Anyone convert BH terminology?

[BWV]

Been practicing on Tom Echol's Labyrinth materials, find myself getting bogged down mentally translating BH 6th nomenclature to the 7th chord jargon I am most familiar with (i.e. I seem to have to translate a minor 6th with the third in the base to a half-dim 7 with the 5th in the base, or for dom subs thinking about minor 6th on the 5 as half dim on 3 )

Love the BH system, just wondering if I am too old to change my thinking and better of working out a translation of the concepts to the more classical terminology that got ingrained in me

[pingu]

for clarity ….
Could you give your examples
in C please ?

for ex

|Fm6 | G7. | C or whatever

(sorry I can’t give a response as yet)

[pamosmusic]

Been practicing on Tom Echol's Labyrinth materials, find myself getting bogged down mentally translating BH 6th nomenclature to the 7th chord jargon I am most familiar with (i.e. I seem to have to translate a minor 6th with the third in the base to a half-dim 7 with the 5th in the base, or for dom subs thinking about minor 6th on the 5 as half dim on 3 )

Love the BH system, just wondering if I am too old to change my thinking and better of working out a translation of the concepts to the more classical terminology that got ingrained in me

I guess my question would be … do you need to?

just call it min7 diminished and min7 b5 diminished or whatever

at some point you have to know the synonyms but it’s no different. If you see now a G6 and play an Em7, no problem, then I don’t see why I would worry about getting bogged down in converting it from the other direction.

Unless you’re going full Barry and really committing to it body and soul.

[BWV]

for clarity ….
Could you give your examples
in C please ?

for ex

|Fm6 | G7. | C or whatever

(sorry I can’t give a response as yet)

(i.e. I seem to have to translate a minor 6th with the third in the base to a half-dim 7 with the 5th in the base, or for dom subs thinking about minor 6th on the 5 as half dim on 3 )

B-7-5/F vs Dm6/F for the first or subbing b-7-5 or Dm6 for G7
ultimately its all the same but the point is to find one system that is quick to process while playing rather than get bogged down in theory. BH seems the best in this regard, but to the OP my hurdle is going back and forth on the terminology

[joe2758]

You said it yourself, you're getting bogged down. My advice is pick one or the other.

[callouscallus]

I would say it's good for your brain to tackle this from a different prospective. I've gone thru just one of the Labyrinth videos and found it digestible, but also the amount of work involved is pretty deep. I always get sidetracked with working on other material and find myself not carving out the necessary time a day to work on the BH stuff. I find it rewarding when I do tho.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Glossary of Terms – Jazz School Online

[pamosmusic]

Glossary of Terms – Jazz School Online

I think he knows the terms and is just wondering if he can absorb the techniques without changing his existing terminology

[pamosmusic]

You said it yourself, you're getting bogged down. My advice is pick one or the other.

Agree. The chords are literal synonyms, so if you can build a C6 diminished scale from a C6 and a Do7, then you can build one from an Am7 and a Bo7.

There are some advantages, to thinking of it Barry’s way, and some logical consistencies. For example, if you’re converting everything to one of those two (yes, there’s dominant and 7b5 but those are less common) then it might be weird to think of a cadence as resolving to a m7b5 chord or something. But practically speaking I go with what I call things already. It would be different if I decided I wanted to uproot and go Full Barry, but right now I’m just an interloper.

I would also say that even the very very hard core Barry cats make concessions to the consensus terminology for things. Shay absolutely refers to a min 7 chord from time to time, even though it’s clear his internal process is conversion from maj6. He’s making a concession in order to communicate clearly and that’s what the terminology is for. Probably useful to remember that Barry’s stuff was pretty holistic, so I’ve definitely found that some terminology wasn’t useful to me in isolation, but made more sense as part of a system when I checked out a different part of the pedagogy.

[Christian Miller]

Barry referred to m7 chords

Apparently he was swayed on the iim7 thing after a discussion with some classical music theorists, I remember someone saying.

For my part, I’m gravitating to team iim7 after a while of being squarely on team IV6. It does work.

For example the common thirdless IV6 chord one finds in classical three part cadences (eg C C/E F6 G C) is an inverted iim7 shell. I think Barry would have appreciated that. (This stuff goes back to Rameau and fundamental bass.)

As far as the Barry thing goes in general… I think people used to post smarmy ‘explanations’ of commonplace music devices in chord scale theory and now they post them in Barry jargon. I regard that sort of thing as a bit cutesy and doesn’t have much to with what Barry was actually teaching, which was resources for making beautiful music. His terminology was simply a way of quickly and specifically referencing these devices

But it can lead to confusion- Barry’s use of the term arpeggio for instance is not the same as mainstream use. OTOH jazz edu is full of this from teacher to teacher.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BWV]

thanks, perhaps just needed to post this to think this through - I learned all my 7th chord inversions on guitar with the trad / classical nomenclature. Given I am too old to learn many new tricks, much easier to translate BH to what comes faster while playing, so go with 7th chord nomenclature, but thats not consistent either (which is fine) as I dont think about a maj 6th on the tonic as some sort of inverted minor 7th chord

For example the common thirdless IV6 chord one finds in classical three part cadences (eg C C/E F6 G C) is an inverted iim7 shell. I think Barry would have appreciated that. (This stuff goes back to Rameau and fundamental bass.)

yes, and I think root position IV chords are fairly uncommon in 18th century cadences. As you well know, the partimento stuff only has 5/3 chords on IV in certain schema like the prinner

but also ISTM part of the benefit of BH system is to not think too much about the difference between IV and ii, as its the same maj 6th diminished

[Christian Miller]

thanks, perhaps just needed to post this to think this through - I learned all my 7th chord inversions on guitar with the trad / classical nomenclature. Given I am too old to learn many new tricks, much easier to translate BH to what comes faster while playing, so go with 7th chord nomenclature, but thats not consistent either (which is fine) as I dont think about a maj 6th on the tonic as some sort of inverted minor 7th chord

yes, and I think root position IV chords are fairly uncommon in 18th century cadences. As you well know, the partimento stuff only has 5/3 chords on IV in certain schema like the prinner

but also ISTM part of the benefit of BH system is to not think too much about the difference between IV and ii, as its the same maj 6th diminished

Yeah it just makes for better counterpoint to have the IV6 - it’s the suspended tenorizans against the cantizans to use the C18 terms - the big thing for those cadential predominants is the major second/minor seventh dissonance which occurs between the root and seventh of the IIm7 or the fifth and sixth of the IV6 and then moves to the major third/minor sixth in the V chord. Same for minor.

a 5 3 on a cadential IV wouldn’t have this classic dissonance and risk parallel fifths with the V … but you do see them. You more commonly see a plain 6 3 I think?

But you also get this dissonance with … drum roll… a Vsus4 which isn’t the same chord…. This is the same counterpoint with a different baseline.

Hmmm what did Barry have to say about that again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

I've been glossing over everything BH, figuring that I'm too old and have too many things on my to-do list to start with a new, complicated system.

But, I want to ask this favor.

Would someone please present a simple concrete example, preferably in baby talk, in the key of C major, to show how BH's material helps you solo? Like here's a line done BH's way and here's how it differs from whatever the alternative is.

What triggered this request was reading that his nomenclature is designed to make it faster to create certain sounds when soloing (if I understood that). But, when soloing it should be your ear and your imagination. The cognitive devices are for the practice room where speed doesn't matter much.

What am I missing?

I'm not trying to say anything negative. I just want to understand the appeal of BH from an example I can comprehend without first diving into the system.

And, yes, I have added that extra note and harmonized the expanded scale. I can see how that works, but I didn't want to use the sounds I got.

[pamosmusic]

This would be separate from the sixth diminished question. Beyond that, Christian probably better equipped to handle this one.

[A. Kingstone]

Don't look to Barry Harris to make jazz expression simple. It ain't. Look to Barry Harris as method towards jazz expression.

Whatever method we choose we need to work at it.

[pamosmusic]

Don't look to Barry Harris to make jazz expression simple. It ain't. Look to Barry Harris as method towards jazz expression.

Whatever method we choose we need to work at it.

Or maybe make a really hard distinction between “simple” and “easy.”

Maybe “elegant” is a better word than simple. Because I do think one of the best parts of his whole thing is that he does strip out a lot of the junk so you have fewer things to *think* about … with the rub being that you get to use your newfound free time practicing the life time of work you’re left with.

[BWV]

I’m far from any authority but what I find attractive is the return on practice time through simplification of the thought process while playing or arranging - for example rather than a laundry list of potential alterations on a dominant, you have the ‘family’ the four dominant chords that are tritone or minor 3rd subs and their rootless extensions of minor 6th chords on the 5th of each. Add the diminished chords that generate them and the other diminished chord that completes the dom 7 6th diminished scale and you can generate a lot of interesting harmonic motion without thinking about chord names or extensions

[A. Kingstone]

BWV

You seem to have a solid understanding.

Sixth Sixth Sixth

Dm7 / G7 / C

Dm7 - Two - F6o (SIXTH)
G7 - Five - Dm6o or Abm6o (SIXTH)
C - One - C6o or G6 (SIXTH)

[BWV]

BWV

You seem to have a solid understanding.

Sixth Sixth Sixth

\m/

think the black metal phase I went through a few years back helped

[pcjazz]

The OP mentioned Tom Echols’ “labyrinth” teachings. It may be worth pointing out that Echols does not fully adopt Barry’s terminology — for example he prefers #5 to b6 in naming the ‘extra’ note in the 6dim scales and calls certain three-note voicings “shells” where Barry called them “shorts” (referencing the layout of the piano keyboard). Echols’ “shells” are not the 3/7 voicings jazz guitarists commonly call “shell voicings”, which only adds to the potential confusion.

My understanding is that Barry didn’t like the m7 terminology because it failed to distinguish among ii7, iii7 and vi7. There is a rant about this somewhere on YouTube. FWIW I prefer to view ii7 as V7sus (IV/V) and iii7 as I6 with two borrowed diminished notes and vi7 as one of the four inversions of I6.

[rpjazzguitar]

Let me try asking this question in a different way.

I'm looking for a simple, concrete example of why BH's system is attractive.

Compare to Warren Nunes' system.

Imaj=iiim=Vmaj7#11 (actually, I'm not sure about this one)= vim.

iim=IVmaj7=V7=vim=viim7b5

That is, two types of chords. They're interchangeable within a group.

And, you get the usual substitutions. Most common is tritone.
Also, you can sub a iim for its V7 and vice versa.

So, Dm7 G7 Cmaj7. You can sub a Db7 for G7. And, the iim of Db7 would be Abm. Make it Abm9 and you've got the sound of alt.

And, you're supposed to know the 3 names for m7b5=m6=rootless 9th.

Warren's system went further, but I studied with him for several years and didn't really go beyond this. He said that jazz had 5 sounds, which I think were major, min, melodic minor, diminished and whole tone, but I might be remembering that wrong. In any case, I don't recall him going into detail on anything but major and minor.

To me, this is a very simple system.

Can someone give a simple, concrete example of how BH's teachings permit someone to go beyond Warren's?

Again, this isn't a troll -- I'm genuinely curious as to the advantage and I'd like to get some idea of what that advantage is before I plunge into a new system.

[A. Kingstone]

Perhaps by looking at their respective discography.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

The OP mentioned Tom Echols’ “labyrinth” teachings. It may be worth pointing out that Echols does not fully adopt Barry’s terminology — for example he prefers #5 to b6 in naming the ‘extra’ note in the 6dim scales and calls certain three-note voicings “shells” where Barry called them “shorts” (referencing the layout of the piano keyboard). Echols’ “shells” are not the 3/7 voicings jazz guitarists commonly call “shell voicings”, which only adds to the potential confusion.

My understanding is that Barry didn’t like the m7 terminology because it failed to distinguish among ii7, iii7 and vi7. There is a rant about this somewhere on YouTube. FWIW I prefer to view ii7 as V7sus (IV/V) and iii7 as I6 with two borrowed diminished notes and vi7 as one of the four inversions of I6.

A "short" according to my understanding is a closed voicing. Going "long -- short" resp. "short -- long" means changing between a closed voicing and a drop 2 voicing of the same chord (but the drop 2 is derived from another inversion of that chord) whereby two notes remain the same and two notes exchange the octave. It is a piano thing originally relating to 4-note chords.

e.g. for C6

C - E - G - A --> A - E - G - C

E - G - A - C --> C - G - A - E

G - A - C - E --> E - A - C - G

A - C - E - G --> G - C - E - A

[pcjazz]

A "short" according to my understanding is a closed voicing. Going "long -- short" resp. "short -- long" means changing between a closed voicing and a drop 2 voicing of the same chord (but the drop 2 is derived from another inversion of that chord) whereby two notes remain the same and two notes exchange the octave. It is a piano thing originally relating to 4-note chords.

e.g. for C6

C - E - G - A --> A - E - G - C

E - G - A - C --> C - G - A - E

G - A - C - E --> E - A - C - G

A - C - E - G --> G - C - E - A

Right, and as Alan points out in his book the “shorts” are playable on guitar by dropping either the alto or the tenor voice. And the resulting three-note voicing is what Echols calls a “shell”.

[pamosmusic]

Let me try asking this question in a different way.

I'm looking for a simple, concrete example of why BH's system is attractive.

Compare to Warren Nunes' system.

Imaj=iiim=Vmaj7#11 (actually, I'm not sure about this one)= vim.

iim=IVmaj7=V7=vim=viim7b5

That is, two types of chords. They're interchangeable within a group.

And, you get the usual substitutions. Most common is tritone.
Also, you can sub a iim for its V7 and vice versa.

So, Dm7 G7 Cmaj7. You can sub a Db7 for G7. And, the iim of Db7 would be Abm. Make it Abm9 and you've got the sound of alt.

And, you're supposed to know the 3 names for m7b5=m6=rootless 9th.

Warren's system went further, but I studied with him for several years and didn't really go beyond this. He said that jazz had 5 sounds, which I think were major, min, melodic minor, diminished and whole tone, but I might be remembering that wrong. In any case, I don't recall him going into detail on anything but major and minor.

To me, this is a very simple system.

Can someone give a simple, concrete example of how BH's teachings permit someone to go beyond Warren's?

Again, this isn't a troll -- I'm genuinely curious as to the advantage and I'd like to get some idea of what that advantage is before I plunge into a new system.

Well the first thing is there are the two halves of the thing — the improvisation and the harmony. Eventually those sixth diminished scales are used in single note lines too, but for a long time it’s not.

Also lots of teachers have systems. I’m not sure it’s useful to compare them in this way. A system should help you access a sound you want. If it does it’s better. If it doesn’t it’s worse. So you’re not necessarily wrong or missing something if Barry’s stuff seems convoluted to you.

as for the actual question …

I guess part of the problem is that I don’t know Warren Nunes at all, but Barry’s single note stuff is pretty much all line building. It’s hard to describe without actually doing it, but when you get familiar with some of his “rules” and try to put together a line you’re just like … oh shit this sounds like bebop.

Again this is separate from the harmony stuff, so you’re sort of asking two questions. The harmony stuff is super modular and I’ve found it really helpful in chord melody and with developing vocabulary relating to chord progressions in tunes. But it’s a specific sound that won’t really thrill someone who wants to sound like Herbie Hancock or whatever.

i don’t know how helpful any of that was.