to the solo) is just that Jim opted to use the harmonic minor over the Amin to spice things up. To me it implies an E7#5 superimposed over the harmony; I might have a different opinion hearing it, though.
-
Oh yeah. This is why my outside lines tend to sound bad- they aren't a good inside line for anything. Every line has to have a logic to it that the listener's ear can follow. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
Yes - although I’m not sure if trying to analyse a given chord from the vanilla chord is always very helpful. A given theory of music can be very useful in interpreting a composer, arranger or improvisers choices… until it isn’t. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
FWIW I’m seeeing minor third cycle root movement in the example your giving. The reharm is not based on the original chords but on an interesting way to go A to B that also fits the melody. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t sound hip when you do it on the original changes. In fact it may sound hipper. When people do the jazz ‘yeah’ to me it’s usually because I’m playing against the harmony.
The difference between the concept and the standard idea of chord subs is that sometimes there is no clear vertical harmonic relationship between the original chords and the superpositions. They are often about connecting chords. So it’s an extension of passing tones in chord form. Passing chords obviously.
A very simple and traditional example is one you see in a blues or rhythm changes when the chords move from IV to I. Eb7 to Bb say… there’s two common passing chords here - Eo7 and Ebm/Bb7. I’m sure if you thought about it for long enough one chord find some sort of chord scale relationship, but to me it seems that these subs are mostly horizontal ways of connecting Eb and Bb. They predate jazz of course, you hear them all the time in Romantic classical music, Marching Band music and Ragtime and so on.
In fact you often hear jazzers play one over the other. Louis does it. Miles does it. Sonny does it. Wynton does it quite pointedly haha. Dissonances can be very ‘improper’ from a theoretical point of view, but we all come out on an I chord (or maybe a IIIm :-)) and all is good to the ear. My favourite is when pianists right hand clashes with the left. That’s the good stuff!
And of course the very tonality of the blues is minor against major.
That makes sense because of the way jazz is organised socially. We say ‘rhythm in Bb’ at a jam we don’t say ‘this specific variation of rhythm’ (unless it’s an arrangement or specific non standard changes for the song head like the Serpents Tooth and usually the solo changes will be looser anyway.)
In vamp soloing people call this ‘outside playing’ but really it’s an extension of the same venerable principle. Rhythm changes A is a vamp really on the most generalised level.
What’s true of the harmony is also true of the rhythm. Parker superimposing 3/4 in common time, Wynton playing in groupings of five (actually Django did that) and so on.
Theory often talks as if everyone has had a meeting on what notes to play on a given tune and we are all worried about making it line up - which is rarely the case. Maybe Aebersold etc gives the impression that’s how we organise improvisation. It’s a question I’ve noticed a few times on this forum ‘how do decide in a band what chords etc to play?’. Of course Miles did specify the scales on Kind of Blue (and Cannonball ignored him haha).
So for my own playing - I understand this intellectually, but I’d like to become braver in actually applying it.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLast edited by Christian Miller; 03-09-2024 at 05:59 AM.
-
Hmm. This is an interesting thought. I’m not sure I agree with it, but I’m not sure I don’t either.Every good outside line is, I think, a good inside line when played over different changes.
-
So maybe I would say any good inside line could be a good outside line over other changes?
I definitely think there are compelling outside lines that don’t really outline or adhere to any particular harmony. The original Ornette Coleman crew (early Ornette, Charlie Haden, Don Cherry) come to mind … two caveats being that saying the lines don’t adhere to any harmony is probably an oversimplification, even though that is the end result.
The second caveat is that I also I don’t have a specific example in mind so that may or may not be true.
What I think doesn’t quite get me about the above statement (all good outside lines, etc) is that I think an outside line has to be melodically strong and the harmonic implication is incidental. They absolutely have harmonic implications often (probably far and away more often) and those can have different effects. But I think side slipping can be an interesting experiment …
… playing a simple melody up or down a half step from the changes and then resolving is extremely common.
…. up or down a minor third or tritone is also pretty common…
… up or down a major second or major third is less common but still makes for cool symmetrical movement.
… up or down a fourth is basically just cycling and not even something we’d consider to be outside most of the time.
Which is to say that a simple melody can basically be played anywhere and make for a good outside line. Which means you’re totally right, but it would seem that the strength of the melody is the operative point and not necessarily the particular harmony it implies.
By way of thinking about that idea, I think that would also be the big fancy in my head rationalization for why I teach melody stuff in a really regimented way. Also melody is something people can get and hear and apply very quickly, whereas harmony is more abstract and requires an understanding of melody to outline effectively anyway
-
To say it as "every good inside line could become a good outside line over different changes" is fine with me. I don't really know if there's an exception if you say it the other way.
Either way, it points to the idea of invisible changes as something worth working on.
Reply With Quote
How is the Steve Howe 175?
Today, 05:54 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos