Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Posts 101 to 150 of 279
  1. #101

    User Info Menu

    Reg

    I see Abma7 to Gma7#5, extensions of the Bb-7 and A7.


    1. What would be the context for this type of line, several bars of Bb-7?

    2. What factors go into deciding the pair of chords?

    3. What would happen after these two measures? When you use this technique, do you typically loop the pair of arpeggios?

    4. What do you mean by the Eb/D# being the target note? You'll literally end the line on the note?

    Thanks...
    Oh, hi - if interested, I post a lot of playing/practice clips at www.instagram.com/JakeEstner

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #102

    User Info Menu

    4. What do you mean by the Eb/D# being the target note? You'll literally end the line on the note?
    A target note can be placed anywhere in the line beginning/end/middle and can be the highest or lowest note as well as an inner voice. Drawing on common tones, step wise motion and melodic leaps to craft (spontaneously) a simple melody or guide line. This then is used as a reference point from which to create melodies of greater complexity.

  4. #103

    User Info Menu

    Hey Jake.. hope things are well,

    If it helps, make the Bb-7 a Bb-13... you could make the changes G#maj7 to A13#11, the concept of using the arpeggios would still be the same...but with different starting reference. Which would change the relationships and where the development might go. Not good, bad, right or wrong... but (personally) different.

    I don't see or hear as extensions... maybe when your in the early stages of teaching or explaining you might go through those stages of understanding... personally I believe you get to a point where the notes are what they are and you decide how you want them to work. You obviously need to be aware of historical reference etc... but your usage can determine, through implications, the reference. This is getting into a very complicated and subjective discussion, which I totally dig, but requires a lot of info and expertise. The technique can work with both references.

    The context is fairy open, but yes, lets say four bar phrase of two bars Bb- to two bars A7.

    The factors of deciding on what pair of chords... can be what ever one chooses. In the example I could be playing simple tune like "Gregory Is Here" by Horace... I know Different chords and different chord pattern, (B13#11 to C-11), but concept and application are the same. I use as a starting reference for my improve... the note collections, (the position arpeggios), they become like single notes which I use for creating melodic phrases... Like creating melody or line but using note groupings as the single notes. The creating relationships and developing can be the same... maybe a little more complicated at first.

    You could relate looping the chords to a call and answer type of relationship and develop from that reference.

    If you mean from a teaching or practicing aspect... yes looping would be great.

    My using Eb/D# as target note would mean... that could be the reference tonal target I use as my reference for creating relationships etc... in the example I mentioned simply because of characteristic implications of that note in reference to the chords.

    There's a whole lot of info here and takes a whole lot of technical and harmonic understanding before the technique become part of your voice... but it generally doesn't happen by chance.

    I could try and make vid of a few examples... seeing and hearing generally works best. I'll try and post something in the next couple of days. Maybe even take changes from "Ruth" jzucker brought up... the whole tune is blocks of call and answer over pedals.

  5. #104

    User Info Menu

    Thank you Reg. I may have to give your post a few re-reads in a further attempt to truly grasp.

    For now I'll admit being a little lost, so bear with me:

    If the changes to the tune are in fact Bb-7 to A7, and you are playing the arpeggios in the pdf, is the concept simply picking two arpeggios from the respective modes that share a common tone, and you're thinking of that common tone as a target point?

    So for example if we picked a G note as the target, instead of Abma7 to Gma7#5 arpeggios, we could do Gm7b5 to Eminmaj7 ?

    Edit to add:
    another example, like in stablemates when the harmony is Dbma7 to C7#9 we could see it as Db lydian to C altered and use the arpeggios Abma7 to Dbminma7 with either Ab or C as target pitches? Is that it?
    Last edited by JakeAcci; 01-24-2014 at 01:16 PM.
    Oh, hi - if interested, I post a lot of playing/practice clips at www.instagram.com/JakeEstner

  6. #105

    User Info Menu

    Hey Jake... I'm sure part of the difficulty is my explanations etc...

    Think of methods to solo... development of a melody. The reference is the melody, depending on what relationships you choose in that melody to develop, (could be entire melody, short phrase, a simple interval), so depending on what reference you choose for the development... the results may be different.

    Don't get hung up on the basic arpeggio... for that Bb- chord, I could use same four string pattern starting on any scale degree as starting point. And what I usually play is an embellishment of the arpeggio, which could reflect rhythmic pattern, any modal interchange relationship, approach notes or even a simple chord pattern within the arpeggio figure.

    The point is I'm using that string set arpeggio pattern or embellishment of as a component of my improve. I can use as I see or hear fit.

    I can use the common tone as a target or not, again the point is I'm using a reference for constructive device to help organize my development, my improve. And Yes you could use the note G and G-7b5 to E-ma7. There are obviously many choices.

    Why I use these simple four string arpeggio patterns with embellishments is generally because of the ease in which one is able to impose organizational relationships and development within a very mechanical setting. The very nature of the note collection has strong tonal implications as references. As I said... they quickly become easy to hear and as easy to use as single notes.

    Your next example also could work... and that is the basic concept, access to complete note collections. The target(s) can be anything one chooses... not just common tones etc... the point is they're not fixed or stationary components, with only one use ...

    They're very Guitar friendly and yet still employ the arpeggio aspect that old school jazz players tend to harp on about so much.

    As I was saying above... the organization of the notes changes to fit how one chooses to create relationships and develop.Doesn't always need to be organized in 3rds etc... and very easily implies any contemporary harmony, as long as your aware of what that harmony or harmonic concept is.

    The concept is not that difficult... I would thing most would have more difficulty with the technical aspects... knowing your fretboard well enough to use.

  7. #106

    User Info Menu

    Cool, thank you for the additional explanation. I think I get the idea now.
    Oh, hi - if interested, I post a lot of playing/practice clips at www.instagram.com/JakeEstner

  8. #107

    User Info Menu

    Reg, if I may ask, how do you finger those arpeggios, especially the 2nd one? Also, without embelishments, do you always play on 4 strings, or you sometimes play 2 highest notes on the same string, B the 2nd, in this example?
    Obviously, I'm thinking about rock 'n' rolling it a bit.
    Last edited by Vladan; 01-24-2014 at 07:38 PM.
    ^ ^ ^
    <<< My BlogSpot Page >>>
    v v v

  9. #108

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Boston Joe View Post
    The other thing is, if I go to a session, I want to sound good and have fun. That means I want to play tunes that everybody knows, so we can all cook on it. What I don't want to do is grind through an unfamiliar chart and sound like crap because I've never seen something like it before. That's not jamming. That's rehearsal, and nine times out of ten, it's not fun for anyone but the composer.
    Well that's a depressing conclusion. Try practicing the chart a bit and you might enjoy it :-) But I do understand what you mean - it takes a lot of rehearsal and performing as an originals group to get ones playing to anything like the level it would be on a standard.

    The amount of patience people have for musicians bringing out contemporary tunes on a jam depends on the jam. At some jams it's strictly standards repertoire, with more unusual standards at the more advanced ones. Other jams tend to be happier with more recent rep, but these are usually fusion oriented ones.

    I have to admit, I generally want to sit out if someone brings up a tune I don't know with changes that aren't easily buskable. That's because in general I want to be able to improvise than merely chase changes, and you want to be playing well at a good jam. But maybe that's a defeatist attitude. After all you have to get good at playing different types of tunes somehow.

    A lot of it is governed by the culture/fashion of whatever group of musicians are running the jams. Here in London, we have hardcore bop/standards jams, swing/straightahead jams, gypsy jazz jams, fusion jams and jams with standards played in a contemporary way. The amateur/lower level jams generally have more diversity of repertoire because musicians are still to decide what they like playing I guess...

    In the case of fusion jams it's often awful because you inevitably get some slap bass player who just wants to play G minor for half an hour haha.

    PS: I better quickly add that actually I love working with originals jazz groups - it's always a challenge and I find it really good fun.:-)
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-24-2014 at 08:51 PM.

  10. #109

    User Info Menu

    BTW - I know this might sound completely stupid/naive here, but I find one thing that always gets me though unfamiliar changes when it comes to soloing. This is like the survival approach when I have a spare hour and the gigs that night :-)

    Get really good at playing the triads through the blowing progression.

    If you can do this solidly in time and with good voice leading it will always sound good. Better than a bunch of modes.

    I would practice a chart like Is That So with this strategy in mind until I felt I'd got it in my ears.

    Building arppegios off the thirds would be the next step - so the first few bars:

    Fm7 Ebm7 | B C#m9

    Would be

    Ab Gb | Dm Emaj(7)

    To get a bit of the modality/extensions. After all, the root is for bassplayers

    If it's slash chords, can't go wrong with the triad on the left hand side :-) Add the bass note in if you fancy.
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-24-2014 at 09:00 PM.

  11. #110

    User Info Menu

    Hey Vladan...
    I'm still a position player at least my 1st reference. I generally stretch with 1st finger as first option, generally try and avoid 4th finger stretched... I'll change position.
    That being said... I finger the 2nd example either'

    12232 if i want to stay in position or 13343 if need be. My reasoning being as I've posted long ago...
    My 2nd finger is the strongest... and my 1st finger has the most mobility, which leads to 2nd finger being base and 1st finger for stretches. I obviously use many different fingerings for different styles etc... but that's my basic reference, where I start from.

    I'll try and find some of my fingering charts for all scales and arpeggios etc... with variations and post.

    As Christianm77 mentioned... you need something that you can perform under pressure, anytime anywhere. Triads are great... 7th chords are the basic language of Jazz, but you need some reference to start with. I might say triads will never sound that bad... and sometimes good... but that is a very subjective subject to most. I will say that one doesn't get comfortable playing unfamiliar music by not doing just that. I generally don't think of jazz as rehearsed music... but I'm old school.

  12. #111
    everybody wants to have fun at a session but free-for-all sessions playing donna lee and 47 choruses each of blues get old. I used to be in the house band at the bop stop in cleveland and we had a sunday jam session and once a set we'd pull out an original with modern changes. Nothing like a struggle to bring your playing level up.

  13. #112

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    As Christianm77 mentioned... you need something that you can perform under pressure, anytime anywhere. Triads are great... 7th chords are the basic language of Jazz, but you need some reference to start with. I might say triads will never sound that bad... and sometimes good... but that is a very subjective subject to most. I will say that one doesn't get comfortable playing unfamiliar music by not doing just that. I generally don't think of jazz as rehearsed music... but I'm old school.
    For expressing rapidly modulating chord changes, triads and/or pentatonics often give the clearest sense of the harmony (just ask Trane!) for slower tunes or slower moving changes, you may well want to explore the harmony a bit more.

    The ideal for me is always to create a line that would stand up on its own, without any chordal support. As most of the bands that I work in don't feature another chordal instrument, that's a matter of practicality too!

    Also I would very strongly question the assertion that 'seventh chords' are the basis of jazz harmony. Barry Harris for example, insists players use major and minor 6th chords (this is more old school bop.) Older jazz is often triad based (prewar jazz - take George Van Ep's pre war style), as is a lot of more modern material (Metheny, for instance). Many bebop lines are as much based on triads and 6th chords as they are on major or minor sevenths.

    I think there's a lot of benefit in rehearsing some things - arrangements, endings, intros - even if it's only a few minutes. The Miles prestige recordings have a lot of great little touches, vamps, intros, moves from 2-feels to 4-feels and so on - did they rehearse before recording?
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-24-2014 at 09:56 PM.

  14. #113

    User Info Menu

    Thanks Reg, I understand, you treat those 2 as a "combo", play them from the same position.
    I think you already posted position/ fingering charts in your "In the style of Jazz thread", some time ago.
    ^ ^ ^
    <<< My BlogSpot Page >>>
    v v v

  15. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    For expressing rapidly modulating chord changes, triads and/or pentatonics often give the clearest sense of the harmony (just ask Trane!) for slower tunes or slower moving changes, you may well want to explore the harmony a bit more.

    The ideal for me is always to create a line that would stand up on its own, without any chordal support. As most of the bands that I work in don't feature another chordal instrument, that's a matter of practicality too!

    Also I would very strongly question the assertion that 'seventh chords' are the basis of jazz harmony. Barry Harris for example, insists players use major and minor 6th chords (this is more old school bop.) Older jazz is often triad based (prewar jazz - take George Van Ep's pre war style), as is a lot of more modern material (Metheny, for instance). Many bebop lines are as much based on triads and 6th chords as they are on major or minor sevenths.

    I think there's a lot of benefit in rehearsing some things - arrangements, endings, intros - even if it's only a few minutes. The Miles prestige recordings have a lot of great little touches, vamps, intros, moves from 2-feels to 4-feels and so on - did they rehearse before recording?
    I think the "no rehearsal" jazz thing ended in the late '50s. Ask tommy flanagan how it went sight reading giant steps in the studio?

    Chick Corea, Herbie, Shorter, Metheny, Brecker, all those guys rehearsed their tunes.

  16. #115

    User Info Menu

    I wish there was enough money to afford rehearsals...

  17. #116

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jzucker View Post
    I think the "no rehearsal" jazz thing ended in the late '50s. Ask tommy flanagan how it went sight reading giant steps in the studio?

    Chick Corea, Herbie, Shorter, Metheny, Brecker, all those guys rehearsed their tunes.
    This goes back a long way - do you think the big bands of the 1930's got by without rehearsal?

  18. #117

    User Info Menu

    OK.. rehearsals are great... So I'm thinking out loud...no references to anyone, (except me, I know how I play).

    So do you really need to rehearse most tunes in the real or real fake books. Or if there's an arrangement... of an existing jazz tune, (or a new original in a jazz style). Are you not able to read a chart, understand what's implied. Do you need to memorize what you play before your able to perform it live.

    So I would guess... there is a level of performance that doesn't really need rehearsal. These points are not in reference to anyone... more of just trying to break down what we're talking about.

    So this level of performance, that point which requires rehearsal or not, (of Jazz), would reflect either... (1)the complexity of the music and (2) the level of musicianship of the performers. There would be music which one did not need to rehearse and some which one would... maybe a little in the middle, the grey area.

    This is a good subject... especially for guitarist. Most of my gigs are not rehearsed, and the level of performance is at a very high level of performance. By that I mean the music has balance of complexity, interaction, reaction and we 're listening and are aware of what's being performed. The performance is clean and reflects what the tune implies. It also reflects the audience... by that I mean, generally I'm not just playing for myself and the ensemble, the audience and context of the gig has a relationship to the performance of the music. We can get into the interaction and reaction thing of playing live jazz... but that is a subject in it's self.

    Christianm77 what are rapidly modulating changes. Is this simply a tempo issue or are the relationships within the changes the difficulty.

    I agree with your points about self supporting lines etc... but that's just one style of improve. Do you generally play over or imply the same changes every chorus ? Again not good,bad, right or wrong, just trying to have a clearer understanding of what we're talking about.

    If 7th chords are not the standard for jazz harmony, obviously not every tune... but the basic reference creating jazz functional harmony, are you implying that triads or 6th chords are. I love 6th chords, 6/9 etc... Are you talking about voicings or voice leading through changes, or improve over or through changes. There are many approaches to improve... but most relate to implied harmony... not that every note needs to be played, but generally there is a functional harmonic system which reflects the organization of the changes and improve. Triads and 6th chords, I like the concept and would dig hearing more...

    I never got a chance to talk with Tommy Flanagan, but did perform and talked with Cedar Walton about Coltrane's music, I remember Cedar mentioning how he rehearsed with Coltrane, (giant steps), then something came up and Flanagan did the recording. I would call use of a three tonic harmonic system a modern harmonic concept at the time, in relationship to Jazz.

    So again rehearsals are great... to clean up compositional or arrangement aspects of performance. And all this must reflect how well one reads and understands what the notation implies. Jazz notation is not like reading traditional classical or show style charts. The charts imply common jazz practice...

    I played a gig last night... three horn latin jazz. Not salsa, pretty hip latin jazz. No rehearsal, although I believe the pianist and the horns did have a rehearsal. The harmonic concepts of the tunes, all original, was not new, but applications and his use of slash chords was. Piano voicings, chord over chord slash chords, two implied harmonic paths of movement. The use of two or more harmonic systems going on is common jazz practice....but the notational use of chord over chord slash chord was fun.

  19. #118

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    OK.. rehearsals are great... So I'm thinking out loud...no references to anyone, (except me, I know how I play).

    So do you really need to rehearse most tunes in the real or real fake books. Or if there's an arrangement... of an existing jazz tune, (or a new original in a jazz style). Are you not able to read a chart, understand what's implied. Do you need to memorize what you play before your able to perform it live.
    I feel I play better when the music is internalised properly. In practice many gigs involve some sort of reading though, don't they?

    Whether unfamiliar standards or originals. Some things are easier to understand than others - if you've played a lot of bop and straightahead, that music will be easy to understand at a glance, while other types of harmony (e.g. Wayne Shorter) will present a problem. You get used to certain composers too, these become easier to read. Ideally I'd like to know about tunes for gigs a week in advance so I can get inside and even memorise anything I'm not sure about. In practice this rarely happens haha.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    Christianm77 what are rapidly modulating changes. Is this simply a tempo issue or are the relationships within the changes the difficulty.
    Interesting question! If I understanding you right you're asking if there would be a difference between the way one plays Giant Steps say as a ballad, medium or up tune. I was always told to practice Giant Steps as a ballad before moving to higher tempos. That does raise the question of whether practicing a tune slowly is the same as playing a ballad.... I feel I sound best on this particular tune when I'm really playing mostly chord tones, but have rhythmic freedom within it so that's not just a string of quavers with no phrases...

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    I agree with your points about self supporting lines etc... but that's just one style of improve. Do you generally play over or imply the same changes every chorus ? Again not good,bad, right or wrong, just trying to have a clearer understanding of what we're talking about.
    Another interesting point. No, I think it's good to vary it a bit. Playing a substitute progression over an original progression in a group also has the benefit of implying more complex harmony, and also being a stand alone line...

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    If 7th chords are not the standard for jazz harmony, obviously not every tune... but the basic reference creating jazz functional harmony, are you implying that triads or 6th chords are. I love 6th chords, 6/9 etc... Are you talking about voicings or voice leading through changes, or improve over or through changes. There are many approaches to improve... but most relate to implied harmony... not that every note needs to be played, but generally there is a functional harmonic system which reflects the organization of the changes and improve. Triads and 6th chords, I like the concept and would dig hearing more...
    Check out Barry Harris's stuff :-)

    Jazz harmony, as discussed on this very forum, forsooth, is a wide variety of different approaches. The basis of functional/tonal jazz harmony, in so much as it is different from common practice harmony, I feel, is the piling up of lines on existing functional harmony, and the vertical consequences this has. As early as the 20's we can hear Louis Armstrong playing the major seventh on the major chord, along with lots of 6ths and even 9ths.

    Later on these notes got assimilated into piano and guitar chords. The underlying is basis is - of course - the triad - the 7ths, 6th and 9ths and everything else that one wants to pile on top of the chords are related acoustically - at least in the case of major and minor harmonies - dissonant chords such as dominants function a little differently....

    What I understand from Barry and the early jazz and bop I have studied is that the minor seventh is not a tonic minor sound until the modal era. Before then the minor sixth would be a more common choice - this allows flexibility in the application of minor scales over V-i's and ii-V-i's. The minor seventh when it does appear is generally in the context of a being a ii chord in a ii-V.

    Minor sixths have many applications for playing over dominants as well as acting as a gateway into more complex harmony - for example Dm6 over G7, or later on, Fm6 over G7 and E7 and for the tritone sub Abm6. Also Barry views all m7b5 chords as inversions of m6 chords. This is the way harmony used to be viewed, during the bop era, AFAIK. m6 chords have been in use in this way in jazz since the 1920s.
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-25-2014 at 07:26 PM.

  20. #119

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    If 7th chords are not the standard for jazz harmony, obviously not every tune... but the basic reference creating jazz functional harmony, are you implying that triads or 6th chords are. I love 6th chords, 6/9 etc... Are you talking about voicings or voice leading through changes, or improve over or through changes. There are many approaches to improve... but most relate to implied harmony... not that every note needs to be played, but generally there is a functional harmonic system which reflects the organization of the changes and improve. Triads and 6th chords, I like the concept and would dig hearing more...
    BTW there's an awful lot I've been thinking about this stuff both from Barry's teaching, other stuff I've come across (including Warne Marsh's approach) and my own transcriptions. Occasionally I think about writing it down, but I feel that the really important will be of course if I can assimilate bebop and swing language well enough into my playing!

    I get this stuff from my own interpretation of Bird's music, both composed and improvised. Harmonically of particular interest actually is the way both Bird and Lester Young, for example, were able to strongly outline changes without expressly playing arpeggios (most feel this way I'm guessing!) and with great freedom with respect to rhythm. Arpeggios will only get you (me) part of the way.

  21. #120

    User Info Menu

    Hey christianm77... thanks for comments, there great, I'll try and add to them and continue in the dialect.

    So the internalized aspect is basically being able to not figure out things on the fly... You have an understanding and are simply deciding how or what you want to play, or be able to use the performing practice your comfortable with. And yes the rehearsals are usually 10 min. before the gig as charts or book is handed out... if any.

    Show type of gigs etc... with bigger budgets... yes. But I don't think of those as jazz gigs.

    Which leads to the tempo or complexity of tune issue. Your example of giant steps at different tempos is cool, but I was thinking more in the line of... Tempo relating to technique and whatever other skills one needs to perform at fast tempos. Whether one understand the organizational aspects of the tune or not. I don't think of Giant Steps as a very complicated tune... pretty simple as far as what or how to approach playing, lots of choices etc..

    But playing G.S. at 350 is very difficult. I tend to not think of just playing 8th notes as being able to cover a tempo, These are personal opinions, but if I can't employ all my BS... rhythmic, melodic etc... variations... I can't cover the tempo.

    When I think of the complexity of the tune, I'm thinking... I can't cover this tune at 50, I don't understand what's going on.

    Two different aspects, I guess there is overlap of the two.

    The subject of what sounds best is pretty subjective... chord tone or implied chord tones...yada yada.

    Yes I've checked out BH's approach... most of his 6th/ Dim chord and scale material still used 7th chord as method of deriving substitutions for playing standards. The added Dim chord is based on the implied 7th chord of the 6th chord. And most of the technique involves playing the related Dom. 7ths of the added Dim. notes...I'm not sure that's a good example.

    Jazz Harmony.... I totally enjoy your use of the title, maybe even Jazz Harmonic Common Practice. I have always thought of Functional Harmony... Common Practice as relating to both Rameau and Riemann's basic guidelines. And when I think of Jazz functional Harmony, I think of that Common Practice Functional Harmony as, (1) of a few sets of guidelines for organization of a Tonal system.

    With the additional guidelines of modality and other methods of controlling guidelines of notes and their relationships, Blue notes, MM and with the concepts and developments from Modal Interchange... still awake, sorry.

    Anyway... The functional aspect of Min. 7th chords developed into Maj. functional Harmony guidelines... yea, before Jazz and the use of 6th chords seems to still be a sub of 7th chord functional harmony, not bad or good. Have you listened to earlier BH recordings... they're pretty straight ahead harmonically. I'll dig into one of music hard drives.

    What do you hear or believe to be the most used function in jazz, and how does that work, what are the guidelines... what is the reference.

    Sorry for all the BS... talk is cheap. I'll post some of my favorite arpeggio embellishments tomorrow. No gigs. I'll try to tie into how I might use when approaching complex or contemporary harmony. Maybe jzucker will chime back in and help get us back to Modern Harmony... and how to approach.

    (the bad thing... I always enjoy all the BS)
    Hey christianm77... I'm not sure your aware of many my opinions... I don't really use arpeggios or chord tones that much... personally their implied, most of the music has been played so many times, one doesn't have a choice.

    My reason for using the 4 string sets of embellished arpeggios is they naturally mechanically imply harmonic reference for developing relationships and development... improvisation.

    Most guitar players tend to develop noodling to a fine art.
    Last edited by Reg; 01-25-2014 at 09:05 PM. Reason: none

  22. #121

    User Info Menu

    Thanks :-) And thanks for the interesting line of debate, in so far as I understand ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    So the internalized aspect is basically being able to not figure out things on the fly... You have an understanding and are simply deciding how or what you want to play, or be able to use the performing practice your comfortable with. And yes the rehearsals are usually 10 min. before the gig as charts or book is handed out... if any.
    Yes. As well as the mechanics of running changes, one thing I definitely need to do to play music is get to hear the thing in my head. If I run things a few times a few days before, normally my brain gets to work on it. I think intellectual understanding is always second fiddle to actually hearing what you are going to play before you play it. It'll get you through - but that's it. Superficial music.

    While I can clearly picture in my head exactly what I7-IV sounds like, or even a Coltrane cycle I have a bit more trouble with harmony I am unfamiliar with. Even a massive amount of experience is unlikely to prepare one for every eventuality on the bandstand. Then you get to *thinking* and then, the audience will feel it even if they don't notice it consciously.

    Given that these days given you can program your own chord changes into iRealB and send set lists of them and anything else you are playing to people with great ease (provided they have iPhones or iPads) so it's really a matter of getting it together and taking a few minutes. Assuming your bandmates have time to practice your lousy charts haha.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    Which leads to the tempo or complexity of tune issue. Your example of giant steps at different tempos is cool, but I was thinking more in the line of... Tempo relating to technique and whatever other skills one needs to perform at fast tempos. Whether one understand the organizational aspects of the tune or not. I don't think of Giant Steps as a very complicated tune... pretty simple as far as what or how to approach playing, lots of choices etc..

    But playing G.S. at 350 is very difficult. I tend to not think of just playing 8th notes as being able to cover a tempo, These are personal opinions, but if I can't employ all my BS... rhythmic, melodic etc... variations... I can't cover the tempo.
    I'm not sure if understand exactly what you mean.

    Is technique necessary to play fast tunes - that the type of technique that is being able to run 8th notes at 300+ bpm? I find that type of playing very wearying on the ears.

    The understanding needs to be there - to take a simple example, thinking of the Cherokee A harmony as based on the chromatic line 1-b7-6-5-#4-4-3, and that the B is a set of cadences into major chords descending by whole tones means that you can get by playing a few notes and still nail the changes. At least that's what I think Lester would do (probably by ear and with much less verbiage :-))

    Also there is a psychological element to the passage of time that's really fascinating. There's always more space between the notes, if you can feel it... :-)

    I'm thinking here of Peter Bernstein for example playing on a roasting version of All God's Chillun. There's a lot of space, while many would fill the whole solo with 8th's notes, but the changes and the time are definitely there. I prefer the spare approach, but I find it hard to do. Not that the alternative is easy either :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    Yes I've checked out BH's approach... most of his 6th/ Dim chord and scale material still used 7th chord as method of deriving substitutions for playing standards. The added Dim chord is based on the implied 7th chord of the 6th chord. And most of the technique involves playing the related Dom. 7ths of the added Dim. notes...I'm not sure that's a good example.
    Not sure if understand - maybe haven't gone as deep into the BH stuff... But you are talking about the 8-note scales which mix up say the I major 6th and the ii dim 7?

    I regard the dom 7 as pretty fundamental as it is in common practice harmony, although playing a major triad or major 6th on a dom 7 is common in tonal jazz - take the first four bars of the bridge of Anthropology for example, no sevenths, first four bars of the melody of Sweet Georgia Brown etc.

    [QUOTE=Reg;393830]
    Jazz Harmony.... I totally enjoy your use of the title, maybe even Jazz Harmonic Common Practice. I have always thought of Functional Harmony... Common Practice as relating to both Rameau and Riemann's basic guidelines. And when I think of Jazz functional Harmony, I think of that Common Practice Functional Harmony as, (1) of a few sets of guidelines for organization of a Tonal system.

    With the additional guidelines of modality and other methods of controlling guidelines of notes and their relationships, Blue notes, MM and with the concepts and developments from Modal Interchange... still awake, sorry.
    [/QUOTES]

    Haha, yes me too.

    Common practice governs why one chord follows another in a jazz standard. Jazz harmony describes the way in which notes can be added on top of this matrix.

    However I'm very interested in how much of this apparently vertical harmony is emergent from people just playing strong melodies that describe chord changes over other chord changes - something Steve Coleman referred to as 'secret paths.' Metheny mentions something very similar in his the old audio lesson recording that got posted up on youtube. He subscribes it Coltrane but it's a really venerable thing - Lester Young playing a Cm6 arpeggio over C#o7.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    Anyway... The functional aspect of Min. 7th chords developed into Maj. functional Harmony guidelines... yea, before Jazz and the use of 6th chords seems to still be a sub of 7th chord functional harmony, not bad or good. Have you listened to earlier BH recordings... they're pretty straight ahead harmonically. I'll dig into one of music hard drives.

    What do you hear or believe to be the most used function in jazz, and how does that work, what are the guidelines... what is the reference.
    I'm not sure if I catch your drift... whaaaat doooo yooouuu waaaant froooom meeeeeeee? :-)

    What I'm doing is surely what most jazzers who are serious about the language have done and will continue to do - check out the recordings of the music they want to learn about, and piece together an understanding form published sources or even their own ideas where that is incomplete. I'm not sure if it's worth putting out there in a way, even here. I write stuff down sometimes just to keep track on what I've noticed and to remind myself to practice it.

    The 6th chord, triad thing is important to my understanding. That's not to exclude major and minor sevenths either, it's just that I don't appreciate them swaggering around like they own the place.

    Why is was this necessary for me -for example the biiio7 chord moving to ii used to confuse me. Another one was the ubiquitous prog I I7 IV #ivo7 I familiar from about 1000 trad jazz tunes and the stock jazz blues (!) as well as more modern repertoire.

    Generalise the principles you discover, and your playing will probably go in its own direction because people understand things differently. Then you have your own concept right?

    In any case, reading between the line, I very much suspect this the process you have gone through with your own playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    Hey christianm77... I'm not sure your aware of many my opinions... I don't really use arpeggios or chord tones that much... personally their implied, most of the music has been played so many times, one doesn't have a choice.

    My reason for using the 4 string sets of embellished arpeggios is they naturally mechanically imply harmonic reference for developing relationships and development... improvisation.
    No, but I shall be interested to find out :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    Most guitar players tend to develop noodling to a fine art.
    I'm going to stick my neck out here - few guitar players really play language like good horn players. It's something we often bitch about when we get together lol.

    Good god this is a long post. But I find it helpful sorting out my thinking...

    TL;DR - go listen to some records. :-)
    Last edited by christianm77; 01-25-2014 at 10:55 PM.

  23. #122

    User Info Menu

    Wow, sorry to resurrect an old thread, but there are so few good discussions on this forum about "Modern Jazz Harmony", that I wonder if anyone would care to add anything? Have any of the posters developed their take on this subject, 6 years on?

  24. #123

    User Info Menu

    No one will want to hear this, but I have come up with the wildest chords using the Barry Harris method. Ironic, I know. The thing I like better than when I used to dabble in modern stuff is that I automatically know where I can go from chord to chord. Anyway, ignore me haha
    White belt
    My Youtube

  25. #124

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by joe2758 View Post
    No one will want to hear this, but I have come up with the wildest chords using the Barry Harris method. Ironic, I know. The thing I like better than when I used to dabble in modern stuff is that I automatically know where I can go from chord to chord. Anyway, ignore me haha
    Aw, c'mon, do tell!

  26. #125

    User Info Menu

    I don't have a guitar handy, but something like:
    EADGBE
    X3323x
    x5545x
    X7657x

    In BH theory we wouldn't worry about naming these, they are conceived as 2 notes of a 6th chord and 2 notes of a diminished chord. no need to be like "Csus6/9" or something. Of course there are super crunchy/dissonant sounds that require more stretch (I like those but some are really hard)
    White belt
    My Youtube

  27. #126

    User Info Menu

    Interesting seeing what I wrote 5 years ago.

    I was at a pretty different place in terms of the way I was playing. I think I was right to concentrate on doing something decently, though.

    I'm playing very different gigs now...

  28. #127

    User Info Menu

    Those 3 chords to me are just F6, G6 and E7#5. When you said "wildest chords", I must admit I was thinking you meant something a little more esoteric!

  29. #128

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Interesting seeing what I wrote 5 years ago.

    I was at a pretty different place in terms of the way I was playing. I think I was right to concentrate on doing something decently, though.

    I'm playing very different gigs now...
    Has your understanding or appreciation of Modern Harmony changed since then?

  30. #129

    User Info Menu

    lol! that's what I get for not thinking in note names!

    I guess all I did was trasform a c6 to F6, D dim to G6, C6 to E7#5.

    Let me try again:

    EGBDE:
    X3513X
    X5625X
    X7746X
    White belt
    My Youtube

  31. #130

    User Info Menu

    or maybe
    X5535X
    and move that through the scale in the same manner

    or
    XX2525
    XX3647
    White belt
    My Youtube

  32. #131

    User Info Menu

    I think of "modern harmony" not being about voicings, but about being the way tunes are harmonized or organized.


    Non-functional tunes, for example, or tunes with modal sections, etc.
    Jeff Matz, Jazz Guitar:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/jeffreymatz

    "Jazz is like life...it goes on longer than you think, and as soon as you're like 'oh, I get it,' it ends."

    --The Ghost of Duke Ellington

  33. #132

    User Info Menu

    check this out. starting with a maj 7 chord, by adding a b6 to the scale you see it morph as you go up the scale:

    CGBE
    DAbCF

    so those two are nothing, but then

    EADG
    FBEAb
    GCFA
    White belt
    My Youtube

  34. #133

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    Has your understanding or appreciation of Modern Harmony changed since then?
    Well I’ve gone through the swing thing, the bop thing and out into post bop and contemporary. And I’ve listened in depth to more recent music....

    I’ve learned there’s no such thing as modern harmony.

    Everyone’s different. What Kenny Wheeler does is different to what Wayne Shorter does. What Kurt does is different to Lage Lund. And so on and so forth.

    Every artist has to discover their own palette, stuff they are drawn to....

    In the case of good modern composers i expected to learn harmony and ended up learning about melody. Jordan’s perspective was useful in that, but that stuff is applicable to everything...

    But I’m glad I understand the history reasonably well, it does make it easier. Jazz pedagogy is all over the place.

    Seems to me lot of people go with what they were taught in school rather than what musicians actually play and write. So the latter is always more interesting and educational.

  35. #134

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by joe2758 View Post
    I don't have a guitar handy, but something like:
    EADGBE
    X3323x
    x5545x
    X7657x

    In BH theory we wouldn't worry about naming these, they are conceived as 2 notes of a 6th chord and 2 notes of a diminished chord. no need to be like "Csus6/9" or something. Of course there are super crunchy/dissonant sounds that require more stretch (I like those but some are really hard)
    Yeah so everything I’ve come across in the mainstream modern harmony run of things is represented in Barry’s system. You really don’t have to sound like a 1940s player if you don’t want to. OTOH you can. CST can’t do that.

    OTOH you get CST plus when you get into borrowing.

    For instance last time I saw him, it was all about the sounds you get with G6dim on a C chord.

  36. #135

    User Info Menu

    I agree with Jeff. Chords using secundal and quartal construction in jazz have been around for 60 years. In that tradition I think some recent additions from folks like Vic Juris have influenced players like Gilad. Some voicings that come to mind are to take any chord you already know and replace one of the “important” voicesm with its more ambiguous diatonic neighbor.

    Neo soul has some cool harmonic ideas.

    I think people like Mary Halvorson are really pushing it with using functional chords in an anti-functional way.

  37. #136

    User Info Menu

    It all boils down to how you want to arrange or order the journey of tonic and dominant. You're simply either on one or the other.

  38. #137

    User Info Menu

    I'd call what Kreisberg does modern harmony. Whatever the background, which is usually fairly standard, he sounds like he's playing on a different planet. I don't know what he does - fifths, ascending major thirds, however he gets the sound.

    But whatever, it's definitely 'modern'. To my ear, anyway.

  39. #138

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo View Post
    It all boils down to how you want to arrange or order the journey of tonic and dominant. You're simply either on one or the other.
    Interesting to read this. I approach all Functional Jazz harmony that way, ie, divide everything into either Dominant , Altered Dominant or Tonic. But as I've not done much delving (as yet) into non functional tunes, do you think the T/D strategy can still work? Do you simply look at one chord at a time and decide if it's chord tones layout to favour either a Tonic or Dominant treatment regardless of the chord either before or after? Will you find some chords too ambiguous for this approach?

    I always thought CST was the preferred approach for Modern Jazz Harmony....

  40. #139

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by joe2758 View Post
    check this out. starting with a maj 7 chord, by adding a b6 to the scale you see it morph as you go up the scale:

    CGBE
    DAbCF

    so those two are nothing, but then

    EADG
    FBEAb
    GCFA
    Your last 3 posts have me totally confused! I'd love to know what you and Christian are on about re converting BH stuff into modern chords, can you point me to something a little easier to understand?

  41. #140

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    Interesting to read this. I approach all Functional Jazz harmony that way, ie, divide everything into either Dominant , Altered Dominant or Tonic. But as I've not done much delving (as yet) into non functional tunes, do you think the T/D strategy can still work? Do you simply look at one chord at a time and decide if it's chord tones layout to favour either a Tonic or Dominant treatment regardless of the chord either before or after? Will you find some chords too ambiguous for this approach?

    I always thought CST was the preferred approach for Modern Jazz Harmony....
    Modern harmony I'm thinking more determining key center shifts and targets I want to hit. Are the changes implying some type of cadence? Lots of room for interpretation.

  42. #141

    User Info Menu

    If you have a non functional progression who always have the option to make it functional.

    OTOH if you have a functional progression you can always treat it as nonfunctional

    Another way to get to the everything on everything concept, rather than oo now I plays a modern.

  43. #142

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    If you have a non functional progression who always have the option to make it functional.

    OTOH if you have a functional progression you can always treat it as nonfunctional

    Another way to get to the everything on everything concept, rather than oo now I plays a modern.
    Not sure what you mean here, I obviously have heard people playing outside against plain standards, but how do you sound functional against non functional harmony, ie, without Dom to Tonic cadences...

  44. #143

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    Not sure what you mean here, I obviously have heard people playing outside against plain standards, but how do you sound functional against non functional harmony, ie, without Dom to Tonic cadences...
    Tonal targets. You make a dominant.

    If I had to simplify it down, this is how my friend and colleague Joe Browne put it and there’s a lot of truth:

    Post modal playing = floating on the changes, exploring the sound of chords

    Functional/Bebop = playing into the chords, resolving

    If you want to sound less functional, remove the 3rds from your dominants. Altered Dom’s without thirds are very much part of modern soloing, but to be fair Lester started this journey in the late 30s.

    But I don’t quite like this summing up, because it ignores the melody and is focussed on chords. What I now realise is that the melody of a well written modern tune has a massive bearing on how to solo on it, just as it does with 1920s music. As true of Havona as it is of Stardust.

    All of those extensions and modal implications come from melody on chords. Another reason why I dislike CST is it waters many of these sounds down, relating them to a generic 7 note wash that sounds like jazz school.

    That’s not what I hear Wayne doing for instance. And a lot of early soloists were key centric - modal/pentatonic even, and often playing creative rephrasings of the melody rather than changes per se. I hear Wayne carrying this on in his soloing, on a few of his tunes there’s a path through where you can play the blues. He’s kind of got more like that, less and less language into his later years. And yet I learned bop scales from him, apparently he knows and can still play the whole history.

    Jordan’s/Stephon Harris’s approach seems to cut to the heart of the sound. It’s not necessarily what everyone does - it has a style - but it seems a good approach and I like its openness. And it is super flexible. (Also it seems to map onto what a lot of contemporary players - Donny McCaslin, Joel Frahm, Lage Lund - hear things.)

    Interestingly the bebop era kind of neglected the melody side of it and focussed on the chords... that seems to have begat the current educational paradigm.

    Of course there are modern tunes that don’t have much of a melody to them, but there’s not much point playing those. Just put the record on.
    Last edited by christianm77; 11-19-2019 at 06:30 AM.

  45. #144

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Tonal targets. You make a dominant.

    ...
    I like what you wrote about nonfuctional on functional, but for the reverse, when you say "make a dominant", could you give me an example?

  46. #145

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    I like what you wrote about nonfuctional on functional, but for the reverse, when you say "make a dominant", could you give me an example?
    Sure.

    Oh look Reginald, there’s a Gmaj7#11 chord

    I say D7 to you Gmaj7#11 with any and all subs I deem fit.

    Inner Urge A for instance becomes

    E7alt Am6 C7 F Bb7 Eb Ab7 Db

    And you can add in ii vs obviously. Forward motion into the 1 of each chord (rhythmically) then you ignore the chord and set up the next one.

    Important thing to realise is rhythmically the dominants anticipate. So that E7alt happens in the last bar of the previous form. This is what you’d play if there was a break for instance. Really bop solos should start at the end of the previous form - you are always anticipating, driving the music forward.

    This is the resolving way right? Everyone knows what a major or minor chord sounds like so don’t overdo it on those. Let the dominant dominate.

    Drive a truck through it. You could end playing mostly Bb7 alt on F for instance....

    The other way is play dominant on all chords.

    Am6/F#m7b5 becomes D7

    Brecker did this a lot

    Fmaj7#11 becomes G7

    Does that make any sense?

  47. #146

    User Info Menu

    Somewhere in this interview Evan Marien (Holdsworth) makes the point that every chord in nonfunctional changes music can be considered a major or minor while the sound of the dominant always disrupts the sense of non functional tonality (iirc)



    Dominants always sound functional. Wayne shorter plays with this a lot actually. They may not resolve V-I but they always want to resolve. Even in tonal changes playing we have

    b7-1 4-1 2-1 b6-1 7-1 b2-1

    All being fairly usual and some very common. And along with 5-1 that’s 7 of the 12 possibilities. Diminished symmetry gives us the others....

    So looking at it that way, playing changes and playing ‘nonfunctional harmony’ isn’t that different... if everything can be perked up into a dominant on one hand or softened into a tonic major/minor on the other....

  48. #147

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    ...
    Drive a truck through it. You could end playing mostly Bb7 alt on F for instance....
    hahaha, I like the cut of your gib (don't you guys say "lorry"?)

    Yes Christian, you remain one of the few on here that seems to always make sense, cheers.

  49. #148

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    So what happens to the subdominant then? Does that become tonic or dominant? And why isn't only two chords going to sound boring?
    Subdominant is dominant with the teeth out. The teeth in this case is the leading note of the key.

    Making everything subdominant (and introducing lots of modal interchange) is a good way of getting a more ‘modern sound’ actually although gospel music etc also does this most often. No leading note... Gospel choirs apparently tend to harmonise with a 6 note scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 - no 7

    So you have the major pentatonic + amen. In jazz we have, well, soul jazz, Wes and so on. And independently via Carole King, James Taylor and Burt Bacharach to V7sus - the boomer chord.

    Hmmm, connection?

    And on the other hand we have the modal music that was moving away from functional changes. But people had been floating around on changes for a long time... in fact some players made the contrast between open harmony on the A and much more driving functional harmony on the B - I can think of Prez and Charlie Christian as good examples...

    I find this quite interesting. I always think 3 7 resolving sounds a bit Oktoberfest. Fine to have a bit of it, bit too much sounds a little square for jazz....

  50. #149

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post

    Oh look Reginald, there’s a Gmaj7#11 chord

    I say D7 to you Gmaj7#11 with any and all subs I deem fit.
    ... and funny you should write that,just earlier today i was trawling through a book of jazz lines by Jay Umble and all his lines for Tonic chords were mostly #11, all of which sounded better to me played as Dominant lines, hehe ...

  51. #150

    User Info Menu

    Yeah I think the tonic #11 chord is mostly an ending chord thing in the 50s.... it just sounds a bit much on functional tunes to me... otoh I’m not always a fan of it on nonfunctional tunes either.

    #11 is just it’s own thing. Obviously it relates to dominant and subdominant....

    Maj7#9 is a good one though... surprisingly handy actually....