-
I'm actually really excited about an idea I have to incorporate a string quartet into my nonet for the instrumentation on my next album now that This City is just about wrapped up. Working with a 9-piece was already very daunting... not sure why I'm always so excited to torture myself... but I've been listening to string quartets quite a bit lately, and I just think it would be such a wonderful pairing of two very different ensemble sounds. I think Alan Ferber did it once on an album... I need to go find it and check it out. Anyone know about it? Or what album he used the strings on?
Originally Posted by christianm77
Anxious to hear what you end up writing Christian!
-
02-18-2017 12:58 PM
-
And what an 'aha!' moment it was for me when you said, casually, "Why not have the cello and French horn play the 7th and 3rd, and you play the triad on top?" Very exciting - never been so motivated to study anything. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Mike, we were just talking about this very thing the other day.
-
Yeah man! Exciting stuff! If you listen to the title track on my new album, I think it's about 30 seconds in or so, just after the first statement of the melody, the horns enter. The rhythm section has already set up the harmonic/rhythmic vamp thing behind the guitar who has the melody. And then after the melody, there's a break before it gets restated. I wanted to fill the break in what something as the vamp had already been set up by the rhythm section. But I didn't want to add any countermelodies yet. So I just arranged out the vamp into the horn section. Originally Posted by destinytot
We often think of the rhythm section as the rhythm section, and the horns and guitar as the soloists and melody players. But one of the most fun things for me when arranging is to jumble things around. Put the melody in the rhythm section, or even with just the bass player... and then turn the horns and the guitar into rhythm section players. I think exploring the possibilities present when changing around the role of each of the instruments is a fantastic way of creating far more colors and textures within the music. But again... the basics of voice leading and (for me) triads is almost always at the core of dictating what goes where.
-
"If you build a line...."
Peter Bernstein explaining it again at Dartmouth. He starts around the 7:30 minute mark and 9:00 minute mark he builds a line doing what he described in Chicago.
Juxtapose this approach to CST.
Yes, contained in his approach are pitches when analyzed fall into the scale, arpeggio, triad approach (more like a trap), but, the intent of his approach is aural (specific to the tune), versus theoretical regardless of the tune.
THIS is why he sounds so different. I've always said, Peter Bernstein is a musician who happens to play guitar, versus a guitar player that plays at music.
Last edited by Richard Luther; 02-23-2017 at 09:07 AM.
-
On the other hand though - re: CST... The altered scale IS voice leading.
-
True. But like diagraming a sentence after a great line from a poet, one has to ask, was the poet thinking of where to place the direct object, or was his inspiration from the title of the poem.
I've been listening to Bernstein almost exclusively for 14 months on my playlist. I'm having a hard time catching him play anything considered a scale. However, after transcribing him, yes, there are pitches that relates to scales over certain changes.
It's just his mindset is the reverse of CST. It seems to just be about the tune he's playing. This is why I never tire of listening to his work.
I love jazz tunes, he plays specific to each tune he plays. So simple.
But, doesn't make for a justifiable jazz curriculum at jazz school or ebook.
Imagine paying $40k just to learn that all the information for amazing solos is right there in the tune. Throw away your fake books students, transcribe the melody, the changes, and find solos over those tunes that touch you and run those lines through the ringer.
Kinda like Charlie Parker in the Ozarks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Me too. Originally Posted by Richard Luther
Having listened to PB and attending his workshops had absorbed his emphasis on melody and voice leading and lines in playing I had him stereotyped as an essentially old school player.
Imagine my surprise when I started learning by ear the intro of this masterful solo rendition of Yesterdays, and realised that it is basically intervallic contemporary style scale use. I really like this type of sound and I am currently working hard to develop it.
It's possible you might be able to analyse it some other way, but I think PB knows his CST scales and uses them alongside his other resources.
I think the assumption is now that most guitar students are familiar with CST, but they might have trouble playing melodically.
BTW you can also hear this type of playing from Larry Golding, alongside his more bop influenced lines. It's a continuum.
Also hasn't he got great chops? For some reason I seem to be under the misapprehension that he is not a technical player. His stuff is NOT easy to play.
As I see it, the main purpose of music college is to get to hang out and play with other musicians of a high calibre both student and tutor. The syllabus is just an excuse for this to happen - they might get one or two things out of the course, but it's not info that's the function of the school.I love jazz tunes, he plays specific to each tune he plays. So simple.
But, doesn't make for a justifiable jazz curriculum at jazz school or ebook.
Imagine paying $40k just to learn that all the information for amazing solos is right there in the tune. Throw away your fake books students, transcribe the melody, the changes, and find solos over those tunes that touch you and run those lines through the ringer.
Kinda like Charlie Parker in the Ozarks.
If you can't already play jazz to a high level you aren't going to get into a good college.
-
When I attended GIT in 86-88 tuition was 10k per annum.
I started working when I was 11 in our family business. I paid cash.
Berklee back in the day was a certificate program where students basically hung out, loose curriculum, monster players, lots of jazz.
Fast forward. Jazz school is big business. Most students default on the loans. Can't make a living. And are debt slaves.
Harsh? Yes, for the students, but not for me saying it.
Better plan for the young inspiring jazzer. Move to Boston. Work full time. Transcribe, transcribe, transcribe. Meet those same students via Craigslist ads, jam sessions, supporting local monster jazzers. Network.
Get so damn good they can't ignore you. Save the debt slavery. Take lessons on the cheap from seniors at Berklee. Steal everything.
Join this forum. Live free of debt. Be badass just using your ears.
I was an executive chef for 20 years, now management. Ask any chef and he'll tell you he'd rather hire a former dishwasher who worked himself up the ranks by watching and tasting, than some prima dona culinary grad.
I earned a culinary degree too. But in the end I learned more about cuisine from former dishwashers than from faculty.
Kinda like Charlie Parker in the Ozarks. Lol.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Apart from the moving to Boston bit, that's how I've done it (I'm in London). I would say it worked pretty out well in the end for gigging but it's taken a long time. I've been in the game full time about 10 years. Originally Posted by Richard Luther
The biggest problem I ran up against was lack of role models or a clear understanding of how the music business works. I'm still finding out stuff. You can go to music college and have the exact same problem.
Playing was never really a problem, that's always going to be a work in progress. Practicing, rehearsing and performing is the fun bit.
10 years on I know a lot more, and I think I do better getting gigs than a lot of music graduates simply because I'm not reliant on college contacts.
Breaking into teaching beyond private students is a bit harder due to the lack of conservatoire background. I am competing against people with degrees from the major London conservatoires, Berklee and so on. I have got an Education qualification, but private schools, who usually pay well, are on the look out for those with fancy music degrees.
Given teaching is the main way musicians support themselves these days, this is a disadvantage for budding pros, and there is a bit of BS stigma attached to non-full time musicians, even though teaching is a day job! Anyway, I am (currently) able to focus on gigging.
But on the bandstand, all this melts away. No one cares I didn't go to college. Usually it's just assumed I did.Last edited by christianm77; 02-23-2017 at 11:44 AM.
-
That's what this book is about: Originally Posted by fuzzthebee
The Technique of Creating Harmonic Melody for the Jazz Improviser
-
I bought my guitar to work today (since there's nobody else here) and stumbled on this discovery with regard to diatonic triads--move the 5th up a whole or half step, voice lead to a new chord
E.g.
C (2nd INV: GCE)--move the G up a whole step-->
Am (Root position: ACE)--move the E up a half step-->
F (1st INV: ACF)--Move the C up a whole step-->
Dm (2nd INV: ADF)--Move the A up a whole step-->
B dim (Root: BDF)--Move the F up a whole step-->
G (1st INV--BDG)--Move the D up a whole step-->
Em (2nd inv: BEG): Move the B up a half step-->
C (Root: CEG): move the G up a whole step-->
Am (1st INV: CEA)....etc etc etc
Basically, a cycle 6 pattern created by diatonically moving the 5th of the triad diatonically stepwise, in which the chord inversions increment in a pattern (2nd, Root, 1st, 2nd, Root, 1st 2nd, Root, etc )
-
Diatonic triads is cycle 3 and cycle 6 have a one note differential.
Diatonic triads is cycle 4 and cycle 5 have a two note differential.
Diatonic triads is cycle 2 and cycle 7 have zero tones in common.
Always cool to make discoveries.
-
OK, a bunch of people showed up, so I quickly had to put the guitar away. I worked out the Cycle 3 on paper, will play it when I get home, if I'm not too exhausted--basically you move the Root of the chord diatonically down, stepwise. Originally Posted by bako
C (Root) C-E-G
Em (2nd) B-E-G
G (1st) B-D-G
Bdim (R) B-D-F
Dm (2nd) A-D-F
F (1st) A-C-F
Am (R) A-C-E
And while inversion pattern ascends (R-1-2) for the Cycle 6, it descends (R-2-1) for the cycle 3.
The other's you referenced I'm not going to worry about now (too much info in one sitting is musical empty calories for me).
Thanks, Bako, That makes a nice bookend--Cycle 3 and Cycle 6.
-
NSJ,
I came across this a while back, I think you'll like it.
Last edited by whiskey02; 03-26-2017 at 09:31 AM. Reason: typo
-
Hi, been working on memorising my triads and going through some previous posts...
What is meant by 'cycle 2/3/4' etc in the above posts?
Many thanks for any help, Simon
-
I didn't know this either ! Originally Posted by jockster
I don't think its a very common term
Still I think they mean ....
I'm the Scale
C D E F G A B C D E F
"Cycle 3"
Just go three along the scale each time
C E G B D F etc
Cycle 6
Go six along
C A F D B G etc
-
Thanks for the reply, I also just found it in previous post
2: 1M7, 2m7, 3m7, 4M7, 5dom7, 6m7, 7ø
3: 1,3,5,7,2,4,6
4: 1,4,7,3,6,2,5
5: 1,5,2,6,3,7,4
6: 1,6,4,2,7,5,3
7: 1,7,6,5,4,3,2
-
Hey everyone,
when it comes to comping I've noticed a certain issue that's been bothering me for years already and that I now feel like I can finally put into words.
I find myself running into situations that I have no convincing voicings (and/or "movements" as Barry Harris once put it, I think) to choose from. While for a long time this issue has been giving me a feeling of "not being being able to comp the way I want", however it never got anymore specific. After a while of observing and thinking I'm under the impression that I can now tell what situations this applies to though.
Usually it goes along with not being able to think of "the right voicings" in certain contexts as well as the feeling of "not being able to access certain voicings" that I checked out.
I've realized that in some cases, what holds me from playing certain voicings that I've learned, really is my ear. It seems to me this might either apply to sequences that, if going with a specific voicing, I wouldn't like the voicing-leading of, or to voicings that I feel wouldn't fit the melody well. It's a really interesting phenomenon that my brain almost seems to blend these voicings out, depending on the situation.
Now that's not necessarily a bad thing since there's obviously no real point in playing sounds that you don't like. However it becomes a problem if you can't think of any alternative that you like.
Analyzing the issue further, I've come to realize that...
1) it gets much worse when I read off a chart instead of playing a tune by heart.
2) I have troubles dealing with slash-chords especially.
3) I find it more difficult to voice lead through tunes that feature lots of different chord types (meaning triads, seventh chords and slash chords at the same time)
4) unfamiliar sequences will especially challenge me, often resulting in being unable to voice lead in a way that feels like the chords are connected.
When I realized that in many situations I can't really come up with a voicing, that I like, even when I'm not playing and just trying to figure one out, I noticed that I was probably also facing the limits of the instruments. For instance I might sometimes want to voice lead to a structure that will have the 3rd and the 7ths as the foundation, but wouldn't be able to find convincing notes on top of that. Sometimes I wouldn't know how to deal with triads in the context of otherwise playing rootless, four-note-voicings. In other cases it might be a technical issue, such as not being able to grab the chord, or chords passing by too quickly (e.g. last measure of the bar). It gets even more tricky when I try to comp with respect to the melody. This will often force me to decide between choosing the top note of the voicing according to the melody or in terms of voice leading according to the voicing before and after.
I have a feel in this regard it's hard to compete with piano players. However I think it should be possible to become more sufficient. Do you have any ideas about how to approach this? Like practicing voice leading between all different kinds of chords so that you're more or less prepared for most situations? I'm curious about your perspectives. Any leads are highly appreciated!
-
it's cool that you are at least hearing something , even if you don't quite know what to call it.
An old pro here used to say that everything is answered when you can extrapolate what you're hearing to a full 13th chord. In other words, can you find a seven-note scale which sounds good for the "moment" you're "hearing"? The scale can then be translated into a 13th chord which has implications for spelling out the rest of the harmony for that tonal palette (subs for other scale degrees etc).Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 07-29-2017 at 01:27 PM.
-
To me sounds like your focusing too much on fitting into a formula instead of just playing and let your ear be the judge. Break things down and just take two or three changes and workup some nice comping. Think like an big band arranger and writting a horn pad behind the lead voice or instrument, a nice counter melody. Come up with chords that the top voice is that counter melody, use some shell voicings or triads and the counter melody on top. Work out those two or three chords, now work on connection to the next two or three chords, maybe leave some space. Listen to the tune a few times and in your head come up with some comping ideas or counter lines, got to hear it before you can play it. You work thru a tune in pieces and after you do a few tune you will start finding you comping voice and your personal cliches to us when reading a chart.
Later on you'll understand "voice leading trumps harmony".
-
\ Originally Posted by docbop
There are lots of techniques, but my suggestion is to start with songs (preferably, the songs you play). So, for a given tune, search the Internet for chord melody arrangements and figure out what is going on. Best to do it from the recording rather than from the chart, but even the latter approach can work. After a while, you have a vocabulary of good sounds.
Beyond that, there are so many approaches that are effective, it's hard to say anything that would be helpful for a specific player. My approach, not that I'm recommending it, is to have a lot of voicings of each chord -- all over the neck. And, also, to have voicings from harmonized scales (I can do major, minor and melodic minor) that you like. Then, I try to think like a pianist (Ralph Sharon was my favorite) who plays little lines in chords/notes to link parts of tunes. So, you think of a nice, simple melodic part and find that on the E or B strings. Then, one note at a time, see what you can reach on the next two or three lower strings that sounds right. Eventually, you get a vocabulary of those too.
-
It may be best to get away from the "grip" and "shell voicings" concepts and explore harmonized lines a la, as mentioned above, string or horn parts. And, while this is only my opinion, generally all of the answers needed for great comping can be found in the work of Nelson Riddle, especially the Songbook recordings with Ella Fitzgerald and the Sinatra stuff, along with the 3 CDs he did with Linda Ronstadt, which have the added bonus of the phenomenal Dennis Budimir on guitar. More guitar-specific examples of truly compositional comping can be heard on the Paul Desmond recordings with Jim Hall and/or Ed Bickert.
-
I think once you learn the melody you have a lot of freedom as what to do with the changes, if you aren't working with another chordal instrument (in which case best to let them do their thing).
You just need two or three notes that sound good to you, and hang them of the melody note. You might not want to double this note if you are playing with a melody instrument, but it helps you comp intelligently.
Some sort of triad or quartal voicing is often a good choice. Diatonic or chromatic - up to you and your ears.
I wouldn't worry too much about 3rd, 7th's etc. It's good to know where those are, but I think you can be really open and right brain about the whole thing.
A lot of the time when I do stuff like this I'd have to think about what exactly the chord is to tell you. I like it that way.
Probably not a huge amount of help, but its how I do it.
So yeah, trust your ears and don't be afraid to experiment.
Re: comping - well just keep it simple. No one ever told me off for comping too simple haha. To respect the melody? Learn all the common diatonic & chromatic chords in the key with diatonic notes in the upper structure.... For instance, in C play E7b9, Bb7#11, Dm11, Em7b9 etc.
And then, try playing simple Chord Melody stuff - really helps orientation around the keys etc. The more tunes the better.
RE: Barry Harris - well that's a whole thing.Last edited by christianm77; 07-30-2017 at 07:10 AM.
-
I dont think the guitar can "compete" with the piano comping wise, but i think it is an instrument that excels in minimalism. If anything, that's why most horn players or vocalists will hire a guitarist over a pianist for chordal work.
Mick Goodrick has some great books demonstrating his approach on comping. He is great if you want to work on hearing and watching more of all the individual notes in a voicing, being able to follow them in chord progressions, breaking out of comping/shape patterns etc..
-
Thanks for sharing your thoughts guys! I'll see where your suggestions lead me. Perhaps I'll also return with one or two examples - either tunes as a whole, or just snippets - that I'm having a hard time with.
Also I've come to the insight that lot's of times charts that haven't been written by the composer don't really represent the harmonic structures that the players think of.
By the way, do you guys know Austrian guitarist Karl Ratzer?
He's probably one of the view guitarists who's voice leading I like. It's a pitty it's pretty to hard to get material of his.
Reply With Quote
D'Addario Eclipse Rechargeable Headstock Tuner
Today, 01:55 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos