-
I've found lots of helpfuls ideas that come right out of the circle of 4ths/5ths and it has become an important part of how I think.
I've shared my findings with guitar forums and surprizingly the response to it has been huge, in a negative way for the most part. People say that what I'm doing is re-inventing the wheel, I respond by saying these concepts have always been there, right there on the circle.
So what is the controversy?
The biggest controversy is around Coltrane changes.
Gotta go to a new post, my phone doesn't like long posts.
-
01-11-2013 08:48 AM
-
If you look at the circle you can see the symetrical placement of
C, Ab, and E forming a triangle.
I started getting heat when I pointed out the major pents that also
get generated by the circle. For example,
C G D A E = C major pent = Cmaj7 G7 Dm7 Am7 Em7
Ab Eb Bb F C= Ab major pent = Abmaj7 Eb7 Bbm7 Fm7 Cm7
E B F# C# G# = E major pent = Emaj7 B7 F#m7 C#m7 G#m7
Up to this point this is a nice clean chart and the whole idea would
fit the Giant Steps progression of Bma7 D7 Gmaj7 Bb7 Ebmaj7...
Before I go into the problem areas I'd like to know if what I just explained
works for Giant Steps?
What is the problem with this soloing outline? Is there a problem re: soloing?
-
My problems started years ago when I made the claim that this symettrical GS pattern can be subbed by itself, I'll explain.
I claimed over Bmaj7 D7 Gmaj7 you could play Bmaj pent, G maj pent, and Ebmaj pent and thebsymettry will carry it, make it ok.
I WAS WRONG. Giant Steps needs chords outlined to realy create that movement.
More in next post.
-
So I humbled up and admitted that my idea of using all three pents over any part of GS at any time was wrong. I gave that idead up.
But that wasn't the end of the GS triangle thing. The way this whole. Concept was presented to me was in the context of a static I7 chords. Like Cissy Strut or "It's Your Thing", that one chord funky jam type groove.
The debate is "how do you use all 12 tones over a static chord"?
This symettrical major 3rd "GS" concept has been something that works wonderfully for me. For me I use this "all 12 tone" idea as just another jazzy sounding "moment". The idea also works as a way to navigate into a IV7 chord.
Anyone that works with this can make it work great, with an open mind. But it seems such thoughts rub against convention and gets big negative response.
I just want to say that the negative hasn't swayed me in the least. I just let them have their say and roll it off.
To sum this up
No, this concept is not good for Giant Steps or modulating tunes in general.
Yes, I still dig it for static chords or I7 to IV7 changes. That's it.
-
Well Asatcat, I'm not sure if you are asking a question or not. The title of your thread seems like you are, but your final words here translate to me "I don't give a **** what anyone else thinks, I think my idea is a good one and I will continue to use it."
Originally Posted by ASATcat
Use anything you want, you are of course free to do that. I have found that it is nearly impossible to say anything, in music, is "wrong". But if you consider what your goals are, then there will be better choices and worse choices. If you are just doing music for your own pleasure, then what ever pleases you is ok. If you are trying to make music that other people also enjoy, you do need to distinguish some choices as being worse or better.
In the context of you playing jazz that "most" jazz musicians would want to play, and most jazz fans would like listening to, your system is simply illogical and inferior to the normal system we use. It's based on a random coincidental relationship of 3 keys on the circle of fifths, not on sound musical principles. It's not even worth debating (as you seem to want).
Two pieces of friendly advice:
Don't get attached to anything &...
Have an open mind to learning new things. (these two pieces of advice also work well for life in general!)
Good luck, and goodbye!
-
No one ever "wins" an internet argument/debate. Even Einstein, Newton, and Hawking opining on relativity, gravity, and black hole event horizons, respectively, would be shouted down and overwhelmed by the masses. So, in my mind, responses are just responses ... More information to consider, but not necessarily right, wrong, valid, or invalid. Originally Posted by ASATcat
I think it's cool that, if you're working on something that is proving valuable to you and is providing new avenues for exploration, you're willing to share the concepts on a public forum. And, if the concepts are proving valuable and providing new avenues, who cares what the public says?
-
If it sounds good to YOU, use it!!!
-
I agree with the above responses, but in the spirit of some (hopefully) constructive criticism...
1. Chord tones = "inside" Originally Posted by ASATcat
2. All other notes are passing notes, which may work simply as that, or (if a half-step below a chord tone) as approaches to that chord tone. Half-steps above chord tones are the most "outside" sounds.
IOW, all 12 notes are usable, it's just a matter of a hierarchy of "in" and "out" relative to the chord. And that may be affected by phrase shape, accent, rhythm, etc.
IMO, with a single chord with no key context (as I think you're implying) the question of "key" - or the distinction between "diatonic" and "chromatic" - needn't apply.
Except, of course, some chord types will certainly imply some kind of key scale or mode, in which case non-chord tones will divide into consonant (probably within the mode) and dissonant (probably outside the mode).
Probably...
NB: this is just how I personally would "use all 12 tones over a static chord". I have no idea how much this aligns with "convention", I just know it's worked fine for me for the last 40+ years - although I wouldn't have been able to describe it in those terms for maybe the first 20...
Good. Originally Posted by ASATcat
You mean "all 12 tones", or (as I guess) all 12 tones organised into the "symmetrical major 3rd "GS" concept"? Originally Posted by ASATcat
If you say so. Have you thought about why and how it works? Originally Posted by ASATcat
And hold on - I thought you were talking about a single "static chord"? Now you're talking about a pair of chords in a I-IV relationship (and specifying IV as "IV7"). That does change things...
Firstly, labelling the chords "I-IV" obviously suggests the key of I, which sets up the expectation of a full diatonic scale, with a clear demarcation of non-chord tones as either diatonic or chromatic. (With just one chord the distinction can remain at least partly ambiguous.)
"I7-IV7" (as you describe it later) specifies even more - now we have a blues-style set of pitches.
Secondly, non-chord tones on the I chord may now have a role relative to the IV - and vice versa. Eg a #4/b5 on the I might now act as a half-step resolving down to root of IV, rather than up to 5th of I.
Maybe. But why and how does your system work better than a conventional jazz method? Originally Posted by ASATcat
If you're trying to sell this, we need some examples and more detail.
(Or if you think it works better than what I hesitate to call "my system", then it's just me that needs examples...)
If you're not trying to sell it, that's OK, but then the debate ends here really.
No serious jazz musician is over-attached to convention, although there's probably a high level of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Originally Posted by ASATcat
There's also the matter of stylistic idioms (as Guitarzen implies): stuff that "sounds like jazz" and stuff that doesn't - however the musicians and listeners involved like to define "jazz".
IOW, if you think you are improving on convention (and you might be!) you need to explain (a) where convention falls short, and (b) how your idea improves on it. We need to see a problem before we're in the market for a solution.
Good. Originally Posted by ASATcat
Cool. Originally Posted by ASATcat
(I might be curious enough to ask you to explain further, but "convention" - as I understand it - suits me fine.
Last edited by JonR; 01-12-2013 at 01:36 PM.
-
I just want to simplify my above post by saying, there is no more significance to the keys in a triangle relationship as there would be to the keys touched by the edges of a pretzel. There is no more reason to base your soloing on a triangle than there is to base it on a pretzel. But if it makes you happy, go for it! Just don't try to convince everyone you've found the secret formula to playing jazz in a pretzel! Oh wait a minute, I just tried out the pretzel idea and it's freaking amazing! I think I will write a book on advanced pretzel theory!! woot!
-
There is more to learn about jazz than any one person could ever learn. This is why we each take what works for us at any given time to make things sound the way we want them to sound. In the end, we all have to realize that jazz is about a "personal codex" that is unique to each individual. This is one of the things that gives a player an individual voice. Embrace it.
-
Hi Jon, this phone thing is getting old, I can't respond to quotes =/
Passing tones, always? Or interval collections.
Passing tones as 8 understand it are scale tone between chord tones when moving linearly. Approach tones can be non scaler chromatic 1/2 steps. I don't know how correct I am but I opporate
from that as a reference.
Passing tones tend to want to resolve, non chord tones and chromatics don't have to resolve, they hand out in the wind as an acceptable "out" tone. I remember Miles playing on this blues and hitting this one out tone all by itself, 'nuff said. That one tone placed just as he placed said it all. The note went short and there was this hole left in the wake. Awesome.
If you have a tone that doesn't have the need to resolve then you can play with it, make it hang out in space like Miles did, I mean he led the way when it comes to the one note big whammy. He was the boss..
In Mick Goodrick/Tim Millers new book some of those voicings are so far removed from basic tertiary tension/release ideas. My ear is being challenged with Goodricks book more than any of this maj 3rd triangle stuffLast edited by ASATcat; 01-12-2013 at 06:17 PM.
-
I agree with this totally, I have my little spot to scratch the paint. In the end I just scratched the paint. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
The endless combanations of rhythm, hamonic and melodic possibillities
would reveal that us humans are only interested in an extremely small
amount of what is available, most we collectively agree to be noise
and unusable. Depicted as ratios we are drawn to lower ones, the larger and more complex the
overtone the more it's moving away from our narrow little human paint scratching.
My interest has been with pents and how they work over 12 different pedals and I7 chord.
Not unlike 12 triads over a common bass note and how each one has a different application.
It works a lot like that.
Now six note formulas, some with the root missing, some with the evil 4th removed.
This is another vast landscape to map. Triad pairs and hexatonic collections of tones.
In the vastness of what is available in the universe all these "concepts" are just part of
.00001 percent of what's out there, I would hope that everyone has a bit of mad scientist in them so they are constantly thinking oabout things can be. In 30 yrs most likely I'll be shit dust in the wind.
And all this gets erased.
In the end we have our garden of music that we have cultivated over a lifetime.
I like to share, I don't think it's cool to step on anyone chasing their own personal muse.
I don't know, maybe sharing means and is always going to means tossing my ideas to the dogs.
By starting this thread I expose myself to every criticism possible. I really can't get upset for hanging it out there and getting bit.
For better or worse I am always going to be the way I am, I'm not an anarcist
but I sure feel like it when I get bit by the pitbulls.
I have videos of me playing with these ideas of mine to demoLast edited by ASATcat; 01-12-2013 at 07:08 PM.
-
Well, I'd say it was more likely the other way - although of course "passing" tones by definition are passing to something else Originally Posted by ASATcat
- which would pretty much have to be a chord tone.
Chromatics can be alterations (non-resolving) or approaches (resolving to nearest chord tone).
"Non-chord tones" could be pretty much anything, IMO (diatonic, passing, chromatic, whatever).
But of course it's all about "common practices", not rules about what "must" happen. And (that old fall-back) "context is all".
Right. But it's not so much that "you have a tone that doesn't have the need to resolve" - you decide whether it needs to resolve. Miles could take a note that would normally be screaming to resolve, and play with it like you say. Monk could do the same. Originally Posted by ASATcat
One of my favourite things I ever heard Miles do (and I can't remember the track) was to end a solo with a long descending scale run (very inside) which stopped dead on the b5, right on the downbeat of the first bar of the next guy's solo. It was like he was saying "grab hold of that, sucker..."
Sounds good. (But probably beyond where I'm at Originally Posted by ASATcat
)
-
I doubt any of this stuff is beyond you Jon.
I've known you a long time and I don't see you as a big book buyer. And through discussion on forums you can get the jist of a book anyway. Still I don't know why you show so much interest in topics you have little desire to work with these new fandangled topics. Don't take me wrong, you hold your own when discussing the topics of books you haven't read. Amazingly so imo.
On the other hand I do read this shit and always seem. To have trouble clearly expressing my idea to the point of being misunderstood.
It's like a gift you have, part of that gift is the gift of being stubborn as hell, lol.
I would love to hear commentary from you on how a book study is going for you.
Also the Coltrane ideas thing is not really in any one book, I can't say to what degree Harm Ex is part of the idea, mostly as you know it's Kimock ideas that got me going on the Coltrane thing. I am no where even. Close to beeing in the league of someone like Kimock so I have to say my ideas are bastard babies of he original. Ideas. My attempt to bring his thing down to earth. As you very well know Steve has a fast rap on this stuff.
It's not like being a fly on the wall listening to him, it's more like being a fly stuck on the windshield of a car going 80.
At worst my ideas are simplified versions of those ideas, for example, no intonation talk.Just the five limit basic 12 tones.
I would imagine that part of this you would be fine with.
Anyway I forgot what I'm responding to here sort of with my limited phone that doesn't allow me to look back.
But I just want to say that Giant Steps move, or Coltrane or whatever the best name for it is,,, it's a cool soung 12 tone device thatcomes right back home with it's circlular going around the block motion.
Actually I'm surprized there aren't more players digging this idea.
-
Barry Greene in his book "Advanced Improvisation for Jazz Guitar" by Mel Bay. Barry talks about using this Coltrane idea over the first four bars of a blues. Thanks mucho Barry, this is something I can refer to support the idea.
-
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Guitarzen has demo'd to us what BAITING is.
When I didn't react to his first condecending post
he took it up a notch with a much more to the point insult
with the intention of getting me to react.
But I do have to ask GZ, you said good luck and goodbye,,
I thought you removed yourself from the discussion?
-
Look, I want to work with you not fight, what would be useful and respectful and bettter is to share your ways of playing in a similar situation.Say we're playing with Miles and over there is Bob Berg and and it's your turn to solo over this one chord Miles vamp, or helll, just say you're playing Cissey Strut and it's your turn to solo.
They just opened it up for your ten chorus solo? What ideas will you use to navigate those ten chorus and keep it interesting,,
You got your blues stuff, your jazz blues, your diminished ideas, your superimposed pent ideas, your superimposed triad, arps,,,
How will you construct your solo?
For me I add my little "triangle" idea. The damn thing doesn't even have a title, I call it this and I call it that, but I know what I mean.
Over Ten bars of Cissy Strut I have some idea that I superimposed over the C7#9 and I like it. I like it so much that I want to share it.
So please, instead of "pretzel logic", why not share what would work for you, and that is a win/win for all.
Originally Posted by Guitarzen
Last edited by ASATcat; 01-14-2013 at 01:14 PM.
-
Hello,
I feel like your title is a little misleading. IMO, you are using essentially a augmented triad to organize your ideas, not the circle of 4ths/5ths.
Anyway, that's not really the topic. Personally, I think what you are saying is right on the money, you have found a sound that you can achieve via a specific memorized system. That is 100% valid and in no way "wrong".
I would really like to actually hear it though, in some kind of context.
As someone who loves music theory and organizational systems for music and composition I have found that an idea becomes valid once it is proven in living music. As one of my teachers says "the proof is in the pudding". I would also say that this idea fairly widely used already. I hear lots of people play Coltrane changes (particularly using triads) over all kinds of progressions, especially at casual gigs where the audience is chatting and the trio is having a little fun.
I don't know who is telling you that your thinking is wrong, but I have found that in the world of music theory, there are just too many perspectives to get hung up on "right" and "wrong". To me it's all about the fruits of the labor. If you master a concept, is it going to positively impact your overall musicianship? More often than not, the answer will be yes, dig?
As a side note, I like to do this little trick to get all 12 tones into a line, it also helps create actual "tone-rows" in the context of a solo if practiced enough.
play four "three note chords" consisting of a (root--major 3rd--major 7th) minor thirds apart... for example....
(C-E-B) (Eb-G-D) (Gb-Bb-F) (A-C#-G#)
you get all 12 tones without any repeats, and since each pattern is a familiar shape, it's pretty reliable in my experience.
to get a row, just play all four shapes in a row (using inversions for variety hopefully)
thanks for sharing.
-
ASAT, if you'd explain your basic idea some more, the one you found out to be wrong?
More specific, how did B Eb G become B D G? I can not follow.
-
timscarey,
Your idea on using the triads is also shared by jazz author Garrison Fewell, in his book "Jazz Improvisation, a melodic approach."
I would say this lends credence to your system.
-
Have you looked at Pat Martino's ideas
on various shapes round the Cycle ?
Its not for me , my mind-ears dont work like that , I'm trying to play just melodically ... tunes
PM's VERY into the geometry and various shapes triangles squares polygons etc
you might like that ASATcat
no-ones attacking/baiting you here man its just knock-about stuff
-
So very true! Sometimes it can take many years to find your individual voice but the journey can be very exciting and the payoff is wonderful! Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
wiz
-
You got heat for the pentatonic thing? I mean it goes backwards through the cycle period. It's obvious to anyone who knows the cycle. Sure, the notes are rearranged but only some pedantic non-player theory obsessed person would make a fuss out of that. Originally Posted by ASATcat
There's so much in the cycle. II-V-I's go clockwise. The cycle has all twelve notes(duh), and symmetric constructs generate geometric shapes as mentioned earlier so it's an extremely versatile device for structuring and figuring out harmonic ideas.
When I studied with Jimmy Bruno through his website, EVERY lesson or exercise was to be played in all keys through the cycle. If you didn't do ALL the keys CLOCKWISE through the cycle, you weren't done with the exercise. Frankly, that has made the fretboard and chord progressions really click for me and because I learned that as I was starting out, the foundation I have makes me understand new concepts very quickly so I can spend time actually practicing to use them.
The cycle is essential.
-
Thanks Amund, encouraging words, that's so nice.
The circle is essential, it's not just a tool to remember accidentals by far.
Some observations on the circle;
1. It generates all this "Cotrane" stuff
2. No matter what three neighboring tones chosen, it will always be in the some order, F C G = IV I V, that order. Great for teaching.
3. All diatonic cycles of 4 are there for all keys.
4. The perfect 4th cycle of 4 is there, chose your key.
5. Both major pent and minor pent are generated from the root.
Ie:
Up from the root - C G D A E = C major pent
Down from the 5h - G C F Bb Eb = C minor pent
There is something about this that is just too cool for music making to toss to the side as trash.
And there is much more in the circle, someone earlier suggested Pat Martino. I have most his books including. "The Nature Of Music" that is a hard book to find. I don't think PM would ttrash my ideas, he may help me understand it better lol.
Thanks again for the nice words, I really need it =)
Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
-
You know, I like the term "leading tone" over "approach tone."
Originally Posted by JonR
I agree with the above responses, but in the spirit of some (hopefully) constructive criticism...
1. Chord tones = "inside"
2. All other notes are passing notes, which may work simply as that, or (if a half-step below a chord tone) as approaches to that chord tone. Half-steps above chord tones are the most "outside" sounds.
IOW, all 12 notes are usable, it's just a matter of a hierarchy of "in" and "out" relative to the chord. And that may be affected by phrase shape, accent, rhythm, etc.
IMO, with a single chord with no key context (as I think you're implying) the question of "key" - or the distinction between "diatonic" and "chromatic" - needn't apply.
Except, of course, some chord types will certainly imply some kind of key scale or mode, in which case non-chord tones will divide into consonant (probably within the mode) and dissonant (probably outside the mode).
Probably...
NB: this is just how I personally would "use all 12 tones over a static chord". I have no idea how much this aligns with "convention", I just know it's worked fine for me for the last 40+ years - although I wouldn't have been able to describe it in those terms for maybe the first 20...
Good.
You mean "all 12 tones", or (as I guess) all 12 tones organised into the "symmetrical major 3rd "GS" concept"?
If you say so. Have you thought about why and how it works?
And hold on - I thought you were talking about a single "static chord"? Now you're talking about a pair of chords in a I-IV relationship (and specifying IV as "IV7"). That does change things...
Firstly, labelling the chords "I-IV" obviously suggests the key of I, which sets up the expectation of a full diatonic scale, with a clear demarcation of non-chord tones as either diatonic or chromatic. (With just one chord the distinction can remain at least partly ambiguous.)
"I7-IV7" (as you describe it later) specifies even more - now we have a blues-style set of pitches.
Secondly, non-chord tones on the I chord may now have a role relative to the IV - and vice versa. Eg a #4/b5 on the I might now act as a half-step resolving down to root of IV, rather than up to 5th of I.
Maybe. But why and how does your system work better than a conventional jazz method?
If you're trying to sell this, we need some examples and more detail.
(Or if you think it works better than what I hesitate to call "my system", then it's just me that needs examples...)
If you're not trying to sell it, that's OK, but then the debate ends here really.
No serious jazz musician is over-attached to convention, although there's probably a high level of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
There's also the matter of stylistic idioms (as Guitarzen implies): stuff that "sounds like jazz" and stuff that doesn't - however the musicians and listeners involved like to define "jazz".
IOW, if you think you are improving on convention (and you might be!) you need to explain (a) where convention falls short, and (b) how your idea improves on it. We need to see a problem before we're in the market for a solution.
Good.
Cool.
(I might be curious enough to ask you to explain further, but "convention" - as I understand it - suits me fine.
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale