The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Posts 101 to 125 of 273
  1. #101

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77

    TBH often I find older players harder to place, in fact. I often find myself thinking - 'who is that 1950's MF on guitar, what a great guitar player who is it?' and it's always Johnny Smith.
    For me the "1950's MF" question always ends up Tiny Grimes or Billy Bauer.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #102

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lawson-stone
    Whoa now you're rocking LITERARY THEORY? What does a text mean? How does it mean? Is it mean? What is the mean among all these mean-ings? Is the text a message from a sender to a receiver via encoding, transmission, decoding? Is it solely the executive means of the author's intentions? What about the author's motives (as opposed to intentions)? Or is it merely a linguistic artifact shorn of any strictures or settings? Can it be negated? Is it merely an instrument of power to marginalize some by imposing an orthodoxy?

    Sorry, just woke up from an Ambien stupor. Sitting on the toilet in another part of the house. No idea how I got there... gotta stop with the sleep aids...
    Haha death of the author.

    good grief I am so sick of reading BS papers.

  4. #103

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Haha death of the author.

    good grief I am so sick of reading BS papers.
    Seriously. I"m writing a fairly gigantic (500,000 words) commentary of the Old Testament book of Joshua. The literature is enormous, every critical theory imaginable. Some commentators literally read like the papers and books are stones in a creek and they are just hopping from stone to stone. My own approach is to drill into the primary sources: the Hebrew text, archaeology, ancient cultures, and then see what that tells me about the commentators. My editors are a little worried but I think it'll be fresh for the 8 or 9 people who read it.

    I increasingly see playing music like that. I started into jazz with a heavy dose of CST and Aebersold play-a-longs and made rapid initial progress, then fell apart. Now I'm just learning melodies, transcribing solos, picking up bits of "vocabulary" and mainly trying to simply listen and play.

    Whether I'm getting better or not, i don't know; I do know I'm having a ton of fun. Who takes up jazz to read theory books? I think as second-order reflection on fruitful music-making, theory can be very useful. But as an engine of prediction/production, not so much.

  5. #104

    User Info Menu

    Well, this comes back to the central question - what is a book like the Jazz Theory Book for?

    Most of the people who seem to like it see it not as theory at all, but a source book of cool ideas. Which I think I said back on the first page of the thread.

    But that isn't how its written... There's a strong element of it trying to be authoritative.

    Again, this possibly links into a basic legitimacy crisis of jazz education. Jazz is - practice oriented in all senses. No one disagrees here, or anywhere. But we feel we have to make it something more to make a case for the subject. In a wider sense, music educators have to do this all the time.

  6. #105

    User Info Menu

    It is also meant to be a textbook. It's a teaching tool as part of a broader pedagogical context. The problem would be to see it as a comprehensive resource instead of treating it as just one piece of the puzzle or a reference for simplified isolated concepts that are meant to be incorporated and practised creatively.

  7. #106

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Well, this comes back to the central question - what is a book like the Jazz Theory Book for?

    Most of the people who seem to like it see it not as theory at all, but a source book of cool ideas. Which I think I said back on the first page of the thread.

    But that isn't how its written... There's a strong element of it trying to be authoritative.

    Again, this possibly links into a basic legitimacy crisis of jazz education. Jazz is - practice oriented in all senses. No one disagrees here, or anywhere. But we feel we have to make it something more to make a case for the subject. In a wider sense, music educators have to do this all the time.
    Here's one take on the purpose of a theory:

    "Definition. Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study".

    By that definition, it seems to me that Levine's book qualifies as at least "scraps of theory" - which may be all the field really supports. That is, understanding and explaining major scale harmony as in say, Satin Doll, does not predict McCoy's use of fourth voicings, aspects of melodic minor usage or strongly outside playing. I'd guess a case could be made, but there's a limit to the contortions of theory that are tolerable.

    Levine does, however, explain, to a degree, a number of jazz innovations and devices. He writes perfectly clearly -- which itself is an innovation in this field -- and gives plenty of real-world examples of the points he's making.

    What he does not do is provide an instruction manual for playing a song. And, of course, that's what everybody was hoping for.

  8. #107

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lawson-stone
    Seriously. I"m writing a fairly gigantic (500,000 words) commentary of the Old Testament book of Joshua. The literature is enormous, every critical theory imaginable. Some commentators literally read like the papers and books are stones in a creek and they are just hopping from stone to stone. My own approach is to drill into the primary sources: the Hebrew text, archaeology, ancient cultures, and then see what that tells me about the commentators. My editors are a little worried but I think it'll be fresh for the 8 or 9 people who read it.
    This actually sounds more interesting than a music theory book.

  9. #108

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by grahambop
    This actually sounds more interesting than a music theory book.
    “Joshua fit the battle of Jericho” — possibly
    ”The walls came tumblin’ down” — certainly
    ”Joshua fit the battle of Jericho and [sc. ‘then’] the walls came tumblin’ down” — false

  10. #109

    User Info Menu


  11. #110

    User Info Menu

    There’s nothing so effective as a really tight brass section.

    The Jazz Theory Book by Mark Levine-bdf45f45-b022-4a36-8601-a364b03386cb-jpg

  12. #111

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by grahambop
    There’s nothing so effective as a really tight brass section.

    The Jazz Theory Book by Mark Levine-bdf45f45-b022-4a36-8601-a364b03386cb-jpg
    Article in this week’s New Yorker about contention amongst Israeli archaeologists states that the walls were already down when the brass section arrived.

    [Mandatory guitar content: not that? New Yorker.]

  13. #112

    User Info Menu

    Here's one take on the purpose of a theory:

    "Definition. Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study".
    My version:

    Theories are descriptive ideas formulated based on observation of a limited sampling of relevant material as collated by the theorizer(s).
    The content chosen and the conclusions arrived at are based on previous education, experience and cultural orientation. Pragmatically speaking,
    theory posits a set of experiments that can be undertaken in hopes of manifesting results related to the material referenced and possibly beyond. Whether an idea is found to be helpful moving towards a personal goal is far more relevant than how universally it is decided to have merit.

  14. #113

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    Here's one take on the purpose of a theory:

    "Definition. Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study".

    By that definition, it seems to me that Levine's book qualifies as at least "scraps of theory" - which may be all the field really supports. That is, understanding and explaining major scale harmony as in say, Satin Doll, does not predict McCoy's use of fourth voicings, aspects of melodic minor usage or strongly outside playing. I'd guess a case could be made, but there's a limit to the contortions of theory that are tolerable.
    So within music edu there's been a historical split between the conservatoires (17th century on) and the universities (19th century on.) Academic music theory is not necessarily to do with performance. Conservatoires teach the skills required to be a professional musician, be it performance or composition (originally students studied both, and improvisation too.)

    There isn't a really good single word for what conservatoires teach composers for instance, maybe craft; technique is another. But composers don't really study theory, because they are doing music (writing it).

    Historically this split occurred when Rameau published his harmony - which first introduced the idea of theoretical root movement. His was perhaps the first theory; a system of thought which attempted to explain why music sounds good. What existed before was craft; voice lead this way, use these combinations, avoid consecutives, resolve leading tones upward, resolve the fourth downwards, that sort of stuff. A great many rules of thumb applied in practice. (Regelski characterises this as a split between aesthetics and praxis.)

    You can probably see the comparison between 'scraps of theory' and an attempt to create a theory that explains the music. The first thing is of relevance to the musician, the second is of relevance to the musical scholar. Two different paths.

    Jazz has historically been oriented towards 'getting on with it', not 'explaining it' - it's praxial (although it does have a strong aesthetic too).

    (There are these days, plenty of musicology Phd theses on the other hand, attempting to explain why Wayne Shorter sounds good with trapezoids or whatever, that aren't focussed towards playing.)

    So, those that find the Levine books to be useful do so because it belongs to the 'getting on with it', praxis category of cool stuff that can be used in music. As a theory of the music, it's just a bad example of something which is probably a bad idea to begin with. It all sort of reinforces what I already suspected.

    Anyway, I don't think anyone particularly seems to want to argue that corner...

    Levine does, however, explain, to a degree, a number of jazz innovations and devices. He writes perfectly clearly -- which itself is an innovation in this field -- and gives plenty of real-world examples of the points he's making.
    Yes his writing style is pretty good (I find it a little annoying, but that's mostly because I'm not its intended audience). That's one of things I like about the book.

    What he does not do is provide an instruction manual for playing a song. And, of course, that's what everybody was hoping for.
    That's really not the problem I have with it. It's actually hard or impossible to teach people how to play jazz, you can only help them learn guide them, offer ideas... I can't fault Levine's book for not being able to do that. It's an unreasonable expectation.

    So, I've got a slightly different set of concerns to a lot of commenters. I'm not purely learning how to play the music, though that quest continues, my best resources for that are generally, as Joel (and Mark) says, the music itself. I don't really need theory books any more. Instead I'm commenting on pedagogical technique, problems and issues, and potential solutions.

    So, I could envisage a much better resource for the purpose it is often used for. This book does get used as a bit of a theoretical bible. I sometimes have to bite my tongue when I see educators giving out information I actually know to be wrong, and a lot of it can be traced back to this and similar works. Now some simplifications are appropriate in education, but I feel actually, we are missing a whole bunch of tricks by focussing on the music through this lens. Plus as an improvisation method, and remember this is actually what it gets used for in the wild, it has a lot of problems. You could do a lot better than this even with books that are out there.

    Clearly the book is an outgrowth of CST, and that has many many criticisms levelled at it from all corners. Even many of the educators who use it seem to dislike it. Still it get used a lot in education, and feel this maybe in part because it presents as a complete theoretical system, and it is also conveniently available.

    Above all the biggest problem is that - students struggle to play changes. Consistently. We need better resources for teaching that and to stop using this book cos it says 'Theory' on the front.
    Last edited by christianm77; 06-23-2020 at 06:46 PM.

  15. #114

    User Info Menu

    When learning a theory, the thing I'm interested is prediction. Does the theory predict things and do the predictions come true.

    So, when Einstein posited a theory and the red shift near the planet Mercury later confirmed the theory, well, that's my idea of a theory.

    What does jazz theory predict?

    One of my criticisms is that it can "explain" anything. We have an old thread with theoretical explanations of an F# against a G7. My reaction: if the theory can explain any note against any chord, it's worthless. Levine acknowledges that any note can be played against any chord, but, at least, he does indicate that some are "handle with care" notes. Others put notes in categories of chord tones, extensions and tensions, with gradations of tension. I'd accept that as a scrap of theory. It does tell you something (not everything) about what is likely to work.

    I think there are a lot of examples like that in jazz and in Levine's book. It's a collection of scraps, not a Unified Field Theory of Jazz.

    This is because jazz was invented over time by a large number of people, including some influential innovators. It was not created all at once by a Creator. Post hoc analysis of all-of-jazz is tempting but, apparently, futile.

  16. #115

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    rpose of a theory:

    What he does not do is provide an instruction manual for playing a song. And, of course, that's what everybody was hoping for.
    That is not true. He does provide a system to play any tune on piano. That is perhaps what the book succeeds at. See "The Jazz Piano Book", Chapter Three: "Three Note Voicings". The chapter does provide a system for playing any tune. He then expands from that foundation with added color tones and hip voicings, drop 2, block chords, upper structure triads, stide, Bud Powell voicings, salsa, etc, etc.... The second half of "The Jazz Theory" book provides many systems for re-harmonization. By the way, buried in the rehar section are three systems used by the likes of Wayne Shorter and Herbie Hancock when they compose. I have tried to suggest it before but was dismissed on this forum by our resident authority on all matters of jazz, education and music. His later book How to Voice Standards at the Piano: The Menu by Mark ... offers a system, set of hip voicings dependant on what note is in the melody. I have seen no mention of that book in this thread. This thread really does not go into any depth with the material that Levine shares. I assume nobody here but me has read the Menu book or "Jazz Piano Masterclass with Mark Levine - The Drop 2 Book" (block chords) Book also by Mark. It offers numerous tweaks that Barry Harris has not thought of.

    I've a hard time reading all these opinions expressed in this thread as if they were factual. Some of you would be a lot more readable if you occasionally qualified your pros with phrases such as "in my opinion", "perhaps", or "maybe" instead of writing so dogmatically. So far, I have not learned anything positive among the more verbose posts.

    I confess I have memorized every detail of all Mark's books, in all 12 keys, over the past 35 years. Every single concept he touched on I made flashcards, hundreds of them, in all 12 keys. I then spent 4-5 hours every day drilling them for years until they were totally subconscious and instantaneous as if I was a native speaker of a language. I'm glad I have the knowledge in my toolbox (brain). I also concurrently have studied with Barry Harris since the 1980's and his training is more applicable to melody making, thus his influence provided perhaps the most valuable tools in my personal toolbox. I also studied with Hal Galper, Mark Isham and Art Lande.
    Last edited by rintincop; 06-23-2020 at 09:50 PM.

  17. #116

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    When learning a theory, the thing I'm interested is prediction. Does the theory predict things and do the predictions come true.

    So, when Einstein posited a theory and the red shift near the planet Mercury later confirmed the theory, well, that's my idea of a theory.

    What does jazz theory predict?

    One of my criticisms is that it can "explain" anything. We have an old thread with theoretical explanations of an F# against a G7. My reaction: if the theory can explain any note against any chord, it's worthless.
    Yeah - on the other hand thinking 'note on chord' isn't going to get you very far undestanding what's going on in jazz lines. You have to listen horizontally. Lines, even voicings are not obliged to have any vertical relationship with resolving chords. You can play any note you wish in this situation if you know how to resolve. You can see this endlessly in the recorded history of the music.

    By treating all chords as essentially equal, as CST tends to, you lose the sense of that. A dominant chord can have a 'sound' (lyd dom, whole tone etc) but that's separate to its resolving function. A skilled jazz improviser, such as Peter Bernstein or Barry Harris, picks which vertical relationships they choose to honour, and which they choose to ignore.

    Levine acknowledges that any note can be played against any chord, but, at least, he does indicate that some are "handle with care" notes.
    Here's a question - why is this important?

    Others put notes in categories of chord tones, extensions and tensions, with gradations of tension. I'd accept that as a scrap of theory. It does tell you something (not everything) about what is likely to work.
    I prefer the word 'resource.' Theory would imply that it is something theoretical, whereas the point of this stuff is that you apply it.

    I prefer Stephon Harris's system as a way to organise vertical voicings like this. It includes all the sounds in CST but is a lot more precise and specific. I sometimes feel people think all the voicings within a single mode are somehow musically interchangeable and this is 100% not the case, to the detriment of the music. Again, generalisation is a necessary evil of theory.

    I think there are a lot of examples like that in jazz and in Levine's book. It's a collection of scraps, not a Unified Field Theory of Jazz.

    This is because jazz was invented over time by a large number of people, including some influential innovators. It was not created all at once by a Creator. Post hoc analysis of all-of-jazz is tempting but, apparently, futile.
    Indeed. I think futile is exactly the right word.

  18. #117

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rintincop
    That is not true. He does provide a system to play any tune on piano. That is perhaps what the book succeeds at. See "The Jazz Piano Book", Chapter Three: "Three Note Voicings". The chapter does provide a system for playing any tune. He then expands from that foundation with added color tones and hip voicings, drop 2, block chords, upper structure triads, stide, Bud Powell voicings, salsa, etc, etc.... The second half of "The Jazz Theory" book provides many systems for re-harmonization. By the way, buried in the rehar section are three systems used by the likes of Wayne Shorter and Herbie Hancock when they compose. I have tried to suggest it before but was dismissed on this forum by our resident authority on all matters of jazz, education and music. His later book How to Voice Standards at the Piano: The Menu by Mark ... offers a system, set of hip voicings dependant on what note is in the melody. I have seen no mention of that book in this thread. This thread really does not go into any depth with the material that Levine shares. I assume nobody here but me has read the Menu book or "Jazz Piano Masterclass with Mark Levine - The Drop 2 Book" (block chords) Book also by Mark. It offers numerous tweaks that Barry Harris has not thought of.

    I've a hard time reading all these opinions expressed in this thread as if they were factual. Some of you would be a lot more readable if you occasionally qualified your pros with phrases such as "in my opinion", "perhaps", or "maybe" instead of writing so dogmatically. So far, I have not learned anything positive among the more verbose posts.
    Well TBF, it is the internet. Things often sound more vehement than they are actually meant.

    I'd just move on if I could, but I can't, which makes me grumpy (and verbose) because I'm stuck with it. As I say, Mark could not have predicted that it gets used as a basic jazz theory guide and a basis for many beginner jazz syllabuses (though I reckon that's exactly what Sher wanted); that students tend to read it early on and get totally the wrong idea about what playing jazz entails. It doesn't change the fact that this happens.

    In that sense it's really good to know the stuff that's actually in it - in all the most popular books - because I can find a way to address it, and where possible, build on it, link it to other knowledge. It's bit like how you had to know what was in the Real Book even if you had learned the tunes another way. Or that some people think of the first chord of Just Friends as the I chord. You need a strategy for dealing with that issue.

    I confess I have memorized every detail of all Mark's books, in all 12 keys, over the past 35 years. Every single concept he touched on I made flashcards, hundreds of them, in all 12 keys. I then spent 4-5 hours every day drilling them for years until they were totally subconscious and instantaneous as if I was a native speaker of a language. I'm glad I have the knowledge in my toolbox (brain). I also concurrently have studied with Barry Harris since the 1980's and his training is more applicable to melody making, thus his influence provided perhaps the most valuable tools in my personal toolbox. I also studied with Hal Galper, Mark Isham and Art Lande.
    That's a very good point about Barry - 'melody making.' Although, Barry Harris isn't for the beginner either. Or at least I've not had much success teaching it to starting jazzers. Actually it's pretty good for somebody who read the JTB but can't actually play jazz lines. Usually that's a player who actually has a lot of guitar knowledge because they've spent so much time working on scale and modes. Barry gives a way to turn that into music.

    This entails translating Barry Harris to people who use CST/mainstream terms - bebop scale, mixolydian etc. I think Barry's terms are clearer, but they are not the lingua franca. Barry purists hate this, but I think it is probably necessary development. This stuff is too valuable not be made accessible.
    Last edited by christianm77; 06-24-2020 at 05:00 AM.

  19. #118

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pcjazz
    Article in this week’s New Yorker about contention amongst Israeli archaeologists states that the walls were already down when the brass section arrived.

    [Mandatory guitar content: not that? New Yorker.]
    That article is an interesting example of presenting a number of facts that are true enough, but assembled into a package that has legitimacy but is not the only possible package. It also only cites people on one side of the David-Solomon debate. There are equally skilled and prestigious archaeologists on the other side of Finkelstein who did not get fair presentation. Kind of like an article on jazz that only presents fusion as real jazz, to the neglect of bebop or other contemporary currents. Or which cite great jazz players who use Telecasters as proof that the day of the archtop is over.

    Mandatory guitar content!

    AND: my little digression was an analogy only, not an overture to discuss historiography.

  20. #119

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lawson-stone
    That article is an interesting example of presenting a number of facts that are true enough, but assembled into a package that has legitimacy but is not the only possible package. It also only cites people on one side of the David-Solomon debate. There are equally skilled and prestigious archaeologists on the other side of Finkelstein who did not get fair presentation. Kind of like an article on jazz that only presents fusion as real jazz, to the neglect of bebop or other contemporary currents. Or which cite great jazz players who use Telecasters as proof that the day of the archtop is over.

    Mandatory guitar content!

    AND: my little digression was an analogy only, not an overture to discuss historiography.
    Oh no it's too late now.. .the genie is out of the bottle! ;-)

  21. #120

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lawson-stone
    That article is an interesting example of presenting a number of facts that are true enough, but assembled into a package that has legitimacy but is not the only possible package. It also only cites people on one side of the David-Solomon debate. There are equally skilled and prestigious archaeologists on the other side of Finkelstein who did not get fair presentation. Kind of like an article on jazz that only presents fusion as real jazz, to the neglect of bebop or other contemporary currents. Or which cite great jazz players who use Telecasters as proof that the day of the archtop is over.

    Mandatory guitar content!

    AND: my little digression was an analogy only, not an overture to discuss historiography.
    Probably deserves a new thread. In another forum...

  22. #121

    User Info Menu

    Lol

  23. #122

    User Info Menu

    Time for a forum sabbatical.

  24. #123

    User Info Menu

    Mark Levine playing in his systems
    Last edited by rintincop; 06-25-2020 at 03:50 AM.

  25. #124

    User Info Menu

    Mark Levine published all about block chords in 1989 in "The Jazz Piano Book" and in perhaps a more organized manner than Barry Harris has. Mark also offered some hip tweaks that Barry does not offer and Barry has many creative examples of his own. Barry has not published his own book to my knowledge. Barry uses melodic minor scale block chords over the minor 7 flat five (D-7b5) and V7 alt (G7#9 b13) chords and also over the tonic minor (C-6 and C-maj7). Mark does too, but Mark goes further and addresses all the modes of melodic minor, as did Herbie Hancock. I think John Mehagan was the first to publish lessons on block chords.Block chords were was played before George Shearing by pianists Phil Moore , Art Bruckner, etc.

  26. #125

    User Info Menu

    I'll never forget the four-hour long workshop in Berkeley CA that Mark Levine hosted featuring his guest Barry Harris. Mark and Barry sat together at the piano and showed each other block chord ideas for hours. Mark is a master of block chords and is very deep into them, his systems add a lot of tension and bite to the voicings, very modern sounding. Mark and Barry both enjoyed each other's ideas and got along well. Mark recorded and later transcribed the whole session and I still revisit thoat 25 page transcription he gave me of those examples. I have not seen many of Barry's examples form that day in any of the books published by Barry's disciples. If you have not read Levine's Jazz Piano Masterclass with Mark Levine - The Drop 2 Book ... (the topic is all block chords, 6 dim scale type stuff, with unique tweaks, and application tips, many of the ideas are not found in Barry's workshops)