Playing the changes vs. playing over the key center

[AllanAllen]

And this is also really interesting. I’ve heard you say that you generalize a lot. Like I believe it was that, to you, the A section of A Train is just “C”.

I think I know what you mean, but I’d be interested to hear what the difference is or how your playing looks different than just “key center” playing when you conceptualize it this way.

see voo play

Dm7 and G7 are in the C pool. I'll go for those chord tones in bars 4 and 5, but the scale pattern I'm using is the C major scale. I'm pulling Dm and G7 from the C major scale.

Whereas say So What, it's just D dorian and Eb dorian key center noodling.

So you could go back the Take the A Train and noodle in C on bars 1 and 2 then mind the D7 for 2 bars, then back C noodling, and that'll get you though the solo. Emphasis on get you through the solo, it's not a way to sound good, but it's what I did when I started going to jams. It's also a fantastic way to get lost constantly and now that I've pivoted to more triads and chunking of changes I get lost WAAAAAY less. Which probably helps my solos in some way.

[John A.]

I don’t know. I mean, I do love a philosophical cul de sac, and I’m certainly not disagreeing with you about rhythm—that’s A no. 1. But when you think about melodic development, what pitches you’re using and how those pitches fit against the accompaniment would be a significant part.

And the more interesting one you mentioned was phrasing — one aspect of phrasing that I think is really important for jazz is what you might call Line Shape. I really think jazz—or at least bebop-adjacent jazz (which is most of it)—has a kind of distinctive shape. Sort of jagged, unpredictable, doubles back on itself, etc. I think a lot of the time when a phrase doesn’t sound like “jazz” that’s actually a big part of it. And I think straightforward “key center” playing probably doesn’t lend itself to those kinds of shapes, though the question of what “hitting the changes means” is a little bit of a red herring too.

I'm not saying pitches are irrelevant, and I completely agree with what you say about line shape. But If I were to talk about pitch collections to make one's playing sound jazzier, I wouldn't dwell on key centers vs chord tones (which in my mind are complements, not opposites and are more lenses for learning and understanding a tune then soloing adventurously over it). Assuming the player can arpeggiate the changes and can get around diatonically, I would focus more on expanding the palette of pitches and tension/resolution stuff. But I'd have to hear the player to be able to say anything more specific than that.

[pkirk]

OP: It helps to think of the word "changes" literally: that is, focus your improv practice on the *transition* from chord to chord (e.g. how the 3rd and 7th move); the "tonal center/chord-scale" improv tends to address chords (or a sequence of diatonic chords) individually, and hence doesn't produce a strong feeling of movement from bar to bar, even when all notes are "right".

[pamosmusic]

I'm not saying pitches are irrelevant, and I completely agree with what you say about line shape. But If I were to talk about pitch collections to make one's playing sound jazzier, I wouldn't dwell on key centers vs chord tones (which in my mind are complements, not opposites and are more lenses for learning and understanding a tune then soloing adventurously over it). Assuming the player can arpeggiate the changes and can get around diatonically, I would focus more on expanding the palette of pitches and tension/resolution stuff. But I'd have to hear the player to be able to say anything more specific than that.

Yeah that’s fair

[rpjazzguitar]

Suppose you're playing All of Me. C E7 A7 Dm E7 Am D7 G7.

And, suppose you figure, okay this is all Cmajor tonal center, give or take a couple of notes.

So, I could start with C Ionian. For the E7, I could continue (and get a #9 from the G) or I could change the G to a G#. Or just not play either one.

For the A7 I could leave it as a C (another #9) or adjust it to C#. Or, just not play either one.

The Dm can be considered as within C tonal center. My adjustment might be simply to play the chord tones of Dm on the strong beats. Same notes from C tonal center, but placed to sound like Dm. I don't know how I'd handle the Bb and/or B. Omit both?

I won't go through the rest of the details.

Throughout, I'm thinking "C, with a few adjustments".

Is this approach tonal center or playing the changes?

[Tal_175]

Suppose you're playing All of Me. C E7 A7 Dm E7 Am D7 G7.

And, suppose you figure, okay this is all Cmajor tonal center, give or take a couple of notes.

So, I could start with C Ionian. For the E7, I could continue (and get a #9 from the G) or I could change the G to a G#. Or just not play either one.

For the A7 I could leave it as a C (another #9) or adjust it to C#. Or, just not play either one.

The Dm can be considered as within C tonal center. My adjustment might be simply to play the chord tones of Dm on the strong beats. Same notes from C tonal center, but placed to sound like Dm. I don't know how I'd handle the Bb and/or B. Omit both?

I won't go through the rest of the details.

Throughout, I'm thinking "C, with a few adjustments".

Is this approach tonal center or playing the changes?

A half a note is a huge distance in this business. When you play G# over E7 with all other diatonic notes, you get E Phrygian dominant or A harmonic minor. So in a way yes, you are playing the changes. But it may or may not sound like playing the changes in the style of jazz depending on how you phrase it. Hitting the G# over a secondary dominant or leading note diminished going to A minor is not unique to jazz. You'll hear that in pretty much any kind of tonal music. What makes it sound like jazz is how that chord is outlined. It depends on whether the phrasing has elements of the jazz language which is not easy to define but easy to hear.

When a jazz musician is thinking and hearing "functioning dominant", you can see and hear it in the way that chord is outlined and resolved. I don't know if seeing it as C major scale but with G# instead of G would necessarily give you that because it may not convey the underlying harmonic movement.

So I guess, playing the changes is different than avoiding clashes.

[AllanAllen]

Suppose you're playing All of Me. C E7 A7 Dm E7 Am D7 G7.

And, suppose you figure, okay this is all Cmajor tonal center, give or take a couple of notes.

So, I could start with C Ionian. For the E7, I could continue (and get a #9 from the G) or I could change the G to a G#. Or just not play either one.

For the A7 I could leave it as a C (another #9) or adjust it to C#. Or, just not play either one.

The Dm can be considered as within C tonal center. My adjustment might be simply to play the chord tones of Dm on the strong beats. Same notes from C tonal center, but placed to sound like Dm. I don't know how I'd handle the Bb and/or B. Omit both?

I won't go through the rest of the details.

Throughout, I'm thinking "C, with a few adjustments".

Is this approach tonal center or playing the changes?

I do changes over all of me. Too many adjustments for me to keep track of.

[Mick-7]

Suppose you're playing All of Me. C E7 A7 Dm E7 Am D7 G7.

And, suppose you figure, okay this is all Cmajor tonal center, give or take a couple of notes.

So, I could start with C Ionian. For the E7, I could continue (and get a #9 from the G) or I could change the G to a G#. Or just not play either one.

For the A7 I could leave it as a C (another #9) or adjust it to C#. Or, just not play either one.

The Dm can be considered as within C tonal center. My adjustment might be simply to play the chord tones of Dm on the strong beats. Same notes from C tonal center, but placed to sound like Dm. I don't know how I'd handle the Bb and/or B. Omit both?

I won't go through the rest of the details.

Throughout, I'm thinking "C, with a few adjustments".

Is this approach tonal center or playing the changes?

I would say it's neither, more of a modal scale approach. The tonal center focus is on chord progressions: II-V, Cycle of 5ths, etc., which in practice should translate to playing the changes.

"The Dm can be considered as within C tonal center."

Same key center, not tonal center, they're not quite the same thing.

[rpjazzguitar]

I would say it's neither, more of a modal scale approach. The tonal center focus is on chord progressions: II-V, Cycle of 5ths, etc., which in practice should translate to playing the changes.

"The Dm can be considered as within C tonal center."

Same key center, not tonal center, they're not quite the same thing.

I guess it's true that I could think of C Ionian, E phrygian dominant, D melodic minor, D mixolydian, and so forth and wind up with the same notes.

But, it seems so much simpler to think, C tonal center for the whole A section of the tune and then adjust, as deemed necessary, for the chords that have notes which aren't in the C major scale.

Also, as always, to phrase well, which will probably result in the chord tones being on the strong beats a lot of the time.

BTW, I think of this tune as a cycle of 5ths tune.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

?

“I could think of C Ionian, E phrygian dominant, D melodic minor, D mixolydian, and so forth and wind up with the same notes.”

“it seems so much simpler to think, C tonal center for the whole A section of the tune and then adjust, as deemed necessary, for the chords that have notes which aren't in the C major scale.”

“I think of this tune as a cycle of 5ths tune.”

“When you play G# over E7 with all other diatonic notes, you get E Phrygian dominant or A harmonic minor.”

“I could start with C Ionian. For the E7, I could continue (and get a #9 from the G) or I could change the G to a G#. Or just not play either one.”

”on a standard song we all know that the dominant chord is DIFFERENT from the minor chord and even the major chord, so it is essential to play SOMETHING DIFFERENT over the dominant chord. Otherwise you will not get TENSION AND RESOLUTION”

etc etc etc ad infinitum

I’m getting a headache just reading all of this. I couldn’t play a coherent line with all of it churning in my brain. Do you all actually think these thoughts while playing???

[Bop Head]

?I’m getting a headache just reading all of this. I couldn’t play a coherent line with all of it churning in my brain. Do you all actually think these thoughts while playing???

+1

I really have an admiration somehow for people who are able to think that complicated.

[Tal_175]

?I’m getting a headache just reading all of this. I couldn’t play a coherent line with all of it churning in my brain. Do you all actually think these thoughts while playing???

You might be thinking something else that results in the same (or largely overlapping) notes. For example when the tune goes to bar 3 (E7 from C maj), you surely are aware of where you are in the tune and the chord you're playing over, no?

[princeplanet]

Hehe, rock players are always looking for a shortcut . Here's an interesting experiment that highlights what i think is THE difference between what you are probably able to do now, and what you'd probably like to be able to.

If you take most rock or blues solos, you will find that in most cases (not all, but most) you could take what was played in any bar and paste it to any other and it would still sound OKish... That's because the pool of notes being used (ie, 5 or 7 note "scales") is not being used in a specific way to describe the underlying harmony. It all kinda just floats on top. That's why rock/blues guys do the "mindless noodling" thing, and just plant their licks wherever they feel like as if every song is a one chord modal vamp!

Now take any "jazz solo" against a tune with changes and try pasting just any bar from this solo over any other - it will sound horrible! The more a phrase fits perfectly against one chord, the more it will sound plain wrong over a different chord - even a rock player will hear it (relax, I'm an ex rock player, just having a dig). Bop players are embellishing chord tones, carefully selected extensions or even more carefully considered altered notes at carefully considered places of each bar. There is nothing random, there is no mindless noodling. Every note makes sense and is usually "pre-heard" by the player who should be able to sing it while playing.

This "consideration" is worked out through years (and years) of practicing a lot of "devices" against each chord type, perhaps firstly in isolation, but eventually against full tunes with changes. It's really hard to do well, but you reach a point where you can improvise on the fly by stitching together prefab chunks of chord specific vocab that comes out different each time.

The true improvised bits are the filler used to glue together the prefab chunks. It takes a long time to get that together. The more advanced stages involve more "freewheeling" and less relying on the prefab chunks. The greats even seem to be able to force unlikely material to fit over parts of a tune, which leaves us confused when analysing. But again, it's not random, it's extremely wilful and always super confident, and always resolves in a satisfying way. You will hear Bird, Rollins, Cannonball, Dexter, Hubbard, Wes, GB etc play things sometimes that may sound like tonal centre playing, but almost as an effect. Like forcing blues lines in certain places, it can be cool if sprinkled in here and there, but very boring, very quickly if overdone (like listening to a rocker playing over a jazz standard ! )

Here's the thing, Hardly any rock players will cross over to be good Jazz players - for a variety of reasons - and in my experience, most just wanna learn a few jazz lines to spice up their rock solos. If that's what you're thinking, then there are dozens of jazz lick books where you could easily memorise a handful of lines in a week or so. But if you wanna really think and play like a Jazz player, and I sincerely hope you do, then please understand firstly that there is no hidden shortcut secret (if there was I would have found it 20 years ago).

The fastest way is to find a teacher that can play the way you like (plenty will not) and get ready for a long, frustrating journey, but ultimately rewarding. There is much to learn, far too much to list in a forum post. There is a system of knowledge and practice you need to put in place, and unfortunately, there is wild variation in the way this can be shown. Every player or teacher evolves their own unique path to this knowledge (that's why everyone in this thread is giving different advice), and you will need to develop your own at some point. This is also a good thing, right? You don't wanna sound like anyone else after years of study.

I'd also like to add that chasing the changes, and landing on your feet, is better than sex!

There, I said it!

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

You might be thinking something else that results in the same (or largely overlapping) notes. For example when the tune goes to bar 3 (E7 from C maj), you surely are aware of where you are in the tune and the chord you're playing over, no?

To be aware of where you are in the tune, you have to know the tune. That means having it in your mind as a frame on which to build your playing. If that requires continuous conscious effort, you don’t really know the tune. Even if you’re sight reading a new piece, you should know where it’s going after one or two passes through it.

I could well be wrong about this. But I hear an oddly mechanical and frequently repetitive character in improvisation that’s driven by conscious real time effort to comply with formally defined guidelines, theories, constructs etc. If I had to consult mental crib sheets on theory to choose my notes and structure my lines while playing, I couldn’t play a note. Rigid insistence on using theory to define what you play seems “anal retentive” to me. It’s probably the most common cause of chronic chordal constipation.

[Tal_175]

To be aware of where you are in the tune, you have to know the tune. That means having it in your mind as a frame on which to build your playing. If that requires continuous conscious effort, you don’t really know the tune. Even if you’re sight reading a new piece, you should know where it’s going after one or two passes through it.

Let's go one step at a time if you don't mind. Do you have any conscious awareness of any chord you're playing on or the chord that you are moving towards at any point in your playing, performing or practicing whether that's a tune that you know well or a tune that's new to you?

[AllanAllen]

To be aware of where you are in the tune, you have to know the tune. That means having it in your mind as a frame on which to build your playing. If that requires continuous conscious effort, you don’t really know the tune. Even if you’re sight reading a new piece, you should know where it’s going after one or two passes through it.

I could well be wrong about this. But I hear an oddly mechanical and frequently repetitive character in improvisation that’s driven by conscious real time effort to comply with formally defined guidelines, theories, constructs etc. If I had to consult mental crib sheets on theory to choose my notes and structure my lines while playing, I couldn’t play a note. Rigid insistence on using theory to define what you play seems “anal retentive” to me. It’s probably the most common cause of chronic chordal constipation.

I'm with you here. If I know a tune I can play over it fine, if I don't I'm thinking chord changes and playing connect the triads with my guitar. Eventually that stops and I can play over it, limited by my own technical skill rather than not knowing the tune.

[Bop Head]

Hehe, rock players are always looking for a shortcut . Here's an interesting experiment that highlights what i think is THE difference between what you are probably able to do now, and what you'd probably like to be able to.

If you take most rock or blues solos, you will find that in most cases (not all, but most) you could take what was played in any bar and paste it to any other and it would still sound OKish... That's because the pool of notes being used (ie, 5 or 7 note "scales") is not being used in a specific way to describe the underlying harmony. It all kinda just floats on top. That's why rock/blues guys do the "mindless noodling" thing, and just plant their licks wherever they feel like as if every song is a one chord modal vamp!

Now take any "jazz solo" against a tune with changes and try pasting just any bar from this solo over any other - it will sound horrible! The more a phrase fits perfectly against one chord, the more it will sound plain wrong over a different chord - even a rock player will hear it (relax, I'm an ex rock player, just having a dig). Bop players are embellishing chord tones, carefully selected extensions or even more carefully considered altered notes at carefully considered places of each bar. There is nothing random, there is no mindless noodling. Every note makes sense and is usually "pre-heard" by the player who should be able to sing it while playing.

This "consideration" is worked out through years (and years) of practicing a lot of "devices" against each chord type, perhaps firstly in isolation, but eventually against full tunes with changes. It's really hard to do well, but you reach a point where you can improvise on the fly by stitching together prefab chunks of chord specific vocab that comes out different each time.

The true improvised bits are the filler used to glue together the prefab chunks. It takes a long time to get that together. The more advanced stages involve more "freewheeling" and less relying on the prefab chunks. The greats even seem to be able to force unlikely material to fit over parts of a tune, which leaves us confused when analysing. But again, it's not random, it's extremely wilful and always super confident, and always resolves in a satisfying way. You will hear Bird, Rollins, Cannonball, Dexter, Hubbard, Wes, GB etc play things sometimes that may sound like tonal centre playing, but almost as an effect. Like forcing blues lines in certain places, it can be cool if sprinkled in here and there, but very boring, very quickly if overdone (like listening to a rocker playing over a jazz standard ! )

Here's the thing, Hardly any rock players will cross over to be good Jazz players - for a variety of reasons - and in my experience, most just wanna learn a few jazz lines to spice up their rock solos. If that's what you're thinking, then there are dozens of jazz lick books where you could easily memorise a handful of lines in a week or so. But if you wanna really think and play like a Jazz player, and I sincerely hope you do, then please understand firstly that there is no hidden shortcut secret (if there was I would have found it 20 years ago).

The fastest way is to find a teacher that can play the way you like (plenty will not) and get ready for a long, frustrating journey, but ultimately rewarding. There is much to learn, far too much to list in a forum post. There is a system of knowledge and practice you need to put in place, and unfortunately, there is wild variation in the way this can be shown. Every player or teacher evolves their own unique path to this knowledge (that's why everyone in this thread is giving different advice), and you will need to develop your own at some point. This is also a good thing, right? You don't wanna sound like anyone else after years of study.

I'd also like to add that chasing the changes, and landing on your feet, is better than sex!

There, I said it!

Who is the rock player you are referring to?

EDIT: I see, it is the OP.

[mr. beaumont]

All of Me, being largely 2 bars per chord, is "play the damn changes" time. Heck, you could look at every 2 bar chunk as it's own key center if you really want to

But joking aside, absolutely one of the best tunes to teach playing changes with.

[Tal_175]

All of Me, being largely 2 bars per chord, is "play the damn changes" time. Heck, you could look at every 2 bar chunk as it's own key center if you really want to

But joking aside, absolutely one of the best tunes to teach playing changes with.

Yes, it's a great tune for those who are new to jazz as well. It's basically one big turnaround in one key center. I mean you can say that for a lot of tunes like, Donna Lee or Rhythm changes etc but the harmonic rhythm of All of Me is slower. It's got a melody familiar to most non-jazz audience and it's in major. A perfect gateway to jazz.

[henryrobinett]

I will play over the changes because I like the sound.. But sometimes if it gets boring I'll go outside or modal - kind of like key center. I'll slip in a little Coltrane type changes for a bar or two. Variation is the spice of life.

[pamosmusic]

To be aware of where you are in the tune, you have to know the tune. That means having it in your mind as a frame on which to build your playing. If that requires continuous conscious effort, you don’t really know the tune. Even if you’re sight reading a new piece, you should know where it’s going after one or two passes through it.

I could well be wrong about this. But I hear an oddly mechanical and frequently repetitive character in improvisation that’s driven by conscious real time effort to comply with formally defined guidelines, theories, constructs etc. If I had to consult mental crib sheets on theory to choose my notes and structure my lines while playing, I couldn’t play a note. Rigid insistence on using theory to define what you play seems “anal retentive” to me. It’s probably the most common cause of chronic chordal constipation.

Okay I don’t find this sort of dichotomy to be particularly useful.

So, this may come as a shock to some of you, but when I was in school, I was considered something of an obnoxious smarty pants. By which I mean, I was a fairly sharp little dude.

I learn very very quickly by reading and seeing things done. So theory comes very very easily to me and makes perfect sense to me. I have a pretty good ear, but I had to scratch and claw for every bit of it.

So my point here is that I absolutely play by ear, but I *practice* with my brain. That’s not how everyone needs to practice, but the theory tells me what might work, and I train my ear to hear it while I’m practicing.

So I absolutely do think about stuff like this (not this stuff, necessarily, but sure some annoying theory) while I’m *practicing* I tell student that it’s important to remember that theory is the Dewey Decimal System. It’s not the knowledge in the books, but it will absolutely help you find the right books if you’re looking. I then have to explain what the Dewey Decimal System is, but that’s another matter.

While I’m *improvising*, my ear and muscle memory are going their thing. But that stuff is stuff I’ve practiced or at least adjacent to stuff I’ve practiced. So I don’t generally find the disdain for people who think through changes using whatever theoretical terms they find helpful to be terribly productive

[Tal_175]

So I absolutely do think about stuff like this (not this stuff, necessarily, but sure some annoying theory) while I’m *practicing* I tell student that it’s important to remember that theory is the Dewey Decimal System. It’s not the knowledge in the books, but it will absolutely help you find the right books if you’re looking. I then have to explain what the Dewey Decimal System is, but that’s another matter.

While I’m *improvising*, my ear and muscle memory are going their thing. But that stuff is stuff I’ve practiced or at least adjacent to stuff I’ve practiced. So I don’t generally find the disdain for people who think through changes using whatever theoretical terms they find helpful to be terribly productive

Yes, that's what I'm trying to get to in my response to nevershoudvesoldit. But I'm going step by step to figure out if he actually has a completely different process.

[Bop Head]

Yes, it's a great tune for those who are new to jazz as well. It's basically one big turnaround in one key center. I mean you can say that for a lot of tunes like, Donna Lee or Rhythm changes etc but the harmonic rhythm of All of Me is slower. It's got a melody familiar to most non-jazz audience and it's in major. A perfect gateway to jazz.

I do not hear it as only one key center. For me the secondary dominant E7 let's you expect Am7 but deceptively follows an A7 leading to Dm from the key center of F, indicated by the Bb in the melody (BTW it is Dm and not Dm7 in the original sheet music). Then the next E7 leads to Am7, back to the C key center.

[pamosmusic]

Yes, that's what I'm trying to get to in my response to nevershoudvesoldit. But I'm going step by step to figure out if he actually has a completely different process.

I don’t doubt that he does.

One of my particularly skilled students thinks like this. It’s quite fun because I can’t teach him the way I teach myself. So I have to try to bring him the same information in a quite different format, so it’s a cool challenge for me. And then also when we arrive at a more analytical place, he’s always like “wowwww I never thought about it like that” so it’s a really interesting experience as a teacher.

[Tal_175]

I do not hear it as only one key center. For me the secondary dominant E7 let's you expect Am7 but deceptively follows an A7 leading to Dm from the key center of F, indicated by the Bb in the melody (BTW it is Dm and not Dm7 in the original sheet music). Then the next E7 leads to Am7, back to the C key center.

I hear it just as I III VI II V in C major with secondary dominants. If the A section was just 16 bars of C maj, the actual chords of the tune wouldn't be too far from at least one of the ways I'd approach comping it.