-
It's a very good text, and one I like to consult from time to time for a different take on things, considering chord-scale relationships is NOT how I work most intuitively.
I've picked up great ideas from it though.
-
01-20-2011 04:12 PM
-
Anyone else? I was under the impression that this book had more weight in the current jazz world... including guitarists... I'm a little surprised that it gets shelved as a reference in most cases...
-
well, fwiw, i really like the book. good basic framework, and enough examples to keep one busy for years if actually worked through (no, not me). love the anecdotal style and his bits of lore (he is a real cat) from the trenches. i refer to the recommended tunes and his favorite versions constantly...
-
Well, don't consider "reference" to be somehow related to a diminished value. I just don't see how anyone can read a 500 page book with as much info as this one cover to cover and say "Ok, what's next?"
Originally Posted by JonnyPac
I go back to it regularly and take new ideas and work with them.
-
I agree. "Rhythmic drive" was the phrase I used when younger to describe what I liked about Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughan--they really had that. They weren't jazzers, but I could appreciate what they were doing in that vein. When I first heard Charlie Christian, I thought it was the coolest guitar playing I'd ever heard. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
As for note choice, he played roots A LOT, more as a rhythmic than melodic device, but he sure didn't shy away from 'em. I love his solo on "Flying Home," the first solo of his I learned note for note. It sounds cool with no backing track.
-
I read in it regularly, and I find it to be a good source of information. It does have some downsides, but I know them and I am aware of them.
First: It's the modes = scales problem. I refer to Ligon's books for these areas.
Secondly: It's a chord scale book, and alack fundamental harmonic theory. This is better said by better musicians than me:
or: Originally Posted by engelbach
Originally Posted by EdByrne
I also prefer e.g. Conrad Cork on learning and understanding jazz tune structure too M Levine...
Still I find Levines book very good ;-)
A page on Mark Levin's book and the limitations to it:
MTO 6.1: Rawlins, Review of Levine
-
That Ed Byrnes link just blew my shiz away... Hot damn. "Modal Jazz" has never been truly modal!!! I need to rethink some stuff. Damn that Mark Levine!! lol
...just read the book review... I'm so screwed. It's like I've been in a twisted cult... I need to revise my own theory more. I based way too much on Mark even though I made significant changes. wow.Last edited by JonnyPac; 01-23-2011 at 07:41 PM.
-
I highly recommend ed byrnes books on linear improv. One of the few new takes on improvisation out there.
-
I fully agree with your initial response to Levine's book. I was blown away by the sense of authority (every concept illustrated with a quote from a recording, and a mind-boggling list of recommended recordings).
I also liked the way he showed chords and scales (modes) as blending into one another, different representations of the same thing. Felt like an eye-opener.
This was around 10 years ago, maybe more, and I still haven't fully worked through the book.
However, I've slowly become disenchanted with it. Like you I encountered Ed Byrne's (and others') criticisms of the book, or of chord-scale theory in general.
My response was a little different from yours. I'd been playing jazz of all kinds (and rock and blues) since the mid-1960s, with no formal jazz education (gigging, but with varying degrees of seriousness). I learned everything from copying records, with occasional inspiration from one or two pro jazz musicians I knew as friends (and was occasionally lucky enough to play with).
I slowly realised that Levine's ideas were only ever an intellectual interest for me; the way I had always played instinctively - and was continuing to play - aligned much more with Ed Byrne's outlook. IOW, when I read him I recognised his ideas as describing the way I naturally approached improvisation, and always had. It was as if I always somehow knew (subconsciously) that chord-scale theory was not what it was really about. Horizontal thinking - melody and rhythm across chord tones - was more to the point.
At best, CST is a valid method of analysis, of laying out the raw material one might draw from. But its emphasis is all wrong. It's basically not seeing the wood for the trees.
(Of course, Levine's book is about a lot more than CST - it would be crazy to dismiss the whole thing merely because of that bias.)
Robert Rawlins, author of "Jazzology". provided a trenchant critique - highlighting all the fundamental issues Levine had ignored (eg key) - and I bought his book too, as a complementary work to Levine's.
I have to say Jazzology has its own flaws: eg, all the pieces of music used were specially written by the authors - making it far less convincing than Levine's approach. It's also less attractively designed. But it's otherwise a well organised book, starting from functional principles rather than modal ones, and worth getting for comparison with Levine. It's progressive, and contains exercises, like a proper teaching book.
Here's Rawlins' original critique
MTO 6.1: Rawlins, Review of Levine
And here's his book:
Jazzology: The Encyclopedia of Jazz Theory for All Musicians: Amazon.co.uk: Robert Rawlins, Nor Eddine Bahha: Books
I don't have Ed Byrne's book, btw, but I have read many extensive excerpts (or drafts) that he used to post on allaboutjazz. His ideas were a more fundamental epiphany for me than Levine's, simply because they aligned more exactly with my own instincts, and with the stuff I'd picked up (naively and unsystematically) over the years.
-
I think that putting all your faith in a book is mistake, especially one marketed for commercial consumption. If you really want to understand something, then you've got to dig for lots of information, preferably from some primary and secondary sources from different perspectives. Most commercial jazz theory and method books don't even rise to the level of a tertiary source. They can be useful, but you have to be realistic and know their limitations.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Of course. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Personally I encountered Levine's book as a novice. (I mean, after 35+ years playing, and 15+ years of reading theory - but both in a semi-serious, amateur way. No academic music education.) It wasn't that I "put my faith" in it; it just seemed to be the only "jazz theory book" there was, and I took it at face value. Such "faith" as I had was a trust in Levine's experience and his reading of his sources.
And it did teach me some stuff I didn't know.
Of course, now I can see that presenting a list of "most important jazz recordings" that my life is too short to accommodate (let alone the less important ones he must have rejected to arrive at this "short" list) looks less like unassailable authority and more like bragging.
"Hey, if you can't listen to all this lot - and absorb it all! - you're just not a Real Jazz Man..."
OK, I admit it. I'm an amateur!
-
I just got it a few weeks ago, been reading it. To be honest, I find it mostly BS. Not BS as in bad information, but BS as in, not very applicable. And hardly in depth. I've been working through Piston's book Harmony for a few years, and honestly, I've not come across a theory book which comes close.
I think this book is like a lot of other books about 'theory' I've read. Basically one guys advice on how he handles the concepts, we all already know.
Perhaps its a good book for the shelf. Good for reading, when you're bored. I keep in mind its written for piano players, and I am a guitar player. So perhaps its not that applicable to me.
The more books I read the more I'm convinced you'd better off spending that time playing.
-
Ever perform with Mark... He's a great latin/jazz player and composer. Love his Latin tunes. here's a link to out side gig, with some more friends and fellow musicians... Mary Fettig on flute, she toured with Stan Kenton Orch. and just about every one else, She's still on staff at SF conservatory...incredible alto player, that's her son Scotty on bass, and Paul V.W. he and his brother Mark are one of the most in demand Bass and drum combo in the SF bay area. Marks up in his years, but still composes cool tunes. Obviously their simply reading tunes from Marks Book.
Best Reg
-
Levine's book is a great resource: the chapter on MM helps me everyday to pay attention to the HM temptations.
-
I love this book. The information is accessible, and more over, I found extremely easy to read. It was humorous at times. Unfortunately I, like others probably learned a whole bunch of the things he wrote about in other books, or courses. Which is why I probably will use it as a reference for most part. His tips on practicing were excellent as well.
The tone of books like this is what makes them great; and the writing in this one is impeccable in my opinion.
-
Packaging matters too. This looks like a fakebook and fits on a shelf with them. People who have been playing a long time will already know a lot of this stuff, but the intended audience includes beginners / novices too, as it should.
I am not wild about the chord / scale approach to jazz, but I presents it well, with touches of humor and grit.
-
My cousin had the book, would refer to it often, and encouraged me to read it as well, but I always felt intimidated by its vastness. Looks like I'll have to get over myself and dive in.
-
Interesting points... sounds valid all around. I have the jazz theory book... I ordered Jazzology after reading the author's review... I look forward to another view...
-
I agree with markerhodes (mark?) and kevin: it's a great book, albeit with a flawed outlook.
It's well written and well designed. The disadvantage is what looks like a plus point to begin with: the mind-boggling listening list at the end, and the fact that all his examples are drawn from real jazz recordings. As a neophyte, you pick this up with genuine awe: if he's listened to all that stuff, this guy MUST be right! Look at all those examples of the concepts, by famous players!
He's constantly asserting in the book that this is how great jazz musicians actually play. So (you think) it's not just his pet theories.
(And the book is reassuringly heavy, but also easy to read and usefully spiral bound: you can leave it open anywhere on a music stand.)
It kind of passes you by that his examples are hardly statistical evidence. It would be just as easy to gather a whole load of examples of harmonic minor from Charlie Parker (which do exist), enough to claim HM was a fundamental bebop scale, not the totally peripheral thing Levine claims. (Neither is true, IMO.)
In fact, I still like the book more than dislike it. I also have its "antidote", Jazzology, which - while it deals with a lot of fundamental stuff that Levine omits - is much inferior in its presentation. All the musical examples were specially written for the book by the authors, which makes it seem cheap and amateur, and certainly unconvincing. That's unfortunate, because of course the info is all good.
It's a much denser read too - which is I guess inevitable given the quantity of information being presented. Levine's book is about twice as thick, but probably has far fewer words in it.
Personally, I'd say both books are essential in any jazz musician's library. But they should sit alongside books by Jerry Coker, Bert Ligon, Ed Byrne... not to mention a whole set of Real Books, of course.
(That's where the real learning happens... that's if we set aside LISTENING TO JAZZ for the purposes of the argument.)
-
Yep...got this book. Plodding through it slowly and having fun along the way.
-
I think we all agree that it is useful, but it needs to be "part" of your complete breakfast, not a lifetime's eats. Perhaps "Some Jazz Theory Book" would be a better title. Again, sorry to upset some of you with my heated review. I've had to re-think my own music and re-write all 90 pages of my book to un-Levine myself were it seems appropriate.
There are some things that I've had to re-think and weed out of my playing/teaching, etc. Un-learning sucks compared to learning right the first time.
Ten biggies:
1. I have always used HM, and feel vindicated that other musicians and authors acknowledge it's use in classic jazz.
2. Mixloydian b13 is a mode. The 5th of MM. It has a place in jazz. Just because it has a P4, it should not be disregarded.
3. Susb9 Phrygian chords are used sparingly. They are actually Dorian slash chords. Dm6/9/E is clearer (in tertian thinking) than some gobbled up E chord-scale. They never substitute functional iii chords, so calling the iii is a bit misleading.
4. iii V7/ii should NOT always be reharmonized as ii V7's in a key one whole step higher. This obscures the sense of key at times. Also I VI ii V7 are I V7/ii ii V7.
5. He doe not include functional theory. Secondary dominants are everywhere in jazz. They need the slash V7/V7 RNA to point to their roles.
6. W-H dim scales are not used over dim7 chords in many jazz performances, especially pre-60's. The HM scale or simple arp was used, and still is much of the time.
7. Modal interchange or parallel keys are not mentioned. There are huge in jazz and should not be overlooked harmonically. This is not surprising because he dosn't even explain functional harmony outside of ii V7 I progressions.
8. Triadic generalization, triadic pairs, triadic superimposition are all worthy of mention in any comprehensive jazz book.
9. "Avoid" notes are used all over jazz on to resolve to consonant tones within the melodies or chord-scales. The term took off like wildfire, and needs to be tamed down. Bird uses a lot of P4's over maj or dom chords and resolves them to the M3's. They are an essential part of the bebop vocabulary.
10. There is no vocabulary of outlines in the book. Connecting scales in arbitrary ways does not instantly produce jazz, and saying that that fallis into the "1% magic" is on par with bad science, IMHO. Linear methods melodic construction guidelines are needed.Last edited by JonnyPac; 03-17-2011 at 02:04 PM.
-
Originally Posted by JonnyPac
Levine says right in the book that "handle with care" note might be a better term, but not as catchy, I guess.
-
I never used HM much in jazz because it didn't sound or feel right to me - except as an occasional colour maybe (if I wanted a pseudo spanish/gypsy sound). So it didn't surprise or dismay me at all when I first saw how Levine relegated it to an afterthought. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
Of course, I've been put right since then. HM is still not used much, but it occurs more than Levine implies.
Of course, there are many occasions where it's hard to say if what's being used IS HM. You need that distinctive aug 2nd to be apparent, and a long enough phrase to make it clear that the soloist wasn't thinking of some other minor scale, or a diminished or whatever. (I think that was Levine's viewpoint: he had a very strict set of criteria to judge if HM had occurred; he preferred to explain other possible partial uses of it as something else.)
Let's look at what Levine actually says (to be fair to him). Originally Posted by JonnyPac
Firstly, he doesn't say it isn't a mode. He lists it along with all the other MM modes, he just claims it's used "rarely" and says:
"Most jazz musicians, when they see the chord symbol G7b13 chord, improvise either on the [G] altered scale or the wholetone scale." (p.66)
He goes on to illustrate a couple of examples of the use of this mode (Bobby Hutcherson and Kenny Barron).
His argument against it, of course, is the pianist's argument that you can't add the 11th or b13 on top of the chord because of the nasty sound they make with the 3rd and 5th below. And (the implication is) if you can't do that, well you better find another scale for a 7b13 that allows the b13 - which means altering the 5th.
His argument is supported somewhat by the rarity of a 9b13 chord, which would (pretty much) demand this mode - although I guess wholetone would still take care of it. I'd be very interested if anyone knows a jazz tune with a 9b13 chord in it - I don't recall ever seeing one. (In the examples Levine gives, the symbol used is a slash chord (eg "Bbm(maj7)/F" for F mixolydian b6, not F9b13).
He never refers to susb9s as iii chords. He mentions them under melodic minor mode 2 - phrygian natural 6 (although he doesn't name the mode himself) - not phrygian mode. And he treats them purely as modal chords, not as functional iii chords. (They wouldn't work that way anyhow, their dissonance is inappropriate for functional harmony.) Originally Posted by JonnyPac
You can of course write an E phrygian chord as Dm6/E, or Bm7b5/E. But it's still a phrygian chord, not a dorian (or locrian) one.
They're rare, of course, but Wayne Shorter has used susb9s, and always as modal chords, not as major key iii chords. (I don't know whether he would have thought of them as phrygian or phrygian natural 6)
Can you point to where he talks about this in the book? Originally Posted by JonnyPac
I agree. Again, is there a page where he says otherwise? Originally Posted by JonnyPac
I agree. He doesn't really deal with functional harmony properly at all - a huge omission, and one of Robert Rawlins' (Jazzology) main beefs. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
This is the most serious criticism of the book, IMO.
His chapter 2 on "The Major Scale and the II-V-I Progression" - all of 15 pages out of over 400 - is about all he has to say on it. He gives one example of secondary dominants (E7-A7-D7-G7 in key of C), explaining them as "reharmonisations" of the usual minor III-VI-II chords. On p.27 he says:
"this progression could also be called "V of V of V of V", but that's a mouthful".
So much for secondary dominant theory!
(I guess this may be the reference you mentioned above about I VI ii V7.)
I don't know enough about jazz to say whether WH dim scales were used (much) before 1960. It's difficult to prove an absence. (You would need to listen to a hell of a lot of jazz to come to any sensible conclusion about how rare any particular scale is. I know Levine has listened to a hell of a lot more than I have - and I guess you have too. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
)
It's true Levine's quoted examples are post-1960, but then so are most of his excerpts in the rest of the book.
(Again, the bias towards "modern" jazz is a flaw of the book.)
True. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
However - forgive my ignorance - can you mention some jazz tunes that use modal interchange, or parallel keys? (I can think of one or two Wayne Shorter tunes that use modes on the same root, but that's not quite the same thing as I understand it. I probably know others, but I want to be sure we're talking about the same thing.)
I know minor ii-Vs are often used in major keys - which is a kind of hint of modal interchange; and Levine does mention that, although he doesn't use the term "modal interchange". You're quite right that such things don't seem to interest him.
I don't know what the first two terms mean. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
He mentions "triadic improvisation" (pp.141-149), and the examples he gives are what I'd call triadic superimposition. Not a particularly in-depth look at it though.
Again, I agree the book is far from a "comprehensive" jazz theory book. The problem (as you've said) is that it's titled "The" Jazz Theory Book, not "A" or "Some", or "Modern Jazz"...
At least it isn't subtitled "Everything you ever wanted to know about jazz theory!"
I don't think we can blame Levine for that. He says: Originally Posted by JonnyPac
"'Avoid note' is not a very good term, because it implies you shouldn't play the note at all. A better name would be a "handle with care" note. Unfortunately, that's not as catchy, so I'll (reluctantly) stick with the term 'avoid note'." (p.37)
The catchiness is, of course, the problem. As a chord player he has a natural sympathy with the concept, so I suspect his "reluctance" was not too strong.
Yes, he doesn't really hold your hand in this way. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
He spends a fair chunk of the book (chapter 6 "From Scales to Music", pp.113-170) on melodic devices such as sequences, as well as arpeggios.
I guess his excuse would be that the book isn't about instruction - it's not like a teaching book with student exercises. Its focus is on harmonic theory, not much on melody and what that means.
IOW, I think you're asking too much of him here. The other criticisms are much more powerful and relevant, because they attack the harmonic basis of the book. Not having guidance on constructing melodic outlines is a kind of sideswipe. Should he include stuff on jazz composition too? (give the guy a break ).
Where is his quote about "1% magic"? (does sound like a cop-out to me).
-
In an Improv 1 class I took back in 1979 , we were told by the instructor that the HM was not used in jazz. Originally Posted by JonR
(Yet here we were listening to Return to Forever , Mahavishnu Orchestra, Weather Report etc, as these were the big things going on at the time. This stuff sure appealed to us youngsters raised on rock.)
I was almost tempted to say "What scale do you suggest we use in the first two measures of "Spain" (Gma7-F#7). But I didn't want an F in the course.
-
I forgot to mention that he pulls students away from the Aeolian mode too. the natural minor has a place in jazz. Andrew Hill's music without aeolian... well, it wouldn't exist. Check him out, if you have not. Amazing jazz piano/composer.
Mixo b13 = Coltrane's Greensleeves. Bingo. Also Django used something of that nature often. The chord-scale not so often, but the mode, yes. The 5th mode is not Cm(maj7)/G as he states. The term Mixolydian b13 was never mentioned.
Modal Interchange is the whole thread we were going on on LL, JonR; the major/minor thing Paul kicked off. Cole Porter - Ladybird, etc. It's all over jazz. It is the main thing hip-hop samples from jazz too. Students of jazz must be able to work with it and see it as a system, not just a series of oddball modulations that sound cohesive for a mysterious reason.
The triadic pairs, etc. Are are the basis of upper-structures in chords/melodies. He only uses the term "upper structures" in the Jazz Piano Book to describe triads over tritones for altered dominant voicings. The term actually is used for any upper part of a polychord, not just dominants. Another bag of misinformation, or misleading omission. Does he ever mention "polychords" I don't think so...
The 99% thing is on the first page.
Without the vocabulary and a run down on harmonic rhythm/linear resolutions there is a lot missing. Perhaps can the scary section on "learn this endless list of tunes before you move to NY and sit in with the monsters" he could have included something useful on this.Last edited by JonnyPac; 03-17-2011 at 04:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
PSA: German Vintage Guitar closing shop
Today, 10:44 AM in For Sale