-
I guess I approach this in a more simple-minded manner.
Originally Posted by PMB
I know this song really from listening to Eddie Jefferson's vocalese version of the Coleman Hawkins version. It's been pointed out that Hawk's version departs from the melody, but it's pretty hard to listen to Hawkins or Eddie J., and then listen to a straight version of the head, and not know where it came from.
Hearing Eddie J. sing this, with the lyrics, it just doesn't minor to me. It's a romantic ballad... a song of longing...not lament. And little secondary dominant detours, or backcycles that occur in various songs, don't really change, necessarily, the tonality. I just got kind of hear them as extra spice notes, to lead into the next chord, usually.
Maybe that approach is just naive, and foolish, and will get me into trouble...but adding in a leading tone, seems to be a very temporary little fix, often.
-
01-20-2017 08:59 PM
-
I know that, which is why I've never really looked at them. Just happened to be browsing. In fact, I arrived on that page by accident. Originally Posted by christianm77
Mind you, you're being a little scathing and I'm not sure why. They're good enough lessons, they give the standard gen. Nothing wrong with that.
Absolutely, but you've got to be at a stage where you can understand and process that information.What do your ears tell you? Whose comping do you enjoy? What do you notice about the way they play? What voicings do they play?
Unless he means the actual player, it's a tutor, sort of swing style, rather simplistic, okay if you don't know much. We used to call it 'the Mickey Baker fun book'. Apparently there's a Part II but I haven't read that one.What is a Mickey Baker? :-) I know not of this thing you speak.
I never considered Mickey Baker a jazz player though. More rock n roll, band stuff. Check out YouTube.Last edited by ragman1; 01-20-2017 at 10:02 PM.
-
Originally Posted by goldenwave77
Sure, but that's because you already know the tune. If you'd never come across it before and someone played you the first bar, you mightn't guess it was in Db. I wasn't getting into stylistic matters but simply suggesting reasons that the first Db chord sounds less resolved than when it next appears at the end of a more conventional back-cycling sequence with a root note in the melody.
-
Well, what you say is true.
But, I've never picked up a leadsheet and said, "Wow...that song looks really interesting." I guess I always come to tunes from having heard them, and if I like them, I'll try to figure them out by ear, or find a leadsheet.
Part of the appeal of jazz, to me, is to find different versions of the same tune. Some people think Sonny Stitt's version of Body and Soul is better than Hawk's.
-
Sheesh. It's "Mickey Baker's complete course in jazz guitar".
It is what it is. Nobody said it was new and hip, but most of us still put our hands over our heart when we speak of it here. :-)Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 01-21-2017 at 01:50 AM.
-
Just in case, presumably Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
-
My ol' mentor said stacked triads were the basis and tension tones the spice. As he saw it, triads were anything from a m3 to augmented (4th) and you stacked them as needed for an interesting sound and to fit the needs of other performers in a group. And used passing tones and the leading tones of your stacks to get forward movement. Originally Posted by Jonzo
He wanted a student to both know why a certain stacking transitioned from previous to next bar intellectually and by hearing it. And to figure out why it worked better here than there on the neck.
He wasn't very concerned about what a chord was "called" but what function the tones ... as stacked ... produced.
At the same time he could work through the theoretical chord progression pattern faster than any of my comp theory profs in college.
And play any modal structure in any key blindfolded at speed. I'd sit and listen and watch his demonstration of what a jazz guitarist should do and know thinking mainly that no way in Hell was i going to master that.
But sitting there watching him demoing different stacked patterns as "this is so freaking easy ... " was a kick.
Stumbling fingers still need love ...
-
That was my first guitar book - then Chord Chemistry (which won me over to the point where I almost wept when I heard the author had passed away). Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Great thread and discussion!
I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater; harmony appeals to everyone on some level - beginner or no. But I completely agree with Christian about the value of bite-size chunks.
And it seems to me that the triad's melodic power is cumulative, with (a personal approach to) rhythm defining phrasing.
-
I would like to find out more about this if possible. Originally Posted by R Neil
-
The thing with Mickey Baker, bless him, is that he wasn't really jazz, he was R&B, so why's he written a 'jazz' book, not just a guitar book?
But I can see it might be a decent starter. Mine was Bert Weedon - and I've still got a copy :-)
-
Damn right I am. Originally Posted by ragman1
It's not intended to be personal, but I find this sort of thing frustrating and irrelevant. I'm not really interested in that type of thing, I guess, is probably the best way to put it.
Now this is what I think is interesting - what do Sonny Clarke or Bill Evans or Jim Hall actually play?
The textbooks are the records. The theory books are just sourcebooks to understand what you hear. An argument from this type of literature is no argument at all, because jazz, being improvised, remains an oral tradition.
I don't arrive at this stuff in a vacuum, and none of the ideas I talk about are in any way mine.
TBH every time you have made a statement about music theory or improvisation, and I have asked you for an example, you have always linked to an example of your own playing or some literature on the internet.
Beyond your playing itself, which I like, I have no idea what the context is for your music. Who do you listen to? Who have you checked out? What have you learned listening to your favourite musicians? That's what interests me, not what Joe Bloggs says about minor blues.
You don't seem to talk about your listening here.
Of course you don't have to have a context for it, but if you are going to engage in discussion with me about the finer points of music theory and teaching, I am primarily interested in engaging with discussions grounded in actual music that we love. Otherwise it seems like hot air to me.Last edited by christianm77; 01-21-2017 at 11:58 AM. Reason: edited for length and pomposity
-
In that spirit, I have started a thread regarding minor chords and comping. What would be really hip would be if people corrected any mistakes they think I have made, point out counterexamples and post examples of their own.
I think this is a good way forward for learning through this forum, if anyone else is up for it.
Comping listening group - evolution of accompaniment harmony
-
Hey Christian... thanks, and great idea. My basic music foundations are from triad function... I was classically trained as kid, piano thing. Basic functional reference for harmonic movement with voice leading as part of function, at least the organization behind movement.
Anyway the difference comes more into play when you gig with different musicians. Traditionally single line players don't really get improvising with changes, which I believe to be what performing in a jazz style is , as far as comping for someone improvising.
Part of this skill or style is being able to hear and understand the harmonic relationships with notes. Big difference between using voicings, inversions and voice leading.... as compared to using function(s) as reference with different types of melodic lead lines and rhythmically organized Harmonic rhythm of form. (improving while comping). Of course the melody or soloist is always in reference. Although there are many common practice or standard approaches for helping a soloist develop their solo.... use of tension release or development depending on how many layers are being used within the harmonic rhythm of tune.
I'm using Harmonic rhythm in a much more extended and organized manor. Not just chord movement etc. Generally more in the direction of function and the type of harmonic movement within that function, both macro and micro.
The general harmonic functional movement... basic changes and what Chord Patterns the changes become when actually performing the tune. And then generally there are micro functional movements within those chord patterns resulting from melodic lead lines and the rhythmical organization.... how we actually perform when we perform in different contexts.
Personally I see and hear Triads as not very fretboard functional performance approach for learning how to play the guitar.
They're to incomplete for some goals how to play the instrument. They miss to much. That's obviously personal opinion.
But it's pretty easy to hear and see results from how most guitarist actually comp. Which is generally very limited and.... well I've commented before.
Again I'll gladly join in on any comping thread you get going, I thinks that's always much better approach for most.
Oh yea your hearing very correct... I do have a style that I also like and use when I can. I do also play a lot of very vanilla gigs... more like work etc...
-
Ah, you're punchy this morning. This is good. I approve of emotional content! Originally Posted by christianm77
Mmm, that might be the impatient superiority of knowledge speaking. Maybe :-)I find this sort of thing frustrating and irrelevant
You'd have to ask them. Off-hand, I'd say years of playing and experience.How do you think those guys arrived at the info?
They play what they play. Not that we can't learn anything from them, but they do what they do. And, since they obviously don't sound like clones of each other, presumably they each play from their own experience and understanding.Now this is what I think is interesting - what do Sonny Clarke or Bill Evans or Jim Hall actually play?
So there's no one definitive authority - barring basic music rules, that is. I mean, the greatest literature still uses words that are spelled right and in some kind of intelligible order.jazz, being improvised, remains an oral tradition.
He suits you. Others have their own gurus, guiding lights, or what have you.If I gravitate to someone like Barry Harris it's because 1) he is an amazing bop pianist, up there with the best of them, 2) he was and remains an integral part of the jazz world - look at his biography and listen to his recordings with Dexter Gordon, Stitt, Wes, Coleman Hawkins, Elvin Jones etc and hear how he stands up in that environment, and most importantly 3) his ideas describe very well what I hear on bop records. But beyond that I have no loyalty to any school of thought.
Absolutely, no vacuum, but it might be a shame none of the ideas aren't your own.I don't arrive at this stuff in a vacuum, and none of the ideas I talk about are in any way mine.
If I use resources on the internet to back up what I'm trying to say it's because they're there and do the job. We are on the internet after all. But I certainly don't depend on them or use them as a bible.TBH every time you have made a statement about music theory or improvisation, and I have asked you for an example, you have always linked to an example of your own playing or some literature on the internet.
I see nothing wrong with referring to my own playing. Not that I'm in any way trying to say 'this is it, this is the rule'. That would be arrogant. Otoh, it's what I know and understand. It's wise not to try to go beyond one's own experience when demonstating, it's liable to go off into cuckooland.
Quite! And thank god for it otherwise we'd all be North Korean...Jazz education is full of factoids and contradictory information.
I think that's a limited statement. You can't really divorce recorded music from what anyone else thinks. Even the meanest information site isn't completely wrong. As I say, there are the ground level music rules without which there would be no structure or organisation whatsoever. After that it's what we extrapolate from it, experiment with, and play ourselves. The question is: does it work? If it sounds good, it is good.The only reliable source of info I can find is the music itself.
Bravo. Quite so, whether in music or life.The act of listening itself is creative.
I don't know. I don't listen to anything over and over but I am learning all the time. If I hear something that catches my ear I work it out or already understand it. I'd say I'm always accumulating knowledge but I'm not doing it deliberately.What sounds do you pick up on? What lines do you learn? Which records do you listen to over and over?
But that's the point. Where's the line between learning from listening and playing and merely copying? It's pretty thin, I'd say.It will be different for everyone. It's not about slavish imitation.
A great deal, but I remain independent of it. I have no gurus. I've listened to virtually everything posted here, known artists and our own players. Like I said, if it catches, it catches. I may try it out, I may not. It's a bit of an unknown process, if I can put it that way.I have no idea what the context is for your music. Who do you listen to? Who have you checked out? How much listening do you do?
TBH, I'm pretty certain most of my understanding, apart from basic stuff, has been gleaned from my own thinking and working it out. As I've said before I'd already worked out the minor thing, the triad thing, and lots of other stuff by recognising patterns. It's familiarity and seeing associations. There's nothing new under the sun, just new expressions and ways of conveying them. Some are fairly clear and simple, others are opaque, but there are still only 12 notes and so many frets.
You'll have noticed I'm a melodic player. I don't play bebop because I don't really play chordally. To my mind, although I really appreciate its skill, it can reduce music to a technical exercise, seeing who can do it best and quickest, and all that immature stuff. Like Giant Steps... what is that? Is that music or a race? That's why I like tunes like Iris, it has depth.
I don't, that's true. But I've posted examples like Wes' Lover Man, Joe Pass' Nuages, Eddie Diehl, and others. I'm quiet about it, that's all. But I don't have heroes, follow gurus, and all that. They're not me, they're playing from their own brains and my brain will never be theirs.You might have listened to loads and loads of stuff in great detail, but you don't seem to talk about it here
-
That's my feeling also. It can make a solo sound bare, like using only pentatonics. Originally Posted by Reg
-
Woke up this morning thinking about Mickey Baker and this thread. I had always assumed that the Mickey Baker thing was somewhat based on Freddie Green style lead lines, A little more fleshed out , but Green certainly implied a lot more in his lines than minor or minor 6. The minor 7 resolving to the 3rd of dominant seems to be one of many. I don't know where you draw the line between "implied" and actual voicings. I am assuming that "implied" is going a bit beyond what the OP was about. Freddie Green Style: Transcriptions
Anyway, when it comes to Mickey Baker dissent, I'm almost to the point of blind faith, putting my fingers in my ears and saying, "I'm not listening ". So, I'll admit to that. There are some things from my youth I want to believe in regardless.
Ha! :-)
-
ragman1 (or is it Mr Scroggins :-)) I really appreciate your good humour. I did change the wording of my post in attempt to make it a bit less high and mighty. My point stands, I think people can always get the most out of going back to the sounds.
Firstly there is so much information and teaching materials people often end up talking about books, software videos and internet lessons. To me this kind of suggests music itself gets lost. I'm not a technophobe, but this stuff can be a distraction.
Furthermore, if we are going to debate what that jazzguitar.be lesson says vs say what Barry Harris says about comping - well you'd have total disagreement and no conclusion. BH has it if you want to play bop, but ultimately we have different things. Who is right? Well that's where your listening and your own sensibility kicks in.
So that's saying that minor, minor 7th, minor 6th chords and so on all have different sounds. These sounds are appropriate in different situations. No one would disagree with that, I take it?
So why bring it up? Well, someone who automatically plays a m7 chord on every minor is probably going to sound a bit crap in some situations. I used to be a player like this, so I know they exist and I think it was thinking that jazz harmony = seventh chords that made me play that way :-) Also Peter Bernstein mentions how important it is to differentiate between the minor sounds, so this in one of those workshop videos, so others must have similar issues.
I don't want to come across as someone who is out to police other people's methods. If I teach someone I have a certain corpus of knowledge and organised information that I can use to this end. The info will probably be mostly similar to what other people
That's what the OP is about - how to organise that info so things are clear. There's not always a best way to do this, but I think it can't be assumed that someone new to jazz has mastered triadic harmony.
There's no argument to be had ultimately. It's just an observation with students - can you improvise in Bb major chord tones, yes or no? If no, teach Bb chord tones, if yes, move onto the next thing.
The way Henry and Matt framed it is less - the (seventh chord) system is wrong, more the system makes bad assumptions about the basic level of knowledge. I agree with this.
Incidentally a danger (for me) is to get stuck in muscle memory always doing a certain thing cos it's what I practiced. (Now it's m6's haha.) I think for players who get past the early stages this is actually quite a big deal - flexible practice. That's something I've been thinking about a lot, worth another thread.Last edited by christianm77; 01-21-2017 at 01:15 PM.
-
Yeah a lot of the'Freddie Green' chords stuff actually comes from George Van Eps. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Freddie Green NEVER discussed his playing. He would have been rubbish on the forum :-)
-
And learning scales can make one a machine, right? So perhaps learning scales should be avoided and disdained ... Originally Posted by ragman1
Or maybe, it's how one utilizes the tools of the instrument to create music ... far more basic to the entire sense of musicianship.
Anytime you go past a single performer on a single-note instrument as say my trombone, you have to deal with harmony. Tonality .... which can be as broad and redefined as needed for something as fluid as jazz structure.
The most common basic tool of harmony is the triad, m3 through augmented. Minor third; Major third; 4th.
One triad is useful but limited ... so stack others on top to enhance ... vary ... the sound. Stacked triads carefully chosen and placed on an instrument like guitar or keyboard that can simultaneously play multiple notes, results in a feeling of movement, of transition from this to there.
And used with and as part of the rhythmic structure that also is a basis of music moving through time.
And altering the stack pieces can be used to relax tension ... to come home and rest ... even to close a piece.
Now add in passing tones, and no note is off-limits but simply a tool to create ... a sound ... a feeling ...
For solo line work, whatever floats your musical boat of course. And seems to fit the music and for others are involved, the group effort.
I've never seen a group gigging that is say a trumpet, t-bone, couple saxes, a guitar, bass, keyboard, drummer, that plays without any structure whatever. Where someone says "start" and everyone does their own thing until someone says "stop", with no group sense of a tonic and rhythmic center.
Though I've been told by others they have. One friend really liked a group that does a couple sections of performance a night like that. Another friend just rolled his eyes and said it was nothing but terminally blaring trumpeter ... yeah. A trumpeter without limitation, um ... hmmm .... I guess that's back to whatever floats your boat.
I had 12 years sitting besides or mostly in front of trumpets.
Stumbling fingers still need love ...
-
Please can we avoid the discussion of 'should you play jazz only using triads.' Originally Posted by ragman1
It's a stupid discussion, because the answer is manifestly no, and it's not a position I am advocating just in case anyone here thinks I am. No one solos exclusively in triads. Not Louis Armstrong, not Charlie Parker, not Kurt Rosenwinkel. They all use triads in combination with other resources though.
Ergo, it's a good idea for a jazz improviser in any style to spend some time with them.
As R Neil says you have different resources, and during practice I (and I'm sure many other people here) would tend to isolate these different resources and practice them in isolation to some extent. So practicing only in triads is (I think) a jolly good idea if it's new to you.
On the bandstand, you play by instinct...Last edited by christianm77; 01-21-2017 at 02:22 PM.
-
Will was a very unique guy. Quiet and almost shy but passionately intense on music in general and jazz in particular. Taught classical for a year at a college for just a bit more cash while transitioning from repping for Sherry-Brenner to opening his own store. Which is how i first met him. (He had some distinct personal opinions of that "firm" but wouldn't talk about it.) Originally Posted by christianm77
His background was self-taught jazz guitar but his ears and brain drove him not just to learn but to know. WHY ... why does this interval make one feel one way, but topped with another completely change the feeling?
Being Will he had to know both the intellectual theory and the practical use. At speed. Playing in a group. And he needed to see a structure unifying the theory and practical sound that worked. (He'd spent several years of the late 40's and into the 50's playing in traveling swing/standards/bop bands.)
Hence breaking down the sound into the smallest bits and rebuilding it as something useful. The smallest harmonic bit is the triad. Which has three qualities. Stack varying qualities of triads you get varying sounds. That we can identify them them as a "chord" such as dom5/9th or whatever is perhaps handy but the name is a tool. The sound of that stack is the important part.
Learning the uses of various stackings in various locations on the neck, and how they can lead from the previous to next one ... that was the Whole Point to him.
Triad stacking plus rhythm ... now you're beginning to build music. Add in a mastery of all scalic types ... the modes, minors, majors, at speed and without needing to think. Throw in a full practical use of arpeggiation, and now you have a craftsman's basic tools for a guitarist. (Not music, just a decent set of tools used to create music.)
If you *hear* the differences in stacking as shapes on the fretboard rather than as iim7/9th, you can easily and naturally sub chords and chord shapes in a gig. In a way that moves with the music as opposed to just playing a series of chords.
And mentally knowing what stacks go with what name means you can take any chart or sheet of music and just go.
That's what he talked at me while I was around him. I heard it well ... my follow through was rather pitifully lacking.
And good Lord the guy could play. Heard him one long day with another old jazzer who'd come in selling fitted plastic guitar-back protectors, found out that guy was a known player of the 50's, mentioned a few times in Guitar Player mag. Who thought Will had always been better, but said Will left the road as needing to actually make a living for wife and kids.
Will came out of a lesson about 11am, they grabbed Will's Super 400 and a 40's Epiphone Broadway that had been factory restored, and played without breaking until 6:30pm or so. And we didn't have a thing to record any of it.
My "favorite jazz recording" is in my head, just snatches here and there, btw. Sadly, just bits and pieces.
Stumbling fingers still need love ...
-
Sigh. Originally Posted by christianm77
From years of trying with trombone and guitar, I can guarantee my "instincts" improv work is as fascinating as a pine block. Not a beautiful piece of finished pine, just a leftover waste block.
Which naturally makes me incredibly appreciative of those who can take the same "building blocks" and make magic.
There's a certain wisdom in Dirty Harry's phrase ... "A man's got to know his limitations."
I keep studying of course, for love of the game. And anyway I doubt I'll ever make the time and effort to work gigs with others. Our businesses, family, our 8 acres, woodworking and such ... it's a time thing. I play for myself for the joy i get. If I had ever developed a good improv ability I'd undoubtedly have rearranged things.
And I love the vids and audio links so many here put up. Wow ...
Stumbling fingers still need love ...
-
What I enjoy about triads (all kinds, for lines) is that I find it easier to hear and follow simultaneously both their internal intervals and the external context/chord. These relationships help me slow down and take my time.
Also, I love the sound of a well-placed descending triad when a note is repeated down the octave, as part of a longer phrase. A beautiful sound.
-
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
I keep Mickey's book around. Learned a lot from it. He made the opposite journey of many here: he was playing jazz but wound up broke in California and decided to start bending strings to get some blues gigs. He did lots of session work, perhaps most notably for Atlantic records. In the sub-title of his book, there is reference to "jazz and hot guitar". That "hot" part was an amalgam of swing, bop, blues, and jump music. I loved that kind of guitar as a kid and still do.
One great aspect of his book is that he teaches many riffs that are to be played, as he says, "against" the chord. He never explains what he means by this. But once you start learning the riffs and how he uses them in different places, you develop a feel for them and their use. It's not a theoretical approach but the result is the sort of "hot" guitar that a lot of people---not just guitar players---like to listen to.
-
Well, neither actually:-) Originally Posted by christianm77
Absolutely. Resources are necessary but I know what you mean.Firstly there is so much information and teaching materials people often end up talking about books, software videos and internet lessons. To me this kind of suggests music itself gets lost. I'm not a technophobe, but this stuff can be a distraction.
Nope.So that's saying that minor, minor 7th, minor 6th chords and so on all have different sounds. These sounds are appropriate in different situations. No one would disagree with that, I take it?
Probably anyone who plays 'automatically' is suspect!someone who automatically plays a m7 chord on every minor
I don't think it's 'wrong'. It gives the beginner a simple insight into 'jazz' sounds, how they're constructed, etc. But any system by definition has its limitations. To the more advanced player those limitations become apparent and they can move away from them.the (seventh chord) system is wrong
Reply With Quote
There will be another you changes
Today, 02:06 AM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions