The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Posts 176 to 200 of 209
  1. #176

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    It is the notes of BbHM.

    The downbeats spell F7. The upbeats spell Ebm7.

    And, as has already been pointed out, it looks like scale and arp with a note or two thrown in.

    We know exactly what he was thinking: "forget it and just blow".

    Well, I have been thinking about what it takes to play a line at that tempo that guys are analyzing decades later.

    I find it hard to believe that he would have been thinking one chord at a time. These are more likely well practiced lines or, at least, bits of theory that wouldn't require a new concept every quarter or half second.
    Tonal center, chord tones with well practiced alterations, or maybe even a harmonic minor scale. Chord tones on the downbeats, interpolation on the upbeats. Hard to say.
    Yeah I mean the thing is that we have little direct idea of how Parker did it. Barry’s stuff is a reverse engineering of Parker’s music, no different from what any of us might do albeit on a very high level. And he was obviously there on the scene during the later years of the bop movement.

    One thing that surprised me about Barry in contrast to every other bop method I’d seen is how much he stresses the importance of scales as the basis of bop lines.

    And I didn’t really get it in classes, I had to spend some time with the music, and then come back to Barry’s stuff after I’d made my own analysis of it. I then saw his approach was far more complete and comprehensive. I still feel like I’m picking my way through it one step at a time.

    My hunch is any experienced player adopts a chunked approach to changes playing. And I do think this is how Parker like his hero Prez did it - he played movements through the chords, not on individual chords. We might analyse these vertically as subs, but I like Steve Coleman’s ideas on this. You take another path to the destination chord, which agrees with Coleman Hawkin’s classic quote repeated by Barry ‘I don’t play chords, I play movement.’

    And I’m pretty sure Bird practiced scales. He studied classical pattern books. And of course he ‘forgot all that shit and just played.’

    One of the confusions in jazz edu is that the scales Parker was talking about have any connection with the later CST theory.

    I think this sometimes means people go too far the other way ‘oh no one played scales until Miles.’

    Of course like telling a student to accent the upbeats in a line, this is useful simplification to tell students who need to hear it to develop. It was the right thing for me to hear at one time but later I realised the truth is more nuanced.

    (CST as others have pointed out is not in fact a theory of scales but of note organisations.)
    Last edited by christianm77; 03-09-2018 at 06:41 AM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #177

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77

    (CST as others have pointed out is not in fact a theory of scales but of note organisations.)
    Sure, but how is this any different from saying that any 13th arp pertains to "note organisations"?

    Also, why the continued obsession with Parker? Especially if you might prefer other soloists from the 50's, like Cannonball, Maclean, Rollins, Pepper, Getz etc. Sure, they each owed a debt to Bird, but by studying the players you really like listening to, you still get the Parker influence, as well as what they did with it. This also informs what we might do with it. Parker wasn't the only Bop stylist. A sax player once told me that Sonny Stitt was a better source for bop vocab...

    This is not to knock Bird off his perch- he's untouchable and unrepeatable- just saying' the Omnibook is not the only fountain of knowledge for those of us who wanna master playing changes. He himself would think that rather lame. He found his way, and would expect that others would find their own. Instead of feeling flattered at all the copycats, I bet he felt annoyed. There's plenty of ways to get from one note to the other, and there are other as yet undiscovered licks and devices that can still sound Boppish. There have been and will continue to be great players who don't have a single Bird lick in their bag.

    As for BH, it's great that he keeps the torch aflame, but for me, the inflexible rule based approach takes the fun out of making up one's own rules. Anyone else think this?

  4. #178

    User Info Menu

    There's a lot to unpack from this post...

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Sure, but how is this any different from saying that any 13th arp pertains to "note organisations"?
    It isn't. But that's not my area really, explaining textbook CST. I have my uses for it.

    And of course there's a lot more you can do with CST beyond just notes up in stacking thirds, if you are interested in that (which I am actually.)

    Also, why the continued obsession with Parker? Especially if you might prefer other soloists from the 50's, like Cannonball, Maclean, Rollins, Pepper, Getz etc. Sure, they each owed a debt to Bird, but by studying the players you really like listening to, you still get the Parker influence, as well as what they did with it. This also informs what we might do with it. Parker wasn't the only Bop stylist. A sax player once told me that Sonny Stitt was a better source for bop vocab...
    Parker is what BH is all about... WELLL I say that but I think it's a little closer perhaps to Bud Powell. And since this is about what BH teaches as bebop common practice, Parker remains the touchstone.

    (In terms of who I like to listen to, any of the above will rock my world.)

    However, I would say that my transcription of '50s era players does reveal a surprising level of agreement in terms of how those musicians played changes. There was a real common practice. And it all stemmed from Bird.

    In terms of pure rhythmic imagination, Bird is still head and shoulders the greatest, apart from Rollins. Rollins is the next step from Parker, phrasing wise, IMO. A lot of the 2nd gen guys are a simplification of Bird in terms of phrasing, which is why often they are better to start with - Dexter, Mobley etc. Maybe Stitt.

    On the subject of this - and Barry, I urge you to read this article by Brad Meldhau

    Carnegie 05 — Brad Mehldau

    This is not to knock Bird off his perch- he's untouchable and unrepeatable- just saying' the Omnibook is not the only fountain of knowledge for those of us who wanna master playing changes. He himself would think that rather lame. He found his way, and would expect that others would find their own. Instead of feeling flattered at all the copycats, I bet he felt annoyed. There's plenty of ways to get from one note to the other, and there are other as yet undiscovered licks and devices that can still sound Boppish. There have been and will continue to be great players who don't have a single Bird lick in their bag.
    I don't personally use the Omnibook as a source for vocabulary. It's good for sight reading practice, and checking one's work.

    I use my ears. Although I don't use solos as a source of vocabulary either, these days. I'm really not interested in that at all. I want to master the language and become a real improviser, not regurgitate other people's words out of context.

    The whole idea of Barry's teaching is playing bebop beyond simply regurgitating licks. Bebop as a language. Also someone I feel who is always worth listening to on this is Bruce Foreman. Great bop players in the tradition who do not resort to cliches.

    As you rightly say: if bebop to you is about playing chunks of Bird, you have indeed missed the point of that music. I suspect college courses take that short cut.

    As for BH, it's great that he keeps the torch aflame, but for me, the inflexible rule based approach takes the fun out of making up one's own rules. Anyone else think this?
    I used to think this. Then I realised that inflexible rules based approaches have strong advantages. It's good to have something very specific to practice, and it helps teaching too. I don't expect musicians to go for it necessarily, but it's there if they want it.

    Would a composer skimp on learning Bach harmony? Species counterpoint?

    What bebop line construction teaches has, IMO, a value beyond just being able to play bop.

    Furthermore, should you be so minded, it's possible to very creative within the guidelines set by Barry. I actually find it very fun, at least in a very specific, weirdo sort of way, like Chess or crossword puzzles or something.

    If you are serious about developing your technique, sometimes the 'fun' creative side of it has to be tempered with some serious disciplined study. But you already knew that ;-)

    Doesn't have to be bop, or Barry, of course.
    Last edited by christianm77; 03-09-2018 at 04:10 PM.

  5. #179

    User Info Menu

    If anybody cares ...

    Mark Levine's Jazz Theory has a short section on HM. He suggests that it is used infrequently in its entirely, but frequently in fragments. He gives examples from players who do use it. It's minor ii V i stuff

    He also offers an opinion about why it isn't used more. He says, that "it fits no one particular chord .... no matter what chord you pay it on, at least one note ... sounds like an avoid note".

    And then he gives examples of the avoid note working anyway.

  6. #180

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    There's a lot to unpack from this post...



    It isn't. But that's not my area really, explaining textbook CST. I have my uses for it.

    And of course there's a lot more you can do with CST beyond just notes up in stacking thirds, if you are interested in that (which I am actually.)



    Parker is what BH is all about... WELLL I say that but I think it's a little closer perhaps to Bud Powell. And since this is about what BH teaches as bebop common practice, Parker remains the touchstone.

    (In terms of who I like to listen to, any of the above will rock my world.)

    However, I would say that my transcription of '50s era players does reveal a surprising level of agreement in terms of how those musicians played changes. There was a real common practice. And it all stemmed from Bird.

    In terms of pure rhythmic imagination, Bird is still head and shoulders the greatest, apart from Rollins. Rollins is the next step from Parker, phrasing wise, IMO. A lot of the 2nd gen guys are a simplification of Bird in terms of phrasing, which is why often they are better to start with - Dexter, Mobley etc. Maybe Stitt.

    On the subject of this - and Barry, I urge you to read this article by Brad Meldhau

    Carnegie 05 — Brad Mehldau



    I don't personally use the Omnibook as a source for vocabulary. It's good for sight reading practice, and checking one's work.

    I use my ears. Although I don't use solos as a source of vocabulary either, these days. I'm really not interested in that at all. I want to master the language and become a real improviser, not regurgitate other people's words out of context.

    The whole idea of Barry's teaching is playing bebop beyond simply regurgitating licks. Bebop as a language. Also someone I feel who is always worth listening to on this is Bruce Foreman. Great bop players in the tradition who do not resort to cliches.

    As you rightly say: if bebop to you is about playing chunks of Bird, you have indeed missed the point of that music. I suspect college courses take that short cut.



    I used to think this. Then I realised that inflexible rules based approaches have strong advantages. It's good to have something very specific to practice, and it helps teaching too. I don't expect musicians to go for it necessarily, but it's there if they want it.

    Would a composer skimp on learning Bach harmony? Species counterpoint?

    What bebop line construction teaches has, IMO, a value beyond just being able to play bop.

    Furthermore, should you be so minded, it's possible to very creative within the guidelines set by Barry. I actually find it very fun, at least in a very specific, weirdo sort of way, like Chess or crossword puzzles or something.

    If you are serious about developing your technique, sometimes the 'fun' creative side of it has to be tempered with some serious disciplined study. But you already knew that ;-)

    Doesn't have to be bop, or Barry, of course.
    Great answers, as always Christian. I suppose my point was that there can be other systems of discipline we can discover for ourselves, and for me, that's the "fun" bit. I mean, if we consider just one of the basic tenets of Bop : "Thou shalt play chord tones or desirable extensions on most of the downbeats".... There are many ways to solve this "puzzle" without needing to know how others do it. Same goes for ways of targeting or encircling, approaching, pivoting etc.

    But really, if we listen enough to this music (Bop, Hard Bop etc), we get the inflection, the nuances, the phrasing etc of it's "language". Because of this, the traditions will still show up in our playing, but the inaccurate way that we might decipher it all leads to the interesting outgrowths of accidental new mutations. This more than anything will keep the music alive in an ever evolving way, it can be organic. Instead of worshipping it's ashes, we fan it's flames, or something...

    And yes, for those just wanting to get started, the BH road seems like a great one, but it seems to demand long term commitment in order to bear it's fruit. But some of us have a problem with method books, or courses. Too rigid, too static, too much fear that we'd turn out cookie cutter Jazz.... Not saying that's been a problem for you as you seem to have happily incorporated all things into your own "method", and I think that approach has been fun for you, right? Bit of this, bit of that.... although, some "bits" can be separate disciplines that will take years to incorporate (BH, for example).

    So yeah, just sayin' it may not be the best use of time to stick with just one discipline for too long if it will stunt your growth. This is why teachers are really important in Jazz study, it takes having gone through the long term learning experience in order to impart to the student his/her best use of time in each area of study in order to reach one's goals.

    Without a guide, you're kinda flying blind, as I did for too many years! I think a very good teacher would probably not suggest that his student do nothing but BH for the first 5 years...

  7. #181

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    ... and this article in right on point too, nice find. Interesting how Brad sees Trane's developing style as a misreading of both Dexter's and Bird's...

    Perhaps we might venture to say that Mehldau's own style is a result of misreading his own influences, as respectful as he is of them (after all, he doesn't really sound too derivative does he?).

    But if you listened to BH and Lou Donaldson and took it as the Bop Gospel, at best after many years you'd be a second rate BH, Bud Powell, or Bird. Barry may be happy for that to be the case, because his students will always remain in his shadow, but I say fuck that. I don't wanna spend 10,000 hours only to be in someone's towering shadow. I'd much rather put much of that time into developing my own "take" on this whole deal. It may come off sounding a little inauthentic or NQR, but if you spend that much time on any creative pursuit only to be a poor clone, then I say you've been ripped off! Others may disagree...

  8. #182

    User Info Menu

    .... oh this bit's worth quoting - it's from essay#4

    "Authenticity and originality are both weak tropes because, on their own, they can only account for weak players. True originality, and thus true creativity, never takes place in a historical vacuum; it is always rooted to something that has gone before. I remember observing the phenomenon of rootless “creativity” in my high school jazz band growing up. There were those of us who were listening to jazz and would go on to try to be musicians. Our fledgling attempts at soloing reflected whatever we had absorbed at that point – a little Bird, McCoy Tyner, Michael Brecker, what have you. Then there were kids in the band who were not going to pursue jazz for their life, had only a passing interest in playing music, and had hardly listened to jazz at all. They would also get a solo feature now and then.

    What did they play? It was sort of like playing scales up and down the horn. What was striking was that they all sounded the same: One would think that with all the freedom that an improvised context could have, they might all play something different. But collectively, the kids who weren’t really listening to jazz actually encompassed a style of sorts, and that style was dictated by their limitation. The limitation was due to the fact that they hadn’t absorbed anything; they hadn’t begun to even mimic like we were. There is a rule here, to gloss on Tolstoy: Rootless players are all alike, but every rooted player is rooted in his or her own way. Yes, there are tons of rooted players who are not original, but as a listener, give me the unoriginal player who has listened to a lot of great music and absorbed it any day to the player who hasn’t absorbed much of anything. This brings us back to the importance of input again: Without input, we have no model for our own style; without learning a language, we have no model to create our own. There is indeed an international style of rootless jazz playing. In the name of creativity, it expresses banality. In its lazy quest for the original, it finds only unoriginality.
    The champions of authenticity can take some poetic justice from that phenomenon. All their hard work, all their striving to do justice and pay homage to their forefathers, places them above the lazy, rootless denizens who never engage deeply in the music, who treat jazz like a subsidized vacation and not as a serious discipline. Through their loyal devotion to their influences, the authenticity-seekers have mastered a language; the rootless players merely babble with each other like babies on the bandstand. To be sure, there is justice for someone who devotes himself to the past in jazz: He has the comfort of his craft and the reassurance of deep knowledge. Still, knowledge alone makes him only a craftsman and not a creator."

    Yes, bravo. I'd just like to add though, that it's far too polemic too place the "rooted" (in jazz tradition) at one end of the spectrum, and the rootless at the other. In reality of course, on most Jazz bandstands, you have people not only somewhere in between, but mostly leaning towards the schooled side. So the distinction needs to be more subtle, i.e., what is deemed preferable, an improvisor who is partly rooted but has ideas outside of the usual, or someone who is deeply rooted, but is unoriginal?

    See, even here we know that there are good and bad examples on both sides. Suffice to say that for me, If I hear someone speaking "jazz", albeit with a strange and wonderful accent, I might prefer that to either of the diametrically opposed extremes- that being the completely unrooted that is speaking gibberish, and the deeply rooted that is mired in cliche... YMMV.

  9. #183

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    If anybody cares ...

    Mark Levine's Jazz Theory has a short section on HM. He suggests that it is used infrequently in its entirely, but frequently in fragments. He gives examples from players who do use it. It's minor ii V i stuff

    He also offers an opinion about why it isn't used more. He says, that "it fits no one particular chord .... no matter what chord you pay it on, at least one note ... sounds like an avoid note".

    And then he gives examples of the avoid note working anyway.
    I kind of regard MLs book as completely irrelevant to the study of bop.

  10. #184

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Great answers, as always Christian. I suppose my point was that there can be other systems of discipline we can discover for ourselves, and for me, that's the "fun" bit. I mean, if we consider just one of the basic tenets of Bop : "Thou shalt play chord tones or desirable extensions on most of the downbeats".... There are many ways to solve this "puzzle" without needing to know how others do it. Same goes for ways of targeting or encircling, approaching, pivoting etc.
    This is not one of the tenets of bop. Look at the first three notes of Billies bounce for instance.

    It is an essential skill if you want to learn to outline changes in scalar lines. And then subvert the rhythm from there.

    Personally, I had my own approach, and then I realised Barry’s approach completely encapsulated and extended it, and it was redundant.

    What Barry’s improv material really teaches imo is rhythm, and becoming sensitised to the connection between rhythm and pitch in lines.

    In regard to extensions - I think people get hung up on the wrong things. Extensions are for target chords. Everything else is just a line looking for a resolution. That’s why harmonic minor works btw. And why maj7 on dominant is not a big deal in a bop line.

    But really, if we listen enough to this music (Bop, Hard Bop etc), we get the inflection, the nuances, the phrasing etc of it's "language". Because of this, the traditions will still show up in our playing, but the inaccurate way that we might decipher it all leads to the interesting outgrowths of accidental new mutations. This more than anything will keep the music alive in an ever evolving way, it can be organic. Instead of worshipping it's ashes, we fan it's flames, or something...
    I respect this point, and I will think about it.

    And yes, for those just wanting to get started, the BH road seems like a great one, but it seems to demand long term commitment in order to bear it's fruit. But some of us have a problem with method books, or courses. Too rigid, too static, too much fear that we'd turn out cookie cutter Jazz.... Not saying that's been a problem for you as you seem to have happily incorporated all things into your own "method", and I think that approach has been fun for you, right? Bit of this, bit of that.... although, some "bits" can be separate disciplines that will take years to incorporate (BH, for example).
    I’m not sure it is for the beginner tbh. I’m in two minds about when to start teaching this stuff.

    Embellishing chord tones is certainly a very important basic skill. And to use BHs stuff you kind of have to be able to do that already imo.

    I came to Barry after an extended period of being a chord tone improviser and lick guy, which I think is maybe an important phase.

    So yeah, just sayin' it may not be the best use of time to stick with just one discipline for too long if it will stunt your growth. This is why teachers are really important in Jazz study, it takes having gone through the long term learning experience in order to impart to the student his/her best use of time in each area of study in order to reach one's goals.

    Without a guide, you're kinda flying blind, as I did for too many years! I think a very good teacher would probably not suggest that his student do nothing but BH for the first 5 years...
    One of the bits of advice I give to jazz novices is - learn bop heads by ear and try to take them apart to see how they work.

    Don’t do solos till later. Heads have the advantage that you can play them on gigs, and there’s plenty of language in them.

    Plus it’s less daunting for the student to learn the 12 bars of Billies Bounce or the 9 bars of material in Scrapple then a whole solo.

    I teach a few more advanced students (college level, pro players in other styles etc) and what i notice is obvious - those who can hear jazz phrases can play jazz, those who can’t, well they can’t. The good players have all done lots of transcription which is one obvious way to learn to hear phrases.

    So the next step for them is to move them away from playing licks, and get them to stop using transcription as a source of vocabulary and starting inventing their own shit.

    (Within bebop BH is a fun and flexible way to explore this. I also teach CST ideas too, I borrow from everywhere and try and target my teaching to the style and interests of the student.)

    But that’s not to say that what they’ve done is wrong. On the contrary, they are walking the path.
    Last edited by christianm77; 03-10-2018 at 05:48 AM.

  11. #185

    User Info Menu

    Oh btw I kind of feel that Forward Motion by Hal Galper is kind of Barry Harris approached from the opposite direction.

    The basic concerns are the same - how pitch and rhythm are interlaced.

  12. #186

    User Info Menu

    Can you explain BH's rhythmic approach in a nutshell?

  13. #187

    User Info Menu

    You’re missing the point. There’s no fancy special info here. There’s no theory here you don’t already know.

    There’s only practicing your scales etc in the way he outlines and then you get better at making bebop lines. Or at least I did.

    It’s old school hands on learning, like learning a trade or a craft. It’s not about ideas or debate.

  14. #188

    User Info Menu

    OK, I thought you may have been alluding to some part of his teaching that refers specifically to a special rhythmic aspect. What I gleaned was long streams of 8ths with rules about where to insert chromatics. A few years back I made up a series of my own exercises where I use chromatic embellishments, sometimes only a couple, up to some that contain all of them. All in all I have dozens of these devices which I practice for every chord in every key in every position. I also vary how I start and end them, on different parts of the bar which forces alterations to the resolutions.

    I think it covers a lot of the same ground as the BH rules, but in different ways. I also have triplet based ideas that can be intermingled and still outline underlying chords, but the one thing all these exercises doesn't do is give me any facility for varying rhythmic phrasing. Sure, I can leave gaps, play some parts in double or half time and that provides for a lot of variation, but it's not giving me tools to phrase like Parker, that's for sure (which is OK by me). So was wondering, given that BH is big on Bird and Bud, if the BH teachings address this aspect, that's all.

    Regardless, I view all this training (I shed this stuff a lot BTW) as merely a way to add filler to more melodic playing, i.e., melody / filler / melody / filler etc. This comes from my analysis of players I admired where I noticed that they had the ability to improvise melody as well as a way to produce endless variations on their "devices". Some players, in addition, also have pet licks or lines that they also get good mileage from by offsetting, stretching, compressing, substituting etc. Me, if I play too much pattern or device based filler, I sound lame, but when I attempt pure melody (basically "singing" through the guitar) it's slower and not always accurately what I'm going for, and therefor also lame...

    But by combining these elements it sounds a little less lame. The new challenge of course becomes how to cover the seams and create the illusion that it's all spontaneously expressed melody on the fly. Now that is the one thing where Bird will always kick your ass. It took Thomas Owens years to figure out that Parker really was regurgitating just a coupla hundred or so chunks or cells, otherwise, you'd think he had a bottomless well to draw from, and that any perceived repetition was meant for effect...

    But like I said, there are other players that I'd rather sound in the ballpark of, this week it's early Martino

  15. #189

    User Info Menu

    Well he's big on triplets.

    You have to work through the DVDs really, I don't want to recap what's on there. I would be surprised if there wasn't overlap between what you came up with and the BH material.

  16. #190

    User Info Menu

    Maybe it has already been said in this long and interesting thread but it seems to me that the main reason BH has little to say about harmonic minor in particular is that the HM scale tones are included in the minor sixth diminished, his scale of choice for both minor tonality and altered dominants.

  17. #191

    User Info Menu

    min6 dim, also he gives the scale as an alteration of the dominant, G7 to the third of E7 for instance. It’s true he doesn’t reference harmonic minor explicitly, and the only reason I do is when I talk about it the Barry way no one has a scooby what I’m on about.

    Probably because more people have heard about the harmony stuff and don’t realise the improvisation stuff is separate and different, although you can use the 6-dim scales to create lines also.

    Barry also uses tritone and tritone’s minor (altered) in lines.

  18. #192

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    ... if I play too much pattern or device based filler, I sound lame, but when I attempt pure melody (basically "singing" through the guitar) it's slower and not always accurately what I'm going for, and therefor also lame...

    But by combining these elements it sounds a little less lame ...
    PP, I enjoyed your post, and I'd like to hear more about your "devices" -- but the bit above made me laugh. It approximates how I feel about my own playing.


  19. #193

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Probably because more people have heard about the harmony stuff and don’t realise the improvisation stuff is separate and different, although you can use the 6-dim scales to create lines also.
    Yes, we are taught at the outset to distinguish between the linear and harmonic approaches but the further you go into it the more overlap you find. This is not to say that BH presents a unified theory of jazz improv and harmony, which may be why novices are cautioned to separate them.

  20. #194

    User Info Menu

    I found many Harris things in Wes playing. What about this phrase from Sundown:

    Barry Harris & Wes Montgomery-captura-de-pantalla-2019-02-22-las-20-35-17-png

    (Played over from A7 going to the IV) Chords from 7th and 3rd and diminished arpeggio from 2nd, pure Harris pedagogy. I am sure Wes wasn't a savant, He knew perfectly what the was doing and he had a plan; He played lines the same way he played chords, taking advantage of diminished chords in between.

  21. #195

    User Info Menu

    I think that just illustrates how much there was a common practice post Parker...

    You know theory... it's a funny thing. I'm certain anyone as bright and musical as Wes would have noticed patterns and come up with systems for playing music, it's just that he didn't necessarily talk about it to my knowledge...

    I reckon anyone who can play does this.

  22. #196

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I think that just illustrates how much there was a common practice post Parker...

    You know theory... it's a funny thing. I'm certain anyone as bright and musical as Wes would have noticed patterns and come up with systems for playing music, it's just that he didn't necessarily talk about it to my knowledge...
    Even people who don't play well (or don't play well yet) can hear this in the playing of others. Breaks by horn players are a great example. Those flourishes are not improvised note-to-note but pattern-to-pattern.

    You can hear a lot of that in Clifford Brown's playing.



    Here is a snippet of the "Clifford Brown practicing" floating around YouTube. Lot of patterns in there....


  23. #197

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I think that just illustrates how much there was a common practice post Parker...

    You know theory... it's a funny thing. I'm certain anyone as bright and musical as Wes would have noticed patterns and come up with systems for playing music, it's just that he didn't necessarily talk about it to my knowledge...

    I reckon anyone who can play does this.
    There's that video of him showing Pim Jacobs how to play "End of a Love a Affair", especially the bit where he shows him a back-cycling/re-harm thing. That makes it pretty clear that he could talk about and explain harmony. It's obvious from that and his playing that Wes knew plenty and had a well structured and organized system. I imagine on his recording dates and when he rehearsed bands there was plenty of conversation about what's what. But his career was so short, and there are so few interviews with him that we just don't have much record of how he systematized his playing.

    John

  24. #198

    User Info Menu

    great teacher too!


  25. #199

    User Info Menu

    I thought Barry Harris taught harmonic minor without calling it that...

    D-7b5 play descending scale: Ab G F Eb D C B

    G7 b9 same as above

    C- tonic play C D Eb F G G# A (B)

    So isn’t that in other words harmonic minor over the ii and the V? Yes
    And then on the minor tonic play the minor major scale (MM) with added #5 (Of course BH calls that the 6th dim scale)

  26. #200

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rintincop
    I thought Barry Harris taught harmonic minor without calling it that...

    D-7b5 play descending scale: Ab G F Eb D C B

    G7 b9 same as above

    C- tonic play C D Eb F G G# A (B)

    So isn’t that in other words harmonic minor over the ii and the V? Yes
    And then on the minor tonic play the minor major scale (MM) with added #5 (Of course BH calls that the 6th dim scale)
    Nah boss

    On Dm7b5, we relate to Bb7. We play Bb7 scale (which is the same notes as C natural minor)

    On the G7b9, we run the Bb7 scale to the third of G7.

    This can turn in the harmonic minor, but actually as I now understand it but really it's more like you take the dominant shit you've worked out (because basically you should have spent about 18 months coming up with cool bop shit to play on dominant chords without bothering with other chord qualities) and be able to run it into a minor chord using the dim7 on third of the G7 chord...

    Or use the tritone of course.

    Tonic minor is correct. You could also think of that scale as a harmonic minor with an added 6... Which is actually how I view it... I see the 6 as a colour tone on the tonic chord.

    C harmonic minor can be broken into C minor triad + B dim 7 chord.
    C min-6 dim is Cm6 + B dim 7 chord