-
KS
You do understand that jazz students in college don't know arpeggios, is like saying the creative writing students don't know nouns and verbs. So, to someone as far removed from "the scene" as I, it has a shocking sound.
Are you telling me the high schools don't have theory, hamony and sight singing courses (?) as pre-requisites for college entrance?
Jazz bands? THE JOE PASS BOOKS??
My son is in a small private school with no music program. I am his music (piano) teacher. He is in 7th grade, and he can play all inversons of all traids, in block, and arpeggiated. Both hands and hand crossing. He plays, for example, the major-chord apreggios chromatically, in the cycle, and by holding a fixed root and changing chord type (ie C major, C minor, D dim, C aug; Db maj, Db min, etc). At least once per week. He has a similar regimen for scales.Last edited by Aristotle; 01-22-2011 at 12:03 PM.
-
01-22-2011 12:01 PM
-
Oh, I agree 100%. It is shocking and appalling.
Originally Posted by Aristotle
I assume that you're in the States? I don't know where you are, but most schools around here have slashed budgets for extracurricular activities. My grandmother had to be able to identify every movement of all nine Beethoven symphonies by hearing their themes - that was music education back then. I had to play "Hot Cross Buns" on the recorder in the 4th grade - that's pretty much where music education ended in my school. Originally Posted by Aristotle
Yes, they have bands, but only in high school do they have a jazz band where the guitar player can play. And then the band leader usually knows nothing about guitar so he can't give him any real advice.
Plus, that guitar player is probably largely (if not completely) self-taught. If he's taken lessons, there's a good chance it's from some stoner rocker (who charges less than the college educated guitar musicians.) So his teacher can't read music and thinks that jazz is just playing scales over strange chords.
To make matters worse, the jazz community itself has gotten increasingly scalar in it's approach. For 40 years now, the "paint by numbers" approach of "play this scale over this chord" teaching method keeps gaining speed. True, it is easier to teach and allows to student to get more quickly to the "Gee! Look! I'm playing jazz!" moment. Unfortunately many never get passed that.
For guitar players it is even worse. Not being able to read and being mostly self taught, reading through and understanding solos is hard. (Sorry, TAB is great at showing fingering, but if you want to understand the music you have to read and understand the music.) But guitar is very visual so it is soooooo easy to memorize a bunch of scale shapes and just run scales. It sounds cool - that's jazz, isn't it? They tell themselves that they are playing the chord tones because they're in the scale - that's good enough, right?
OK, it may be hyperbole, but you get the idea.
Yeah, if you want your kid to get a music education, you'll either have to do it yourself, find a great teacher, or find a one-in-a-million school.
Peace,
Kevin
-
I have been doing it myself, but I plan to delegate half the job to YouTube. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
More or less.I assume that you're in the States?
-
And then he continues... Originally Posted by markerhodes
"Good voice leading is observed: 7ths resolve to 3rds, 9ths to 5ths. Thirds are more consonant and usually occur earlier in a melodic line before the more dissonant 7ths. Sevenths typically resolve over the bar line to the 3rd of the next chord beginning the cycle again. Consonance/dissonance/resolution".
-
All great stuff. It's just not very original. It's like scientist writing a book explaining that "There is this thing called 'fire' that can be harnessed to do wondrous things!"
Like I said, it sounds like a great book - I wish I'd had it when I started and I might not have wasted 15 years on the whole "paint by numbers - play this scale over this chord" thing. It sounds very focused on very useful information. I just question that it needs the space-age sounding "linear harmony" to sell it. It just sounds like marketing to me. Which is fine - if that sells books, I can't blame him. I just reserve the right not to get caught up in the hype.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Again, this misses the point. The bulk of Ligon's book is given over to *examples* by jazz greats. You're supposed to *play* those examples and *hear* how the three simple outlines are embellished in various ways. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
This isn't a book about what an arpeggio is and where to play one. Indeed, the first (of three) "outlines" Ligon discusses is 3 2 1 7: that movement is more scalar than arpeggiated. And again, that is an *outline* not the whole of a line. (It *can* be in, as when chords change every two beats and a player wants to work a simple pattern over changing chords, a technique Coltrane and Clifford Brown mastered.)
-
But isn't that sevenths resolve to thirds of the next chord: 1) intuitively obvious, and 2) demonstrated by the Joe Pass books.
One of the things I have learned from the forum is how durable and thorough those inexpensive little Joe Pass books are.
-
I have two things to say here, one as a writer and the other as a musician. It is *common* for creative writing students to have a miserable time with grammar. Indeed, one reason many people call themselves "creative writers" is so they can avoid (-they think) learning grammar, which they feel is beneath them. Most serious writers keep trusted grammar books handy. Originally Posted by Aristotle
The second thing is about arpeggios. Ligon didn't say that college students did not know arpeggios. It is *not* jazz to play the right arpeggio for each passing chord. That is an etude, a practice exercise, not something meant for public consumption. Playing *jazz lines* that work requires movement *across* chords, and Ligon claims that most jazz masters have done most of this work with three basic outlines (=that can be embellished in many ways). If you look through the hundreds of examples in his book, you see few 'straight' arpeggios. That's because it's not about arpeggios. It's about lines. Lines that connect chords. Maybe you already know all this and can run changes like Dizzy Gillespie, but I sure can't, and I think that goes for a lot of people who know their scales and arpeggios, know quite a few tunes, but still don't play solos that catch fire.
I think the question should not be "is this original?" but "is this right?" If Ligon is right, he is saying something that no music teacher I ever had or read about told me.
-
Mark,
First, I think there is a tendency to get lost in analogies. Maybe, I shouldn't have said "creative" writer. Also, I didn't say writers who don't know "grammar" ie can rattle off conjugations of the pluperfect tense. I said, don't know nouns and verbs - intending something more like - don't know a noun from a verb. And all professionals have their books handy.
As to it being lines that connect chords, it might be that chords drive lines. In my view, it is some of both, not chicken and egg, or chicken or egg, but something more synergistic when done well.
It is possible that no music teacher told you these things in one shot. And I am not criticizing you or Lignon. If he is a professor, and he says this is what his students need, I believe him.
I guess one of the aspects of this that strike me is general ethics (?). I am trying to imagine the overall rational of some young fellow who sat in his room memorizing a few finger patterns on guitar, and who could not become basic jazz-competent doing that, as a college music major in a jazz program. Music is not accounting. You can't start from zero and get to job-ready with a two-year degree that you can earn while holding down a job.
Unfortuneatetly, I have to use my own experience as a touchstone - a practice I usually criticize as near-sighted. I played other instruments, had eight years in the school band (5-12), six years all-county band, one year all-state band, 7 years in the school choir, six years in the jazz band, pit orchestra off too many shows. The kids I went to school with who were college music majors knew theory, harmony, sight-singing could sight-read at least Grade 4 - and most ended up back in public schools as music teachers.
IMO, you are talking about students who are already so far behind the 8-ball that someone ought to tell them - you like music, consider going into a sound engineering program. Because to me, that sounds like the type of book a would-be jazzer needs to be studying in 8th or 9th grade.Last edited by Aristotle; 01-29-2011 at 10:44 AM.
-
For starters, they don't always. That would get tedious. For another thing, going from the 7 of one chord to the 3 of another isn't in itself an outline. There are several ways to get to the 7 of one chord. Originally Posted by Aristotle
For the umpteenth time, the heart of Ligon's book as the selection of examples transcribed from solos by master improvisers, which you are to use for imitation and study.
Telling people "go from the 7 of one chord to the 3 of another" is NOT the same thing as showing them hundreds of examples of master improvisers embellishing three simple outlines. It's not even nearly the same.
-
Again, I am not criticizing the book or the author. No matter how the book's ideas or execution are embellished or understated, 'college jazz major' seems a little late in the game to begin wrestling with the details of frequently recurring patterns in popuar music. Originally Posted by markerhodes
-
Before I bow out of this:
Marker - my point isn't that it is not a god book. The fact that there are many examples in the book - while being great - has nothing to do with my point. My point was the transparent invention of flashy terminology to try and make something sound modern and new. It is not modern and new, it's been around for hundreds of years and already had a name - good voice leading and guide tones.
My objection is not to the material (which sounds great) but to the marketing and hype generated by it.
It would be like if I tried to sell something called the "hydro-sub-thermalizing unit." Now, it's really an ice cube tray, but maybe the Jetsons-like name will make it sound cool. Criticizing the name does not mean that it does not work, just that the name is silly marketing.
And that was what the OP's question was about - the labeling. The OP's question didn't even mention the book.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Nope..no secret decoder ring, no this scale over that chord, no learn your arpeggios over tunes...just a method that maybe will provide an "a-ha" moment for those of us beginners trying to put it together...a great book IMHO.
"very common and important device and certainly worth learning and willl be very helpful to beginners and their lines that aren't "rhythmically coherent and harmonically specific."...that is it..
+1 for using "Procrustean" (have not heard that one in a while... )..I think conforming to the language of jazz is BL's point...not to sure about being arbitrary if this has been used since Bach to outline harmony..
-
Hello, this is my first post... I just want to mention that I found Bert Ligon's Linear Harmony book very enlightening. I came from nowhere with a background in songwriting and indie-rock music. I did not know about all these voice leading ideas... they were not obvious until they were explained. I use them now as much as I can. There is something to be said for an author who is willing to share good information with students and doesn't assume they have an academic music background or extensive knowledge of classical theory and all that jazz...
-
Yeah, the point I was trying to make wasn't that "linear harmony" is not a good thing - I think that it is. I think that his approach is a good antidote to the "just run this scale over this chord" approach that dominates today.
My question was just about the choice of language. It seems unnecessary to me to invent new language for a concept that's been around for hundreds of years. It is just a marketing trick. But that doesn't mean that the info isn't great - sounds like good stuff to me and a good approach.
Peace,
Kevin
-
A spoonful of sugar, mr. Kevin!!!
-
If by "popular" you mean jazz, why would this surprise you? I will stipulate that those who at eighteen are touring / recording professionals jazz artists don't need to go to college and study music. I assume those who study music in college *need help* with it, especially those who would become performers. There's nothing odd or damning about a nineteen-year-old kid loving jazz but not having the hang of improv yet and thinking, "you know, maybe someone who knows more about this could show me where I'm going wrong." Originally Posted by Aristotle
That said, I know *nothing* about college music programs.
I wish you had made clear earlier that *this* is what you were talking about, not the actual book Ligon wrote and its actual merits and shortcomings.
-
Because I don't think of university as a repository for remedial education. Originally Posted by markerhodes
I thought posts 24, 26, 34, and 36 made that clear.I wish you had made clear earlier that *this* is what you were talking about, not the actual book Ligon wrote and its actual merits and shortcomings.
I don't begrudge this author poetic license with "linear harmony" any more than I begrudge the P90X guy the same with his "muscle confusion." Teaching technical material through oxymoron and paradox is eventually going to backfire.
-
If the way Charlie Parker and Clifford Brown improvised is your idea of "remedial education," what is it you think jazz majors (-not working on a Masters or doctorate but a simple BA) should be studying? Originally Posted by Aristotle
-
I have no idea how you could pull that from what I wrote. Originally Posted by markerhodes
I'll try one last time to spin this back to MY viewpoint, but it is doubtful the gap can be breached. If Parker and Brown had to go to school in their early 20's to learn the 3rd, 5th and 7th of chords, or how these tones center musical phrases; given their lifespans, they both would have been dead before producing anything worth immitating.
-
I never said one *has* to go to music school AT ALL. But after being laughed off the bandstand of his first jam session, where he altered playing "Honeysuckle Rose" and "Lazy River" while the band played "Body and Soul", Parker went home and practiced eight hours a day for YEARS. And as he later told Paul Desmond about bebop---because Desmond noticed a line in a Parker solo that came directly from a popular book of saxophone exercises-- "that was all done with books." Originally Posted by Aristotle
Charlie Parker learned a lot from books of saxophone exercises. Earl Hines talked about the way Diz and Bird kept their exercise books with them and would use them between sets and look for places in the tunes they would play with the band where they could use lines from exercise books. First, it was where one might expect them, but gradually they moved them to unexpected places.
They *didn't* know all this intuitively. They worked at it for *years*. I submit that if it took Parker and Gillespie *years* to work out their idiom, it's no disgrace for lesser players to also take years doing it, some of which might pass in a university setting. (Again, I've never been to music school---I majored in philosophy and did my graduate work in theology, which are very different animals. I don't claim to know what "jazz studies" programs usually entail or have a strong view about what they *should* entail. That's a discussion I have no present interest in.)
It's hard to think of a jazz musician more devoted to study and practice than Clifford Brown. He only left college because a car accident (-not the one that killed him) hospitalized him for awhile. Clifford was relentlessly disciplined about his playing. (He had 'bad tone' and was 'sloppy' while in junior high, when he started studying with a professional trumpet player.)
Parker and Brown are two strong examples of great players who did *not* figure it all out for themselves. (Wes Montgomery may be the best example of one who seems to have done just that.) They studied and worked for years.
Again--because you obviously haven't read it--Ligon's book is not about playing arpeggios. It is about playing *lines*. Just because there is a chord tone in a line doesn't make it an arpeggio. The most used outline is 3-2-1-7---Clifford Brown does a solo on a live album which uses this outline and no other for 32 bars--which is a *scalar* move, not an arpeggio at all. But of course, the outlines are like saying a story has a beginning, middle, and an end. Knowing that doesn't make anyone a storyteller. That's why Ligon focuses on hundreds of *examples* of great players embellishing these lines in ways that have become 'the jazz language.' Learning through imitation of masters is, to my mind, a sound idea.
-
I like your points very much, markerhodes. You are right on.
-
What ought to be just as obvious, is that I am not talking about his book, beyond it's oxymoronic title. Originally Posted by markerhodes
I knew that and didn't say otherwise.They *didn't* know all this intuitively. They worked at it for *years*.
-
They did go to school. Just the old-school of the private instructor, the woodshed, and the gig. There are more ways to learn than a brick and mortar school. But these guys put in massive hours of practice and studying great players. (The problem is all the guys nowadays that would like to do neither approach.) Originally Posted by Aristotle
Peace,
Kevin
-
Boy, what a waste of time talking to you. Won't make that mistake again. Pardon me for taking you seriously enough to think you were talking about the *content* of a book. Whatever rows your self-absorbed boat. Originally Posted by Aristotle
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions