Jazz Guitar
Learn how to play jazz guitar with our eBook bundle
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 58 of 58
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    547
    I think that Matt and Christian understood what I was addressing, while others traveled a little off course into things that were more interesting to them. That's OK, it's the internet. We all do it, including me.
    why ask for opinions if you can't handle different ones?

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by eh6794-2.0 View Post
    I am a physics undergrad and I read a lot. I think this jazz forum is the only place where I have ever seen the word "pedagogical."

    It's music. Don't over think it. Just have fun!

    I hear ya man. And how do you think the average undergrad Oboe major feels about:


    • The radian
    • Elastic collisions
    • Adiabatic processes (oh yeah, gotta have those adiabatic processes)

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Alter View Post
    why ask for opinions if you can't handle different ones?
    Already explained, several times my brother, they were off topic.

    Feel free to start your own thread on a similar but not same topic. Only takes a few keystrokes man. Or, perhaps engage on the question/topic posed. Just sayin'.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    12,159
    It’s the de Broglie wavelength and inverse Compton scattering that gets me every time

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    New York, NY, USA
    Posts
    1,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt View Post
    For discussion and consideration - I have studied a fair amount of music theory off and on over the years (but probably not enough).

    In terms of what it covers (principally - harmony, melody, rhythm, plus a little composition) I believe that it is unbalanced and is overdue for some new thinking. To cut to the chase this is what I mean:


    1. It should increase to six semesters, vs. the typical four (frosh and sophomore)
    2. It should continue to require composition exercises every week.
    3. It should increase its exploration and development of rhythmic knowledge and skill
    4. And last but not least - it should significantly increase its exploration and development of melody writing, knowledge and skill.


    I believe that we would produce many more successful composers if step #4 were advanced.

    I believe that the over-weighting towards harmony makes it a bit mathematical, and too easy to simply "solve for X" (too easy for me and many, many others). I don't believe that the approach stimulates enough creativity and confidence in individual music making. It seems to me that slinging out a melody that is well constructed (even if less than breathtakingly inspired) should be reflexive for a successful music major.

    Thoughts?
    What's the "it" here? Theory requirement for performance majors in a conservatory? Academic music major? Music Ed program? Highly selective or less selective school? Jazz-specific program/school? Different goals and contexts require different academic requirements, IMO. FWIW, where I went to college (demanding university with a well regarded music department, but not a conservatory), there's a core-curriculum plus a lot of distribution requirements that take up a large portion of the undergrad program. I just checked to refresh my memory -- the music major requires 4 semesters of theory. Given the other major requirements, plus the broader undergrad requirements, I don't think 6 semesters of theory would be feasible, or consistent with the intent of the program. I'm not suggesting that this ought to be the model for other music programs; I'm only pointing out that there's more than one kind of music program. Also, an awful lot of great musicians and composers have studied other things, so the path to success as one does not necessarily pass through a music program.

    To Matt.guitar.teacher's point about the futility of a music major, that cuts to the heart of the purpose of undergrad education. It can be specifically vocational, or it can be part of preparing a person more generally for adult life as a citizen and a knowledge worker. For the latter purpose (what my alma mater is mainly about), a music major is basically the same as any other. It's worth doing in and of itself, and it's excellent intellectual training that is applicable to many career paths. But if you're looking to go to music school in order to be a musician, that's a much tougher cost benefit analysis.


    Edit to add:

    I tend to agree that vertical harmony is overemphasized in jazz conversation. Not having majored in music (I stuck with the practical/vocational, and majored in philosophy), I can't say one way or another whether it's overemphasized at the expense of melody in college-level music training, though I wouldn't be surprised if it were. I did take some theory -- Theory I in my college is modal counterpoint; I loved it and found it very useful in my musical journey. I will say, though, that harmony lends itself to academic treatment in a way that I don't think melody does. There are tricks of the trade for coming up with melodies, but inventing a melody is at its core a pretty mystical, inexplicable thing. Harmony, OTOH, is much more rule-bound and structured. So I think it's kind of inevitable that it be a bigger part of curriculum. Plus, string players and singers hate it, and anything to torture them is OK in my book.

    John
    Last edited by John A.; 09-05-2018 at 10:36 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    12,159

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    12,159
    I think I find playing melodies to be my equivalent of the violinist doing harmony exercises.... difference being it’s so much more vital for most people’s understanding of what music is

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by eh6794-2.0 View Post
    I am a physics undergrad and I read a lot. I think this jazz forum is the only place where I have ever seen the word "pedagogical."

    It's music. Don't over think it. Just have fun!
    You haven't kept up with Physics then- inside a Black Hole , there is a 3rd State of Degenerate Matter - not a Singularity - a
    *Pedagogy .....












    *or maybe not

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    12,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Robertkoa View Post
    You haven't kept up with Physics then- inside a Black Hole , there is a 3rd State of Degenerate Matter - not a Singularity - a
    *Pedagogy .....








    *or maybe not
    Haha you get 12 Nerd Points, you made this Astrophysics grad laugh.

    I vaguely recall some hypothetical thing about a state of matter that might cause singularities not to form within BH's? Are they quark stars or something else? I don't even know, lol.

    Half the textbooks I had in Uni (20 years ago) are now obsolete.

  10. #40
    I agree with the original post. I took a BA in Composition and Theory from the University of California. The music program skipped quickly over teaching melodic writing theory. It's as if the teachers didn't know much about.

    They neglected the parts about:

    1. Each note in a major scale has a resolution tendency melodically or "tonal gravity" . And they certainly ignored the innovative African American resolution tendencies of the outside notes of the major scale, meaning the resolution of each of the five chromatic notes that are left over (b2, #2, #4, #5, b7) .

    2. They rush over the 5 basic melodic embellishments found in melody and the skip advanced compound ones (double enclosure, triple enclosure and so on).
    Last edited by rintincop; 10-16-2018 at 01:38 AM.
    Epiphone Casino Coupe with Antiquity P90 pickups. Telecaster with Vintage Stack neck p.u. and Fender ‘62 bridge p.u. Squier Strat with Little '59 mini-buckers in all 3 positions.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Haha you get 12 Nerd Points, you made this Astrophysics grad laugh.

    I vaguely recall some hypothetical thing about a state of matter that might cause singularities not to form within BH's? Are they quark stars or something else? I don't even know, lol.

    Half the textbooks I had in Uni (20 years ago) are now obsolete.
    I suspect that the most pedestrian antiquated thing about Music Theory Books - MIGHT be -
    Modulation -using Pivot Chords .I tried to self teach from that Walter Piston Book when very young and the Pivot Chord thing was more of a hindrance than a help for me in actual composition or just trying to come up with cool chords that were not trapped in one key...

    I like the Roman Numerals thing BUT Pivot Chords seems to be only useful for closely related Keys because to distant 'regions ' [ chordal area] or Keys ...

    The Roman Numeral thing does not work ,it breaks down.
    Also - as I revise my own lack of Theory - I call 'chord progressions' the typical Roman Numeral things including secondary dominants and even tritone subs with a T7
    and etc...for Standards [ which are not my focus ] Roman Numerals can explain them .
    But there are a lot of Modern Harmony things which I call 'root successions' which
    dont use as much Dominant Harmony or are based on common tones linking them etc. with occasional tension release cadences which are only very broadly V-I or vii -i etc I don't even get them by -'Theory ' but I want to find more of them so I I kind of wish there WAS a Theory for them .
    And there are even Cadences which work but are not ii-V-Is or IV -V- Is ...so I guess it's asking too much of a Modern Theory Book to cover a lot of this new ground ?



    Part of being a Writer I suppose is finding stuff that works and the Theory may not be fully written yet on it.

    I am finding and 'hearing' a lot of cool voicings so getting rid of some of the cobwebs of harmonic theory has helped.

    Most Jazz Guitarists I notice are looking more for scales when they think 'Theory ' .

    I am speaking here obviously about Chords and voicings ; having nothing to do with the pompously self importantly named 'Harmonic Major Scale '...lol.
    Last edited by Robertkoa; 10-11-2018 at 11:30 AM.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Robertkoa View Post
    I am speaking here obviously about Chords and voicings ; having nothing to do with the pompously self importantly named 'Harmonic Major Scale '...lol.
    Uh, would you go for "Major b6 scale"?

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt View Post
    Uh, would you go for "Major b6 scale"?
    Yes. Makes more sense - unless there is some trick to building chords with it...(which I don't know-very possible ).

    1] Major b6 scale = best name ...better than ' Cher ' or Harmonic Major...

    If the Majorb6 Scale sounds amazing over
    'Half Breed ' we can nickname it 'Cher'.
    Last edited by Robertkoa; 10-14-2018 at 10:46 AM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    12,159
    Yeah I’d go for using the same names for the chords and the chord scales.

    I’ve outlined my preferred scheme elsewhere, but it’s pretty obvious.

    Lydian = Major #11
    Dorian = Minor nat13
    Mixolydian = Dominant
    Altered is a good name (everything flat)

    And so on. Using compound intervals to make it as similar as possible to the chord symbols.

    I think once the chord scales are taught in this way the Greek names can be introduced perhaps. It’s a bit like the way we call a 16th note a semiquaver.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt View Post
    Great points Matt. I did take counterpoint, earned an A, but.......... I don't live in the 17th century, and Bach style two-part inventions aren't where I live and breathe and I know that's true for most, although not all I'm sure.

    In fairness, period and style matter. So if we are to focus solely on the traditional/classical curriculum, what I am saying is that deferring a significant focus on melody and form to the third or even fourth year is a disservice, IMO. I think that it requires one to leap over a huge crevasse into something that has not been well enough cultivated to that point.
    As one of my classical theory teachers explained it, all these rules were an attempt to figure out what sounded good and what didn't. Contrapuntal motion sounds good; it's one of the things that makes something sound "musical" instead of "non-musical." A number of my jazz teachers also made the point that really good jazz lines, arrangements, and live interactions often embody many of the principles (although not necessarily the period-specific rules) of counterpoint. So let's not throw the baby (overall musicality) out with the bath water (period-specific rules.)

    As for classical curriculum, could it be that your opinions reflect your own experiences? I studied melody and melodic devices from the get-go in my very first harmony classes as an undergrad at a community college in California. The book for this class was a standard text that drew examples from well known composers like Haydn, Handel, Bach, Beethoven, etc. Maybe your teachers or your curricula took a different approach.

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by starjasmine View Post

    As for classical curriculum, could it be that your opinions reflect your own experiences? I studied melody and melodic devices from the get-go in my very first harmony classes as an undergrad at a community college in California. The book for this class was a standard text that drew examples from well known composers like Haydn, Handel, Bach, Beethoven, etc. Maybe your teachers or your curricula took a different approach.
    Well sure. But I went to several schools and at the time everybody was using the same books ("Elementary Harmony" and "Advanced Harmony", by Ottman). There just weren't that many theory books back then.

    Was there melody? Sure, but there were several part writing assignments every week and the bulk of the effort was devoted to making sure you got all the voices right. The melody didn't have to sound like anything special, that's for sure.

    Got all the voices right? Check.
    Lame ass melody? Check
    Grade? A

    I took all the online theory and harmony courses at Berklee in recent years and things weren't too different. The good news is that Berklee has a lot of other songwriting and composition courses that can help with this.

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt View Post
    Well sure. But I went to several schools and at the time everybody was using the same books ("Elementary Harmony" and "Advanced Harmony", by Ottman). There just weren't that many theory books back then.
    My experience was different. Maybe all the schools you went to were using the same books. I visited some seven different music schools before picking one, and there were a lot of different books just at the two I actually attended. And there were a ton of different books just in the university libraries, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt View Post

    Was there melody? Sure, but there were several part writing assignments every week and the bulk of the effort was devoted to making sure you got all the voices right. The melody didn't have to sound like anything special, that's for sure.

    Got all the voices right? Check.
    Lame ass melody? Check
    Grade? A

    I took all the online theory and harmony courses at Berklee in recent years and things weren't too different. The good news is that Berklee has a lot of other songwriting and composition courses that can help with this.
    My jazz degree studies at San Jose State University emphasized melody in about a zillion different ways, because knowing how to create and develop good melodic ideas is the difference between good improvisation and just mechanically running scales or patterns. The vast majority of my teachers and classes emphasized the ability to utilize theory in real time, including the ability to hear what other players are doing and respond to it, to write/improvise strong melodies, to reharmonize on the fly, and to arrange (in real time as part of performance, or on paper) in various styles. That may not be the case in non-jazz curricula.

    I can agree with you about the "solve for X" mentality only as it may apply to certain people or situations. The idea of there being "one right answer" is anathema to jazz, and my jazz teachers did not promote that way of thinking. But it would not surprise me if that mindset remains common in non-jazz curricula; I did run into it when studying pre-20th century music. The heavy emphasis on part-writing was definitely part of the landscape in my classically-oriented frosh/soph theory block at a classically oriented school, but that was also what I needed most at the time, so it didn't really bother me. I *wanted* to learn harmony and part writing. Coming up with ideas was not my problem; knowing how to turn them into correctly voice-led SATB was what I was lacking at the time.

    And then jazz school taught me many ways to break every single one of those rules while still sounding good. I feel lucky to have had formal training in both worlds; it allows me to hear and see things in more than one way, to choose from a wide palette.

    Regarding your points 2 and 3, I can't think of a single time during my years in music school when I wasn't required to compose and arrange and transcribe constantly. In the SJSU jazz curriculum, rhythmic development opportunities were everywhere, in classes like Latin jazz ensemble, big band, combos, arranging, piano proficiency, and individual instruction. It was not unusual to have assignments like "write a samba in 7/4 by next week". My jazz arranging classes began with assignments to transcribe solos I was interested in, as a way to learn to think melodically and to learn how to write down those ideas in a way that someone else could read them. Eventually we moved from transcribing other people's ideas to writing our own, and then to arranging them for various ensembles using various techniques. We'd then take those charts into the studio and record them, with students doing the playing, engineering, mixing and producing. Even in my classical studies at another university, I got assignments like "write a piece that follows the rules of 16th century counterpoint" or "write a piece in the style of a Bach invention" etc. (I'm sure you had assignments like these, too. But perhaps other schools don't emphasize original writing as much as the ones I went to.

    So, yeah, different schools and different teachers and different courses of study emphasize different things. In the end, we all have to find our own path, anyhow. As a takeaway, I would say that transcribing or just stealing melodic ideas from players I admire was and still is the best thing I learned for developing my melodic and harmonic conception of jazz, or, as my teachers often put it, "how to think like a jazz player."

    Tube amps rule,

    SJ

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    12,159
    Tube amps are bogus

  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by starjasmine View Post
    My experience was different. Maybe all the schools you went to were using the same books. I visited some seven different music schools before picking one, and there were a lot of different books just at the two I actually attended. And there were a ton of different books just in the university libraries, too.



    My jazz degree studies at San Jose State University emphasized melody in about a zillion different ways, because knowing how to create and develop good melodic ideas is the difference between good improvisation and just mechanically running scales or patterns. The vast majority of my teachers and classes emphasized the ability to utilize theory in real time, including the ability to hear what other players are doing and respond to it, to write/improvise strong melodies, to reharmonize on the fly, and to arrange (in real time as part of performance, or on paper) in various styles. That may not be the case in non-jazz curricula.

    I can agree with you about the "solve for X" mentality only as it may apply to certain people or situations. The idea of there being "one right answer" is anathema to jazz, and my jazz teachers did not promote that way of thinking. But it would not surprise me if that mindset remains common in non-jazz curricula; I did run into it when studying pre-20th century music. The heavy emphasis on part-writing was definitely part of the landscape in my classically-oriented frosh/soph theory block at a classically oriented school, but that was also what I needed most at the time, so it didn't really bother me. I *wanted* to learn harmony and part writing. Coming up with ideas was not my problem; knowing how to turn them into correctly voice-led SATB was what I was lacking at the time.

    And then jazz school taught me many ways to break every single one of those rules while still sounding good. I feel lucky to have had formal training in both worlds; it allows me to hear and see things in more than one way, to choose from a wide palette.

    Regarding your points 2 and 3, I can't think of a single time during my years in music school when I wasn't required to compose and arrange and transcribe constantly. In the SJSU jazz curriculum, rhythmic development opportunities were everywhere, in classes like Latin jazz ensemble, big band, combos, arranging, piano proficiency, and individual instruction. It was not unusual to have assignments like "write a samba in 7/4 by next week". My jazz arranging classes began with assignments to transcribe solos I was interested in, as a way to learn to think melodically and to learn how to write down those ideas in a way that someone else could read them. Eventually we moved from transcribing other people's ideas to writing our own, and then to arranging them for various ensembles using various techniques. We'd then take those charts into the studio and record them, with students doing the playing, engineering, mixing and producing. Even in my classical studies at another university, I got assignments like "write a piece that follows the rules of 16th century counterpoint" or "write a piece in the style of a Bach invention" etc. (I'm sure you had assignments like these, too. But perhaps other schools don't emphasize original writing as much as the ones I went to.

    So, yeah, different schools and different teachers and different courses of study emphasize different things. In the end, we all have to find our own path, anyhow. As a takeaway, I would say that transcribing or just stealing melodic ideas from players I admire was and still is the best thing I learned for developing my melodic and harmonic conception of jazz, or, as my teachers often put it, "how to think like a jazz player."

    Tube amps rule,

    SJ
    different generations too, I'm guessing. There were only a handful of jazz studies programs in the US when i was in college. Many of them now.

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt View Post
    different generations too, I'm guessing. There were only a handful of jazz studies programs in the US when i was in college. Many of them now.
    1980s. I'm a crusty old curmudgeon. The only jazz programs I knew of back then were at Berklee, U of Miami, N Texas State, and SJSU, although there may have been others. At the time, most university theory blocks ended with a little dash of Stravinsky and Copeland in the final semester, and very few schools made recording technology available to the students. SJSU had a jazz degree, a recording studio and great faculty.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    34
    Theory/composition can and should be taught better. Some great points here. However, the people I know that are successful achieved despite their college experience for the most part. There were some mentors and lessons learned and place to incubate for four years but the composers that I know evolved similar to the DIY musicians I know (rock bands etc). Finding like minded people, sharing ideas etc. Not too much emphasis on the classes/course content etc.

    This doesn't justify not getting students to compose more in theory class etc... just my 2 cents

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    12,159
    I just want a correspondence course to get my butt kicked on strict counterpoint and Bach harmony.

    I can write music, I just want better chops.

    Needs differ.

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    I just want a correspondence course to get my butt kicked on strict counterpoint and Bach harmony.

    I can write music, I just want better chops.

    Needs differ.
    Seriously? That should be available.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    12,159

  25. #55
    Found these in 5 minutes, but there may be more out there...

    Access to this page has been denied.


    Free Counterpoint Online - Home

  26. #56
    There is a chapter in one of Bert Ligon's books where he takes a Charlie Parker lick and shows how you can extract ideas from the lick and develop exercises to drill them into your playing. Exercises are also about being able to adapt the ideas from the lick to harmonic situations other than the original one.
    I didn't major in music but it seems to me that this type of approach is not emphasized enough. It's like there is a separation. It's the job of people who write theory books and music texts to extract common harmonic, rhythmic and melodic devices of an era/style and it's the job of the student to memorize their findings.
    I think a better approach to music education would be to focus on helping students master identifying and stealing concepts and making them their own. Not just melody but all aspects of musical creation and performance.
    Last edited by Tal_175; Today at 12:25 PM.

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    There is a chapter in one of Bert Ligon's books where he takes a Charlie Parker lick and shows how you can extract ideas from the lick and develop exercises to drill them in your playing. Exercises are also about being able to adapt the ideas from the lick to harmonic situations other than the original one.
    I didn't major in music but it seems to me that this type of approach is not emphasized enough. It's like there is a separation. It's the job of people who write theory books and music texts to extract common harmonic, rhythmic and melodic devices of an era/style and it's the job of the student to memorize their findings.
    I think a better approach to music education would be to focus on helping students master identifying and stealing concepts and making them their own. Not just melody but all aspects of musical creation and performance.
    I understand what you are saying and I am guilty of the same thing as you are above -we are both asking a LOT of Theory Books ,though or 'Specialized Theory ' Instructions but in different ways .

    I am asking for more advanced , more wide open Chord Theory and much more extensive voicings but at the same time asking for 'harmonic glue ' more Basic Theory to enable me to create ' fresh ' mostly non dissonant voicings that connect in 'other' ways in addition to Roman Numerals or beyond etc.
    Which - is asking a lot !

    Theory Books cover the same stuff for most of the Book and very little Modern Practice .
    Persicetti says at the beginning of I think 20th Century Harmony :

    'Any chord can follow any other chord .'
    Great but how about a few pointers Vince on exactly how as a compositional exercise we can connect any two voicings?

    I haven't looked at a Theory Book in a long time [ and probably should, will ]- and I do 'hear ' better but obviously I will have to do the work myself and often there are voicings and connections and modulations that 'work ' and it's experimentation .


    Rick Beatto seems to have a good overview of a lot of this , though not specifically on the Guitar-just as a 'Teacher'.
    And even Ted Greene did not have many of the Piano type 5 and 6 note stretched voicings I am often exploring -mostly I like the sound and can get self Harmonic Rhythms ( fit into the foundation overall Rhythm later) obviously more easily with bigger voicings.
    Not actually ' Jazz ' .

    Speaking of Terms - I think [ could be wrong but it seems to explain better ] that there are Harmonic 'Regions ' of specific types and that 'Key' is a more general/vague term and specifically we can have a 'Major Region ' and then more specifically IF we want to -a 'Major 7th b5 Region ' and the Improv. or voicings/ Subs can reinforce that or not.

    We can also have a 'Major Region ' or a 'Dominant Region ' and a strong Improviser can make the 'Major Region' sound like a IV or a good writer/composer can do the same etc etc .
    So we have the :
    1['Zoom In function' -Chordal Region'- and in Composition NOW for Pop/Jazz/R&B OR Improv. 90% maybe even 99% of the Melody or improv is dependent upon the ' Region' [Example -Major 7#11 Region ]
    and ONLY at the end of the 'Line ' do we hear the 'Roman Numeral function '
    because the Melody starts changing depending upon the Roman Numeral Function and DESTINATION ...etc.

    2]The Zoom Out Function - The Key

    3]Zoom out More Function- The Key Scheme


    A few terms when I hear' phrygian dominant ' [not that I am a big CST fan but basic CST I feel for myself I should understand but never 'need' lol ].

    So is this ALWAYS just a synthetic b7 added or substituted to the Scale ?

    I call this that I stumbled on the 'Harmonic Minor Blues' scale

    1 2 b3 4 5 b6 b7 n7 - it ends on the Octave

    And works over ii Vs and major 7ths as III Harmonic Minor B

    And I used it on Blues from the 2 to 9 of any Dominant Chord but works on V Harmonic Minor B ( from the 5th of a Dom Chord and many other transpositions also. .

    Does everyone use the Roman Numeral thing to denote the Transposition of the Scale ?
    I.E.
    III Harmonic Minor Blues scale over a Major 7th Chord means play it from the 3rd of the Chord.

    But again I just want to shorten my long road a bit from some Modern Chord Theory etc.

    You want books to give you the Tools to play like _______ 80% George Benson 18% Mick Taylor lol.

    Rhythm Guitar- 60 % McCoy Tyner 30% Stevie Wonder - 10% Donald Fagen - read the 'Book ' twice , play through Examples and BAM ...

    Chapter two -60% Stevie W 30%Donald Fagen 10 %McCoy Tyner ...lol.

    Again I know you did not mean this and I include myself in the expecting Theory to make me a Musical Genius ...kind of ridiculous subconscious whim ...

    Like the 'cracking the code ' picking thing - it's a trick ! That's how they do it !

    AND Troy Grady due to extensively 'cracking the code ' is now the* Bruce Lee of Pick technique- easily outpicking Benson,DiMeola, Matteo Mancuso , Malmsteen, McLaughlin, Steve Morse,Govan, etc etc etc .


    So the reality is no book will teach you to play like Charlie Parker- ESPECIALLY if the Guy who wrote the Book can't do it either.




    So I guess my point is we should not expect too much from theory ....


    *not really-But I do think for people learning or especially going from Intermediate to advanced that Grady's Site is a good resource..
    Last edited by Robertkoa; Today at 06:36 PM.

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Robertkoa View Post
    I understand what you are saying and I am guilty of the same thing as you are above -we are both asking a LOT of Theory Books ,though or 'Specialized Theory ' Instructions but in different ways .

    I am asking for more advanced , more wide open Chord Theory and much more extensive voicings but at the same time asking for 'harmonic glue ' more Basic Theory to enable me to create ' fresh ' mostly non dissonant voicings that connect in 'other' ways in addition to Roman Numerals or beyond etc.
    Which - is asking a lot
    What you’re looking for, based on your description, is found in the Equal Interval System. As it is a composers course, it isn’t guitar-centric, but that’s a good thing IMO. At the very outset, traditional key-centers are out the window, although the voiceleading system works perfectly in that scheme of things as well.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Using Tapatalk

Join our Facebook Page

Get in Touch


Jazz Guitar eBooks
How To Get a Jazz Guitar Tone?
Privacy Policy

 

 

Follow us on:

Jazz Guitar Online on FacebookJazz Guitar Online on TwitterJazz Guitar Online on YoutubeJazz Guitar Online RSS Feed