Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 51 to 83 of 83
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Thanks for all your help, guys.

    heres a video I did
    One aspect of my present life that I dislike is that it's so busy. But this is not one I can afford to miss, therefore I downloaded the video and extracted the audio so I can listen to it while driving to / from work. I'm really loving it, congratulations, great job. I've also downloaded the Green Dolphin one. And I've noticed there are tons more.

    I also tend to not like certain two-fives in some songs, and Stella has one of those. So a little further along I like to replace the perfunctory Bbm7 -> Eb(9) after the D7sus4 [x 5 7 5 8 x] with some sneaked in melody notes G F E D sliding that D up to F (fret 7 to 10 on the third string) into the mysterious and wonderful Dbaug6 [9 x 8 10 10 x].
    I had a strange feeling that some II-V don't belong. It's happened to me in other tunes before, although I can't remember which right now.

    From the insights you both are giving me, I get the impression that this tune requires thinking outside the box.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    One man's box is another man's toolbox.

    I think what often happens (would have to check in particular for Stella) is that the source for a popular Jazz song is something coming from outside the Jazz world, like a movie song whose composer used rather complex harmonies and movements. Then when it get's picked up and popularized as a Jazz tune, some of the complex harmonies get interpreted a little differently into two-fives (or additional two-fives) and other Jazz idioms.

    To my ear, there is just so much two-five movement in a tune beyond which I seek substitutes or methods of disguising the sound. Two-fives in too great an abundance sound "jumpy" to me, like bouncing around inside the circle of fifths. I prefer chromatic movement in the bass and other treatments that avoid the bouncy roots. Generally for me, disarming the most offensive example in a tune is enough.

    Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that the two-five I like to change in Stella was not in the original score, just an example of one that I do usually change. This case, may be because that local "two-five" whose "one" would be Ab (resolving "down") is really a "four-flat seven" resolving "up" to a local "one" of F... I think of it more as Dm7 -> Dbaug6 -> Fmaj9/C to get the D Db C movement (chromatic and down). So I remove the angular Bb -> Eb two-five altogether and replace it with a soft Dbaug6.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln View Post
    One man's box is another man's toolbox.

    I think what often happens (would have to check in particular for Stella) is that the source for a popular Jazz song is something coming from outside the Jazz world, like a movie song whose composer used rather complex harmonies and movements. Then when it get's picked up and popularized as a Jazz tune, some of the complex harmonies get interpreted a little differently into two-fives (or additional two-fives) and other Jazz idioms.

    To my ear, there is just so much two-five movement in a tune beyond which I seek substitutes or methods of disguising the sound. Two-fives in too great an abundance sound "jumpy" to me, like bouncing around inside the circle of fifths. I prefer chromatic movement in the bass and other treatments that avoid the bouncy roots. Generally for me, disarming the most offensive example in a tune is enough.
    Heh me too. Although TBF where you play with a good bassist, they will tend to do this for you. But yeah, chromatic or step wise bass is a good contrast with leaping bass. Of course this is where tritone subs come in very handy - but also chord inversions in general.

    Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that the two-five I like to change in Stella was not in the original score, just an example of one that I do usually change. This case, may be because that local "two-five" whose "one" would be Ab (resolving "down") is really a "four-flat seven" resolving "up" to a local "one" of F... I think of it more as Dm7 -> Dbaug6 -> Fmaj9/C to get the D Db C movement (chromatic and down). So I remove the angular Bb -> Eb two-five altogether and replace it with a soft Dbaug6.
    In original it is Dm, Bbm6/Db, F/C Bbo7 Am7b5 D7b9 into the bridge.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    In original it is Dm, Bbm6/Db, F/C Bbo7 Am7b5 D7b9 into the bridge.
    Amazing! I did not know the 2-5 that I liked to "fix" was not original (and that my "solution" is like the original). Thanks!

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    I do it like the conventional way of Johnny Mandel, Neal Hefti, Nelson Riddle, Jimmy Van Heusen, Bill Evans, Duke Ellington, Billy Strayhorn, Cole Porter, Rodgers & Hart, Gershwin, etc... If a song is in C, I might encounter any of 12 possible dominants popping up along the way (C7, Db7, D7,Eb7, E7,etc any of 12 cases) . I like to narrow it down to two simple cases for all possible secondary doms, especially when sight reading.
    The reason I do this way is it they usually function predictably, and I notice that in most cases (not all) it keeps the extensions closer to the notes within the parent key. Having a quick draw set, I don't have to pause to think in real time situations, I know this basic system better than the back of my hand, and it takes into account what is the next chord without the need to pause and consider.

    This is most naturally occurring type casting relative to the parent key:
    (of course I vary the heck out my Dominants chord extensions, but this is a fool proof default system for in the moment instant reaction)

    12 Dominants chromatically that potentially might occur in a tune in C major (C minor has a few variations) :

    I7 (alt)
    bII7 (+4)
    II7 (+4)
    bIII7 (+4)
    III7 (alt)
    IV7 (+4)
    bV7 (+4)
    V7 (alt)
    bVI7 (+4)
    V7 (alt)
    bVII7 (+4)
    VII7 (alt)

    ALT meaning #9 b13 on average
    Last edited by rintincop; 07-07-2020 at 06:20 PM.

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Yeah, thanks, nicely summed up, these are the colours that seem most 'vanilla' to me, and I also find #9/b13 to be the most smooth and flowing choice for the alts

    Again I think on a guitar forum, it's worth noting the following - this might be extremely f*king obvious to a pianist but this is not in fact extremely f*king obvious to the guitarist who doesn't play piano a little bit - apart from I7 and V7, these extension options tend to be the most diatonic:

    C7 (alt) -> all the flats except C
    Db7 (+4) --> G
    D7 (+4) --> G# (relative minor)
    Eb7 (+4) --> A
    E7 (alt) --> G, C
    F7 (+4) --> B
    Gb7 (+4) --> C
    G7 (alt) --> lots of flat notes
    Ab7 (+4) --> D
    A7 (alt) --> C, F
    Bb7 (+4) --> E
    B7 (alt) --> G, D, also F

    Which sort of comes back to the first post of the thread.

    The point of this is that they are useful for harmonising melodies - most of which are mostly diatonic (at least in the case of GASB standards.)

    Secondly, many of the '#9s' are in fact 'b10s' that appear due to diatonic melodies being harmonised by classically 'incorrect' dominant chords. See 'Blue Bossa' for a good example....

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Heh me too. Although TBF where you play with a good bassist, they will tend to do this for you. But yeah, chromatic or step wise bass is a good contrast with leaping bass. Of course this is where tritone subs come in very handy - but also chord inversions in general.
    The more I learn about all this, the more I realise how lacking a lead sheet is, in terms of representing the actual music. Basically none of what you've discussed above is usually present. The mantra that one must learn from the recordings not the lead sheets makes so much sense.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    With regards to rintincop's list (post #55), I would appreciate if you guys could explain it to me. I'm very interested in learning this idea which chistianm77 seems to endorse (post #56), but I'm not getting it at all

    So, to rintincop, there's "7 (+4)" and there's "7 (alt)", two basic types. But how do you assign a type to each of the 12 chords? I normally try to keep it diatonic... For example, I'd never go alt for V7 as that's the most diatonic 7 chord possible (obtained right off the major scale)... but you seem to be doing the opposite, or something totally different?
    Last edited by alez; 07-07-2020 at 04:22 AM.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    BTW, right now I reduce my dominants to two basic types too... I use "the major one" (in line christianm77's explanation in post #27), which I note "V7" (for example) and "the minor one", which I note "III7b9". That's all I really use... therefore, for a particular secondary dominant, I just choose between those two and apply whatever formulas or resources I have for it... like for example I treat II7 much like V7... "mixolydian" so to say.
    Last edited by alez; 07-07-2020 at 04:23 AM.

  11. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by alez View Post
    With regards to rintincop's list (post #55), I would appreciate if you guys could explain it to me. I'm very interested in learning this idea which chistianm77 seems to endorse (post #56), but I'm not getting it at all

    So, to rintincop, there's "7 (+4)" and there's "7 (alt)", two basic types. But how do you assign a type to each of the 12 chords? I normally try to keep it diatonic... For example, I'd never go alt for V7 as that's the most diatonic 7 chord possible (obtained right off the major scale)... but you seem to be doing the opposite, or something totally different?
    What I listed in the OP is more a theoretical conceptualization of secondary dominants. But in reality altered dominants are usable for major targets as well (or Mixolydian dominants against minor targets).

    Rintincop's list basically says: use altered dominants unless the target is a dominant or your chord is already a tritone substitution. That's of course assuming all the chords are secondary dominants, ie have a diatonic target.

  12. #61
    Although it also seems a bit mysterious to me that altered dominants against major targets are implied as a rule or principle in the lists.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    I'm increasingly viewing 7b9b13 as the 'can't really be bothered dominant' - why do you think I call it that?

  14. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    I'm increasingly viewing 7b9b13 as the 'can't really be bothered dominant' - why do you think I call it that?
    Interesting. I thought playing 7b9b13 for a major target was the more "cultured" approach as opposed to going all caveman with the Mixolydian

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    Interesting. I thought playing 7b9b13 for a major target was the more "cultured" approach as opposed to going all caveman with the Mixolydian

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    Interesting. I thought playing 7b9b13 for a major target was the more "cultured" approach as opposed to going all caveman with the Mixolydian
    Let me put it this way: if you feel you have play the major third on a 7b9b13(#9) type chord you are in my opinion missing the point.

    So where does that leave you?

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    Although it also seems a bit mysterious to me that altered dominants against major targets are implied as a rule or principle in the lists.
    Yeah you just get the most movement that way.

  18. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Let me put it this way: if you feel you have play the major third on a 7b9b13(#9) type chord you are in my opinion missing the point.

    So where does that leave you?
    I'm not sure what you mean. I get that a lot of altered lines do not feature the 3rd (at least lines I transcribed). I guess altered notes create more interesting resolution targets (as opposed to the 3rd of the dominant resolving to the 1 of the target), is that the point?

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean. I get that a lot of altered lines do not feature the 3rd (at least lines I transcribed). I guess altered notes create more interesting resolution targets (as opposed to the 3rd of the dominant resolving to the 1 of the target), is that the point?
    False relations.

    Just because there is a secondary dominant chord in the harmony doesn't mean there is any compassion to outline it. In fact it often sounds better if you don't.

    It's also good to think of these chords as minor 7ths. Either on the root, or down a tone.

    So, G7b9b13 --> Cm7 becomes Fm7 --> Cm7

    Or

    D7#9 becomes Dm7

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    This is only marginally apropos to this thread, but it does relate a bit.

    In another thread I waxed eloquent, or so I told myself, in an analysis of the harmony of Like Someone In Love

    Then, I recorded a solo and never once thought about anything from my own analysis.

    Basically, for me, in GASB tunes, it's tonal center and adjusting notes by ear. So, if I'm in Cmajor tonal center and the chord is E7, I'm aware, by sound, that I may want to play G# rather than G. If it's D7, I may want to move the F to F#. Etc.

    I've spent some time thinking about this with more theory, but, I guess where I land is that I can, for example, play that G# in a Cmajor situation without having to tell myself I'm playing A Harmonic Minor to get a leading tone. And, I can move the F to an F# (if the line demands it) without telling myself I moved to the melodic minor. Etc. I'm aware of that way of viewing things. But, I can't say that it's changed my playing at all.

    It's true in reverse too. I can recall only very rarely getting anything into my playing that started with "X over Y". I think the alt scale was an exception.

    So, my question is, how do others utilize this information?

    Is it just ear training? Are you using it to develop licks?

    I'm not trying to be provocative at all. I really don't get how this sort of discussion contributes to what people actually play.

  21. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar View Post
    This is only marginally apropos to this thread, but it does relate a bit.

    In another thread I waxed eloquent, or so I told myself, in an analysis of the harmony of Like Someone In Love

    Then, I recorded a solo and never once thought about anything from my own analysis.

    Basically, for me, in GASB tunes, it's tonal center and adjusting notes by ear. So, if I'm in Cmajor tonal center and the chord is E7, I'm aware, by sound, that I may want to play G# rather than G. If it's D7, I may want to move the F to F#. Etc.

    I've spent some time thinking about this with more theory, but, I guess where I land is that I can, for example, play that G# in a Cmajor situation without having to tell myself I'm playing A Harmonic Minor to get a leading tone. And, I can move the F to an F# (if the line demands it) without telling myself I moved to the melodic minor. Etc. I'm aware of that way of viewing things. But, I can't say that it's changed my playing at all.

    It's true in reverse too. I can recall only very rarely getting anything into my playing that started with "X over Y". I think the alt scale was an exception.

    So, my question is, how do others utilize this information?

    Is it just ear training? Are you using it to develop licks?

    I'm not trying to be provocative at all. I really don't get how this sort of discussion contributes to what people actually play.
    I think that's an important point. The way I use this information is incorporating it in the various ways I work on tunes.

    I play a tune for several choruses during a practice session. I plan ahead of the time the ideas I'd be using in each chorus. It could be just singing the roots and playing the melody for one chorus, next chorus would be playing chord scales, then an improvised chord-melody-ish arrangement, then targeting certain notes on certain beats (usually interesting notes that change from one chord to the next), then connecting scales, then playing a bass line, then singing 3rds of each chord as I play the roots, then playing the melody etc etc etc. You can come up with infinitely many ways. Usually with a metronome.

    I also work on different ways on navigating difficult changes in the tune in isolation then integrate that back to the "play choruses" approach.

    So having an idea of how I analyse a tune and what note choices implied by the analysis is an important starting point in the way I learn a tune. There can also be more than one approach per tune. A micro outline vs bare bone etc. In fact I don't know how else can anyone learn a jazz tune for improvisation. I'd be happy to find out.

    So it's ear training, time training, fretboard training, repertoire, technique, language development all at once.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 07-07-2020 at 05:26 PM.

  22. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    False relations.

    Just because there is a secondary dominant chord in the harmony doesn't mean there is any compassion to outline it. In fact it often sounds better if you don't.

    It's also good to think of these chords as minor 7ths. Either on the root, or down a tone.

    So, G7b9b13 --> Cm7 becomes Fm7 --> Cm7

    Or

    D7#9 becomes Dm7
    I still don't get what is it that you call false relation. You mentioned earlier that using altered dominant for major targets (as listed in rintincops post and your post) gives the most movement option.

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    I think that's an important point. The way I use this information is incorporating it in the various ways I work on tunes.

    I play a tune for several choruses during a practice session. I plan ahead of the time the ideas I'd be using in each chorus. It could be just singing the roots and playing the melody for one chorus, next chorus would be playing chord scales, then an improvised chord-melody-ish arrangement, then targeting certain notes on certain beats (usually interesting notes that change from one chord to the next), then connecting scales, then playing a bass line, then singing 3rds of each chord as I play the roots, then playing the melody etc etc etc. You can come up with infinitely many ways. Usually with a metronome.

    I also work on different ways on navigating difficult changes in the tune in isolation then integrate that back to the "play choruses" approach.

    So having an idea of how I analyse a tune and what note choices implied by the analysis is an important starting point in the way I learn a tune. There can also be more than one approach per tune. A micro outline vs bare bone etc. In fact I don't know how else can anyone learn a jazz tune for improvisation. I'd be happy to find out.

    So it's ear training, time training, fretboard training, repertoire, technique, language development all at once.
    I've done this more than one way, but this is typical of how I actually do it when playing and not so much when writing about playing.

    I've learned a lot of tunes the way anybody does. I hear recordings and I remember the melody. Then, I learn the changes from a recording, from a chart or just by sitting down, ,remembering the melody and finding some chords that work.

    To improvise, I play the changes (nowadays with IRealPro), sing to myself and try to put those lines on the guitar. Or, maybe do it without the singing -- just trying to think of lines to play, which is a little different. If I know how the harmony is supposed to sound, it's almost entirely by ear.

    I've almost never done any of the things you mentioned, although I like the idea of them.

    I often play in situations where I have to read something new. In that situation, I try to get a sense of the harmony to allow me to use my ear for the improv. If I can't, then I rely on knowledge of chord tones and embellish them by ear. My skill set includes (mostly) knowing the notes in the chords I play, instantly, by name, knowing the fingerboard cold and, mostly, being able to immediately play a line that I think of or scat sing.

    On the positive side, and giving myself the benefit of the doubt, I can play play a singable solo.

    On the negative side, there's a certain classic jazz guitar sound that I don't get playing this way. I like it when I hear it, I have aspired to it and I have given up on getting it.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    False relations.

    Just because there is a secondary dominant chord in the harmony doesn't mean there is any compassion to outline it. In fact it often sounds better if you don't.

    It's also good to think of these chords as minor 7ths. Either on the root, or down a tone.

    So, G7b9b13 --> Cm7 becomes Fm7 --> Cm7

    Or

    D7#9 becomes Dm7

    OP: "This (thread) applies to both chord voicings and improvisation."

    Why is it good? Let's say Benny Green calls you for a gig and your playing "Someday My Prince Will Come" with him and each time for the D7b13 chord in bar 2 you play a C-7 chord and Benny gives you a strange look (he hears that G note in your thing)... and then in bar 4 you play F-7 for the G7b13 (he hears that C note in your thing) , later on he doesn't call you for a follow up gig.
    Last edited by rintincop; 07-07-2020 at 06:48 PM.

  25. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar View Post
    I've done this more than one way, but this is typical of how I actually do it when playing and not so much when writing about playing.

    I've learned a lot of tunes the way anybody does. I hear recordings and I remember the melody. Then, I learn the changes from a recording, from a chart or just by sitting down, ,remembering the melody and finding some chords that work.

    To improvise, I play the changes (nowadays with IRealPro), sing to myself and try to put those lines on the guitar. Or, maybe do it without the singing -- just trying to think of lines to play, which is a little different. If I know how the harmony is supposed to sound, it's almost entirely by ear.

    I've almost never done any of the things you mentioned, although I like the idea of them.

    I often play in situations where I have to read something new. In that situation, I try to get a sense of the harmony to allow me to use my ear for the improv. If I can't, then I rely on knowledge of chord tones and embellish them by ear. My skill set includes (mostly) knowing the notes in the chords I play, instantly, by name, knowing the fingerboard cold and, mostly, being able to immediately play a line that I think of or scat sing.

    On the positive side, and giving myself the benefit of the doubt, I can play play a singable solo.

    On the negative side, there's a certain classic jazz guitar sound that I don't get playing this way. I like it when I hear it, I have aspired to it and I have given up on getting it.
    So you work on tunes by singing lines over the changes and playing these lines in your instrument. That's a good approach, I do that sometimes for a chorus or so. I should do it more often.

    But I find working on planned ideas help expand things I hear and play. For example I might work on the 9ths for a period of time. Target or sing 9ths over the changes. Play roots and sing 9ths, play chord voicings that put the 9 on top etc. After a while I start pre-hearing that interval really well. So partly due to developed fingering habits, partly improved aural awareness, targeted 9ths start showing up in my playing.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175 View Post
    So you work on tunes by singing lines over the changes and playing these lines in your instrument. That's a good approach, I do that sometimes for a chorus or so. I should do it more often.

    But I find working on planned ideas help expand things I hear and play. For example I might work on the 9ths for a period of time. Target or sing 9ths over the changes. Play roots and sing 9ths, play chord voicings that put the 9 on top etc. After a while I start pre-hearing that interval really well. So partly due to developed fingering habits, partly improved aural awareness, targeted 9ths start showing up in my playing.
    I've done that too, but not so much recently. I recall learning to hear the altered fifths and ninths by running changes and hitting those intervals repeatedly, to try to burn the sound into my mind's ear. I've also done that with chords rather than single note lines. That is, play, say Am7 to D7, but then make it D7b9, D7#9, D7b13, D7b9b13 and so forth. Then I hear the sounds and can access them during a solo, or, at least, that's the plan.

  27. #76

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rintincop View Post
    OP: "This (thread) applies to both chord voicings and improvisation."

    Why is it good? Let's say Benny Green calls you for a gig and your playing "Someday My Prince Will Come" with him and each time for the D7b13 chord in bar 2 you play a C-7 chord and Benny gives you a strange look (he hears that G note in your thing)... and then in bar 4 you play F-7 for the G7b13 (he hears that C note in your thing) , later on he doesn't call you for a follow up gig.
    What do want to achieve here? maybe you are trying to draw me into another ultimately pointless long post, maybe trying a gotcha of some kind.

    Ah well. This kind of pointless discussion is one of many reasons why I need to distance myself from the theory threads here. I shouldn't have said anything that clashes with the theory people seem so precious about, because people really need to find this sort of thing out for themselves. Eh, it's all on the records. Go listen. Nothing I say will convince anyone, and perhaps that is for the best.
    Last edited by christianm77; 07-07-2020 at 07:43 PM.

  28. #77

    User Info Menu

    Please forgive me for rambling on when I know I shouldn't.

    But, who thinks like that? Do people really think "the chord is D7b13 (or whatever), I'll play Cm" and ignore a note that doesn't work (noting, of course, that it's fine if that's your intention). That implies that the soloist is going through the tune thinking X1 over Y1, X2 over Y2 etc .... Does anybody really do that, except in the practice room? Aren't we all using our ears on the bandstand?
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 07-08-2020 at 06:09 AM.

  29. #78

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    False relations.

    Just because there is a secondary dominant chord in the harmony doesn't mean there is any compassion to outline it. In fact it often sounds better if you don't.

    It's also good to think of these chords as minor 7ths. Either on the root, or down a tone.

    So, G7b9b13 --> Cm7 becomes Fm7 --> Cm7

    Or

    D7#9 becomes Dm7
    This is a good example of what I meant about comping vs. phrasing on this post:

    Quote Originally Posted by alez View Post
    Also, since you mention Charlie Parker, would this not be some phrasing over a comping that's not necessarily those chords?

    That said, is this remark irrelevant in the sense that those very chords can be used for comping just fine?

    I'm mentioning this because right now I'm more interested in the comping than I am in what to play over it.
    BTW, phrasing Dm7 over D7 leaves you with no voice leading to emphasize in a D7 to Dm7 change like the turnaround Am7 D7 Dm7 G7, doesn't it? I find this sort of opposite to the very idea of "getting the most movement" (post #66 above).

  30. #79

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by alez View Post
    This is a good example of what I meant about comping vs. phrasing on this post:



    BTW, phrasing Dm7 over D7 leaves you with no voice leading to emphasize in a D7 to Dm7 change like the turnaround Am7 D7 Dm7 G7, doesn't it? I find this sort of opposite to the very idea of "getting the most movement" (post #66 above).
    Can you email me if interested? I’m sort of done with the forum.

  31. #80

    User Info Menu

    I shall, if only to say thanks and be in touch.

    I wish you may find a balance that makes the forum work for you as an overall experience. There must be aspects of being around that you do like, otherwise you wouldn't be so active. There must be a way to keep enjoying those

  32. #81

    User Info Menu

    Hi Christian, I really hope you are not done with the forum; your insight, enormous knowledge, patience and sense of humour is one of the the main reasons I read the forum. We need more people like you who take the time to explain concepts to beginners like me for the overall good of this funny thing that is Jazz guitar. All the best for the future and thanks for all the help, Simon

  33. #82

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    I’m sort of done with the forum.
    "Sort of done" - I understand, sometimes I wonder what I'm doing in here.
    But I am very relieved that you will be keeping an eye on and a hand in.

  34. #83

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jockster View Post
    Hi Christian, I really hope you are not done with the forum; your insight, enormous knowledge, patience and sense of humour is one of the the main reasons I read the forum. We need more people like you who take the time to explain concepts to beginners like me for the overall good of this funny thing that is Jazz guitar. All the best for the future and thanks for all the help, Simon
    Thanks so much.

    I think there are other ways for learning players to seek out information, but to be honest solicited advice is a more worthwhile thing to hand out than unsolicited. So I’ll post vids and things, and leave it at that.

    Ultimately posting on JGO doesn’t really fit into what I want to be as an educator either.

    To be honest I don’t think JGO is a good place to learn this stuff, regardless of who’s posting. And anyone can post regardless of how they play. Coupled to that, there’s just such a tendency for people to dig in (myself included of course) and I feel sometimes I have to counter what I see as misinformation, which itself is controversial and just results in more verbiage.

    In the end it’s much better to embody something as a player and a person and people can take it or leave it as they wish.

    Bottom line is I DON’T ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THEORY - which might seem weird, but theory per se doesn’t interest me in the slightest, and yet I end up getting into threads that probably resemble debates on renaissance doctrine or something. This stuff is all a waste of time; no one ever gives examples from the music, it’s all ‘teacher x said this’ and ‘book y says this.’

    It’s just Dungeons and Dragons manuals or something until someone says - ‘it looks like player x likes this sound’, or ‘check this out’ with actual examples from the music.

    Ultimately the theory books are all useful only in so much as they give useful generalisations or conceptualisations of what you hear in the music. No one person had heard ALL of the music, so there’s no useful overall theory. your curiosity, taste and desire to learn is the most important thing.

    I have come to value the attitude of the old guys - as Peter Bernstein said on a recent interview, they expected you to work it out yourself. You beg, borrow and steal the knowledge any way you can; you go to the primary source, the music. We can be supportive in this, and certainly create an environment that in conducive to this, but I wonder if it’s not a tendency to over explain in general; TMI.
    Last edited by christianm77; 07-09-2020 at 01:38 PM.