The Jazz Theory Book by Mark Levine

[OneWatt]

Does anyone know this pretty ballad by Jules Styne. Peggy Lee made it famous.

Never came across it before ... just ran through melody/changes though and it sounds lovely.

[bako]

Speaking up in support of another person/entity in my opinion wrongfully maligned in this thread. That is the publisher Chuck Sher.
I was aware of his publications from the beginning, when his own excellent book for jazz bass was the only product. Next release was the World's Greatest Fakebook which presented many unreleased charts for jazz music of 60's, 70's, as well as some fusion and latin tunes. The book included several rhythm section charts and horn parts as well. My impression was that it didn't sell very well but it raised the bar on notational clarity and detail as well as in another highly important arena, a fakebook that paid royalties to the composer.
In a smart commercial move they referred to fakebooks moving forward as the New Real Book series which sold far more copies and set up the subsequent music publications that followed. These include books covering Brazilian guitar, latin bass and piano, bringing forward to North American audiences info not so readily available before the internet really took off. Now I don't know what evil manipulations lurk in the mind of business people but from what I know, Chuck Sher publications are part of the good folks team.

I knew Mark Levine only from playing his tune Serengeti with a latin jazz group which I enjoyed. I bought The Jazz Theory Book and found myself somewhat disappointed that it didn't delve deeper into some topics. Whenever I revisit the book, I discover that there is more in there than I first realized although still not the book I had hoped for. So be it, not the first or likely the last book I will buy where this will be the case.

I am not a subscriber to notion of the great evil empire of CST that must be defeated in order to save the planet from inauthentic bebop.
The OP simply wanted to find a mutual support group to study the material
in the book. This site has hosted multiple such book study groups.
Sadly, this thread derailed, becoming yet one more place to rant things
that have been said many times on this forum.

[rintincop]

"You Must Believe In Spring" in strict 4-way close block chords.

[rintincop]

A Mark Levine thread wouldn't be any good without this goodie, derive some of your block chords from the following modes:
(Barry uses the I IV vi VI and VII modes of melodic minor with the added half step as does Mark and nearly everybody else teaching block chords)

[rintincop]

After I studied with Mark I asked Chick Corea what his take on the modes of melodic minor were (and major that matter). He said play like this, sequence them all over an F root, and then in every key. He said that's what he and Herbie do.

[christianm77]

Right, so I feel rintin is leaving some info out, or framing it in a way that I don't think Barry would. I'm sure rintin knows all this stuff already, but I want to present what I understand to be Barry's ideas, rather than rintin's reinterpretation.

So for those who don't know (is there anyone now?), Barry Harris doesn't use the melodic minor per se but a very closely related scale called the m6 diminished, which is a combination between harmonic and melodic minor, if you will.

C D Eb F G Ab A B C

It is pretty similar, but has some pretty unique properties, the most obvious of which is its use in the aformentioned block chord harmonies. A lot of people seem to get hung up about the block chord thing, which is only one a whole slew of things Barry does with this scale, including all kinds of oblique and contrary motion devices.

Where I want to clarify what rintin said is that that Ab is not simply a passing note in this use of the scale, can be used to generate harmonies through the practice of borrowing.

The Howard Rees edited books that accompany the DVD's talk about melodic minor, but (according to Alan K) Barry always uses the m-6 diminished. Certainly there's nothing stopping you from using the added note rules etc on melodic minor as Rees shows examples of in the books. Roni Ben-Hur's book uses the m6 as the standard choice for all minor applications, including improvised melodies and scale outlines.

For my part, I have heard him mention melodic minor once in class, ascending, so it was unclear to me whether he meant it's classical or jazz meaning.

Rees mentions that the m6-dim has some nice applications beyond what you'd get with melodic minor. For instance, on a G7 chord, the Ab m6-dim gives you all the melodic minor options, but also the natural 13 (the b6 of the Abm6-dim scale), which is nice. So G13b9 can be understood as Ab m6-dim.

Anyway, one thing that marks the difference between heptatonic scales and Barry's system is that 8 note scale turns the scale into a closed system, while the 7 note system offers an open system. Barry's 8 note scales are like circles, 7 note scales are like spirals.

[Reg]

Some nice voicing materials Rintun.... a little on the solo pn side of the world. Do you have guitar versions. I sight read well... and it's difficult to drop and transpose notes etc... on guitar.

Some of the notation with enharmonic spellings are difficult. And for guitarist the only way they might be useful would be to notate some of the pedal voicings with open strings for pedals.... right. So some might actually pick up on the movement aspects...

The other thing....do your actually use these when playing gigs... or did you when we were playing.

When I get on gigs where the pianist starts doing the BH or Dim. thick block thing...the rest of the ensemble is basically gone...

Yea bako... agree with comments about Chucks books. Hell, as someone mentioned before.... Shurs Berkman's Jazz harmony Book is also cool... his appendix... Tips for Composers, musical content-based ideas cover enough material for years. Yea and his jazz musicians guide is also great. I also dig his playing....

[joelf]

When I get on gigs where the pianist starts doing the BH or Dim. thick block thing...the rest of the ensemble is basically gone...

Many of Barry's acolytes miss what he really means. On them, not him...

Just like most acolytes...

[Reg]

Yea Joelf... yea I totally agree....Barry's followers are not BH. But the results don't change. Marks book really doesn't say much more about BH approach of taking Bebop Major Scale and Bebop Melodic Minor scale as source of chord movement.... Maj6 and Dim7 chord pattern from Bebop Maj scale and Min6 and Dim7 chord pattern from melodic min bebop scale... borrowing yada yada.

Barrys early ensemble recording were much more in the Horace Silver tradition of arranging and playing...

Anyways.... we play on

[christianm77]

I wonder if that was a very conscious decision by Levine?

Also it’s not the bebop scale you absolute troll. (I’m resigned to it now. It’s not my problem.)

Another thing that Levine does that winds me up though lol.

[pcjazz]

I wonder if that was a very conscious decision by Levine?

Also it’s not the bebop scale you absolute troll. (I’m resigned to it now. It’s not my problem.)

Another thing that Levine does that winds me up though lol.

And Vincent too, in his drop-2 book. Bah!

[joelf]

Yea Joelf... yea I totally agree....Barry's followers are not BH.

If I was a different sort I'd name names of people he told me either didn't get it or ripped him off.

Lot of profiteers, few creators...

[rintincop]

Every block chord player knows to add a half step to enable the diminished chords to alternate, it's not a Barry Harris innovation. It's the ABCs of block chording

C-6 scale and C melodic minor are the same thing, an older name and the newer name

[christianm77]

And Vincent too, in his drop-2 book. Bah!

Bah indeed, and grrr.

[christianm77]

Every block chord player knows to add a half step to enable the diminished chords to alternate, it's not a Barry Harris innovation. It's the ABCs of block chording

C-6 scale and C melodic minor are the same thing, an older name and the newer name

I've not found this to be the case. I think if you use the m-6 dim you come out with stuff that you wouldn't have come out with with the melodic minor. For lines playing and so on. I find I have to sort of practice them separately to get the most out of them.

It's just one note but it makes a big difference. Same with the major-6 dim. So much stuff is in there that you wouldn't have with a major scale.

If you are only doing block chords you've only really scratched the surface of possible stuff. That's like the entry level... And it's not like I'm as up on these scales as some; I feel I'm pretty basic TBH.

One thing with these scales is they are kind of omni-useful key centre scales. So if I base my harmony on a m-6 dim, I get:

I-6, I-(maj7), IV7#11, VII7alt, VIm7b5, IIm, V9b13 Obviously...

But also
IIm7b5 V7b9 VIIo7 etc

(i.e. the melodic minor is 'static' but the b6 adds tension and grit, and movement.)

Aggregates a lot of stuff under one umbrella. If I play stuff based on the m6-dim it will always sound great. Of course I am also at liberty to play the tritones minor and get all the V7alt stuff as well as the V13b9 tonality as well.

Don't get that with boring old melodic minor.

So, when Reg talks about harmonic minor targets etc, all of that can be folded into one 8 note scale, that you can then be very creative with. Or play block chords :-)

The Maj6-dim encapsulates 'harmonic major' and relative minor as well (at least VI-7). Very useful.

If you are thinking of them as a standard seven note scale with an added note, you are missing some tricks.

[rintincop]

Whether it be
C D E F G A B
or
C D Eb F G A B

Every professional block chord player knows to add a half step to enable the diminished chords to alternate, it's not a Barry Harris innovation. It's the ABCs of block chording. It's the only way to get diminished 7th chord inversions under the non-chord tones of scale (2 4 b6 7 ).

And we all know about the half step rules and their benefits. We're not missing tricks.

[rintincop]

Off Topic rant:
Barry Harris is my favorite jazz improv theorist, but he explains things in the most confusing and veiled ways. As a teacher, he's unorganized, confusing, and frequently digresses. But in spite of that he has the best information buried behind it all. If I didn't already know music theory from a - z it would be almost impenetrable, let alone how to apply it.
That whole schtick he goes thru comparing various equal divisions possible of all 12 notes with an octave to "man and woman" (whole tone sets) , "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" (3 diminshed sets), the 4 children (dominant group) and so on. I think he's being entertaining for the audience.
It would be no different to saying if you had a dozen eggs and divided it into 2 groups of 6 eggs (whole tone ), then 3 groups of 4 eggs (diminished group), then 4 groups of 3 (dominants group), then 12 groups of 1 (chromatic) ... that's equally diving up the 12 notes inside our octave. It's a stretch to compare it to man and woman and the trinity and I have no idea of how to practically apply that religious metaphor to music-making. I already know about equal divisions of the octave whole tone division, diminished division, the four related dominants (Barry did not discover these useful symmetrical relationships though he sometimes acts as if he did). What does man and woman, and the holy trinity really have to do with it?

[rintincop]

Of course one is to blow over this per modes. Herbie and Chick do it, Wayne does it too.

After I studied with Mark I asked Chick Corea what his take on the modes of melodic minor were (and major that matter). He said play like this, sequence them all over an F root, and then in every key. He said that's what he and Herbie do.

[OneWatt]

Off Topic rant:
Barry Harris ... [snip for space] ...What does man and woman, and the holy trinity really have to do with it?

Delightful rant. Thanks!

[broturtel]

Off Topic rant:
Barry Harris is my favorite jazz improv theorist, but he explains things in the most confusing and veiled ways. As a teacher, he's unorganized, confusing, and frequently digresses. But in spite of that he has the best information buried behind it all. If I didn't already know music theory from a - z it would be almost impenetrable, let alone how to apply it.
That whole schtick he goes thru comparing various equal divisions possible of all 12 notes with an octave to "man and woman" (whole tone sets) , "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" (3 diminshed sets), the 4 children (dominant group) and so on. I think he's being entertaining for the audience.
It would be no different to saying if you had a dozen eggs and divided it into 2 groups of 6 eggs (whole tone ), then 3 groups of 4 eggs (diminished group), then 4 groups of 3 (dominants group), then 12 groups of 1 (chromatic) ... that's equally diving up the 12 notes inside our octave. It's a stretch to compare it to man and woman and the trinity and I have no idea of how to practically apply that religious metaphor to music-making. I already know about equal divisions of the octave whole tone division, diminished division, the four related dominants (Barry did not discover these useful symmetrical relationships though he sometimes acts as if he did). What does man and woman, and the holy trinity really have to do with it?

Agreed, 100%. Goes to show that being a great musician doesn't make you a great teacher, and some of the best teachers aren't all that "amazing" of musicians. But they sure know how to teach. Everyone has their gifts. Mr. Harris's isn't teaching. Lol. I thought I was the only one who felt that way.

[christianm77]

Off Topic rant:
Barry Harris is my favorite jazz improv theorist, but he explains things in the most confusing and veiled ways. As a teacher, he's unorganized, confusing, and frequently digresses. But in spite of that he has the best information buried behind it all. If I didn't already know music theory from a - z it would be almost impenetrable, let alone how to apply it.
That whole schtick he goes thru comparing various equal divisions possible of all 12 notes with an octave to "man and woman" (whole tone sets) , "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" (3 diminshed sets), the 4 children (dominant group) and so on. I think he's being entertaining for the audience.
It would be no different to saying if you had a dozen eggs and divided it into 2 groups of 6 eggs (whole tone ), then 3 groups of 4 eggs (diminished group), then 4 groups of 3 (dominants group), then 12 groups of 1 (chromatic) ... that's equally diving up the 12 notes inside our octave. It's a stretch to compare it to man and woman and the trinity and I have no idea of how to practically apply that religious metaphor to music-making. I already know about equal divisions of the octave whole tone division, diminished division, the four related dominants (Barry did not discover these useful symmetrical relationships though he sometimes acts as if he did). What does man and woman, and the holy trinity really have to do with it?

I hear you on a number of fronts. It really took me along time to get anything from Barry. I always managed to get something out of his classes to study, and one of the first was the drop 2 block chord stuff, which was unfamiliar to me at the time, so even though I was confused and bored sometimes, I could see that there was a lot of stuff there, so I kept coming back for as long as I could stand it. Slowly, I understood more of what was going on.

I believe he could make it more accessible - however, TBF Barry's terminology is very precise. It's like physics - each commonly used term has a very specific, closed meaning. Take 'arpeggio' for instance. Unlike the way most of us use it (including me) he always uses it to mean a three note triad with a doubled root - so C E G C'. So when you are constructing lines, it's quick for him to say 'arpeggio up from the seventh of D7' or something, and the old hands know right away what he means. So there is that.

Obviously a lot of these terms are just at 'right angles' from what a lot of people are used to. I personally don't ascribe as much significance to the terminology as some of his more hardcore followers, as I believe it is good to translate them into more familiar terms. I've got into trouble about it with some of the Faithful haha.

That said, I got to say I think a lot of the terms in current jazz edu are just as confusing and often far more hazily defined seeing as many teachers and players have their own definitions of them - take 'guide tones' and 'avoid notes' as a case in point..

HOWEVER - there is stuff where something gets lost if you simplify the concept unwittingly by simplifying the language. Bebop scales is one of them. By conflating melodic added note scales with block chord harmony you lose a lot of stuff.

Barry's added note scales may involve as many added notes as you like when you get into it deeply (don_oz did a hand out of the more advanced and windy applications). The simplest rule includes added notes familiar as 'bebop' scales, but in fact there's no rule saying that this chromatic half steps have to be used. They're purely filler. 'The rule is more important than the note.'

OTOH in Barry's harmonic stuff, all the notes can be used as the basis of chords.

Furthermore, Barry's 8 note dominant scale is actually different from the dominant bebop scale. It has a b6.

Levine invokes David Baker in the JTB - quite rightly IMO - because he's the bop scales guy, not Barry. That said I think his description is simplistic even relative to the Baker books.

So; terminology wise I don't have a problem with calling BH style added note scales 'bop scales' BUT - I would prefer to avoid conflating them with the 8 note harmonic scales. There's overlap, but it makes sense to separate them out; that is if you are interested in doing anything but the most basic applications detailed in the Levine books, for example (although there's a lot you can do with the basic stuff.)

Barry came from a time when people had to hunt down and steal knowledge, and information wasn't readily available - they had do stuff like looking over a pianists shoulder to crib voicings at a gig, that kind of stuff. Newcomers would be tested for their dedication.

(I actually think there's a lot to be said for that actually - put students in the environment of music and DON'T teach unless you absolutely have to, but set them legitimate, if achievable professional goals. They will learn how to 'pick things up.' That's how apprenticeships work in many areas. There's some interesting work on this in the literature. And I actually think that's a bit how places like Berklee seemed to have worked, at least when it was a 'finishing school' as David puts it. The lectures were a bit of an excuse.)

Of course, Barry can get away with it. But these days for most of us, it's a bit different. A big challenge is to balance simplicity of presentation and clarity against oversimplifying topics. One good way to do this is avoid the impulse towards overexplaining. Which as you can imagine is very hard for me haha.

[christianm77]

Sometimes I wonder if the most important thing is let the student know they won't understand or be able to play everything right away, and that's OK; healthy in fact.

[Vladan]

... 'arpeggio' for instance. Unlike the way most of us use it (including me) he always uses it to mean a three note triad with a doubled root - so C E G C'. So when you are constructing lines, it's quick for him to say 'arpeggio up from the seventh of D7' or something, and the old hands know right away what he means. So there is that. ...

Does it mean, since the seventh of D7 is C, you are supposed to play note sequence C E G C over D7 chord?

[OneWatt]

... Goes to show that being a great musician doesn't make you a great teacher, and some of the best teachers aren't all that "amazing" of musicians. But they sure know how to teach. Everyone has their gifts. Mr. Harris's isn't teaching. Lol. I thought I was the only one who felt that way.

Now that you mention it, although I've never had the honor of attending a live Barry Harris workshop, I've watched a number of videos of him in action and have had a difficult time "getting it." Yet I've absorbed incredibly insightful musical ideas from students of his - like Chris of "Things I've Learned from Barry Harris" and others - all of whom give great credit to Barry Harris for what they've learned.

This strongly suggests that Mr. Harris must be an outstanding teacher after all.

Whether "his" concepts are truly unique (hard to imagine anything in Western music could be unique/owned by a single individual) or whether his approach works best for everyone (we all learn differently, bringing different frames of reference to the table) are fair questions to ask. And I would answer "no" to both.

But none of this detracts from his remarkable legacy - reflected in the profound influence Barry Harris has had on a large number of highly accomplished musicians, masters of a range of instruments, and how they think about their jazz playing. I give Mr Harris full props for this as an instructor, even if the few videos I've seen of him in action don't speak directly to me. (Perhaps I should purchase his DVDs?)

[pcjazz]

Does it mean, since the seventh of D7 is C, you are supposed to play note sequence C E G C over D7 chord?

No, in BH terms an arp is a triad with a doubled root and a chord has 4 different notes. D7 is a chord.