-
haha i just saw this
Originally Posted by princeplanet
i think the only logical solution is to go full ee cummings
-
11-20-2017 01:53 PM
-
i Originally Posted by christianm77
think that
's
an
e x c e l l e n t
...idea
-
I'm ok with that, but only if you killed it yourself. Still, poor Bambi... Originally Posted by destinytot
-
What makes the most sense to me (for people who learn the way I do) is to pick a tune that starts with two or four bars of Cmaj7. Then show the student the different sounds that can be created if you think about it in different ways. Start cataloging the options. Progress through the tune doing the same thing. Originally Posted by bako
Not too much at once.
Then, pick another tune, in a different key, and have them run through the options in that key.
The idea is to always teach in the context of a tune and emphasize learning each approach thoroughly, meaning the student can apply it in other tunes in different keys.
So, maybe All of Me. C Ionian, C Lydian, play Em, Am, Gmaj7 against C.
Then, E7. Play C Ionian or A Aeolian and point out that it may sound better to raise the G to a G#. Decide whether you want to mention A harmonic minor at that point. Maybe give another option or two.
For the A7, same sort of thing and work through the tune.
Then, pick a tune with some similar changes, maybe Sweet Georgia Brown. Work through that one.
Repeat. Builds harmonic knowledge, some CST, repertoire and grounds the theory in reality.
-
That sounds like fun, but does it really teach you how to resolve your phrases, connect chords? All Of Me played at a decent speed doesn't leave you much space to muck around with each chord separately. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
I think that's exactly my beef with CST. I was following that and taught like that for a long time and still didn't have a clue how to build my lines on basic standards that make sense in the big picture.
-
Is this accepted as the fact, that All of me goes from C Ionian to C Lydian, or you are just listing one possibility? How do I conclude that second is C Lydian, why not stay Ionian, or make it Phrygian, or something else? Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
I lied - courage of the knife but not of the blood. Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
Yeah I like those old tunes for harmonic messing around. Honeysuckle is also an excellent choice: Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
C7 | % | % | %
F | % | %| %
Basically...
Anyway, in terms of All of Me, you have a fairly straight up set of scales to play that will give you the obvious sound. Loosely put (and this is a MASSIVE oversimplification, but)
Swing - the most diatonic choices just changing the notes you need to for the chord - so E7b9 - play A harmonic minor (raise G to G#) but on A7 play the scale with just a C# (other notes diatonic)
(So CST guys would say A mixo b13 - Yuk)
Bop - in general treat the D minor chord as a target key centre - so we play E7-->A7-->Dm, so A harmonic minor, D harmonic minor for instance (Barry would go G7 into the 3rd of E7, C7 into the 3rd of A7)
Modern (post Bill Evans) - treat each dominant chord in isolation and use what you like (probably 1/2-W or altered)
Now on these secondary dominants moving towards Dm. I always feel that things like tritone subs and altered scales sound rather awkward on them (perhaps its the way I'm playing them.)
OTOH progressions where all the chords in the cycle progression are all dominant, such as Rhythm B section, Yesterdays second half, Sweet Georgia etc, allow for much more 'fun' - for instance, Parker treats them as 7#11 chords in the bridge of Moose the Mooche, but Bill Evans goes for some altered sounds on Yesterdays, and so on.
In terms of major chords, you may disagree, but I tend to hear things like Cmaj7#11 chords used primarily as ending chords in 50's jazz.... Using the #11 on chords in a progression is a bit more modern and takes you out of that traditional tonality. Is it a sound that works on All of Me? Maybe not, YMMV.
On the other hand you could come up maybe with a cool modern tune based on All of Me using these ideas.
-
To me practical use of scalse is more about building new relations... and also in combination with other tools..That sounds like fun, but does it really teach you how to resolve your phrases, connect chords? All Of Me played at a decent speed doesn't leave you much space to muck around with each chord separately.
I think that's exactly my beef with CST. I was following that and taught like that for a long time and still didn't have a clue how to build my lines on basic standards that make sense in the big picture.
Also if you think scales... you should think about root of the scales... and its characterestic pitches... and their relation to chord below... because otherwise it makes no sense.. I do not see any use of substituting C Ionian with E Phrygian unless you do want to accent E-F minor 2nd.. otherwise you can just play in C major key.
All of Me...
E7 chord in the key of C major... it's e-f-g#-a-b-c-d or you can treat it by the following chord - as dom to A7.. and if you understand that A7 is kind of derived from A-7 (not quite derived but Am7 is like dropped out here) you can lable it as dom of A Harmonic Minor
THe you can try to find some realted scale... like starting just from the next tone of the scale... it's f..
So you just try f-g#-a-b-c-d-e... it brings in F-minor triad sound... you can extend it and try just F melodic minor
f-g-ab-b-c-d-e... but since basically it's F minor triad you can even go ferther and try just F minor - f-g-ab-bb-c-db-eb... note the following chord A7 which contains C# (=Db)
you can apply ii-v tool... and take realtive dom chord Bb7 and play Bb Mixolydian...
or you can take Abmaj7 (as realtive to F minor)...
you alco can choose triton sub for E7 which is Bb7 and then relative ii is Fm7 and the IV of it is again Abmaj7
Now the idea is how you connect all of this with following A7 - Dm7 changes... the same way...
A7 here is a-b-c#-d-e-f-g... and you have ab-bb-c-db-eb-f-g ... if you take again the same route as above.. you get to Dbmaj7 which is by pityches = Abmaj7 (if you choose Db Mixolydian)...
Then you go to Dm7 chord in changes - which is just D Dorian here... take almost the same route as before, Dm7 is ii to G7 7 (v)... take triton sub of G7 (Db7) then realtive ii (Ab-7) then realtive iv which B7.. it's b-c#-d#-e- f#-g#-a#... c#=db, d#=eb, g#=ab... yes there are new notes but not so far from Ab Ionian or Db Mixolyd... and even closer to Db Ionian (if chose this before)...
So basically you can use just one of these scales through all three chords - keeping in mind the roots and the chord tones of coming to make tension resolution in phrasing...
Yes you will probably sound quite outside... but still logical if you treat it musically (depends on what you need)
So what's CST here for is to connect chords that from point of vieew of functional harmony has no (or very remote realtion)...
-
I was really chuffed when I realised you can find the F minor triad (and the Fminmaj7 and Fmin6) sound in A harmonic minor.
The note that takes you into E altered is really Bb, the b5. I think it sounds a bit awkward here but maybe you can make it work?
That kind of tritone/altered sound feels likes it destabilises the key too much as a secondary dominant in this context.
Great on the A7 though. (b5/Eb I mean)Last edited by christianm77; 11-21-2017 at 09:29 AM.
-
BTW - talking about this makes me remember the whole Bill Evans thing.... It's easy to talk about possibilities theoretically, but it's all a load of old bollocks till you actually hear it.
Anyway, I thought I'd wheel out this curiosity, from John Klopotowski's excellent A Jazz Life, a memoir of his studies with Warne Marsh, below, which I think best illustrates the points I was trying to make above.
Notice that the basic arpeggio structure (Jeff's 13th chord/scale) is an 8 note structure that includes the natural 5th alongside the flattened fifth.
Secondly, notice that when we fill in the diatonic steps, we do so in away that puts the arpeggio tones on the beat (rather like an extended bebop scale) - and that the first octave is basically C mixolydian and the second Db (melodic minor.)
Looking at this thing and the other Marsh 2-octave scales, made me realise that CST - at least as I had learned it - simplified several aspects of the use of these extended and altered harmonies, Basically, to make the tones of the 13th arpeggio the same as the intervening scale steps. I think this can be a basic confusion in much improvisatory technique which is people use the same notes as passing tones and harmonic tones, because everything gets condensed down to 7 note pitch collections.
This is not the fault of CST per se, but I think it is a confusion that is encouraged by the way the system is often presented. Someone, for instance studying bebop technique and then moving to CST would be better able to make that distinction.
They confuse, for instance, a 4th and an 11th. That might seem like pedantry, but to me it's a fundamental distinction, and it has a lot to do with rhythm and phrasing. Dissonant tones that are not 'tensions' in the CST sense create forward motion and direction. Intervallic playing - as noted by Barry Harris, of all people - is more free, but it can also be less inherently swinging.
Also, my point above that not all scales make a good, blending 2 octave 13th arpeggio. Some scales are basically always going to be an embellishment of a 1 octave arpeggio (such as the major scale) or a combination of two basic sounds (such as B dim and C minor in a C harmonic minor scale) that create tension and release.
-
By the way... in 2nd half of the 20th century some classical musicologists described a relation they called 'major/minor 3rd relation'. Most examples were from 20th century tonal music (like Shostakovich, Prokofiev) but some were from 19th century (like Liszt).I was really chuffed when I realised you can find the F minor triad (and the Fminmaj7 and Fmin6) sound in A harmonic minor.
The idea is that in some context the major and minor keys (not just triads!) that have 3rd in common are realtive... like Eb major and E minor...
I actually occasionally tried this thing intuitively (probably having Shostakovich in ears))) being in my teens when tried composition... I had a sort of small piece - quite simple and functional that shifted from E minor to Eb major quite easily without really a stong feeling of modulation.
-
Actually I quite like the altered scale on the E7 in All of Me now. I think I've got a bit better at hearing it.
But I really like 1/2-W there.
Interesting. A LONG time ago a went through a heavy period of listening to Shostakovich. Without having studied his harmony I wrote a piece that I wanted to sound a bit like him. That was literally the first thing I did.... Originally Posted by Jonah
Since then I have written some other tunes that make use of that movement.... But an example most people will know is Phase Dance by Pat Metheny:
-
Really if someone was going to list bulk Improv. Resources like CST.... I would want to see
Minor Chord ( then the Other Families )-then the Scales AND Pentas AND Secondary Arps that can be stacked upon it
With the' values' against the Original Chord
AND color coded to show :
1) Which are 'safe' Target Tones to land upon..
2) Which are strictly chromatic = resolve
immediately.
3) Which are " Borderline " (minor major
sevenths ) (minor major 6ths) etc.
For me personally learning a separate fingering and an entire 7 Note Scale to get a Major 6th on a Minor Chord would be insanely ridiculous and superfluous
BUT stacking a triad or Arp in addition to locating it directly and by ear would not be in addition to the Parent Arpeggio and Inside Scales and Pentas incuding Transposed Pentas etc.
But has anyone done this without adding a opaque black hole of obscurity to it ( lol )like George Russell did ?
I find that using for example II Harmonic Minor on a Dominant Type Chord in Blues sounds really cool as a One Octave line for example and I was superimposing basic Arps over other Arps but never did a 'study ' or really looked at all this..
.it could supplement my ear which is really how I Play ..
.by hearing the melodic cadence at the end of each of my lines - for this CST is useless.
> or FORCING a melodic cadence at the end of my lines which CST is really useless
"Why would you want the Color Coding Robert your ear should tell you that ?"
True- however if there are NOT a lot of target tones in the Resource - I would not bother to learn or use that 'Device'.
It should be focused on Target Tones and Inside.
Since CST is really for People who can Play already
How about to catalog ( Workbook Resource )a more complete reference...focusing on Inside Tones..obviously... ( it's easy to get outside quick with #IV Pentas and others ).
I remember seeing some Berklee Books long ago but they weren't too clear as References .
I do remember Leavitt referring to keeping upper extensions on Arps 'Diatonic' but to me this is less important than.stacking them over the C.O.M.
Tips and tricks to locate quickly all the Extensions by Stacking Triads etc. and other Arps with a Roman Numeral for example : Vminor 7th ( over minor i) etc etc.
Covered here and there but not in one succint Book has it been ?
Nuts and Bolts -NOT how to Play
I'll pay $ 20 for one Workbook .
$21.60 with a Diet Coke if there's a drive thru °°°
Is this too low ? $30 ?
Is there a Resouce Reference Book now ..?
I could do some myself but not as thorough and I need to Write Music not books ..lazy ...Last edited by Robertkoa; 11-21-2017 at 11:53 AM.
-
Yea... careful, we might start understanding what we're doing.
Part of playing jazz isn't just playing what's already implied... spelling and resolving changes, or doing the same thing with melodic movement...is basically already stated and implied from the tune.
Most of this discussion is trying to get together what should already be worked out. Basic musicianship.
When you see a II V. you have many options of how to approach. When you approach something, you generally have some type of reference, some type of organization for how your going to approach playing the music.
After years of playing... you can just play.... you've already developed your references, you can just play because you naturally know how to play using different approaches. You don't run into walls etc... You can fake your way through etc...
Instead of small targets.... your able to have one big target and also have lots of smaller targets going on because....you either understand what your doing or have made enough mistakes through trial and error to get to that point.
The great thing about somewhat understanding what your doing.... is your able to work with other players, bands etc... you have different ways to hear and understand where the music is going.
You see that II V and know...you have at least 3 standard references for hearing, The II, the V or the implied I etc...all of which have different results when improvising.
CST is nothing new, it's just a system for different possibilities of approaching functional harmony, no new rules, just expanding whats there already.
I know when I was a kid... and older player were showing me new note collections for V7 chords, which open other doors... I'm glad I didn't think man I don't need this shit, I already have it together.
-
This is really interesting stuff, philosophically. I feel like Reg is kinda getting at similar ideas but with a different parameter: time/harmonic rhythm. Both seem to address the same issue: that you can't just jump on the altered scale with both feet in any situation. Originally Posted by christianm77
If you just play that scale straight from the root in the situation, it sounds pretty crap. There are ways of handling it, but the angle reg is usually coming from is basically justifying it by referencing something that MAY imply altered in the original reference harmony. Altered is usually just a "sub" for harmonic minor. So basically, you can use altered in places it might not otherwise "work" easily, if you simply address the flat-9 of the dominant chord in a basic way first. Of course, that's beautiful because flat nine is very easy to hear and works most anywhere. Originally Posted by christianm77
When you hear him talk about how chord X "gives you access to melodic minor" in video or text on the forum, that's what he's on about. (ha! We have a former member who always got livid - just enraged - when he started saying "gives you access to" or "using blue notes to organize harmony"). At the time I didn't understand it either, But it has huge implications for using a lot more approaches to harmony.
(EDIT: posted before seeing reg's...) :-)Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 11-21-2017 at 01:31 PM.
-
Reg's posts are treasure troves of great information, but you kind of have to learn to "speak Reg" to understand it. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
-
That's cool. Can you give an example of playing ii-V differently in these scenarios? Originally Posted by Reg
(Don't mean to talk for you by the way. Good see you posting.)
-
But what I miss in a lot of modern guitarists - even some of the big names - is a connection between the melodic line, the harmony and the rhythm. I'm starting to think that a good jazz line will swing of its own accord (I'm thinking about what Peter Bernstein said about the melody to Along Came Betty for instance). Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
In any case that's an aesthetic - I filter through how I hear the music. I'm not necessarily judging player on how they fall in with this concept, it's more something I would like to develop in my playing....
Actually I've decided those scales sound best when played in a really obvious way haha.... Actually that's often what you hear in transcription even of very modern players. Simple ideas much of the time.If you just play that scale straight from the root in the situation, it sounds pretty crap. There are ways of handling it, but the angle reg is usually coming from is basically justifying it by referencing something that MAY imply altered in the original reference harmony. Altered is usually just a "sub" for harmonic minor. So basically, you can use altered in places it might not otherwise "work" easily, if you simply address the flat-9 of the dominant chord in a basic way first. Of course, that's beautiful because flat nine is very easy to hear and works most anywhere.
In a wider sense (for me), in a functional climate, it's just really hearing each note against the chord and then how it moves to the next... The b5 in the E7 chord for instance can resolve into the 1 or 9 of the next (A7). In this sense it can be heard as an extension of simple LNT or chromatic enclosure extended into the previous chord. That's how Bill uses it for example.
Reg is one of the few *guitar* players who I have heard in that style (i.e. groove-based, bluesy, vibey, Blue Note influenced, post-bop) who uses that type of heavy CST approach. (You might know some others?) I honestly think this type of approach is much more common among pianists working in the standards repertoire (again - Bill Evans etc.)When you hear him talk about how chord X "gives you access to melodic minor" in video or text on the forum, that's what he's on about. (ha! We have a former member who always got livid - just enraged - when he started saying "gives you access to" or "using blue notes to organize harmony"). At the time I didn't understand it either, But it has huge implications for using a lot more approaches to harmony.
(EDIT: posted before seeing reg's...) :-)
Bop guitar players tend to avoid CST language, at least in my experience. They probably know it, but it's kind of a background thing, and I think you have to step back a bit from there because most guitar players don't come from a functional harmony background - they come from blues and rock. So they don't have those basics down when they get into jazz even from the point of view of say, having played a load of 18th/19th century music since early childhood. (Hearing is more important than theoretically understanding here.) As a result there's often a bit of back-tracking later as they start to discover the language. I would describe that as my route.
Also as teachers we are aware of the dominance of CST in educational materials, so in fact when we have students wanting to learn functional jazz playing it's often a matter of pulling back and saying - now let's master the basics, chord tones, passing tones, diatonic scales through the changes etc.
Some are actively hostile to thinking that way, of course, such as a lot of the old guard.
Those who tend to be CST-heads or more often contemporary or fusion style players.Last edited by christianm77; 11-21-2017 at 02:38 PM.
-
Regarding the social/educational side of it.
I suspect the generation that started teaching and using CST already knew the prior jazz language in a very intuitive way - I'm thinking particularly of Gary Burton who knew all of the bebop by age 12 1/2 or whatever - he was a prodigy of course, but players still learned jazz in a 'street' vernacular from records and gigging. The nascent CST was a way of accessing sounds above and beyond that 50s Common Practice as well as contextualising some of the more interesting note choices of the previous generation.
And standards were simply the popular music of the time.
So - I'm kind of feeling that many of the musicians of the time may not have looked at vanilla changes playing in a theoretical way at all? Theory was a way to access sounds, not perhaps so much to describe stuff that was obvious and easy to hear?
(I do understand the likes of George Russell were interested in describing prior art as well as new directions, though.)
Nowadays, except for those from jazz and musician families, this stuff is all encountered in an academic environment.
-
Academic or auto-didactic (albeit with academic materials). Aside from a few basic lessons from a rock-oriented teacher when I first started, I was largely on my own to grapple with things. I picked up a few things from other players, copied records, etc. When I started into jazz seriously, it was all books and records. I didn't take any lessons until I was a couple of years in. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
For major scale harmony, Nettles and Graf makes the point that a chord-scale is basically a 13th chord.
C D E F G A B is Cmaj13
D E F G A B C is Dm13 and so on.
If the Dm chord was phrygian rather than dorian
D Eb F G A Bb C would give Dm7 (b9b13) or maybe b2.
If I understand what they're saying, you could write in scale names or you could just change the COM to the appropriate 13th chord. Or, whatever chord symbol would include all the relevant tones.
So, to pick another one at random ...
AHM A B C D E F G# would be Aminmajb13 or something like that.
Basically, the first half (all I've read so far) of N&G addresses seeing chords in this way. Seeing how they function in a context and then finding the chord/scale (meaning, which 7 or so notes) that fits according to this approach.
Unless I'm missing something, I'd much rather analyze things this way. That is, focusing on an elaborated chord name rather than having to think, "nth mode of Y scale/mode". It would be easier to appreciate which notes are being suggested -- and it would also make it easier to play chord melody and comp -- since it would keep you with the good extensions more easily.
What am I missing?
-
Yep I prefer that sort of nomenclature myself. Fewer names to learn.
-
[QUOTE=christ=
maj scale (abbreviated M)
Mb3 = melodic minor
M#5= harmonic major
Mb3b6 = harmonic min
Mb7 = mixolydian
Mb3b7 = dorian
Mb3b6b7 = aeolian
Mb5b6b7b9#9 = alt (this one gets unwieldy).
Chord symbols could be written as M with superscripts for sharps and subscripts for flats. I don't know how to type that on here. But it would be something like R 367, with the numbers in a subscript. Tells you the root, the chord, the scale and it seems like it would be easy enough to read.
-
Mb6 = harmonic major
M#5 = major augmented (mode III of harmonic minor)
But yeah
I'd use major (maj), dominant (dom) and natural minor (min) as baselines....
Altered is a decent name because it implies its nature - every note altered (flat) except the root.
I'd base chord names on chord symbols TBH.... No point reinventing the wheel.
Reply With Quote
anyone selling an ibanez pm120?
Today, 01:33 PM in For Sale