-
This is from last year but it's new to me -- a brief and intelligible explanation of (at least part of) Pat Martino's conception of the fretboard:
Guitar Lesson - Sacred Geometry: Simplifying the Fretboard
I'd be interested to know whether anyone here has worked with this approach or finds it attractive. I use a lot of augmented and diminished arpeggios in my playing but the idea of deriving other chords from them in this way just seems weird to me.
Anyway, here's a nice bit of PM (music starts at about 1:30):
-
04-11-2012 03:20 AM
-
Rich Cochrane
Over the years when I was teaching people I had to work out how to present the fingerboard. I saw these kinds of relations between chords but, to be honest, it remained theoretical albeit interesting.
I think quite often I did it the other way round - in other words having showed them what a C triad was then turn it into an augmented. They obviously understood a major chord first before stuff like augs and dims!
One can, obviously, find these kinds of relationships with familiarity but I'm not sure it really helps with playing. I mean, when I'm playing a CM7 I don't think of it as a variation on an aug or dim chord, do you? I think of those kinds of sounds quite separately and I think most people do.
A C+, for instance, is a C maj with a raised 5th. I don't know many people who think of a C maj as a C+ with a lowered 5th!
I don't know what you think about that. Perhaps I'm too simple!
-
there are quite a few "theories" on seeing the fretboard (music in general) as one continuous "key" ..
for me...i use symmetrical harmony for my approach of dominate chords.. grouping them in minor thirds and major thirds..seeing them as ONE chord..
example...G7 Bb7 DB E7 i view as ONE chord..if im playing a blues in G the notes of the other three chords are extensions or altered tones of G..so in this approach the Bb7 would be a #9 5 b7 b9 of G..etc...
using diminishes/b9/b13 scales/arps/runs in this type of approach becomes functional and prominent rather than an afterthought or a tag line...
also using a major third interval..seeing chords G B Eb as one chord (all types major minor dominate) becomes very useful in creating wide interval voiced solos that have far more movement and interest..
yes this approach takes alot of work to "re-wire" you thinking and not freak out that your "not in key" as you take some chances in your solo work...but the rewards are worth the risks...
wolf
-
I can't begin to get to Pat's idea of seeing the fretboard. It seems terribly complicated to me. After spending most of my life sort of slogging through things and teaching myself, I acknowledge that I see things mostly from a CAGED and major standpoint....the concept of all of the white keys being "in" notes and all of the black keys being additional "color" notes. This in the key of C of course and then transposed to other keys as necessary. I understand modes, but I never think of them or abut them when I'm playing. I generally think in terms of arpeggios, so I "see" C major 7 arpeggios against an Am chord and an Fm6 arpeggio against a Dm7b5 chord. There's no doubt that it took me much longer doing it this way, but when I was working, music was secondary. Now that music has become primary, I don't feel the necessity to change the way that I think at age 65. To me Pat's way is strange indeed.
-
I totally skipped his fretboard explanation but I like listening to him play- he has a lot of Blues Feel and I see a similarity between Benson and Martino with the amazing articulation, and funkier less behind the beat but still swinging awesome time feel.
Benson's even a little more aggressive time-wise but I see a big similarity.
His comping behind the Organ Solo is awesome also-really great time feel and lots of Blues Feel.
However he sees the fretboard- he's great- ( big news for you Jazz Buffs - I'm sure....ha.).
His right Hand picking technique is perfect for this Style and there are not many right hands this articulate IMO .
Did Benson evolve largely from Martino -playing wise ?
I think he was a gifted soloist, able to play as he does now at a very early age like his late teens and his concepts of the fretboard are not the key to his ability at least not these concepts............Last edited by Robertkoa; 04-15-2012 at 04:53 PM.
-
For some reason I've always seen the fretboard as PM does. It just turned out that way from connecting all the major scales. So the other scales were also there. Same as Jimi Bruno really. Except I didn't give them names.
I originally thought that using Pat's minor conversion concept would really help with playing over altered chords. Listening and watching Pat's 2 DVD's made me think that I wouldn't really have to learn any new scales. Just use the ones I already knew but in different positions to cover the altered chords.
It was a lazy way to think and it doesn't work for me.
Now....on his video Pat gets the keyboard player to play a chord in isolation and then uses his minor chord sub idea to play all over the place.
Sounds fine in that context. Actually you can play what ever you like over one static chord and it's going to sound sort of in and sort of out.
Put that concept in a chord PROGRESSION with a chord either side and it sounds kind of crap.
I never made that minor conversion concept work over altered dominant chords.
My contention is that neither does Pat.
I came to this conclusion by studying many of his solos. For many years.
The last and most recent was "Along Came Betty".
A monstrous solo over many chords and many altered chords.
I discovered some interesting things just as I did when I worked through "Sunny"
More often than not .....actually almost always in Along Came Betty, when an altered chord arrives Pat does what everyone else does. He outlines the chord very closely. If it's a #5#9 then that's what he plays....with the standard bop passing notes. You can usually see the chord shape from his notes.
Or he'll use the altered scale (Super Locrian)
He may not call it that but that's what it is.
This always confused me.....trying to use his minor concept over altered chords.
Clearly the concept works over non dominant chords.....say mb5. But we always knew that Em7b5 was a Gm with an E in the bass. So just use G minor. A chord like C9 will also be covered by minor conversion to Gm. Simple enough.
For all the theories that Pat describes I actually think he follows the same rules as everyone else.
One other thing he was doing in that period (because he did change over time) was to almost always play a V altered chord before the 2 chord. So even if no one else was playing the chord Pat would for example, outline an E7b9 before he continued over the Am7. The V lick becomes a part of the minor lick. Standard bop thing no doubt.
But he's thinking chords not "minor conversion" when he does that...I contend.
No doubt he "thinks" of it differently as does Bruno....as to CST guys.
Which ever way he looks at it, it really works brilliantly for him.
And he does have an enormous technique.
What he did in Along Came Betty is awe inspiring. To play at that speed and nail those changes and swing like hell.
My hands hurt!
-
Years ago when Pat was working on his 1st book, I took 3 lessons with him.
He presented the idea of generating other chords in relation to a symmetrical diminished chord and developing a guitar centric understanding.
For me this helped make the process of learning inversions seem ever so slightly less vast.
He also shared the observation about the hexagrams of the I-Ching and all possible string group combinations.
This was my 1st exposure to the idea of string groups which for me remains a strong organizing tool for fingerings.
He seemed like a person with a strong enthusiasm for life and music, with interest also encompassing world philosophies, art, mysticism, unification theory etc.
It was enlightening to interact with him as a person and......he also played guitar exceptionally well.
-
bako
Brilliant, but did all that really help you play better or more fluently?
-
I would say that Pat's ideas about transformation of diminished chords helped me start looking at the inter-relatedness of chords, how they are similar and how they are different and how one can morph into another. This is very helpful in voice leading. He also reinforced the idea that inversions of chords can be accessed wherever you happen to be.
I took 3 lessons as a star struck young person in way over my head.
It was very inspiring, I learned a few helpful ideas and I enjoyed his individual take on things.
-
Not trying to hijack the post from the original subject but you gave me another one of those Jazz Guitar Forum "light bulb" moments in the above statement.
Originally Posted by Philco
I was already aware of the chords that are formed when you start going up the extensions of a chord, such as those you stated above, but I was not ready to associate them with my fretboard view.
Because of you, I now writing the extended (seventh and higher) chords and other (m7b5) chords created taking the chords and their extensions, and starting from the third, fifth, and seventh. This should be very helpful in figuring out arpeggios I can use over the basic parent chord.
Sad thing about this is one of my jazz books explains this very well, I just was not ready for it at the time.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
-
Glad that we uncovered a little path there
I know that Pat and George Benson had lessons in their early days but I can't help but think that they both worked out their own way of dealing with things.
The fretboard, harmony and technique.
If you can come up with your own system of dealing with different harmonic situations and build on it over the years you also have the added advantage of sounding like no one else. An attribute we all seem to be drawn to.
-
Good advice but as a mostly Rock ( but Steely Dan influenced ) player who likes the Harmonic sophistication of Jazz- especially certain types- I would LOVE to look down at my Fingerboard and see what some of you Jazz guys see- so I'm here soaking up the knowledge from the very strong Brain Trust that's here, filling in some serious gaps in my knowledge- I still have my own style- but could be much broader. Originally Posted by Philco
Glad that we uncovered a little path there
I know that Pat and George Benson had lessons in their early days but I can't help but think that they both worked out their own way of dealing with things.
The fretboard, harmony and technique.
If you can come up with your own system of dealing with different harmonic situations and build on it over the years you also have the added advantage of sounding like no one else. An attribute we all seem to be drawn to.
Few types of Musicians are as good at seasoned Jazz Veterans at spontaneous composition etc.
I think learning more about Jazz will increase my ability to compose in other styles- because Classical Theory and Jazz are cousins and no discipline has more theory as applied to Guitar than Jazz........
Of course you can always just "hear it in your mind and play it" but theory and concepts are great for adding things that I wouldn't normally think of or hear- and now I finally have fluid chops so need to learn chord scales and different arpeggios to stack on things- I don't like scales as much cause the intervals are too close so I often play across the strings and I'm starting to categorize the relationships but not in scales as much as 1 -4 and 5 minor chords over the 2 chord in a Blues etc. but keep it simple.....
My favorite Jazz Guitarist is Benson because of his time feel, chops , and he can play Blues or Blues Feel over just about any chord, bassline, set of changes etc.
My favorite Rock Guitarist is probably Eric Johnson- but I don't listen to him too much 'cause I don't want to copy too much- I'd be interested to see what you guys think of his version of Coltrane's " Mr. P.C. "- You can hear it on Youtube- just Google it.
To me - probably the ultimate Electric Guitarist would be Benson/Hendrix in one Guy.....
I do appreciate the responses from you guys a lot- thanks .
Some of the responses I need to read a few times to fully get- but that's a good thing- I assume we have some serious Teachers and educators on here- judging by the depth of your responses. Very cool.Last edited by Robertkoa; 04-15-2012 at 09:40 PM.
-
It's fascinating to hear different people's reactions to this approach. For me, too, it looks backwards to say the major triad is an augmented with a "flattened" 5, but I can just about imagine how it might help to organize the fretboard.
Oddly enough, I was trying to make sense of George Garzone's ideas about triads this weekend and wondered whether the two might go together quite well. Well, if I ever make sense of what Garzone is actually doing I might post something about it...
Bako, could you say a bit more about this? I understand that the I Ching gives all the ways to choose n strings out of 6 (where n is between 0 and 6) but how does this get applied as an organizational principle? Originally Posted by bako
-
64 Hexagrams / 64 Guitar String Groups
All guitar music occurs on different combination of strings.
Looking at a list made me aware of which ones I use all the time and which I use rarely or not at all.
Pat introduced the idea of string groups to me.
I find it very useful as an idea to think about fingerings.
I thought of the hexagram connection as a cool coincidence.
I don't know anything about Pat's thinking beyond this.
-
Ah... the old whack on the side of the head. You made me want to work them all out now and see for myself. Originally Posted by bako
I suppose you could also pick a hexagram at random and try limiting yourself to just those strings... obviously some would be more interesting than others. Food for thought, anyway, thanks!
-
I naturally think in terms of basic consonant structures for chords OR solos- meaning I want safe notes to STOP on and then worry about how to get there.
Likewise for chords I would not think of diminished or augmented and work backwards-'cause those are usually passing chords or tension chords-not the basic structure of a tune.
If you're a genius- it( this theory) might work, but when it comes to Music- I'm not ,so ......
Like Lydian Chromatic Concept- start with Lydian and work back to major and minor from there............interesting but not something that simplifies for us average guys or worse- a semi literate Rock guy- ha! Well I speak quite well- I meant semi literate Musically.
-
hola amigo soy de venezuela alguien aqui sabe como utilizar la teoria de pat martino?
hello friend am from Venezuela anybody here know how to use the theory of pat martino?
-
hello friend am from Venezuela anybody here know how to use the theory of pat martino? would like to know this great resource. if anyone knows please write me to my email [email protected]'m from Venezuela thanks
-
Seeing as this thread is being resuscitated I would like to round out or add to my rather large post of observations above.
This hones in on the way Pat sees and handles altered dominants.
I just watched a master class with him on Youtube and it was set in Russia.
It's a little tedious because someone is translating and things go a bit slow.
BUT toward the end of the session one of the students poses the question "how do you use your minor conversion concept when dealing with Altered Dominant chords"
Pat gave an answer that I have not heard him give before.
I will shorten it to this:
We have consonance and dissonance.
Consonance is this context is an unaltered dominant (Pat plays a root and the 5th above)
So he means for example: if playing over a C9 then use Gminor. Ok we knew that. Exactly how he handles the second chord in Sunny.
This was also detailed in his video.
But then he goes on to Dissonance.
Dissonance in this context is an altered dominant chord (Pat plays a root and a semitone above)
So he means for example: if playing over an A7b5#9 then use Bbm.
Well at last he actually said it. Because on his video he didn't. He kept using the 5th conversion.
When I dissected his solos I knew he was NOT using his minor conversions over the altered dominants. He was more often than not very clearly outlining the arpeggios and using notes from the melodic minor a semitone above.....just like most players would.
So when Pat explained the dissonance side of the equation it turns out to be "minor one step above" .....and you are of course just one note away from Melodic Minor one step above (the same thing really)......which is the standard approach.
-
I'm pretty sure he talks about altered dominants... perhaps it's in the second video, 'Quantum Guitar'? I don't remember too well, but I believe he talks about playing minor ideas a step above (same 'minor a fifth above' on a tritone sub), and also incorporates the augmented triad, which would imply a melodic minor sound. Originally Posted by Philco
-
Yes you could be right, I have not paid much attention to the second video. I'll have to have another look.
-
Good morning or afternoon. My name is Andy Yamarte'm from Venezuela I'm a guitarist and Pat Martino fans have received an email explaining some of the theory of pat martino on converting smaller, but still I am in doubt I will be better clarify this theory, Thank you if anyone can help me this is my mail [email protected]eddin'
-
-
I like some of Pat's ideas, but it does often seem to me that he takes the long way around.
-
Pat is a marvellous inspiring player. But going off into this "mystical magical land" of some " sacred geometry" did absolutely nothing for me. I'm a pragmatic, feet on the ground, eye on the prize kind of guy tho.
I love music. To me music is all about the chord and the function, the arpeggio and the function, the scale and the function, the chromatic tones and the function. Understand how all those work together and throw a nice sensibility for rhythm, phrasing, and melody; and viola you have a good musician. Period end of story.You DON'T need to try and assign any mystical magical undefinable names on the notes to play great music LOL.
From what I gather this geometry thing is some idea that popped in his head AFTER he was already a great player with numerous recordings under his belt.
Pat's a fantastic player who I admire and respectvfor his accomplishments and valuable contributions to the jazz lexicon. In fact I've learned A LOT FROM some of his other instructional materials and highly recommend them. But this mystical magical sacred geometry stuff just obscures what's really going on musically.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions