Melodic Minor Courses Online? or Favorite Book Must Have

[rpjazzguitar]

In listening to Reg on gigs (we live in the same general area), I often think, about his comping, "that sounds great, I've heard it on records, it's a classic jazz sound, I wish I knew how to do that". He never plays anything where I think "oops that bit of theory didn't work out as well as he probably hoped" -- which is a thought I sometimes have when listening to other players, including myself.

To me, it sounds like a lot of carefully selected and applied jazz vocabulary; listening to him doesn't make me think about any theory. I have the impression, which might be incorrect, that theory might encompass or explain everything he does but doesn't predict it. That is, if he started with theory, he's already discarded the material which is predicted by the theory but doesn't sound good.

If I understand it, modal interchange might be an example. From what I've read about it there are a lot of moves which could be considered modal interchange. But, only some of them sound good. So, if Reg is using that theory, he's also filtering the results.

In the How High video, he uses a I-V7#9-I move, with some quick half step slides, to create movement over the first two bars of G69. For me, a rule of thumb. When he gets to the Gm7, he plays several different voicings which are based on Gm7 and/or Cdominant. These include 7sus, 7b13 iirc and tritone 9th. From a theoretical standpoint that's all in the usual ballpark, but the voice leading and time feel make it pop.

The approach I'm working on to try to get some more of that into my playing is this. I'm starting with the time feel. To make the time really pop, I need to find ways to keep the chords moving. This requires first feeling where the chord stabs need to go. That is, start with the rhythmic framework. Then, once I have a clear idea of how the chords should move, I can find voicings and voice leading that fit the rhythmic conception. I find that I have to fight against complacency. Don't let anything sound passive.

This has struck me as particularly important in big band, even when playing "chomp chomp", which is a notation I saw on a chart the other day. Freddie kept it moving constantly. That requires acquiring some vocabulary, somehow. The process is the same. First you decide you're going to keep things moving and then you start filling in the voicings.

[rpjazzguitar]

Warren had his own relationship with theory.

I recall him saying that there were five sounds in jazz. Major, minor, diminished, whole tone and melodic minor, iirc. I don't recall if he used the term melodic minor or maybe jazz minor.

But, in the lessons, mostly it was major and relative minor. He definitely used the two Types notion. He could burn through a 2 5 3 6 vamp and tell you later exactly which substitutions he made. I verified this with recording the lessons.

He rejected the use of the word mode, but he used patterns which were, in fact, modes.

I don't recall him teaching much about diminished or whole tone. I recall him mentioning melodic minor harmony, but I don't recall any detail. I don't recall anything about harmonized scales except for the two Types in major and relative minor.

He taught about tonal centers a good deal. Also triads. So, a lot of his playing, in the lessons, was interchanging the two types of triads against the background created by a tonal center.

So that all sounds pretty vanilla, but when he played chord melody, there were all kinds of sounds. And, if you asked him to repeat a chord melody so that you could cop it, he'd play a completely different one, just as brilliant as the first.

So, my impression was that he had codified some theory, and used it in his playing. But, maybe not that much detail. The rest was big ears.

[Christian Miller]

Warren had his own relationship with theory.

I recall him saying that there were five sounds in jazz. Major, minor, diminished, whole tone and melodic minor, iirc. I don't recall if he used the term melodic minor or maybe jazz minor.

But, in the lessons, mostly it was major and relative minor. He definitely used the two Types notion. He could burn through a 2 5 3 6 vamp and tell you later exactly which substitutions he made. I verified this with recording the lessons.

He rejected the use of the word mode, but he used patterns which were, in fact, modes.

I don't recall him teaching much about diminished or whole tone. I recall him mentioning melodic minor harmony, but I don't recall any detail. I don't recall anything about harmonized scales except for the two Types in major and relative minor.

He taught about tonal centers a good deal. Also triads. So, a lot of his playing, in the lessons, was interchanging the two types of triads against the background created by a tonal center.

So that all sounds pretty vanilla, but when he played chord melody, there were all kinds of sounds. And, if you asked him to repeat a chord melody so that you could cop it, he'd play a completely different one, just as brilliant as the first.

So, my impression was that he had codified some theory, and used it in his playing. But, maybe not that much detail. The rest was big ears.

I wasn’t really commenting on Nunes own ideas on theory - more just the stuff you cited are an example of the sort of practical rule of thumb I meant.

You don’t need to know what a chord scale or mode is to apply a sub formula - and that’s something you can hear in the playing of many of the greats that definitely used them but didn’t appear to have much formal music training of any kind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

In listening to Reg on gigs (we live in the same general area), I often think, about his comping, "that sounds great, I've heard it on records, it's a classic jazz sound, I wish I knew how to do that". He never plays anything where I think "oops that bit of theory didn't work out as well as he probably hoped" -- which is a thought I sometimes have when listening to other players, including myself.

To me, it sounds like a lot of carefully selected and applied jazz vocabulary; listening to him doesn't make me think about any theory. I have the impression, which might be incorrect, that theory might encompass or explain everything he does but doesn't predict it. That is, if he started with theory, he's already discarded the material which is predicted by the theory but doesn't sound good.

If I understand it, modal interchange might be an example. From what I've read about it there are a lot of moves which could be considered modal interchange. But, only some of them sound good. So, if Reg is using that theory, he's also filtering the results.

In the How High video, he uses a I-V7#9-I move, with some quick half step slides, to create movement over the first two bars of G69. For me, a rule of thumb. When he gets to the Gm7, he plays several different voicings which are based on Gm7 and/or Cdominant. These include 7sus, 7b13 iirc and tritone 9th. From a theoretical standpoint that's all in the usual ballpark, but the voice leading and time feel make it pop.

The approach I'm working on to try to get some more of that into my playing is this. I'm starting with the time feel. To make the time really pop, I need to find ways to keep the chords moving. This requires first feeling where the chord stabs need to go. That is, start with the rhythmic framework. Then, once I have a clear idea of how the chords should move, I can find voicings and voice leading that fit the rhythmic conception. I find that I have to fight against complacency. Don't let anything sound passive.

This has struck me as particularly important in big band, even when playing "chomp chomp", which is a notation I saw on a chart the other day. Freddie kept it moving constantly. That requires acquiring some vocabulary, somehow. The process is the same. First you decide you're going to keep things moving and then you start filling in the voicings.

Vocabulary is a good word. I was talking about it with a student today. You end up using comping licks as much as soloing licks. And certainly you might aim to get away from licks eventually, but I’ve copped a few watching other players often, as well as listening to records. Or you might see cool moves in a big band chart.

Again it’s stuff that can make sense theoretically but it’s also just cool sounding stuff that people play.

Theory can give you a framework to work with and extend ideas. That’s an organic way to work with it. You end up having your own take on it after a while.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

And now I’m thinking about players that aren’t vocabulary based and I have to say that the modern players often tend to be playing ‘concepts’ more. If I dig into Kurt it’s often scale stuff that he makes sound really good. Same with Allan. Peter Bernstein has moved away from licks, you can hear it more in his early work, but now often he’s working directly with material, chord shapes and sometimes intervallic patterns. Much less classic vocab when compared to someone like Pasquale Grasso.

Same with Jesse Van Ruller. Not a bop lick in sight when I heard him play a set of Jazz Standards with Peter last week. I mean he did know all the bop, via some mysterious process or other because he says he didn’t transcribe haha

OTOH some players such as Gwilym Sincock (Metheny’s piano player among other things) seem to have been able to make use of chord scale stuff right away without going through that lick process.

So I think the more modern approach offers a different approach to improvisation if you know how to make the raw materials sounds like jazz… again I think that comes from listening and immersion. Tbf a lot of the classic licks are just scales, chord tones and passing tones…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpjazzguitar]

I wasn’t really commenting on Nunes own ideas on theory - more just the stuff you cited are an example of the sort of practical rule of thumb I meant.

You don’t need to know what a chord scale or mode is to apply a sub formula - and that’s something you can hear in the playing of many of the greats that definitely used them but didn’t appear to have much formal music training of any kind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some of what I write about Warren Nunes is for posterity. Not a joke. He was a great teacher who had developed his own way of structuring relevant information. And, only some of it is in his books.

If I had to say something about theory vs rule of thumb, it might be this. Theory generates ideas. After you filter them through your ears on the bandstand, the keepers may become rules of thumb to make it all easy to remember and apply.

[Christian Miller]

And then I listen to this and it’s full of bebop vocab …

Ah well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AllanAllen]

To me, it sounds like a lot of carefully selected and applied jazz vocabulary; listening to him doesn't make me think about any theory. I have the impression, which might be incorrect, that theory might encompass or explain everything he does but doesn't predict it. That is, if he started with theory, he's already discarded the material which is predicted by the theory but doesn't sound good.

I think theory is great for analysis but not really useful for playing.

[pamosmusic]

I think theory is great for analysis but not really useful for playing.

It tells you what to practice.

if you’re thinking while you’re playing you’re already toast

[Mick-7]

And then I listen to this and it’s full of bebop vocab …

Ah well

I would expect that since it is a be-bop tune - and he's playing it on a traditional jazz guitar.

[pamosmusic]

And then I listen to this and it’s full of bebop vocab …

Ah well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Man the entire Intuit album absolutely slaps.

[rpjazzguitar]

And then I listen to this and it’s full of bebop vocab …

Ah well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lots of classic sounding stuff. If you want to sound that way, and you could only pick one, would you pick theory or transcribing vocabulary?

[pamosmusic]

Lots of classic sounding stuff. If you want to sound that way, and you could only pick one, would you pick theory or transcribing vocabulary?

I mean … transcribing for sure … but I’m not sure why those two things are separate.

Are you allowed to consciously practice the stuff you pick up? Because I theory up a storm once I’ve got the solo itself under my fingers.

[rpjazzguitar]

I mean … transcribing for sure … but I’m not sure why those two things are separate.

Are you allowed to consciously practice the stuff you pick up? Because I theory up a storm once I’ve got the solo itself under my fingers.

Anytime the discussion requires a concise agreed-upon definition of a term, say, "theory", it gets tough. So, I don't know how to respond.

When I posted, I was thinking about 1) working through one of those posts that list a large number of combinatorics vs. 2) just playing along with records. Of course, it isn't really that clearly delineated.

I think I might know enough theory to sound like Rosenwinkel. In reality, of course, I sound nothing like him because I haven't absorbed the vocabulary at all. And I apologize for even making the comparison. If I had to sound like him I'd be transcribing not reading more theory. Theory would be limited to how to position the licks against the harmony. Which I think Christian might properly call rules of thumb.

Same argument for comping like Reg. I know most of the chords and maybe enough theory (I'm not sure about this because I don't claim to know how he uses theory). What I try to do with his videos is appreciate how he elaborates on the harmony -- with the occasional practical rule of thumb emerging.

This is not to say someone else wouldn't do better a different way. I don't think it's one size fits all. Depends on your ear, your time feel, your energy level, your ability to concentrate, the way you learn etc etc.

[pamosmusic]

When I posted, I was thinking about 1) working through one of those posts that list a large number of combinatorics vs. 2) just playing along with records. Of course, it isn't really that clearly delineated.
etc.

Well yeah I mean, that’s a question set up to get a certain answer though.

Anyway. It’s a false choice regardless of how the question is framed.

You’ve mentioned how the way we play is determined as much by our limitations or whatever. I don’t choose to work with theory because I think it’s the sh** or whatever. I have a pretty good ear but it’s not exceptional and it needs constant training, so my brain is where a lot of those ideas come from while my ear catches up.

So yeah I don’t know if this is a thing a person really chooses anyway.

[rpjazzguitar]

It's a fuzzy thing to discuss. Seems to me though that, if I wanted to sound like a good bop player, I'd have to spend the bulk of my time learning vocabulary.

[pamosmusic]

For sure.

True for most music, probably

[Christian Miller]

Lots of classic sounding stuff. If you want to sound that way, and you could only pick one, would you pick theory or transcribing vocabulary?

If I want to sound like anyone I’ll start by listening to what they play carefully, checking out any interviews or lessons where they might reveal some of their thinking. The latter is easy for modern players because they all teach. Players of Birds generation were more tight lipped.

Kurt is a chord scale guy, which is obvious from both his playing and what he says in lessons and masterclasses, but he clearly knows bop vocab. Actually I’d say most players of his generation are like that.

If it helps - one thing I’ve learned as that theory is really a way of generalising and making wider observations about aspects of music - “this line belongs to D melodic minor”, “this line is based around the D minor chord tones”, “this line uses phrasing drawn from the 2-3 clave” and so on - but real music and real musicianship is very much in the details and specifics and this is both about honing the ear and developing the physical skills. Rhythm and phrasing are obvious ones, ornaments, articulation… things that are often glossed over at the ‘amateur workshop’ level. There’s no roadmap for this other than “listen to the music.” At least that appears to be how most players I know have studied it. Harmonic theory is easy to teach in a classroom by comparison.

This isn’t about copying players but about developing your ability to actively listen to music on multiple levels. It’s as much a journey as the playing itself.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

It's a fuzzy thing to discuss. Seems to me though that, if I wanted to sound like a good bop player, I'd have to spend the bulk of my time learning vocabulary.

You’d certainly start by doing that. You do this by listening to the music and copying But if you like the music presumably that would be fun.

Or you go to jazz school and it’s on the syllabus and there’s a test haha

Then you would cut and paste these lines on II Vs and practice them through progressions. I believe this to be the way many second generation bop players learned (Dexter, Stitt, Wes) and it’s still widely used today in jazz education. I teach this myself quite a bit. Writing little etudes on a tune with a couple of licks.

This is not the way Barry taught bop. Interestingly Charles MacPherson says that Barry didn’t talk about transcription or learning solos from records - it was understood you would learn heads. He certainly never discussed it in any of the classes I attended.

OTOH his classes were like live transcription sessions where you would copy what he played and he’d explain how he’d constructed it. And then everyone would play it back at tempo, starting with simple scalar exercises and progressing to idiomatic bop lines. So a bit of both in his case.

And hearing one of the GOATs play live is better than learning from a record.

But frankly, most students aren’t ready for this approach. I really wasn’t when I started going. I think you need to be quite good at hearing and playing the music already and this will take you to the next level. You certainly need to know your scales backwards and inside out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Which I suppose to go back the OP, my advice would be, take Robben Ford as your model for a year or so. Study his solos by ear, pay close attention to how he discusses improvisation in his classes. Once you are happy you have some ideas to work with and a grasp on his approach to playing music I would suggest moving to something else rather than just becoming a copyist of his style, but follow your heart.

[st.bede]

The first is static, like a picture, and the second is temporal, like a story..

That is a very interesting idea. I think there is a lot of depth to that metaphor. Thank you