Bebop heads: Donna Lee

[mr. beaumont]

This is a great one to run an exercise my old teacher would make me do (that drove me fucking nuts, so you know it's good)

Start this tune from random spots that are not the beginning or end of phrases and see if you can get all the way through. So like, start at bar 6 , and then keep going.

It actually helps unify things in the end...

[lawson-stone]

Here's an attempt just to located guide-tones, passing tones, chord-tones that might thread through the changes and be the framework for improvisation. The rhythm is pretty monotonous, and I keep to one position. 3 passes through mm. 1-16, a lot of similar ideas. Those at my very middling level of proficiency might find it helpful, more advanced players, not so much!

[Mick-7]

Start this tune from random spots that are not the beginning or end of phrases and see if you can get all the way through

At this point, expect pamosmusic/Peter to chip in: "play it backwards."

[lawson-stone]

Yes, an approach I've found that is effective: (1) Play the appropriate scales for the chord progressions in the tune - that's progressions, as in II-V-I, not a scale per chord approach. (2) Play arpeggios of the chords, and (3) Connect your scales and/or arpeggios with notes a half or whole step away.

Examples:

Arpeggios: Dm7: D-F-A-C -- G7: B-D-G-F -- CMaj.7: E-G C-B - etc.

Scales (with a few passing notes): (Dm7) D-F-Eb-E -- (G7) G-F-A-Ab -- (C^7) G-B-D-C - etc.

"I'm struggling to put all the pieces together and keep tempo. It's like playing 4 different songs back to back right now."

This is precisely why one should practice playing a piece from beginning to end without stopping, ignoring mistakes made along the way. It's not only good practice for sight-reading a piece, as was mentioned in another thread, but for playing it, period.

This is how classical music performers I've known are taught to practice a piece. Then they'll go back and work on their weak sections later.

Why don't you post a demo clip showing us how you actually do al this over the changes of Donna Lee? Everybody knows this stuff, but it's the doing of it that hangs up a lot of people, including me. So maybe stop telling and start showing?

[Mick-7]

Why don't you post a demo clip showing us how you actually do al this over the changes of Donna Lee? Everybody knows this stuff, but it's the doing of it that hangs up a lot of people, including me. So maybe stop telling and start showing?

o.k., working on getting my recorder functional - just got the right smart media card for it.

"Everybody knows this stuff, but it's the doing of it that hangs up a lot of people, including me."

I would disagree, if you "know" it, you can play it. If you can't play it, you don't really know it.

[pamosmusic]

This is a great one to run an exercise my old teacher would make me do (that drove me fucking nuts, so you know it's good)

Start this tune from random spots that are not the beginning or end of phrases and see if you can get all the way through. So like, start at bar 6 , and then keep going.

It actually helps unify things in the end...

Yeah ... another one that really helps is to practice overlapping phrases. Like instead of 1-4, 5-8, etc. You work on 1-6, 5-10, etc. So you're kind of working on making the joints between phrases strong.

[Bobby Timmons]

I found I just had to memorize it mentally to be able to not get hung up on playing the different sections. Then I'd combine that with my fingerings that I'd worked out.

[pamosmusic]

This is precisely why one should practice playing a piece from beginning to end without stopping, ignoring mistakes made along the way. It's not only good practice for sight-reading a piece, as was mentioned in another thread, but for playing it, period.

This is how classical music performers I've known are taught to practice a piece. Then they'll go back and work on their weak sections later.

Man not the classical performers I've known. I'd have been drawn and quartered by my classical teacher if I'd done it that way. When you ignore mistakes and just go through the whole thing that way, you're practicing in errors. Every time you play a mistake it becomes that much harder to correct. Guys I studied with and played in masterclasses with, the general vibe was that they played perfectly in performance because they'd never made a mistake at all. They play it slow enough that they can play it perfectly, and their sense of the technical challenges is such that they can isolate sections that will present problems down the road without ever having to be make the mistake.

[lawson-stone]

o.k., working on getting my recorder functional - just got the right smart media card for it.

"Everybody knows this stuff, but it's the doing of it that hangs up a lot of people, including me."

I would disagree, if you "know" it, you can play it. If you can't play it, you don't really know it.

You're distorting my meaning. By "know it" I mean being able to talk about it in a way that sounds correct. I can say a lot about leading tones, guide tones, chord tones, I "know" it on a cognitive level, but I do not have the player-ly skill to put it all together.
I for one have been very interested in your verbal comments but puzzled that you have not demonstrated by playing some examples. Most of us here are hesitant to take advice from someone who talks a lot but does not post examples of their playing showing how their ideas actually work.
As you said, "If you can't play it, you don't really know it" so I'm just wanting to learn more by hearing you play it.

[pamosmusic]

Here’s a guide tone line thing. I practice with this a lot. Stole (and subsequently bastardized) it from the Connecting Chords w Linear Harmony outlines.

[Bobby Timmons]

Here's an attempt just to located guide-tones, passing tones, chord-tones that might thread through the changes and be the framework for improvisation. The rhythm is pretty monotonous, and I keep to one position. 3 passes through mm. 1-16, a lot of similar ideas. Those at my very middling level of proficiency might find it helpful, more advanced players, not so much!

That's very good! That's not middling at all. You have good sound production, good time feel, and an instinct for the harmony. In addition to trying to build the lines naturally like you did there, also just run the arpeggios up and down in their entirety for the largest range that you can in the space allotted. This will build technique and your instinct for creating the lines naturally.

[lawson-stone]

That's very good! That's not middling at all. You have good sound production, good time feel, and an instinct for the harmony. In addition to trying to build the lines naturally like you did there, also just run the arpeggios up and down in their entirety for the largest range that you can in the space allotted. This will build technique and your instinct for creating the lines naturally.

Thank you sir, that's very encouraging. I actually learned Charlie Parker's solo from the Omnibook a few years ago and was struck at his use of arpeggios and that the solo "laid" better on the guitar than the head does. I kept thinking every phrase of the solo was a wonderful bebop idea to be harvested and used.

[Mick-7]

Man not the classical performers I've known. I'd have been drawn and quartered by my classical teacher if I'd done it that way. When you ignore mistakes and just go through the whole thing that way, you're practicing in errors. Every time you play a mistake it becomes that much harder to correct. Guys I studied with and played in masterclasses with, the general vibe was that they played perfectly in performance because they'd never made a mistake at all. They play it slow enough that they can play it perfectly, and their sense of the technical challenges is such that they can isolate sections that will present problems down the road without ever having to be make the mistake.

"When you ignore mistakes and just go through the whole thing that way, you're practicing in errors."

"Ignore" was the wrong word, make that "take note" of mistakes, and correct them the next time through, but one plays it slowly enough at first so that there are few if any errors. The point is to be able to play through the entire piece without getting hung up at any particular point, just as you would if you were sight reading it. The two disciplines - reading and playing - are closely related, you can't sight read something if you can't play it.

[pamosmusic]

"Ignore" was the wrong word, make that "take note" of mistakes, and correct them the next time through, but one plays it slowly enough at first so that there are few if any errors. The point is to be able to play through the entire piece without getting hung up at any particular point, just as you would if you were sight reading it. The two disciplines - reading and playing - are closely related, you can't sight read something if you can't play it.

This is still very different than a classical player would practice. Methodically, in small sections. Periodic sprints. Etc.

[Bobby Timmons]

Thank you sir, that's very encouraging.

You're welcome.

I actually learned Charlie Parker's solo from the Omnibook a few years ago

Nice.

and was struck at his use of arpeggios and that the solo "laid" better on the guitar than the head does. I kept thinking every phrase of the solo was a wonderful bebop idea to be harvested and used.

I always thought his vocab was logically very nice too. Imo, it just shows you how working out the raw material builds your technique so you can play well and express your own ideas. He said so in his audio interview.

[Mick-7]

You're distorting my meaning. By "know it" I mean being able to talk about it in a way that sounds correct. I can say a lot about leading tones, guide tones, chord tones, I "know" it on a cognitive level, but I do not have the player-ly skill to put it all together.

I get your point, I would call that "knowing about" a subject versus actually "knowing" it, which to me means you can do it.

[Christian Miller]

Man not the classical performers I've known. I'd have been drawn and quartered by my classical teacher if I'd done it that way. When you ignore mistakes and just go through the whole thing that way, you're practicing in errors. Every time you play a mistake it becomes that much harder to correct. Guys I studied with and played in masterclasses with, the general vibe was that they played perfectly in performance because they'd never made a mistake at all. They play it slow enough that they can play it perfectly, and their sense of the technical challenges is such that they can isolate sections that will present problems down the road without ever having to be make the mistake.

It’s so important to acknowledge the absolute diametrical opposition between learning music and sightreading. I wish I was better at both!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mick-7]

This is still very different than a classical player would practice. Methodically, in small sections. Periodic sprints. Etc.

Well, it's good to do both, but musicians I've known who can play a piece well the first time they see (sight read) it didn't develop that skill by breaking up every piece they've learned into pieces and reassembling it later - or at least by only following that approach.

[pamosmusic]

Well, it's good to do both, but musicians I've known who can play a piece well the first time they see (sight read) it didn't develop that skill by breaking up every piece they've learned into pieces and reassembling it later - or at least by only following that approach.

And classical musicians who play difficult pieces exceptionally expressively didn’t learn to do that by sight reading them.

Practice with your goal in mind. If Allan’s goal is to be able to get through a bebop head in minimal attempts, then sight reading a bunch of them at slower tempos might be part of the practice. If his goal is to play this tune well, then it seems weird to write off chunking out the tune and really learning it in pieces.

[pamosmusic]

It’s so important to acknowledge the absolute diametrical opposition between learning music and sightreading. I wish I was better at both!

^^^^^^^^^

[pamosmusic]

For whatever it’s worth, I had a lesson with Peter Bernstein where he was like …. Your swing on this one measure of this one part of this one tune is lame. Work on it in isolation and transcribe some Blakey horn lines to internalize the vibe etc etc etc.

It felt a whole lot like Ana Vidovic absolutely demolishing me because my tone was lackluster and my time a little squirrelly in that one part of that one section of the Scarlatti Sonata I played for her in a masterclass.

[Mick-7]

My original reply on this topic was to AllanAllen's comment: "I'm struggling to put all the pieces together and keep tempo. It's like playing 4 different songs back to back right now."

My point was: If I had that problem (or even if I didn't), I'd play through the entire tune a few times to get a sense of it's tonal and harmonic range, where and how I'd like to play it on the fret-board, which parts are most difficult for me, etc.

If you haven't done that, and you only learn it in sections, as has been suggested, you're liable to encounter the problem that Allan mentioned: having to figure out later how to best connect the sections. It's kind of like trying to build a house one room at a time with the goal of joining them all later into a single structure.

Christian said: "It’s so important to acknowledge the absolute diametrical opposition between learning music and sightreading."

In what way are they "diametrically opposed"?

[princeplanet]

...
In what way are they "diametrically opposed"?

Oh c'mon, everybody knows what he means. It's like the difference between typing accurately, and typing poetry ....

[alpop]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....

Somebody wake me up when this gets back to folks posting their playing of Donna Lee.

Sorry, feeling grumpy today. ( I am legally obligated to apologize because I'm Canadian - sorry- )

[pamosmusic]

Oh c'mon, everybody knows what he means. It's like the difference between typing accurately, and typing poetry ....

I mean, even more than that …

I think any good sight reader will tell you that part of sight reading is the skill of sight reading. Being able to read ahead and to leave mistakes behind. But also a huge part of it is experience. They’ve read the piece before, they’ve read something similar before, they recognize that phrase or that shape or whatever.

So the question is, how did they get good at that second half? They got good at it by getting lots of (in this case bebop) music under their fingers so that they see a passage and intuitively understand the best way to finger it, the handful of practical ways to finger it, and the many impractical ways, and then choose accordingly. Which is to say they got good at sight reading, in part by practicing the sort of music they intended to sight read.

So if you haven’t sat with the music (generally — the style, the period, the composers, the vocabulary) and learned it for real, then I’m not sure why anyone would assume they’d come to anything resembling a practical fingering for a piece of that music at even a mind numbingly slow tempo.