syncopated soloing with Bebop scale

[destinytot]

The point of its value as an exercise is a good one, I think.

It's a little confusing. I've heard people say not to worry about the beat/on beat part as much as tension /release considerations. Then, other folks talk about beat/on beat considerations as actual "rules".

The truth is that jazzers don't think of "the beat" as being a static thing, not in terms of melodic and harmonic rhythm. So on-beat "rules" work off the beat, but the musician isn't really thinking of it as syncopation as much as just kind of "messing with" the beat. This creates cognitive dissonance of sorts when the beginner musician realizes that the "rules" are broken by real players.

It's with good reason, however, that chord tones on the beat are taught as common practice in the beginning most everywhere. It teaches really good concepts. In the real world , jazz musicians make a habit of messing with time though. Fitting eighth note patterns over triplets, triplet patterns over 16th notes etc., while actually using the same "rules" for each.

I'm not a player or teacher of jazz. These are just my own observations and reflections, as a "student", of many players and teachers who would otherwise seem to be saying opposite things. I think it's mostly semantics.

For me, the pronunciation of numbers is rather telling with regards to 'the feel' of 'the beat'; it seems to vary when people from different cultures count off a tune in English. (Other elegant pronunciations exist, but - for me - people from the Americas do it with the attitude and style I like.)

[destinytot]

My comments about limited harmony referred specifically to section writing in dance bands, not improvisation or construction of melodies. I base my comments on knowledge of arranging conventions of that era. Not only from the many arranging books I've read that were published during the 30s (and the 20s in one case), but also from transcription and analysis of scores.

Of course you can find exceptions to the rule, but the point I was trying to make was that big band conventions were stifling. This is confirmed by interviews with many of the arrangers of that period. Many had their hands tied. It was partly that frustration that led talented arrangers such as Mary Lou Williams to go her own way. Although she is generally associated with the Swing era, she became a mentor to the be-bop generation and held court to the likes of Monk and Dizzy. She was playing quartal hamony 20 years before it was fashionable, yet she had to fight hard to incorporate even basic colour into her arrangements in the early days.



TBH I don't like many of the big names in Swing. Erskine Hawkins, however, is more my sort of think. He was hugely influential (his name crops up all the time in interviews with great arrangers). There are plenty of other acts who were in his league, you just have to search them out. For me, the appeal of his music (and others like him) is the rhythmic complexity of the arrangements. Not necessarily in terms of outlandish syncopation, it was the way all those old arrangements mesh together lead and background parts. It was ingenious. Post-war arrangers went for 'open' arranging, with less meshing of rhythms. When they did it wasn't as dense, rhythmically. Their music lacks the excitement of earlier bands IMO. In fact, I hate most post-war big band music. They all thought they were Claude Debussy...and it shows.



That's only one arranging technique, which was still in use post-war. There's a whole gamut of tricks used by Swing era arrangers that were discarded by post-war snobs. Convention changed over time, even within the Swing era. A huge amount of stuff from the formative years of Swing was three-part writing, which allowed for greater manipulation of the inner parts (a hell of a lot harder to do with a 4 or 5 part section). Different end result. A cliche of the late 20s early 30s was shrill saxes, played in their upper range. Too penetrating to be popular, but it was idiosyncratic of that era. Then there's the clarinet lead over saxes cliche (which, shamefully, was totally discarded) and all manner of muted brass combinations that went out of fashion. Saxes doubled by staccato, muted brass to allow them to dominate 'tuti' sections. The list goes on. All these are useful arranging tools. Doesn't matter if you love/hate the music, if you're objective there's a lot to learn from earlier conventions.



All critics are full of ****. I have my issues with a lot of what Schuller comes out with. That said, the good ones also make insightful comments. There's no point totally dismissing someone on account of the occasional sacred cow being slayed. Take the best, reject the worst.

Just to say a big THANK YOU for these fascinating posts - and please keep it coming!

[christianm77]

My comments about limited harmony referred specifically to section writing in dance bands, not improvisation or construction of melodies. I base my comments on knowledge of arranging conventions of that era. Not only from the many arranging books I've read that were published during the 30s (and the 20s in one case), but also from transcription and analysis of scores.

Of course you can find exceptions to the rule, but the point I was trying to make was that big band conventions were stifling. This is confirmed by interviews with many of the arrangers of that period. Many had their hands tied. It was partly that frustration that led talented arrangers such as Mary Lou Williams to go her own way. Although she is generally associated with the Swing era, she became a mentor to the be-bop generation and held court to the likes of Monk and Dizzy. She was playing quartal hamony 20 years before it was fashionable, yet she had to fight hard to incorporate even basic colour into her arrangements in the early days.

That's certainly how I took it. Small bands were freer by the sounds of it. Django was using non-functional chord progressions and modes in the 1930s.... There was loads of stuff going on... Interesting about Mary Lou. I really haven't listened enough to her. She was a badass.

It does kind of seem borne out by the way most big band stuff is very formulaic. It's a good formula, but it was pop music ultimately.

TBH I don't like many of the big names in Swing. Erskine Hawkins, however, is more my sort of think. He was hugely influential (his name crops up all the time in interviews with great arrangers). There are plenty of other acts who were in his league, you just have to search them out. For me, the appeal of his music (and others like him) is the rhythmic complexity of the arrangements. Not necessarily in terms of outlandish syncopation, it was the way all those old arrangements mesh together lead and background parts. It was ingenious. Post-war arrangers went for 'open' arranging, with less meshing of rhythms. When they did it wasn't as dense, rhythmically. Their music lacks the excitement of earlier bands IMO. In fact, I hate most post-war big band music. They all thought they were Claude Debussy...and it shows.

I do like it, in fact. I must hear more 20s/30s dance music than modern mainstream pop ATM - even in cafes and bars. It's real hipster. So I don't seek it out because it's just there on people's iPods, blaring out haha...

I really like Charlie Barnet. And of course there's early Raymond Scott....

Do you hate New Bottles Old Wine? I thought I knew Gil Evan's 'thing' until I heard his Lester Leaps In.

That's only one arranging technique, which was still in use post-war. There's a whole gamut of tricks used by Swing era arrangers that were discarded by post-war snobs. Convention changed over time, even within the Swing era. A huge amount of stuff from the formative years of Swing was three-part writing, which allowed for greater manipulation of the inner parts (a hell of a lot harder to do with a 4 or 5 part section). Different end result. A cliche of the late 20s early 30s was shrill saxes, played in their upper range. Too penetrating to be popular, but it was idiosyncratic of that era. Then there's the clarinet lead over saxes cliche (which, shamefully, was totally discarded) and all manner of muted brass combinations that went out of fashion. Saxes doubled by staccato, muted brass to allow them to dominate 'tuti' sections. The list goes on. All these are useful arranging tools. Doesn't matter if you love/hate the music, if you're objective there's a lot to learn from earlier conventions.

Very true, re learning from earlier conventions - I feel that some of this knowledge gets lost because many educators (and therefore students) don't check out prewar music in detail... I think the old stuff is fascinating and can be a real inspiration for developing your own sound. TBH I don't get on with this idea that there is a modern common practice and everyone should play CST in the Berklee way, and I think many players of my age and younger are rejecting this. Looking to the past can help fuel future developments.

I haven't studied arranging much TBH so that's interesting stuff, I'll keep and ear out for that stuff. Like Mike says, please keep this info coming.

All critics are full of ****. I have my issues with a lot of what Schuller comes out with. That said, the good ones also make insightful comments. There's no point totally dismissing someone on account of the occasional sacred cow being slayed. Take the best, reject the worst.

Well I think Schuller is great - I don't agree with all he says, but he was a very perceptive guy, comes from him having been a great musician in his own right. And Feather might have gone a bit OTT in his Django deicide, but he did so to promote Oscar Aleman, which I can kind of accept... It can get a bit boring when guitar players assume Django was the only guitarist in the 1930s worth listening to haha.

[christianm77]

For me, the pronunciation of numbers is rather telling with regards to 'the feel' of 'the beat'; it seems to vary when people from different cultures count off a tune in English. (Other elegant pronunciations exist, but - for me - people from the Americas do it with the attitude and style I like.)

Someone was telling me there's a whole thesis based on where James Brown placed his 'four' when counting a tune in (pushed) - I think they said it was in Grove, but as I don't have Grove, I can't really say. It would be a funny thing to include in such a classical music oriented work.

[GuitarGerry]

Christian, re Mary Lou, if you have a moment check her out in this NPR showcase:

Mary Lou Williams On Piano Jazz : NPR

She was a genius. She's one of the few women in the A Great Day in Harlem Photo, and for good reason (she commanded tremendous respect from the bebop generation):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Grea...m_(photograph)

In her late period work, you hear everything from Ragtime, to Swing, to Bop, to avant garde...all in the course of one song! Why? Because she lived through all those eras. Unlike some of the stalwarts of Swing, who managed to adapt to be-bop (albeit in a gentle way), she followed her own path, dictating trends in the process. In her mid-40s recordings you'll be listening contently and all of sudden a few bars of 4th chords miraculously appear. Where the hell did that come from?!

Sorry for gushing, but she's one of my favourite musicians. Her arranging was also top-notch and she was employed by the likes of Goodman. Innovative, fun, amazing sense of swing...sorry, I'm going to have sit down for a while...NURSE!

[GuitarGerry]

Contrary to what I thought, there's no mention of be-bop scales. However, Evans does confirm that during the Swing era there was a convention for using passing notes on offbeats only, to avoid clashes on beats where there was rhythmic stress (basically, the downbeats, due to 4-to the bar comping). The scale stuff must be in another of my old books...no idea which one though.

[GuitarGerry]

So I understand that the objective of the bebop scale(s) are to give you a chord tone on the down beat. What if you plan to play a syncopated note, like a quarter note preceded by an eighth rest? Would you play the chord tone on the off-beat, basically anticipating the downbeat, or play the tension and leave it ringing through the next downbeat.

I realize that neither is "wrong" and it comes down to personal taste and what type of feeling you are going for etc. However based on the philosophy that chord tones on downbeats are preferable as a default, what would be the preferred approach?

Sorry to have hi-jacked your thread (I take it that's why you reposted the question).

See reply no. 4. Look up the terms 'echappee' and 'encirclement'. If you play a quarter note on the offbeat and you opt for a non-chord note (in relation to the harmony occurring on the following beat), then the convention is to resolve the suspension on the next down downbeat, using either an echappee or encirclement. For example, over the space of 2 bars, the '&' of 4 (1st bar) has the start of your quarter note, which, on the '&' of 1 (2nd bar), will either move up a step or move to the lower auxilliary of the resolution note, which occurs on beat 2 (the next downbeat to follow the suspension). That maintains the chord tones on the downbeats thing. An alternative (one which I favour) to the 'echappee' is to move to another chord note before resolving...basically any in reach of your fingers. Up/down, doesn't matter. Some options sound better than others (experiment). Or you can just anticipate the note of resolution without a tie (two 8th notes, in succession, both the same). Clear as mud?

[christianm77]

What's missing in my view is an understanding of the rhythmic phrasing, and that common place note choices can be made to sound bebop if played in a certain way.

So it looks like a period piece to me. Some of those lines sound like tone rows! I think they were trying to understand the context of the new music from the point of view of Western Art Music (Schoenberg etc) and hadn't quite got used to the sound of it yet. I think if you turned up to a bop gig playing those lines that brand you as a contemporary cat! Harmonically George Evans is way more advanced than bebop haha.

Incidentally, the notation of the rhythms is funky isn't it?

[christianm77]

So I thought I'd upload this - just 8 bars of material that is indisputably bop and familiar to most of us. I'm going to start a separate thread on this, but this is relevant to the OP - notice what happens harmonically on the pushes. Hopefully that should answer the question.





Notice Barry Harris style I've just written Cm7 F7 as F7 - it makes the use of chord tones a little clearer.

[GuitarGerry]

Hmmmm. Have you played through his musical examples? It's quite interesting.

I haven't no, I've been busy with other projects over the last few years and (literally) have a pile of books and magazines to get through. I did notice that the rhythms looked rather stiff. Lets hope he made a few quid from the gullible...still, I love old books. The look, the feel, the smell...I need a cold shower.

[Jehu]

TBH outside of Early Basie, Fletcher Henderson and of course Ellington, per war big band music doesn't really grab me so much... I like it when I hear it just don't seek it out... you can't say Chick Webb and Jimmy Lunceford aren't swinging... But the small groups are what I'm interested in from that era.

OT, but do you have any juicy listening recommendations for small group pre-war swing?

[christianm77]

OT, but do you have any juicy listening recommendations for small group pre-war swing?

Well, I would certainly check out as many of Benny Goodman's small band recordings. The ones with Charlie Christian are the best known among guitarists - but the pre-CC recordings are great as well.

Django's recordings are another obvious one. But Django wasn't the only single note jazz guitar virtuoso active at that time. Oscar Aleman made some great recordings too, as did the Ferret brothers.

There are quite a few seminal recordings by Coleman Hawkins based around small bands of which Body and Soul is probably the most famous. There's a whole collection entitled 'the Bebop years' which despite the name is mostly late swing, featuring great players including CC, Allan Reuss and many others. You get a chance to actually hear the guitar.

The Kansas City Six, featuring Lester Young is a must. Significant for the history of the guitar too....

Quite a few of Bechet's best known recordings are from the 1930s.

If you want to check out Teddy Bunn (and you should), the various manifestations of the Washburn Serenaders features not only Bunn's fantastic playing, but also (I kid you not) some of the best Kazoo playing imaginable. No really.

Also, Fats Waller.

[GuitarGerry]

OT, but do you have any juicy listening recommendations for small group pre-war swing?

Probably a little on the commercial side, but I love the following:

Wingy Manone
Harlem Hamfats
Spirits of Rhythm
Nat King Cole Trio (still qualify as pre-war if you take US dates!)
Billie Holiday

Love the voice (stick with it to 1:20 mark):

[christianm77]

I dub this thread......

[GuitarGerry]

Yeah, but it was spectacular to watch...

[Jehu]

Cool. I'm pretty certain I have almost everything CC, Django, Aleman, and Hawkins recorded (except for 'The Bebop Years'... I'll be sure to check that out), but you've given me a few that were under my radar. Thanks!

[PMB]

I know this is an old(ish) thread but someone may be interested in this rhythmic study I put together recently for a student using the major bebop scale: