Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Posts 251 to 279 of 279
  1. #251

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Yeah maybe. The melody is very motivic on this one which also gives a sense of coherence to the progression, but I’m sure there’s more going on.

    I’ll take a closer look if I get time.
    Toninho Horta is another composer (and guitarist) who has his own take on harmony.

    Here's a fragment of Moonstone.

    Moonstone

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #252

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar View Post
    Toninho Horta is another composer (and guitarist) who has his own take on harmony.

    Here's a fragment of Moonstone.

    Moonstone
    Nice! Looks interesting. I am totally ignorant of Horta’s music, but I know his reputation. Good opportunity to check him out.

    Tune is somewhat functional but coloured with interesting extensions etc.

    That Eb/E chord is obv a sub for dim, but also works as a maj7#9#11 sound, which brings us back to Wayne:


  4. #253

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Nice! Looks interesting. I am totally ignorant of Horta’s music, but I know his reputation. Good opportunity to check him out.

    Tune is somewhat functional but coloured with interesting extensions etc.

    That Eb/E chord is obv a sub for dim, but also works as a maj7#9#11 sound, which brings us back to Wayne:

    I've had an opportunity to spend some time studying with Toninho. He has his own approach to harmony and the guitar. He's another guy who can arrange a standard to make it sound like he wrote it. He has his own take on harmony. One device I noticed is this: instead of a ii V I, he might play iim9, V9, Imaj7#5, Imaj7. Dm9 G9 Fmaj7#5 Fmaj7. In a way, it provides smoother voice leading to the fifth of the root -- in F, D C# C. This is one small bit I was able to pick up because I saw him use it more than once. I give this as a small example -- it doesn't do any justice to the breadth of his palette.

    As far as Moonstone goes, let's take the first 3 bars. Eb/E ... is it functioning as a diminished? 13b9? I have no idea.

    Perhaps it is a chromatic lower neighbor to the D/E which is functioning as a iim in D. That is, a sub for Em7. Played E A D F# it looks a lot like an Em11. The next chord is A13sus, which is suggestive of a ii V. So, by this theory, this is a ii V with a chromatic lead-in. But, I'm not sure that's either correct or helpful. The 4ths in those voicings give it a different sound and the resolution isn't to Dmaj.

    One nice thing -- his harmonies are all playable on guitar.

  5. #254

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar View Post
    I've had an opportunity to spend some time studying with Toninho. He has his own approach to harmony and the guitar. He's another guy who can arrange a standard to make it sound like he wrote it. He has his own take on harmony. One device I noticed is this: instead of a ii V I, he might play iim9, V9, Imaj7#5, Imaj7. Dm9 G9 Fmaj7#5 Fmaj7. In a way, it provides smoother voice leading to the fifth of the root -- in F, D C# C. This is one small bit I was able to pick up because I saw him use it more than once. I give this as a small example -- it doesn't do any justice to the breadth of his palette.

    As far as Moonstone goes, let's take the first 3 bars. Eb/E ... is it functioning as a diminished? 13b9? I have no idea.

    Perhaps it is a chromatic lower neighbor to the D/E which is functioning as a iim in D. That is, a sub for Em7. Played E A D F# it looks a lot like an Em11. The next chord is A13sus, which is suggestive of a ii V. So, by this theory, this is a ii V with a chromatic lead-in. But, I'm not sure that's either correct or helpful. The 4ths in those voicings give it a different sound and the resolution isn't to Dmaj.

    One nice thing -- his harmonies are all playable on guitar.
    Sure - also a bit less inscrutable. I have no idea what’s going on in Ana Maria (oh hang, modal interchange, modal references, extended functional tonality or whatever it is Reg normally says, blue notes) but this makes sense to a jazzer.

    In a way this is more obviously understandable than Jobim.... of course Jobim is functional.

    Non functional harmony maybe doesn’t exist? Jazz musicians are lazy?

  6. #255

    User Info Menu

    I have a vague idea of what modal interchange is (I looked it up), but it feels like a post-hoc thing. That is, there are all kinds of possibilities, but they don't all work. I don't see how to use the idea predictively. Some subs work and, it seems to me, you still have to learn the sounds one at a time. As far as expanding references and all that, I'm still decoding.

    The original track of Ana Maria does something I see top pros do more often than I expected. They don't necessarily play a tune the most difficult possible way. Here, they play the chart and solo on a simple vamp. You can label the vamp this way or that, but if you play the notes in an Ebmajor scale in a nice melodic way, nobody will complain.

    The A section starts with Gmaj7 to Cm7/G in my chart. (I have to sit down with recording and check the changes). Easy enough to hear, but I don't know how to analyze it in a way that the analysis is helpful. Maybe the tonal center is simply changing from G to Eb.

    I'll stop writing here, since I have even less to say about the rest right now.

    Oh, some examples of pros: Robert Glasper played a wonderfully bizarre take on Stella, and they soloed on a vamp of the last 8 measures, not the entire tune.

    Eliane Elias soloed on long 2 5 3 6 vamps.

    And, of course, Ana Maria.

  7. #256

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar View Post
    I have a vague idea of what modal interchange is (I looked it up), but it feels like a post-hoc thing. That is, there are all kinds of possibilities, but they don't all work. I don't see how to use the idea predictively. Some subs work and, it seems to me, you still have to learn the sounds one at a time. As far as expanding references and all that, I'm still decoding.

    The original track of Ana Maria does something I see top pros do more often than I expected. They don't necessarily play a tune the most difficult possible way. Here, they play the chart and solo on a simple vamp. You can label the vamp this way or that, but if you play the notes in an Ebmajor scale in a nice melodic way, nobody will complain.

    The A section starts with Gmaj7 to Cm7/G in my chart. (I have to sit down with recording and check the changes). Easy enough to hear, but I don't know how to analyze it in a way that the analysis is helpful. Maybe the tonal center is simply changing from G to Eb.

    I'll stop writing here, since I have even less to say about the rest right now.

    Oh, some examples of pros: Robert Glasper played a wonderfully bizarre take on Stella, and they soloed on a vamp of the last 8 measures, not the entire tune.

    Eliane Elias soloed on long 2 5 3 6 vamps.

    And, of course, Ana Maria.
    Yeah! I mean this is true for loads of tunes. Loads of modern stuff.

    Thing is pros don’t have that much practice and rehearsal time. They have to make things doable for themselves and other players.

  8. #257

    User Info Menu

    So maybe we don't understand... what harmony is... functional Harmony. When you start talking about harmony with voice leading and voicings... well yea maybe you don't understand harmony.

    So when you try and understand modern harmony with non harmony understandings... you get where... ?

    So a possibility to keep Ana functional with standard analysis... keep in same tonal box...

    The Gma7 to C-7/G to G7sus to C-7/G can be as simple as...
    Ima7 / IV-7 V-7 IV-7 all over a pedal G, and the use of IV- and V- are simple classical technique of Relative and Parallel Borrowing. Standard Functional Harmony for expanding camouflaging harmonic Movement.

    And even simply... Imaj (ionian), to Imin. (phry.), to I7 (mixo), to Imin. or I could use Functional labels above with their modal chord scale label.

    So Gma7 is tonal tonic.

    C-7/G is just C-7 with use of a pedal G. (Or inversion) same function and basic harmonic reference and which is IV-7 from Gmin the Relative Parallel Minor of Gmaj.

    G7sus is... either inversion of D-7, or typical sub of D-7... the standard II- V7 jazz chord pattern... so is again just V-7 form Relative Parallel Borrowing.

    Modern jazz harmony would typically just label or call this application... modal interchange. Which is just expanding the technical organization of "Borrowing". The expanding part is... using different references for creating chord movement and it's organization.
    Which uses both Functional Labels and CST labels.... the CST is just an organization of possible complete pitch collection possible. There are many possibilities... the rest of the tune is just more applications of this.... short blocks of harmonic movement with melody and connections .

    If you really want to get into analysis of Ava I can go on... it's not that complicated.

    If you just expand you playing skills to have a slightly larger selection of material to pull from... memorized licks.... you just plug and play with 12 step organization approach for melodic organization... the heart felt beautiful playing that only real musicians who play arpeggios can. LOL

  9. #258

    User Info Menu

    I understand this type of explanation, but I find it profoundly unsatisfying.

    Perhaps I find all theory annoying and unsatisfying.... it all has a germ of truth in it, and the germ can take you a ways, but...praxis is more interesting.

    You can justify any old shit boring modern jazz floaty composition using the logic in that post. I’ve written a ton of them. But why did Wayne write those tunes the way he did? And why are they so good? There’s clearly something else going on. Something more specific....

    I’m more interested in what musicians do...

  10. #259

    User Info Menu

    Generally because he's good at it...

    And maybe the boring and unsatisfied aspects are from not understanding, or not being able to to perform using them...I don't know... but they work and have worked for years.

  11. #260

    User Info Menu

    Reading Rp's post...


    "I have a vague idea of what modal interchange is (I looked it up), but it feels like a post-hoc thing. That is, there are all kinds of possibilities, but they don't all work. I don't see how to use the idea predictively. Some subs work and, it seems to me, you still have to learn the sounds one at a time. As far as expanding references and all that, I'm still decoding."

    Pretty much sums it up.

    Or maybe as Christian said.... Jazz Musicians are lazy.

  12. #261

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    Generally because he's good at it...
    Well yes!

    I suspect he wrote really good melodies that kind of wander about in interesting ways and cool rhythmic hooks and backs them up with funny chords that sound right to him...

    20 years later someone writes a phd.

    And maybe the boring and unsatisfied aspects are from not understanding, or not being able to to perform using them...I don't know... but they work and have worked for years.
    Ooooh i’ll get me handbag.

  13. #262

    User Info Menu

    ... Pretty tonal easy to hear harmony version

    here is another


    And of course here is the most viewed version

  14. #263

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Well yes!

    I suspect he wrote really good melodies that kind of wander about in interesting ways and cool rhythmic hooks and backs them up with funny chords that sound right to him...

    20 years later someone writes a phd.



    Ooooh i’ll get me handbag.

    You really think he wrote that melody first.?

  15. #264

    User Info Menu

    I'm perfectly willing to accept that my problem is that I haven't grasped the theories we're discussing.

    But, at this point, I understand the explanation that this chord or that one is from modal interchange, borrowing, parallel or relative.
    So, as I understand it, for example, if I start with C major I can "borrow" or "interchange" chords from Cminor or Aminor or maybe other choices. Most of the websites have tables of possibilities. And tunes do this all the time.

    But, the tables I see include lots of choices, not all of which are usable. Meaning, you first have to figure out what sounds good and then, afterward, you can "explain" what happened.

    The explanation, it seems, may help you figure out how to solo over the changes.

    Of course, I get stuck again. That Cm7. It's the ivm from Gm. It's the iim from the Relative Major, so why not C Dorian? Why C phrygian? For that matter, it's the vim in Eb which relates to the Cm or the Gm in different ways. So, it's a iim iiim or vim, which is exactly what I learned from Warren Nunes years ago. I suppose, I need to consider melodic and harmonic minor as well.

    So, where I end up is it's a Cm7. That gives me 4 chord tones. I probably don't want an E. F# is unlikely or the composer would have put it in the chord name. That's a total of 6 notes. B is iffy, so maybe that's 7 notes I can account for without any theory.

    I have to listen to the sound of the various possible 6ths and 7ths and b9. From that, I can decide which notes I like. In fact, I can do it by ear, on the fly, by listening to the pianist play the chord. I'm only talking about Db D F Ab and A and that includes the 11 and the 9, which are usually consonant.

    I know somebody is going to explain what I'm missing and when they do, I hope it's in simple declarative sentences with examples written out in specific keys.
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 12-03-2019 at 12:06 AM.

  16. #265

    User Info Menu

    Yea RP... the best way to really understand theory, or harmony is to go through the process of notating out the different results from different borrowing from relative and parallel minor. And then Modal interchange, you seem to like the process of hearing and deciding what sounds good, and them that becoming part of your ears. What you can hear and accept.

    Which is probable normal ? I don't know. I trust my ears also... but I also trust my mind and can easily teach my ears to hear what I might not be aware of. I still may not "like it" but generally with time, I do. The other thing... I went through all this BS over 40 years ago... I apologize for being satirical way too much.... there is just a lot more material to cover before one generally starts to decide what's right, wrong, good or bad.

    The door opened for me when as a kid, I discovered functional organization from an arranger/ composer perspective. Which can become an approach for improv.

    One of my gigs is in east bay later in week, Sun. 5-9pm, come sit in and play some tunes. The rhythm section is pretty burnin... just standards... well some modern standards. We can talk and I'll play any example you want... PM me if your free.

  17. #266

    User Info Menu

    I have no idea what’s going on in Ana Maria (oh hang, modal interchange, modal references, extended functional tonality or whatever it is Reg normally says, blue notes) but this makes sense to a jazzer.
    I still trust ears only.
    Whether it is Beethoven (where I know theory very well) or Wayne Shorter (where I have no idea about theory).

    I believe for me the best way is to pick it up by ear.

    the most important thing for me taht I hear it as in integral form with some changes in character - some development, climax... that means I hear relations (but it can be wrong -- I could be intuitively applying the realtions of the language I feel more 'native'... if so you cannot help it comciously, it may change one day - or it may not).

    As for how it all came up --- I think it was 'loosening' traditional relations in general... jazz extentions in harmony were mostly triadic - it brought in many purely consonat colourful harmonie (the same thing as happend with impressionist)... these harmonies become more and more 'entities per se' --- if we speak about meanings in functional tonality in general there is no chord, there is only function represented by chord.
    But in that case the chord itself becomes more and more meaningful entity... which is not dependent that much on a context... even dissonances become very smooth because they are not aimed to release mainly... they form the 'clusters' that make each its own meaning in that language (I speak very generally of course).

    Supposedly another hierarchy and realtions should be coming up there eventually...

    I remember times when I did not dig taht music at all --- but I never thought it was complex))) --- it seemed to me very arbitrary how the choices were made... whatever the choice is it sounds approximately the same... in a word: I did not distinguish a language there...

    Now I hear it in a different way... I hear much more determination there and I distinguish defferent solutions...

    Today I hear more as a mix of 'modality and tonality' - -- not in traditional sense... just meaning modal linear melodic tools (like it was in early modality): motives, intonation, repetitions, intervals as meaningful elements... combined with very intensive vertical harmony...

    I suspect he wrote really good melodies that kind of wander about in interesting ways and cool rhythmic hooks and backs them up with funny chords that sound right to him...
    It could be, Christian... but I probably imply more instensive meaning to music in general so I naturally suppose it in any music I like...
    Even if he played melodies first - his tunes sound like 'chord-melody' --- every note is a chord.


    As a contrasting and (paradoxally maybe) more traditional way of thinking there is Ornette Coleman...
    he is closer to me becasue however loose he gets it he stays within 'my language'...
    And with hin I really think that he was almost purely melodic linear lentality (this is real modality maybe... the same stuff happend in classical tradition- everything got reduced to motive then to intonatio.. and finally even to just speach).

  18. #267

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    You really think he wrote that melody first.?
    I think he writes most if not all of his melodies first. It’s motivic, well balanced and actually exhibits many of the virtues of traditional melodic composition.

    Not quite a smoking gun, but very suggestive.... it’s also reharmonised from the first and second times if you listen - same melody, different chords.

    What makes you think he wrote the chord progression first?

    As Miles said, Wayne is a real composer. Real composers start with melody then write the bass, or conceive of everything together which may well be the case with Wayne. Poor composers (like me haha, but I’m getting better) melodicise chord progressions. I certainly don’t hear Wayne doing that, unlike a lot of modern jazz ‘composition.’

    Even if you don’t buy this, I find that Wayne’s melodies certainly sell his compositions, make them memorable and hip. Listen to the man solo and you will hear melodic quotation and variation all the time. I cant see how anyone could miss this?

    I suspect the focus has always been on the chords with Wayne because jazz musicians are obsessed with blowing on on tunes rather than appreciating them as pieces of music. Even something as lightweight as Footprints as a master miniature, developing its initial melodic material in a highly imaginative way. The reharmonisation of a minor blues is also, for me, a window into his compositional technique.

    Hey even if I’m ‘wrong’, exploring this side of things will certainly be more interesting than doing the usual spaff most jazzers do on these songs. Not that spaff can’t be great, it’s just everyone does it. I don’t know about you, but I understand musical analysis as an exercise of the imagination and a search for alternative ideas that can open up creativity...

    (I always liked the comment by a friend, a clarinetist who specialises in exactly recreating 20s jazz (but loves John scofield randomly) when he was listening to some contemporary jazz record ‘why so many notes? It’s inane.’)

    Wayne is not inane. Although sometimes I find his playing sort of humorous or droll or just very human and almost deliberately flawed. (Just one note for 8 bars? Ok. What possessed you to play that on an orchestral Joni Mitchell number you absolute nutter? And so on.... But I love his late music, quite a few I have spoken to don’t.)

    I respect Kurts approach on Ana Maria - check it out, he is super restrained and just plays the composition. And he is a master of CST spaff lol.

    Kurts a great melody writer too.
    Last edited by christianm77; 12-03-2019 at 05:40 AM.

  19. #268

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    I still trust ears only.
    Whether it is Beethoven (where I know theory very well) or Wayne Shorter (where I have no idea about theory).

    I believe for me the best way is to pick it up by ear.

    the most important thing for me taht I hear it as in integral form with some changes in character - some development, climax... that means I hear relations (but it can be wrong -- I could be intuitively applying the realtions of the language I feel more 'native'... if so you cannot help it comciously, it may change one day - or it may not).

    As for how it all came up --- I think it was 'loosening' traditional relations in general... jazz extentions in harmony were mostly triadic - it brought in many purely consonat colourful harmonie (the same thing as happend with impressionist)... these harmonies become more and more 'entities per se' --- if we speak about meanings in functional tonality in general there is no chord, there is only function represented by chord.
    But in that case the chord itself becomes more and more meaningful entity... which is not dependent that much on a context... even dissonances become very smooth because they are not aimed to release mainly... they form the 'clusters' that make each its own meaning in that language (I speak very generally of course).

    Supposedly another hierarchy and realtions should be coming up there eventually...

    I remember times when I did not dig taht music at all --- but I never thought it was complex))) --- it seemed to me very arbitrary how the choices were made... whatever the choice is it sounds approximately the same... in a word: I did not distinguish a language there...

    Now I hear it in a different way... I hear much more determination there and I distinguish defferent solutions...

    Today I hear more as a mix of 'modality and tonality' - -- not in traditional sense... just meaning modal linear melodic tools (like it was in early modality): motives, intonation, repetitions, intervals as meaningful elements... combined with very intensive vertical harmony...



    It could be, Christian... but I probably imply more instensive meaning to music in general so I naturally suppose it in any music I like...
    Even if he played melodies first - his tunes sound like 'chord-melody' --- every note is a chord.


    As a contrasting and (paradoxally maybe) more traditional way of thinking there is Ornette Coleman...
    he is closer to me becasue however loose he gets it he stays within 'my language'...
    And with hin I really think that he was almost purely melodic linear lentality (this is real modality maybe... the same stuff happend in classical tradition- everything got reduced to motive then to intonatio.. and finally even to just speach).
    It might be interesting as an exercise to take ornette tunes and harmonise then ala Wayne.

    OTOH Wayne did play in the biggest Ornette tribute group of all time, the second Miles Davis quintet.

  20. #269

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    ... Pretty tonal easy to hear harmony version

    here is another


    And of course here is the most viewed version
    Thanks for these. I really like Nelson Veras’s version.

  21. #270

    User Info Menu

    Well that clears a few thing up... yea I consider analysis part of basic musicianship and generally part of performing jazz.
    Have you played ana's theme by it's self... it's on the edge of being random notes.

    And sure when the harmony is vanilla basically always the same with embellishments, you usually compose themes, melodies and go through that 12 step process.

    But even when the harmony is established or just implied.... well there you go, it's already there. Once you have more than one note, you have harmony. Melodies don't have references without harmony. A 7th isn't a 7th without harmony.

    I do get it... your traditional old school dance band jazz, swing and bebop. I also dig that style of music. Fun to perform and generally very audience friendly, which is a good thing. Shorter's tunes don't fall into that category.
    All good...how many Shorter tune do you perform? I've played through most of them and have 8 big band chart arrangements, ton's of small ensemble arrangements. (2-4 horns and rhy).

    Definitely not for beginners or good players not aware of modern jazz harmony.

  22. #271

    User Info Menu

    Melodies don't have references without harmony.
    For this specific case (and for most of jazz and cclassical) I agree.
    But in general there are styles and musical laguages where all references are purely melodic through in linear intervals or rythmic patterns or repetions etc.

    I do get it... your traditional old school dance band jazz, swing and bebop. I also dig that style of music. Fun to perform and generally very audience friendly, which is a good thing. Shorter's tunes don't fall into that category.
    All good...how many Shorter tune do you perform? I've played through most of them and have 8 big band chart arrangements, ton's of small ensemble arrangements. (2-4 horns and rhy).

    This is hard to argue, there is nothing better than intensive practical experience.




    Definitely not for beginners or good players not aware of modern jazz harmony
    This is where I at least partly disagree... the thing is we never really know. Creating arts of course have technology and may require technical skills but perception of art - not really. This is very specific thing about art that it is not rocket science.
    We may have all the background with education and knowledge and there is always a chance that there would be a novice who dig it without it all.
    Of course for performing you would need skills and some background.
    But again you never know... this formula 'not for beginners' is wrong imho... it presumes that beginners will not get, that it is complicated but there is nothing really complicated in it and if you take a guy whose parents listned to a lot of such music he would probably feel quite comfortable with it...
    Last edited by Jonah; 12-04-2019 at 02:51 AM.

  23. #272

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    Well that clears a few thing up... yea I consider analysis part of basic musicianship and generally part of performing jazz.
    Have you played ana's theme by it's self... it's on the edge of being random notes.
    No it’s not.

    And sure when the harmony is vanilla basically always the same with embellishments, you usually compose themes, melodies and go through that 12 step process.

    But even when the harmony is established or just implied.... well there you go, it's already there. Once you have more than one note, you have harmony. Melodies don't have references without harmony. A 7th isn't a 7th without harmony.

    I do get it... your traditional old school dance band jazz, swing and bebop. I also dig that style of music. Fun to perform and generally very audience friendly, which is a good thing. Shorter's tunes don't fall into that category.
    All good...how many Shorter tune do you perform? I've played through most of them and have 8 big band chart arrangements, ton's of small ensemble arrangements. (2-4 horns and rhy).

    Definitely not for beginners or good players not aware of modern jazz harmony.
    You are such a troll lol. Or if you are serious - Get over yourself dude.

  24. #273

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    For this specific case (and for most of jazz and cclassical) I agree.
    But in general there are styles and musical laguages where all references are purely melodic through in linear intervals or rythmic patterns or repetions etc.
    One such is Middle Eastern music and there’s a lot of ME jazz fusion out there. Harmony is on many ways a very limited prism to view music through. It’s useful, but there are others.

    This is hard to argue, there is nothing better than intensive practical experience.
    [COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot]
    Sure I’ve never played a Wayne tune on a gig. Holy shit. :-)

    Look: People do like to put you in a box don’t they? Sometimes I feel it was a mistake getting into the old stuff, as that does affect people’s perceptions of you, but I do honestly think it’s given me an interesting perspective. I get very interested in commonalities, not differences.

    But the melody thing - look Peter Bernstein is one of my favourites ok? And that’s what he teaches. Reg thinks he’s ‘vanilla’ or something lol.

    So I don’t actually need a forum to validate these ideas. But I would like to expose people to them as I found them very helpful. It took me years to realise that Jazz is not the study of chord symbols. And I was pretty good at realising chord symbols and playing lots and lots of notes. (And not much else)

    I think there’s also a difference in priority here. I want to get inside these tunes, understand them, and understand how Wayne improvises because I love the way he plays (playfully!). Reg is I think more interested in practical skills. Covering, playing the gig well and getting repeat calls. This is super important of course.

    But what constitutes that practical skill set actually varies from player to player. Some are scales guys, some are not. It’s all good. Most modern players have a knowledge of what reg quaintly calls ‘modern jazz theory’ but everyone gets taught that stuff. It doesn’t mean they apply that directly.

    Look at Jordan! He sounds pretty contemporary to me. I hope Reg wouldn’t mind me saying that he sounds much more modern than Reg does. Reg does the whole turbo Wes thing and it’s great, swings like hell, super chops, great vibe and energy...

    Jordan is coming out of (to my ears) Peter Bernstein, Lage Lund, Bill Evans... restrained, considered, highly melodic in a sometimes unconventional way. Very clear, but colourful harmonies....
    Last edited by christianm77; 12-03-2019 at 11:17 AM.

  25. #274

    User Info Menu



    If Peter is vanilla, fetch me my ice cream, I don’t need no pistachio

  26. #275

    User Info Menu

    All good, Turbo Wes thing, I like it. Playing modern somewhat depends on Gig and the reference for modern. I dig Jordon's playing and approaches... and if the organizations behind Jordon's playing are what your talking about, well yea, he seems to use different approaches for controlling Function, or at least the voicings and note collections.

    The melody harmony/ debate, I don't know. I believe I've always said.... it's all going on all the time, Melody is one of many.

    Are you saying Shorter's music isn't about harmony? Vanilla isn't a bad thing, at least I hope... I'm very vanilla most of the time. And yea... I do like pushing buttons. It does get things out there...LOL

    Yea Jonah... The beginner thing was in reference to the section, where this thread is going on.

  27. #276

    User Info Menu

    Yea love that vid. Scott's good man. So is the tune modern... maybe. ABA with "A"s being 14 bars, fun tune to play. I arranged for BB many moons ago. Always dig Golson's tunes, but is it the tune or the soloing that works for you. Probable the intervallic thing. So if you notated out the solo... would the changes be the same, or would there be re-harms. If you transcribed the solo and voiced with notes below, would they be the same changes with embellishments or would you add and change harmony.

  28. #277

    User Info Menu

    An aside: I heard Scott Colley with Luciana Souza and Chico Pinheiro in SF and was blown away by Scott (I'd heard the others before).

    Then, went to hear him at Mezzrow with Kenny Werner.

    He's an amazing bassist and I can't recommend him highly enough.

  29. #278

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar View Post
    An aside: I heard Scott Colley with Luciana Souza and Chico Pinheiro in SF and was blown away by Scott (I'd heard the others before).

    Then, went to hear him at Mezzrow with Kenny Werner.

    He's an amazing bassist and I can't recommend him highly enough.
    I heard him with Jim Hall and with Pat Martino. Great player.

    John

  30. #279

    User Info Menu

    In European tradition I would say that melody is one of the possible impersonification of harmony.

    In that tradition great players - play melody (even if they conduct a symphonic orchestra), great composers compose melody (even if this is Webern)...

    But it does not mean there is no reference to harmony.

    Mozartian themes or Duke Ellingtons theme --- they already contain information of their possible harmonization (or re-harmonization)... probably Bach's fugue's themes are at teh top of it - they contain the whole harmonic plan of the on-coming fugue).

    With melodies like Wyane's it is a bit subtle thing... Reg says that without harmony the sound like 'random notes' - I understand what he means...

    But Christian disagrees and I understand that too... I can more or less imagin how that kind of tune can be refered to as pure linear modality that has no harmonic reference (like it was in Gregorian chants for example).

    I personally tend to hear it as harmonic but again I do not insist on it...