-
Yes but that’s not really my point. The bass is likely to play G on beat one. What you play could be any number of things.
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Yeah the other thing is I tend to see movements not isolated chords…I think we have moved far away from the original discussion into the post modernist harmony. I'm happy to have a discussion about harmony being just a story we all chose to believe in because it has utility despite it being a crude approximation of the reality at best (which is no different than anything else we believe in, including counterpoint, lol).
But the original discussion we were having was the relative merits and shortcomings of the master (or parent) scale vs root oriented mental organization of the fretboard for chord specific playing (playing the changes). Be it internalizing a lick vocabulary or building lines that outline chords.
The two approaches in their pure form:
- Learn one or two (or three) master scales really well. Memorize licks, phrases that are organized around these scales and then drill superimposing this vocabulary based on the right interval of the chord in the moment. For example, learn the major scale really well. On the first chord of blues, think major scale from the fourth of the chord etc. (I actually know good jazz players who think that way). If you're playing altered dominant, think melodic minor from the b9 etc.
vs
- Always work on your chord vocabulary, lines, arpeggios with respect to the root of the chord so that the way you view your note choices correspond to the intervals that will be heard against the chord. So for example when you're playing G7Alt, you view Ab as the b9, not as a place holder for melodic minor material orientation.
Dm7 G7 Cmaj7
Maybe I play
G7 Db7 Cmaj7
Bb7 Db7 Cmaj7
F Fo7 Cmaj7
Dm7 E Em
Dm11 flat a few Cmaj9
Dm7 Bmaj7 Cmaj7
Abmaj7 Abmadd9 Cmaj7
Etc etc
I have loads of ways of doing it. I’m going from Dm7 or Fmaj something to Cmaj7 (or Em) the root there is governed by vice leading.
Now you can look on any of these as being built on a given scale but the truth is is every one of these needs to be drillled as a specific case. You can’t go directly from ‘G diminished’ to hip diminished things. At least in my experience.
Sooner or later you have to practice stuff.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLast edited by Christian Miller; 04-12-2024 at 10:25 AM.
-
04-12-2024 10:01 AM
-
That’s for changes jazz right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
That's worth quoting. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
To me that amounts to practicing connecting chord material to outline various harmonic situations. Like the way Barry Harris taught coming up with lines in various harmonic situations of a tune in improvisation classes. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Let's consider another specific situation. Suppose a student told you that they learned the Gmin7 lick Wes Montgomery played in the beginning of his Four on Six solo (bars 34-35 around 2:34 mark):
So the line is basically Gmin7 arpeggio which goes up to include extensions 11 and 9. Let's also say fretboard is not the student's strong suit.
Now there is a very concrete and real problem. Can the student work productively on drilling language without having an approach to fretboard organization? What general guidance would you give to the student that help him/her develop a mental organization of the instrument that they can use consistently to internalize language in their practice sessions?
I can't imagine any high level jazz guitarist not having developed a very concrete organization that works for them. It's even possible the organization they ended up using wasn't an optimal one and their development could have been faster if only they had adopted an better organization to internalize early on.
So to me the question of derivative vs parallel is very related to this problem.
-
Interesting. Yeah I don’t really know. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
these are cool. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
An interesting question about playing some of these and about thinking from the root …
… how often is what we play superimposed over the root?
I think actually quite rarely, and/or only briefly.
The way a bassline works, for example is not particularly root bound. Theres a root on the downbeat, proooooobably more often than not, but definitely not not always and for something like a ii-V there might be really only one or the other. And even when there is a root on the downbeat, they borrow pretty liberally from the standard stock of passing and substitute chords, so the root they’re playing might not be the root I’m thinking about.
So the way we’re often taught to hear from the root or relate everything back to the root of the chord of the moment is actually kind of odd. It’s a very static way to think about a very mobile music.
So it makes more sense to think of these subs you present, as you present them — which is to say, as entities in their own right, rather than extensions of the big G7.
and for what it’s worth this is a pretty new idea to me, so not trying to knock anyone.
-
I mentally organize the fretboard harmony in a root oriented fashion. It is entirely possible that alternative and very good organizations exist. That's what I'm interested in finding out in this discussion. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
That said, I think I don't think saying that "seeing music as root motion is a very static" is a fair criticism for the root oriented fretboard organization. Any organization would have to impose a simplified static structure on the fretboard. That structure will not be the ultimate way to see music. But the idea is that a good organization, once mastered would allow the musician to become fluent in manipulating musical elements and transcend these limitations.
-
Well this seems like a very different thing than parallel thinking as it pertains to modes and whatnot. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Because that relates to the chord of the moment, which is necessarily a musical organization, rather than a technical one, because it’s relying on what’s going on around you rather than what’s happening on the fingerboard.
What you’re describing sounds like you’re thinking intervallically from whatever structure you’re playing at the moment. So the chord might be D minor and you might be playing in no sharps or flats, and you’re playing an F major 9 arpeggio, you’re thinking of ….
…. A. an Fmaj9 arpeggio and organizing the scale notes around it in that context.
… or B. thinking about it as the 3 5 7 9 and 11 of D minor and everything as it pertains to a Dorian mode.
Im not sure the former is exactly what Christian is thinking about, but it’s closer to that than it is to the sort of One Chord One Mode parallel mode approach.
-
Yes it is different. Perhaps you didn't read my past 50 posts and just read the last one which is fine. Just letting you know that I think I made that very clear in several posts already since I first started/joined the discussion about parallel/derivative. I'm keep trying to bring the discussion to very concrete elements of fretboard organization that allows for productive, consistent way to work on chord specific playing and move away from the "what is a chord root anyway" end of things. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
It's complicated and I'm already typing out essays lol. Originally Posted by Tal_175
If I've learned anything in the past few years of teaching jazz guitar it's that most students are not ready for to derive lines from first principles in this way even with a set of tools as clear as Barry. Sorry to sound blunt - but in general even where students know their scales and have the 'engineering side down - they have no rhythm, are unused to finding notes on the neck and so on. So you need to get them doing that. Ear learning, starting simple is the best way to do that IMO.
Barry Harris is something that can only be used by students who have all of this stuff in place. Those that didn't left Barry's classes pretty quick. These days on YouTube I think they are encountering it too early.
For myself - it took me a lot of study as an already gigging professional to get to the point where I could apply it. TBF I am quite dull at music.
On the flipside, you don't IMO need to have mastered all the scales to play jazz right away. We are here to play music. If that means starting with C jam blues and playing solos on two of three notes, great. We are still playing jazz, and learning some rhythm as we go from day 1.
Well the fingering is wrong for a start. Assuming they learned it by ear I'd show them the way Wes post likely fingered it, that's a form of 'fretboard organisation' in itself.Let's consider another specific situation. Suppose a student told you that they learned the Gmin7 lick Wes Montgomery played in the beginning of his Four on Six solo (bars 34-35 around 2:34 mark):
So the line is basically Gmin7 arpeggio which goes up to include extensions 11 and 9. Let's also say fretboard is not the student's strong suit.
Now there is a very concrete and real problem. Can the student work productively on drilling language without having an approach to fretboard organization? What general guidance would you give to the student that help him/her develop a mental organization of the instrument that they can use consistently to internalize language in their practice sessions?
Without wanting to be obtuse, I'm not not sure what 'fretboard organisation' is exactly. What does it mean to you?
'Fretboard organisation' is to me - knowing the instrument. I have a set of tools for work on that. I'm a guitar teacher. Intervallic/parallel thinking for scale and chord construction.
Absolute pitches for reading (seems to be the way it works for some reason.)I see it as a separate enterprise to learning how to play jazz. It is possible to be very good at one and have no concept of the other.
OTOH consistent fingerings are often an issue, students will do all sorts of silly stuff. So you need to systematise that stuff. Practicing scales and arpeggios is essential for that. But that's true of guitar teaching in general. I don't see it as being in overlap with the problem of playing jazz.
For example; I do not like positions for jazz. Positions can and should be taught (though not overt taught) for fretboard knowledge but they have nothing to do with the way I play jazz lines.
For bop, manouche etc most lines can be related to simple chord shapes on the neck. Play the chord, play the line, transpose by ear, apply on tunes. The level of organisation required for that is - do you know E and A chord shapes? Later, D shapes....
It's not the end point, but it gets them playing.
It's kind of a hard one to answer.I can't imagine any high level jazz guitarist not having developed a very concrete organization that works for them. It's even possible the organization they ended up using wasn't an optimal one and their development could have been faster if only they had adopted an better organization to internalize early on.
So to me the question of derivative vs parallel is very related to this problem.
Derivative is the time honoured way to apply jazz language to changes. But you should also practice your scales? But scales won't make jazz for most ...
This is about the ears as well. You need to get a real link between the ears and the neck. That trumps theoretical organisation every time. Scales, believe it or not, especially the boring old major scale ALL over the neck, are definitely useful for that.
-
Oh one last thought - over time these different strands will dovetail, but I think a lot of damage has been done by the connection of scales to improv at an early stage. (I think some of this - but not all - might be down to the specific nature of the guitar.)
-
Dunno. Need to transcribe some more bass players Originally Posted by pamosmusic
But this sort of thing is what I mean whenI say the root and bass is now the same thing more often than not. Is it
C/E Ebo7 Dm7 G7
Or
Em Ebo7 Dm7 G7
You often see the latter.. sometimes with a C in the melody!
Careful….. you may turn into a weirdo like me hahaSo the way we’re often taught to hear from the root or relate everything back to the root of the chord of the moment is actually kind of odd. It’s a very static way to think about a very mobile music.
Personally I’ve always found it helpful to consider chord types from the key centre.
End of the day, unless in those kind of playing situations you don’t control what everyone else does…. The overall harmony is a product of everyone’s contributions… that’s the joy of jazz (from what I hear Jacob Collier had trouble with that playing in ensembles…. Wanted to control everything.)So it makes more sense to think of these subs you present, as you present them — which is to say, as entities in their own right, rather than extensions of the big G7.
and for what it’s worth this is a pretty new idea to me, so not trying to knock anyone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
This is a personal dream of mine. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Sure, there is a while universe of standards that present this problem. Bewitched, being a classic example. And that would also be an example of the way bass players sometimes sub in passing chords … I VI ii V, becomes C C# D D# E, even if that’s not the root motion written on the page.But this sort of thing is what I mean whenI say the root and bass is now the same thing more often than not. Is it
C/E Ebo7 Dm7 G7
Or
Em Ebo7 Dm7 G7
(I’ve transcribed some bass —not tons either, but a bit. Mostly this is just from playing with bass players. I can’t always pinpoint every note, but you can hear those alterations and flexibility of the prevailing bass motion)
exactly my dear boyEnd of the day, unless in those kind of playing situations you don’t control what everyone else does…. The overall harmony is a product of everyone’s contributions… that’s the joy of jazz
-
I confess that I'm not quite following this discussion.
I understand the difference between thinking G7alt and thinking Abmelmin. Same pool of notes. Thinking about Abmelmin may make it easier to arrive at those notes (if you already know Abmelmin), but thinking G7alt may help you hear the intervals more properly against the root.
On the bandstand, for a seasoned player, it isn't going to make much difference. It's better, I should think, to consider a scale as a pool of notes in no particular order. It's also a good idea to know the chord tones and extensions for the chords you use. It's a great idea to know the sound of all 12 notes against a particular harmonic passage (single chord or sequence, depending on the tune).
So, my conclusion is to use chord names where you can. The chord name usually gives you the "best" 6 notes. Find the rest from the tonal center, by ear, or from knowing the notes in a related scale - as you need them for the melody you're creating.
Sometimes, the chord name is unwieldy, like G7#11b9#9b13. So, for those you can learn the needed scales case by case as you encounter the chord in tunes. Or you can apply a trick, like "melodic minor half step up" or "m(add9) a half step up". And, then don't use it in a way that sounds bad.
My approach with a student, who could think this way, would be 0) play everything always with great time feel 1) learn to read all over the fingerboard. 2) learn the notes in the chords you use. 3) learn how to identify a tonal center and list the notes 4) stress being able to imagine a line and play it, instantly 5) learn tunes 6) learn about extensions and tensions 7) learn major, natural minor and melodic minor. I'm not sure about teaching harmonic minor as separate from the chord applications. 8) chord subs and patterns in comping (not necessarily last).
-
Maybe this is apropos of nothing, but the altered chord is the only one that I almost never (maybe really never) play from the root. Like over a C chord, I might play upper structures too but I’ll often play from a C maj7 arpeggio or something.
I can’t really think of a time when I ever really think of the Galt from G — it’s always Fm7b5 or Abm6 or whatever.
At this point, I have no idea how this relates to the discussion, but I did find it interesting.
-
Interesting. I think 7alt is a special case in several ways. For one, most guitarists seeing Galt are likely to play xx3446 or similar. F B Eb Bb, which is a portion of Galt, but more precisely G7b9b13 with the bassist playing the root. And that pinkie wiggle to get the Ab is common. The #11 is less common. So the usual aid of thinking about the chord when finding notes for a solo is less obvious with alt. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Galt is G B Db Eb F Ab Bb. That's seven notes on a 6 string instrument. Who plays Galt with an actual G at the bottom of the chord? If you don't ever play the root of a chord it's easy to ignore it when you're soloing. And "minor half step up" is easy to remember.
Those seven notes are the entire 7th mode of Abmelmin. We don't usually see chord names which encompass 7 notes (13 chords being an exception). So that adds another moment of thought.
The use of the term alt is understandable given the full chord name. But it adds an extra cognitive step. G7b9b13 tells me, instantly, what the chord tones are. Galt means I have to translate the chord symbol into note names or intervals. Seems like there's more drilling to do with the "alt".
-
"G alt means I have to translate the chord symbol into note names or intervals. Seems like there's more drilling to do with the 'alt'."
Funny, I would say the opposite, because so many different chord voicings could be played: with the b9th, #9th(b3rd), b5th(#11th), #5th(b13th) and various combinations of those notes.
-
In changes jazz the altered dominant is primarily a resolving sound. Therefore I hear it principally as a voice leading device. The altered scale for instance has that classic chromatic enclosure of the I chords 1 built in (eg Db B —> C) and the classic move down to the third - G Ab Bb B Bb Ab G F —> E etc. Along with ‘tritone’s minor’ (night in Tunisia etc) this tends to be how it used in bop etc. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
So I think I hear it more horizontally in some ways.
(It is separate from the minor dominant it is often confused for.)
Here’s a vid on subject I made that none watched lol, which looks at altered as an altered minor scale
What has happened in the past few decades is that the altered is increasingly used as a tonality in itself. So in this case things that sound less ‘resolvey’ like polychords/us triads are used.
-
#christianhasavideoforthat Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Indeed Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Thank you for this video.
After playing last night and finding my lines to be repetitive and boring, I was already thinking about how to add something new when I watched the video.
I was aware that there are triads embedded in scales, but focusing on it was helpful.
So I wrote out the triads for alt and for lydian dominant. There are 7, of course, not necessarily of equal utility. And there is an argument that, since Mark Levine wrote that there's no avoid note, the actual number of triads is 7!/(4!*3!). 35? Or I've forgotten the math. EDIT: times 6 to account for inversions, if I've got that right.
But, I digress. Since getting overwhelmed seemed a likelihood, I decided to pare it down. Primary and secondary dominant situations, if I'm using the terms correctly. alt going to tonic. 7#11 going elsewhere. I wrote out the 7 basic ones for alt and lydian dominant.
For G7alt I liked Abm and G+.
For G7#11 I liked A7 (all four notes work) and F+ (F A C#).
The idea that's new, for me, is thinking about augmented triads. I have a lick that includes those notes, but I'd never really thought about them in isolation. And, since augmented ideas can be considered to repeat in whole steps, these few triads will lead to some other ideas. It's not the way I prefer to play (I prefer scatting melody and playing that when I can do it), but there's a point where the scatted ideas are scat and new ideas are needed.
So, much appreciated.Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 04-14-2024 at 06:51 AM.
-
Oh brilliant! So glad you found it helpful. The triads Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
are a (practically) endless source of possibilities
Ear based playing is very important… but I find it important to feed my ears with new sounds.
A lot of Strayhorns harmony is augmented chords in various positions. It’s kind of the OG way to evoke ‘melodic minor harmony’ (they didn’t call it that back then.)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Then, as an exercise I wrote out 2 octaves of Cmelmin. And, instead of building tertiary chords (every other note) I skipped two note.
So, C F B, D G C etc.
Then played them all against Cm7-F7. Every one of them sounded good.
But, going from the printed page to spontaneity on a gig with multiple new sounds is not as quick as I'd like, to put it very mildly.
It is my impression that at least one great player I know has a lot of tone clusters from melmin completely worked out and under his fingers. You hear interesting harmony and you see fingerings that aren't in conventional chord books.
-
rpjazzguitar---The idea that's new, for me, is thinking about augmented triads. I have a lick that includes those notes, but I'd never really thought about them in isolation. And, since augmented ideas can be considered to repeat in whole steps, these few triads will lead to some other ideas. It's not the way I prefer to play (I prefer scatting melody and playing that when I can do it), but there's a point where the scatted ideas are scat and new ideas are needed.
symmetric harmony is well worth the time and effort to explore. Your fairly new augmented study should be expanded.
G augmented scale is a hexatonic-6 note scale
G Bb B D Eb Gb -- note the three major AND three minor triads in the scale
G B D
G Bb D
B Eb Gb
B D Gb
Eb G Bb
Eb Gb Bb
and each note of the scale can be the root of a aug triad
thinking of the triads as part of a tonal center opens up harmonic as well as melodic ideas.
treating the minor chords as a ii7 can change tonal centers..Coltrans Giant Steps used some of this thinking.
the three major triads movement between each other offers a very open sounding feel
Bmaj7 Ebmaj7 Gmaj7 Bmaj7 C#mi7 Ebmaj7
--------------------------------------------------------
G maj7 Ami7 Bmi7 Ebmaj7 Fmi7 Gmi7 Ab13 Gmaj6
and using inversions and some voice leading expands the possibilities ALOT
experiment with some scales with this kind of stuff
melodic minor and modes
diminished scales
hope this helps
-
Thanks for this. I'm trying to understand it. Might you provide an example of how to use it in a tune? Originally Posted by wolflen
Or just in a ii V I. Or a I VI II V?
Reply With Quote
George Barnes plays Bach/1966
Today, 06:29 PM in The Players