Wave (Jobim) Analysis using Barry Harris Method

[Vladan]

It was nice to watch, but kinda of inaccurate, sometimes what he says does not match what he plays, which does not match what is written on the screen.

[ragman1]

Okay, enough! I'm going to rant. This is my rant which is mine.

When I first noticed this BH stuff it was presented as the BH method. It was innovative! It was the New Theory! It was The Barry Harris Method as taught by Barry Harris. There are videos of the Man Himself announcing this amazing new mb6 scale was his "own personal scale" with a wry smile. People were taking it up. Alan whatsit has published a Great Book on it! It's the best thing since sliced bread! It opens up a whole new world of playing! Anybody who criticises it is Just Not With It and Doesn't Understand!

Now it turns out it's not quite like that... now he didn't invent it, just teaches it. Classical composers were using it long ago. Joe and Wes use it a bit but didn't get it from Barry Harris. It's not r-eee-ly a theory at all. Etc etc.

I said I didn't like 'new theories' and was wary of them, did a long post about not following gurus, magic people with magic answers, that there's not much new under the sun - and got slated for it. But I knew I was right. What's more, that way of thinking always causes trouble - and it has here too with arguments and counter-arguments.

Not too much trouble, because we're nice here, but it's there.

The fact, based on what I was seeing, is I think it's all been misrepresented. It is actually a known part of musical knowledge and practice, and quite an old one. Presented like that, I'd probably have had a delve into it myself.

I'm tempted to say it's been presented like this because we DO want gurus. There's this urge to put people on a pedestal and eulogise them. It's the old mentality, happens all the time, has happened throughout history. Buddha, Jesus, Marx, Hitler... Trump? And they all fail. Without exception. There are no gurus, no 'new theories', no new ideas. All ideas are the old stuff dressed up, whether political, religious, or musical.

Some people have done the same thing with Reg, you know, and some posts to him are queasily sycophantic. There's no doubt he has extensive knowledge and excellent technique. But even he, many a time, has stressed that he's only giving out standard textbook knowledge, that he's actually a very straightforward, logical player. But it's his idiosyncratic presentation that makes it seem as though there are special secrets to be had... Thankfully he'd deny all of it, much to his credit.

So let's stop calling it the Barry Harris Method which you either support or don't (shame on you!). It's just the resurrecting of an old idea which seems to have been forgotten or overlooked. And, frankly, it might have been overlooked because it's not actually that earth-shattering after all. Quite a few people, you may have noticed, are not actually that impressed.

Thank you. Rant over. I feel better. You can kick me out now.

[destinytot]

Okay, enough! I'm going to rant. This is my rant which is mine.

When I first noticed this BH stuff it was presented as the BH method. It was innovative! It was the New Theory! It was The Barry Harris Method as taught by Barry Harris. There are videos of the Man Himself announcing this amazing new mb6 scale was his "own personal scale" with a wry smile. People were taking it up. Alan whatsit has published a Great Book on it! It's the best thing since sliced bread! It opens up a whole new world of playing! Anybody who criticises it is Just Not With It and Doesn't Understand!

Now it turns out it's not quite like that... now he didn't invent it, just teaches it. Classical composers were using it long ago. Joe and Wes use it a bit but didn't get it from Barry Harris. It's not r-eee-ly a theory at all. Etc etc.

I said I didn't like 'new theories' and was wary of them, did a long post about not following gurus, magic people with magic answers, that there's not much new under the sun - and got slated for it. But I knew I was right. What's more, that way of thinking always causes trouble - and it has here too with arguments and counter-arguments.

Not too much trouble, because we're nice here, but it's there.

The fact, based on what I was seeing, is I think it's all been misrepresented. It is actually a known part of musical knowledge and practice, and quite an old one. Presented like that, I'd probably have had a delve into it myself.

I'm tempted to say it's been presented like this because we DO want gurus. There's this urge to put people on a pedestal and eulogise them. It's the old mentality, happens all the time, has happened throughout history. Buddha, Jesus, Marx, Hitler... Trump? And they all fail. Without exception. There are no gurus, no 'new theories', no new ideas. All ideas are the old stuff dressed up, whether political, religious, or musical.

Some people have done the same thing with Reg, you know, and some posts to him are queasily sycophantic. There's no doubt he has extensive knowledge and excellent technique. But even he, many a time, has stressed that he's only giving out standard textbook knowledge, that he's actually a very straightforward, logical player. But it's his idiosyncratic presentation that makes it seem as though there are special secrets to be had... Thankfully he'd deny all of it, much to his credit.

So let's stop calling it the Barry Harris Method which you either support or don't (shame on you!). It's just the resurrecting of an old idea which seems to have been forgotten or overlooked. And, frankly, it might have been overlooked because it's not actually that earth-shattering after all. Quite a few people, you may have noticed, are not actually that impressed.

Thank you. Rant over. I feel better. You can kick me out now.

I'm all for learner autonomy - but if an idea is marginalised, I need help in order to access it.

To deny recognition to whosoever provides that help would be unjust; to deny it to Barry Harris - a rare teacher - is fundamentally insulting.

Ignorance of his teaching is no excuse. Shame!

[destinytot]

that fingering can also be B7#9#5 & Am7b5, as well as G Aeolian & D Phrygian from key of Bb (makes sense since Cm 6/9 is 2 in Bb). Dan Haerle calls it a 'Magic Voicing'. :-) Here's his link: http://www.danhaerle.com/magic%20voicings.pdf

This is brilliant - thank you!

[Vladan]

I'm all for learner autonomy - but if an idea is marginalised, I need help in order to access it.

To deny recognition to whosoever provides that help would be unjust; to deny it to Barry Harris - a rare teacher - is fundamentally insulting.

Ignorance of his teaching is no excuse. Shame!

Have to say, in my reading of ragman1's post, I never understood his rant was to the account of Barry Harris, or his teachings in particular. I understood it as a rant about human nature and attitude.

[destinytot]

I understood it as a rant about human nature and attitude.

There are implications in the direct references to Barry Harris (as 'the Man Himself') and Alan Kingstone (as 'Alan whatsit') which are not neutral - especially in the light of those to Reg.

Those references are at best ambiguous - at worst, rude.

Likewise reference to the work of Alan Kingstone, who is a member here, as a 'Great Book'.

[ragman1]

Likewise reference to the work of Alan Kingstone, who is a member here, as a 'Great Book'.

I'm sure it's a very good book.

Never argue with someone who's ranting, let them rant. Makes 'em feel better :-)

[matt.guitarteacher]

Nice steaming pile of condescension. Thanks. This is personally insulting to myself and many others who aren't at all comfortable talking about things we learned from another as if they are our own. Plagiarism and know-it-all-ism aside, it's a fairly decent thing to give credit where its due, especially those "present", here.

The fact that you felt confused or misled is your own deal as far as I can see, but I guess you can put it off on the forum illuminati here if it makes you feel better. Whatever. As long as you feel better with a rant, I don't guess it really matters who you personally drag in?

The forum isn't a personal therapy session. If you want to use it as such, at least adhere to the group therapy guideline of limiting comments to yourself, and post it in your own thread.

[Vladan]

Again, I did not read it that way.

To leave Barry Harris aside for a moment, references about Reg I find undoubtably positive. It's said that Reg is not pretending it's some secret knowlege and so on. I have to say, Reg is the one who confirmed many of my own thiughts about Jazz, guitar and nusic while corrected some of my other toughts and missconceptions. He was able to point me to what, at the moment, I think is the correct way to read standard text books, wich, of course, I do not read, but since everybody else is more less citing from one or another, there it goes.

I may explain how I read Barry Harris part, later when I get to some real keyboard, typing on phone screen is just ..

VladanMovies BlogSpot

[ragman1]

Again, I did not read it that way.

You read it correctly. Thanks for the like.

[destinytot]

Again, I did not read it that way.

...references about Reg I find undoubtably positive.

The references are distinguished by their tone, and it should be clear which (again) I'm calling

at best ambiguous - at worst, rude

- as should be the contrast with references to Reg.

I don't expect agreement over standards of courtesy, but I know where I draw the line.

[destinytot]

Never argue with someone who's ranting, let them rant. Makes 'em feel better :-)

Sorry for getting on your case, ragman1.

But it would seem that you're damning with faint praise unless you can offer some compelling reasons for this:

I'm sure it's a very good book.

[matt.guitarteacher]

There are actually some different levels of impropriety in this, most innocuous, but if addressed might solve some of the other issues as well. I don't personally think it's a nonissue. Taking it to a separate thread is the way it should be done, like Christian's "conversation" thread. Why don't we continue THIS conversation over there, as a matter of fact?

[Vladan]

- as should be the contrast with references to Reg.

Oooops, sorry, I've misread your remark about Reg part. I'm glad we agree on that one.

[ragman1]

Sorry for getting on your case, ragman1.

No, go ahead, you're entitled to your view.

But it would seem that you're damning with faint praise unless you can offer some compelling reasons for this

I haven't seen the book but, as I say, I'm quite sure it's very well put together and a valuable resource. As Vladan has correctly identified, it was really all about the tendency to a certain way of thinking, the putting of folks on pedestals, and all that. When I said 'the Great Book' it wasn't a criticism of either the book or the author. But I might admit to a touch of sarcasm directed at a way of thinking.

I notice that the two posters so far who have objected vehemently to this are both (as far as I know) somewhat involved with it, certainly you are, and that invariably includes an emotional investment. I'd say it was that which, under criticism, has erupted.

Unfortunately criticism is allowed. And so is ranting within certain limits :-)

[christianm77]

I dunno, A few years back no-one in London seemed to know about his teachings, except for a small hardcore of Barry devotees.

My introduction came when I got an email about the workshop from David Friedman who I'd met at a jam back in 2006 or something and went along to a couple of classes. There were only a few people there. I mentioned his teachings to other jazz players and mostly they'd never heard of him, and had no interest in learning more about his stuff. I didn't quite understand it myself I might add at this point.

Now it seems to be a Thing, and everyone seems to be aware of Barry in the past couple of years. Good!

But as with so many of these things there's a spot of hype and marketing now.

[ragman1]

There are actually some different levels of impropriety in this, most innocuous, but if addressed might solve some of the other issues as well. I don't personally think it's a nonissue. Taking it to a separate thread is the way it should be done, like Christian's "conversation" thread. Why don't we continue THIS conversation over there, as a matter of fact?

I won't be there!

Continue it? You want to continue with it? I thought you didn't like it. If you didn't agree with the post you should have completely ignored it. Then it would just drift away into the ether, wouldn't it? Simple as that.

[matt.guitarteacher]

it was really all about the tendency to a certain way of thinking, the putting of folks on pedestals, and all that.

Yes, this is called "thought policing", and is somewhat a violation of another's person. It's the beginning of most misunderstanding . To avoid it, limit comments to addressing the conversation , i.e. other's actual statements rather than presuming to know another's motivations.

I notice that the two posters so far who have objected vehemently to this are both (as far as I know) somewhat involved with it, certainly you are, and that invariably includes an emotional investment. I'd say it was that which, under criticism, has erupted.

nope . Again, all of the above assumes you know another's motivations, thoughts and feelings. That's insulting, beyond any OTHER consideration. You don't have the authority to judge other people that way . It's condescending and annoying. Everything you're talking about here is a topic for another thread . You should start another thread , and discuss it there. I have almost zero "investment" in Barry Harris, by the way. My interest is mostly in just talking about it. It may be something I look at some day.

[destinytot]

I'm tempted to say it's been presented like this because we DO want gurus. There's this urge to put people on a pedestal and eulogise them. It's the old mentality, happens all the time, has happened throughout history. Buddha, Jesus, Marx, Hitler... Trump? And they all fail. Without exception. There are no gurus, no 'new theories', no new ideas. All ideas are the old stuff dressed up, whether political, religious, or musical.

Agreed - except for

it's been presented like this

- as I'm not sure that's true.

[christianm77]

Okay, enough! I'm going to rant. This is my rant which is mine.

When I first noticed this BH stuff it was presented as the BH method. It was innovative! It was the New Theory! It was The Barry Harris Method as taught by Barry Harris. There are videos of the Man Himself announcing this amazing new mb6 scale was his "own personal scale" with a wry smile. People were taking it up. Alan whatsit has published a Great Book on it! It's the best thing since sliced bread! It opens up a whole new world of playing! Anybody who criticises it is Just Not With It and Doesn't Understand!

Now it turns out it's not quite like that... now he didn't invent it, just teaches it. Classical composers were using it long ago. Joe and Wes use it a bit but didn't get it from Barry Harris. It's not r-eee-ly a theory at all. Etc etc.

I said I didn't like 'new theories' and was wary of them, did a long post about not following gurus, magic people with magic answers, that there's not much new under the sun - and got slated for it. But I knew I was right. What's more, that way of thinking always causes trouble - and it has here too with arguments and counter-arguments.

Not too much trouble, because we're nice here, but it's there.

The fact, based on what I was seeing, is I think it's all been misrepresented. It is actually a known part of musical knowledge and practice, and quite an old one. Presented like that, I'd probably have had a delve into it myself.

I'm tempted to say it's been presented like this because we DO want gurus. There's this urge to put people on a pedestal and eulogise them. It's the old mentality, happens all the time, has happened throughout history. Buddha, Jesus, Marx, Hitler... Trump? And they all fail. Without exception. There are no gurus, no 'new theories', no new ideas. All ideas are the old stuff dressed up, whether political, religious, or musical.

Some people have done the same thing with Reg, you know, and some posts to him are queasily sycophantic. There's no doubt he has extensive knowledge and excellent technique. But even he, many a time, has stressed that he's only giving out standard textbook knowledge, that he's actually a very straightforward, logical player. But it's his idiosyncratic presentation that makes it seem as though there are special secrets to be had... Thankfully he'd deny all of it, much to his credit.

So let's stop calling it the Barry Harris Method which you either support or don't (shame on you!). It's just the resurrecting of an old idea which seems to have been forgotten or overlooked. And, frankly, it might have been overlooked because it's not actually that earth-shattering after all. Quite a few people, you may have noticed, are not actually that impressed.

Thank you. Rant over. I feel better. You can kick me out now.

Personally I don't care whether you get into Barry or not. I'm not trying to sell something here.

But tbh, I don't hear much bop language in your playing, so I presume this isn't something you are terribly interested in.

Barry's curmudgeon meets guru act is part of the vibe. I find it funny personally ('Peter Bernstein's a good guitar player, but he doesn't know the eight note scale.') I love the guy, but there is an element of an act here.

I found refreshing after years of non judgemental new agey let it all hang out jazz education. Fuck that! I want to learn the tradition, and I want to know the parameters. Doesn't mean I have to abide by them.

Barry of course is not the only way to learn this, but he does turn out some beast bop players.

[Vladan]

Agreed - except for -

it's been presented like this

as I'm not sure that's true.

So, there ... it might be, or not, presented like that by The Man Himself, Barry Harris, or that forum-colleague Alan Whatwasit, who wrote "The Great Book of The Method" ( ... the actual name of the author and the title of the book escape me at the moment ...), as I do not have the book and have not attended Barry Harris's lessons.
Though "The Man" says it's his personal scale, with a smile, he does not claim he invented it. I interpreted it as he said it was The Core Scale for what he does. However, as presented and explained all over this wide open world web from the 3rd, 4th and 10444th hand, "my own scale" got some additional value to it ...

... that's how I read it ...

[destinytot]

When I said 'the Great Book' it wasn't a criticism of either the book or the author. But I might admit to a touch of sarcasm directed at a way of thinking.

Actually, I agree with your point about what you call 'a way of thinking'.

My problem is with what you call 'a touch of sarcasm', because of direct reference made to named parties, in a manner tending to trivialise their achievements - and opening the door to its appropriation to boot.

I think the inconsistency here is plain - entirely without connaissance de cause and a back-handed compliment (at best):

I haven't seen the book but, as I say, I'm quite sure it's very well put together and a valuable resource.

Regarding:

I notice that the two posters so far who have objected vehemently to this are both (as far as I know) somewhat involved with it, certainly you are, and that invariably includes an emotional investment.

Hardly hoist from my own petard (from the 'Discussion' thread) - because my "emotional investment" is not in 'method x' but in seeing all parties (I think it's clear to whom I refer) treated with the same degree of courtesy.

To put it plainly, your sarcasm is in the wrong key, ragman1. But - as you say, that's just my opinion.

PS Here's* what I've been doing between posts:

PSS *Uses bridge from Wave...

[goldenwave77]

I think this whole "discussion/debate" about Barry H., actually illustrates the quandary of the jazz world.

I was looking through David Baker's 1st vol. bebop book last night and he says "I think ...one could say...that bebop is the common practice period of jazz." ("Common practice" as in Classical Music, 1750-1830, a stylistic model of sorts)

Barry H. in other contexts has said that people don't know tunes, "I can name tunes songs that everybody should know, might be fifty. In each school there should be a list, and it doesn't include any of those new songs, those two-chord tunes.", quoted in Aebersold, Vol. 76, How to Learn Tunes.

Barry H. has also said that he thought Miles D. took a wrong turn with modal, and electric stuff, and did the jazz world a disservice. He has also railed against "school jazz" and said that too much emphasis on teacher's academic credentials, rather than actual experience, is misguided. Hal Galper has said the same thing, and called for a system of "jazz elders", based on an apprenticeship model.

I think it's fair to say that what Barry H. is teaching, probably would have been passed on in the older days, in the normal course of things. But those days are gone...there are no big bands to school young jazz musicians, for the most part. Emily Remler said she went down to 52nd St., and there were no clubs there.

When you step back a bit, what Barry H. is teaching, is maybe seen as distinctive, because rightly or wrongly, the world has moved on from (i) a common set of more or less accepted tunes, (ii) a musical tradition/culture based around swing,(iii) the jam session as a teaching ground, (iv) dance, as a common social activity--both Barry H. and Dizzy were excellent dancers, and maybe less music-making, in general, in the population.


He appears distinctive, and unique, just like if we find someone making homespun clothes today, we might find it distinctive and unique.

I don't think he ever claimed he invented this stuff, certainly...how could he?....he learnt it from his forebears. But he certainly cares deeply about passing it on.


Ironically, many of the traditional greats of jazz had a fair bit of classical training. Earl Hines certainly did, as did Benny G., and Tatum, and Charlie P. worked out of classical etude books, along with Dizzy, and Barry H. is, all the time, referring to classical stuff. He flat out says that American jazz is a continuation of the classical tradition of improvisation that more or less disappeared sometime in the 1850's or so.

BUT, this American music of the earlier part of the 20th cent., took place against a backdrop of ragtime, the blues, and the development of a true swing feeling, starting in the 1920's, which was widespread in Big Band, and Western Swing, and Jump Blues, etc. and many, many people wonder if it is now just a historical curiosity.

That is the part I find lacking in a lot of contemporary playing--the sense of rhythm.


I also think a lot of jazz music university students migrated there from classical backgrounds, and I'm not sure they've steeped themselves in the musical tradition of say 1910-1965. That is the thing which they would have absorbed naturally in the old days, and now, it needs to be taught, just like using a spinning wheel, and making homespun clothes, is something that we have to endeavor to learn, rather than having a mother, or grandmother who can show us.

[matt.guitarteacher]

I thought you didn't like it. If you didn't agree with the post you should have completely ignored it. Then it would just drift away into the ether, wouldn't it? Simple as that.

Just like you don't comment on things you don't care about?

That's exactly the point : when you drop in to comment on a conversation you're basically not interested in, only to talk about people who ARE actually interested in having it, in a thread created for that specific PURPOSE, you're basically trolling.

If you go to the tele threads and continually tell participants how stupid they are for liking telecasters, without ever addressing anything on-topic, it's a belligerent act and is trolling. I don't see much difference here.

[fasstrack]

I think this whole "discussion/debate" about Barry H., actually illustrates the quandary of the jazz world.

I was looking through David Baker's 1st vol. bebop book last night and he says "I think ...one could say...that bebop is the common practice period of jazz." ("Common practice" as in Classical Music, 1750-1830, a stylistic model of sorts)

Barry H. in other contexts has said that people don't know tunes, "I can name tunes songs that everybody should know, might be fifty. In each school there should be a list, and it doesn't include any of those new songs, those two-chord tunes.", quoted in Aebersold, Vol. 76, How to Learn Tunes.

Barry H. has also said that he thought Miles D. took a wrong turn with modal, and electric stuff, and did the jazz world a disservice. He has also railed against "school jazz" and said that too much emphasis on teacher's academic credentials, rather than actual experience, is misguided. Hal Galper has said the same thing, and called for a system of "jazz elders", based on an apprenticeship model.

I think it's fair to say that what Barry H. is teaching, probably would have been passed on in the older days, in the normal course of things. But those days are gone...there are no big bands to school young jazz musicians, for the most part. Emily Remler said she went down to 52nd St., and there were no clubs there.

When you step back a bit, what Barry H. is teaching, is maybe seen as distinctive, because rightly or wrongly, the world has moved on from (i) a common set of more or less accepted tunes, (ii) a musical tradition/culture based around swing,(iii) the jam session as a teaching ground, (iv) dance, as a common social activity--both Barry H. and Dizzy were excellent dancers, and maybe less music-making, in general, in the population.


He appears distinctive, and unique, just like if we find someone making homespun clothes today, we might find it distinctive and unique.

I don't think he ever claimed he invented this stuff, certainly...how could he?....he learnt it from his forebears. But he certainly cares deeply about passing it on.


Ironically, many of the traditional greats of jazz had a fair bit of classical training. Earl Hines certainly did, as did Benny G., and Tatum, and Charlie P. worked out of classical etude books, along with Dizzy, and Barry H. is, all the time, referring to classical stuff. He flat out says that American jazz is a continuation of the classical tradition of improvisation that more or less disappeared sometime in the 1850's or so.

BUT, this American music of the earlier part of the 20th cent., took place against a backdrop of ragtime, the blues, and the development of a true swing feeling, starting in the 1920's, which was widespread in Big Band, and Western Swing, and Jump Blues, etc. and many, many people wonder if it is now just a historical curiosity.

That is the part I find lacking in a lot of contemporary playing--the sense of rhythm.


I also think a lot of jazz music university students migrated there from classical backgrounds, and I'm not sure they've steeped themselves in the musical tradition of say 1910-1965. That is the thing which they would have absorbed naturally in the old days, and now, it needs to be taught, just like using a spinning wheel, and making homespun clothes, is something that we have to endeavor to learn, rather than having a mother, or grandmother who can show us.

Man, did you ever HEAR David Baker play cello? Clueless. (Not talking of his way better trombone work with George Russell, etc. (before his unfortunate accident) or saying his theory books are not good.

I just get eyes glazed over on this forum at the time devoted to analyses/fancy nomenclature of things so simple to figure out on one's own---guru-free. (For the record, I've known and adored Barry since '76 and we speak on the phone regularly. He said he would come to my gig last week to hear my songs. Guess he couldn't get a ride).

There are very few of Barry's students (since he left Detroit, having taught PC, Lonnie Hillyer, Charles MacPherson, Joe Henderson, Trane, etc., etc that ever really distinguished themselves as players. And that's not Barry's fault, or the fault of his methods. He's a great teacher and man. It's the students who don't measure up. They want a guru or daddy, and never become themselves. They go on and on about his theories acting like experts, but can't play shit.

But that's true of many people in many endeavors, so....

'Be yourself'----Thelonious Monk, Jesus...