The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 75
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    Math gets into it mainly when I'm struggling to read a time-complex chart. Then, I may have to make tick marks with a pencil to represent 16th notes, or something like that. Being informed that I can relax on the downbeats as long as I maintain precision on the upbeats, or something like that, is not helpful to me. Which, of course, is not to say that it wouldn't be helpful to somebody else.
    Yeah rhythm is math when you’re decoding. So what an elementary school teacher would call “sounding it out.” When you have something unfamiliar, the knowledge is really useful for really figuring out where things fall and what’s going on.

    when you’re playing it you’re feeling rhythm in chunks. More what the teacher would think of as “sight words.” A first grader doesn’t need to (and probably can’t) sound out the word “the” to recognize it on the page, the same way we don’t need to count and process a clave when we hear it to know what it is and what it means.

    So if you’re mathing when you’re playing it’s going to be rigid and awkward. The math is a tool you use to help you start the process of internalizing a rhythm.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    [QUOTE=pamosmusic;1432013]Yeah rhythm is math when you’re decoding. .[/QUOTE

    This comes up a lot in big band. You get to a series of syncopated hits. If you're experienced, and depending on the chart, you may be able to see them as one familiar rhythmic sequence. But, the arranger, oftentimes, wants his arrangement to be novel, meaning the pattern of hits won't be familiar.

    At that point the approach gets murky. Some players seem to have an internal click of some kind and they can place the hits without explicit counting. Others, may have to count, in which case they're likely to be late.

    Now a digression into big band stuff.

    Often enough, the pattern will be repeated, so if you can hear it played by somebody else the first time, you might get it on the next chorus. But, the endings are likely to be unique, so it's a good idea to figure out the ending before you start the tune. This advice applies in every horn band I've ever played in -- where the book is large and, much of the time, you've never seen the chart and have only seconds to look it over.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    [
    At that point the approach gets murky. Some players seem to have an internal click of some kind and they can place the hits without explicit counting. Others, may have to count, in which case they're likely to be late.
    I would be willing to bet that those players don’t have an internal click, but rather have just played the rhythms before. Even if they’re uncommon. Someone with tons of experience or who reads a ton of rhythms is likely to have run into them before.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by dasein
    If you wanted to learn how to swing just from records, you could do a lot worse than getting the Hot Fives and Sevens, plus the Basie Decca recordings (with Lester Young), and the Dizzy Gillespie big band recordings. Throw in some Charlie Christian and those Billie Holiday/Pres collaborations, and yeah, you're set.

    ...

    - There is a little bit of faith involved..... It's a kind of faith in the face of hopelessness, of impossibility. You have to keep going in spite of all evidence, of all logical arguments. You need to believe you can get there.

    - You need to be relentless and eclectic in your pursuit. Seek out knowledge everywhere. Try different teachers. Study great players. Read interviews. Sometimes you need to read between the lines. Try different approaches. Try everything.

    - If you keep going, you will eventually find something that works. It will just feel right. Things will start falling into place. When you find that thing: keep going. I don't care if your teacher says it's the wrong way to do it. If they are any kind of real teacher, they will recognize it's working for you and encourage it. Do not let yourself get blown off course. Do not get distracted by the way other people do it. You found what works for you. Take it as far as it lets you. Only stop when it stops working.
    I started my listening journey almost exactly as advised (Pop, Prez, CC, and Billie). Still do. I got every single Prez pre-war record. Every one.

    What you said about faith, and keep on keeping on... Haha i feel seen, brings a small tear to my eye cos I've worked really hard to learn things (just so i can survive my jam sessions)

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Oh Brent, here’s a video I did on the subject, not sure if you saw it.
    Believe me, I have watched it multiple times when it first came out. Even sent it to some of the guys in my jam session. The bembe rhythm bit was my favourite. I remember spending a week clapping out the rhythms and singing it. Changed the way i felt music. It's that 6 and 4 rub. That's the sound. That's the blues, right there.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by brent.h
    I started my listening journey almost exactly as advised (Pop, Prez, CC, and Billie). Still do. I got every single Prez pre-war record. Every one.

    What you said about faith, and keep on keeping on... Haha i feel seen, brings a small tear to my eye cos I've worked really hard to learn things (just so i can survive my jam sessions)



    Believe me, I have watched it multiple times when it first came out. Even sent it to some of the guys in my jam session. The bembe rhythm bit was my favourite. I remember spending a week clapping out the rhythms and singing it. Changed the way i felt music. It's that 6 and 4 rub. That's the sound. That's the blues, right there.
    Wow, thanks! It’s always touching when I find out my stuff has been useful to people.

    Despite what I said on the other thread this video did pretty well. I think there is a space for jazz guitar content beyond tabbed licks and gear - it’s in how you present it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by brent.h
    Hope this is useful.
    It's a brilliant insight! Thank you for posting.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by brent.h
    I can see why you might think that.

    The reason I put up this post was to share a resource that might get us into the ballpark of what Pops was doing. Transcribing Pops' lines for what to play is easy; both you and I can do it. But transcribing how he's playing is damn near impossible for me.

    The videos I shared are great training wheels to get us to feel the quarter note triplet feel Pops had in his playing (and how he displaces them, Jesus Christ!)

    Maybe you can already do what he does just by pure feel and intuition and experience, in which case this thread isn't suitable for you because you're already playing beyond this training wheel / 'mathematical' stage.

    Myself, I prefer something more 'mathematical' because it is both observable and quantifiable, therefore making it easier for me to learn: I can literally count the rhythms to get the feel. I don't prefer to go by a player's recommendation to just 'feel' it because it is vague: I cannot observe, quantify, or even assess how well I have learnt the thing.



    Nobody's music can truly be reduced to simple math. Not yours, not mine.

    Perhaps you feel that this approach is too exact/scientific, and that studying Pops this way somehow robs him/his music of his humanity or great natural prodigy or genius. Quite the opposite. Being able to study him this way and see how he might have been feeling time is extremely humbling! It tells us exactly what we need to work on!

    Perhaps you feel that a more 'naturalistic' approach of immersion and absorption is a more human and legitimate way of learning. Also a valid way of learning. (This is how very young children acquire language, by the way.)

    I need my mathematical way because unlike you, I didn't grow up listening to jazz, didn't have records or access to the music, didn't have education in music, didn't have parents who loved it. You are privileged in terms of cultural capital. You don't need the math.

    I'm 40 this year. I started listening to jazz when I was 33, and only got super serious about playing at age 39. In my one year of playing, I've attended 23 jam sessions, learnt 37 tunes in all 12 keys, and tomorrow I'm playing as a trio for the first time. I'm a beginner, but I am where I am today because I had to get friggin good at teaching myself. I need the math.

    Be happy that you have a good background in music. Not everyone is as fortunate as you.
    I totally believe in "different strokes for different folks". And maybe because I've been "swinging" ever since I picked up the guitar (due to my history of listening from birth, I assume), I don't see it as something that requires super-over-think to accomplish. You just do it. But I can see where that could be biased of me to think, based on my natural ability to do so. If there's a way to teach that element of playing, and it helps someone figure it out, by all means. It just bugs me when musicians think everything can be notated, and that means music can be reduced to an equation, and any competent player could do it.... because the interesting part is, YT is filled with technically masterful players... with no soul. I've seen it a thousand times. They can learn the notes and the phrasing, and what they play is technically perfect, but it's also sterile and boring. It just bothers me when the intangible-ness of music is left behind in favor of the "formula".


  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ruger9
    It just bugs me when musicians think everything can be notated, and that means music can be reduced to an equation, and any competent player could do it.... because the interesting part is, YT is filled with technically masterful players... with no soul. I've seen it a thousand times. They can learn the notes and the phrasing, and what they play is technically perfect, but it's also sterile and boring. It just bothers me when the intangible-ness of music is left behind in favor of the "formula".
    I know exactly what you mean because I've seen my share of instagram-guitarists who are technically proficient but boring.

    Now, I know I'm gonna drive you insane with more talk of 'precision' and 'exactness' that seems too reductive, but I'd like to share why these technical players bore me (and only me).

    They don't have that thing that Pops, Prez, CC, etc have.

    What's the thing? The masters all had this unbelievable 'dance bounce' to their music. The playing conveyed such an undeniable pulse. Yes, sometimes by way of repeated quarter notes, but it's more than that.

    Denis Chang, a great teacher of older guitar styles, talks about how silence can convey momentum. See 11:20 to 12:01 in the video:



    Instagram guitarists are generally concerned with speed and acrobatics because it seems visually entertaining. They are not concerned with silence because silence is pure absence; there's literally nothing to perceive, and it's not visually sexy.

    But it is the silence that Pops, Prez, and CC have in their playing that creates this incredible bounce. It's really important that we 'play rests' i.e. take your finger off the fretboard very deliberately and cleanly.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by dasein
    Frankly, I'm just glad that posts I made 10+ years ago aren't embarrassing to look back at.

    Yeah, I took a couple lessons with Mike Longo when I first moved to NYC. Had to stop because... well, I just moved to NYC, and money was tight. He died during the first wave of COVID, a great loss. But I'm glad he got his "Rhythmic Nature of Jazz" series out, because there is some serious wisdom in there, and it could have been lost.

    But I did know about the ridiculous time of Louis Armstrong before then. I've been lucky to have good teachers, and one of them pointed it out to me. The guitar player he said that had a similarly unbelievable rhythmic precision? Grant Green.

    If you wanted to learn how to swing just from records, you could do a lot worse than getting the Hot Fives and Sevens, plus the Basie Decca recordings (with Lester Young), and the Dizzy Gillespie big band recordings. Throw in some Charlie Christian and those Billie Holiday/Pres collaborations, and yeah, you're set.



    I've thought a lot about this, and spent a lot of time around outstanding musicians, and here's what I've decided: there's no such thing as talent, but there is a thing as "Getting It." Very official terminology.

    Everyone's brains work differently. But this isn't static, either. What you learn, practice, and experience also shapes how your mind works. When you work on playing chess and go from a beginner to an expert player, the entire way you see the board and the game completely transforms. When you start learning higher level mathematics ("real" math, the stuff you start with in analysis class, what mathematicians call gainin "mathematical maturity") your mind is not the same as when you started. And the same is true with music. Infants cannot perceive that an octave is the "same" note. When you're a rank beginner, bebop sounds like chaos. You just learn to hear it better. The stimulus is exactly the same, you're the one that's changed.

    "Getting It" is when your brain gets to the point where it stops struggling with a domain. You are no longer paddling against the current; you and the knowledge are all flowing in the same direction. It is similar to what's usually called a "flow state," except it's not a momentary thing. For outside observers and people struggling with the same material, it looks like it just comes easy to you.

    There are certain people who, for whatever reason, seem to already "Get It." Sometimes it's because they started very young. Some people, it's like they come out of the womb with their brain already wired that way. Those are the ones with "talent." Sometimes it's a mysterious thing, sometime's it's not. Mozart got thousands of hours of private instruction before he hit puberty from a demanding, professional musician father who forced him to practice and perform. Beethoven's father and teacher used to wake him up in the middle of the night to force him to practice. In those sorts of stressful, sink or swim situations, kids can be really good at figuring out what works.

    Other times, they just happen to figure it out, through sheer luck or again, just how their brain works. When I see that video of Art Tatum play, his technique looks flawless. When you study his right hand runs, you see how logical the fingerings are. Is that talent? Luck? Did he stumble upon that technique, and just recognized it was working? Did he have an innate kinesthetic genius? Maybe all of the above.

    There are people in all kinds of field who just seem to immediately "Get It." In math, there's Gauss and Ramanujan. In chess, there's Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer, Carlsen, etc. And there's countless music prodigies.

    But here's the key thing: there are people who don't "Get It" at first who can learn to "Get It." This is a mysterious thing, too. These fields are complicated. I really do believe that we are in the infancy of learning how to teach most complicated things. Most students who learn to get great at something do it in spite of the instruction (even though I think most teachers are doing their best with what they have).

    It's a tricky thing. Most people, if they find they're not immediately good at something, quit. You have to love something and be fine without being good at it. And then you have to find that thing that makes you "Get It." This can take a long time. Some people never get there. Some people get there through hard work and experimentation. Other times, it really is just one piece of knowledge that transforms everything. I always think of Randy Johnson, spending his entire 20's struggling to break into the big leagues, all this physical talent but could never get it together. Nolan Ryan personally sought him out. "I'm going to show you something it took me 10 years in the majors to figure out." Bam. Lightning flash. Randy Johnson was immediately one of the greatest pitchers ever.

    Look at Charlie Parker. His early jam sessions, he gets laughed off the stage. He goes home to practice. He figures SOMETHING out. He claims it was about the upper partials of a chord. I'm not sure it was exactly that, but the point is he clearly thought there was some point where it all clicked. He practices like a madman for a summer. You can say that the practicing is what did it, and certainly that kind of work is necessary to get to his level. But I would say this: until he Got It, the practicing wouldn't have been as effective. And it's much, much easier to practice once you Get It, when it doesn't feel like you're running uphill anymore.

    And then there is the ultimate poster child of a jazz musician who was not born Getting It: John Coltrane. I will argue this until I'm blue in the face: Coltrane was not a "talented" guy. Have you heard Coltrane's earliest recordings? He sounds... OK. Workmanlike. Nothing in there that would indicate what he would later become.

    Yes, he practiced a lot. But here's the thing: he ALWAYS practiced a lot. After his military service, by all accounts, he practiced obsessively. He started studying with Dennis Sandole in 1946. He studied with him into the early 1950's. Sandole said Coltrane was his hardest working student. But was the output matching the input? I would argue no. Those early Coltrane recordings are solid. He's really good. But is he better than Sonny Rollins, who was younger than him and very much a guy who Got It from Day 1? I'd say no. I'm not sure Coltrane was better than Johnny Griffin at this point.

    No, it wasn't until he joined Monk that Coltrane became the guy they built churches to honor. If you read interviews with Trane, he himself seemed to think so. I don't know what Monk taught him. And yeah, getting off heroin definitely helped. But something just clicked for him. Every single year, until his death, he just got better and better. If you listen to Charlie Parker's earliest recordings (stuff like "Billie's Bounce" and "Now's the Time"), you can hear basically the same player you do in the 1950's. If you listen to Coltrane's early solos, in Dizzy's band or Johnny Hodge's band, there is NO way anyone could predict that player was eventually going to make "A Love Supreme."

    If you don't feel like you are talented, you have two options. You can accept it: be fine with where you're at, or give up if you can't. Or you start searching relentlessly until you find that moment or that piece of knowledge where you Get It. That might take a long time. It looks different for everyone. Here's what you need:

    - There is a little bit of faith involved. Not the arrogant, self-assured, sneering attitude you see so often passed off as faith, especially in America. It's a kind of faith in the face of hopelessness, of impossibility. You have to keep going in spite of all evidence, of all logical arguments. You need to believe you can get there.

    - You need to be relentless and eclectic in your pursuit. Seek out knowledge everywhere. Try different teachers. Study great players. Read interviews. Sometimes you need to read between the lines. Try different approaches. Try everything. If it feels like you're banging your head against a wall, move on to something else. Maybe come back to it later.

    - If you keep going, you will eventually find something that works. It will just feel right. Things will start falling into place. When you find that thing: keep going. I don't care if your teacher says it's the wrong way to do it. If they are any kind of real teacher, they will recognize it's working for you and encourage it. Do not let yourself get blown off course. Do not get distracted by the way other people do it. You found what works for you. Take it as far as it lets you. Only stop when it stops working.

    Will you get to be as great as your heroes? Maybe not. The better you get, the more you realize how great the greats truly are. But you will get good enough that your old self, the one at the start of this old journey, wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between the two of you.
    Thanks for this - I really appreciate this perspective. It's very inspiring.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by brent.h
    I know exactly what you mean because I've seen my share of instagram-guitarists who are technically proficient but boring.

    Now, I know I'm gonna drive you insane with more talk of 'precision' and 'exactness' that seems too reductive, but I'd like to share why these technical players bore me (and only me).

    They don't have that thing that Pops, Prez, CC, etc have.

    What's the thing? The masters all had this unbelievable 'dance bounce' to their music. The playing conveyed such an undeniable pulse. Yes, sometimes by way of repeated quarter notes, but it's more than that.

    Denis Chang, a great teacher of older guitar styles, talks about how silence can convey momentum. See 11:20 to 12:01 in the video:



    Instagram guitarists are generally concerned with speed and acrobatics because it seems visually entertaining. They are not concerned with silence because silence is pure absence; there's literally nothing to perceive, and it's not visually sexy.

    But it is the silence that Pops, Prez, and CC have in their playing that creates this incredible bounce. It's really important that we 'play rests' i.e. take your finger off the fretboard very deliberately and cleanly.
    Yes, you need to swing the gaps too.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    It’s always the guys who never post clips that claim swinging is easy or time is simple.

    Anybody else notice that?

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AllanAllen
    It’s always the guys who never post clips that claim swinging is easy or time is simple.

    Anybody else notice that?
    For the record, I never said it was easy or simple. I said some people can do it innately, for whatever reason. And I stand by that statement. Some people are, for whatever reason, born with certain skills that make certain things easier for them. BB King never took a guitar lesson, never read a guitar teaching book, could never read music. His uncle Bukka White taught him to play a little, and the rest was all experience. And he's just one example.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    I disagree.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AllanAllen
    It’s always the guys who never post clips that claim swinging is easy or time is simple.

    Anybody else notice that?
    The only thing that stands out in my mind was someone who posts their playing often and does NOT remotely swing, said something about how they couldn't believe how something so simple could be made so much of

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by joe2758
    The only thing that stands out in my mind was someone who posts their playing often and does NOT remotely swing, said something about how they couldn't believe how something so simple could be made so much of
    Now I’m confused and wish I didn’t say anything.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AllanAllen
    I disagree.
    You're allowed to.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    wasn't referring to you, Alan, if that's what you mean!

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Sorry, let me clarify:


    I'd say what's rare is a proven good player say it's easy to swing, or a non-video poster admit they can't.

    The one I meant above proved he couldnt swing and said it was easy

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ruger9
    For the record, I never said it was easy or simple. I said some people can do it innately, for whatever reason. And I stand by that statement. Some people are, for whatever reason, born with certain skills that make certain things easier for them. BB King never took a guitar lesson, never read a guitar teaching book, could never read music. His uncle Bukka White taught him to play a little, and the rest was all experience. And he's just one example.
    Youre mistaking “didn’t have a teacher” for “had this thing innately.”

    You said it yourself.

    “The rest was all experience.”

    So it wasn’t innate. It was experience.

    Again, musical aptitude is an entire field of study. You could learn about it if you wanted to.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    There’s this false equivalent to didn’t have a teacher with learned everything by figuring it out himself. Tomo explains it better than I can type it out.

    Basically, George Harrison(like BB King) was not formally trained. But he talked and learned from others.


  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    "Heritability estimates for music aptitude were moderate (30–66%), with significant common environmental influences. Exceptional skill showed an even higher heritability (86%)."

    This is from:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763423002713#:~:text=Heritability%20estimates %20for%20music%20aptitude,even%20higher%20heritabi lity%20(86%25).

    I don't know if anybody is saying talent doesn't exist. The science strongly suggests it does exist, and so does my experience around great players.

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    I don’t question that musical aptitude exists in a number of vectors, and is heritable, but giving percentages - I’d need to read the paper to see what metrics they used.

    Musical talent is hard thing to measure quantitatively lol.

    Or I could move on and, you know, practice.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Tbh I suspect some sort of heritable capacity for focussed practice may play as much in the development of instrumental skills as a heritable musical traits like perfect pitch.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 11-03-2025 at 04:34 AM.

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pamosmusic
    Youre mistaking “didn’t have a teacher” for “had this thing innately.”

    You said it yourself.

    “The rest was all experience.”

    So it wasn’t innate. It was experience.

    Again, musical aptitude is an entire field of study. You could learn about it if you wanted to.
    So to you, experience = "teacher". I'm ok with that... especially since we aren't talking about books or actual lessons given by a teacher. Which is pretty much my point: some people don't need a teacher, book, or lessons to learn how to play, and play very well. And yes- "swinging" comes under the category of playing.

    Haven't you guys ever played with anyone who had crappy time? They just couldn't stay on the beat? Sure, there are ways to fix that- like practicing with a metronome for example. But what about all the people who never needed a metronome, because they simply had good time... like good time was "natural" for them... and not for the other. Some people can dance (without ever having a "lesson", others still can't dance well even after lessons.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ruger9
    So to you, experience = "teacher". I'm ok with that... especially since we aren't talking about books or actual lessons given by a teacher. Which is pretty much my point: some people don't need a teacher, book, or lessons to learn how to play, and play very well. And yes- "swinging" comes under the category of playing.
    No I’m saying the opposite.

    You see to be saying that anything that didn’t come from a teacher or a book is “innate.” Which is wrong. If something came from experience, it wasn’t “innate.” It came from experience.

    Haven't you guys ever played with anyone who had crappy time? They just couldn't stay on the beat?


    Among people who practice a good bit? Not all that often honestly.

    Sure, there are ways to fix that- like practicing with a metronome for example. But what about all the people who never needed a metronome, because they simply had good time... like good time was "natural" for them... and not for the other.
    Again you seem to be mistaking a specific formal structure (the metronome, eg the teacher) for practice at all. People who don’t play with a metronome absolutely work on their time. Not sure why you’d think they don’t, beyond not knowing better.

    Some people can dance (without ever having a "lesson", others still can't dance well even after lessons.


    Again, the lessons thing.