-
Originally Posted by rintincop
The interesting thing is that someone who was researching the history told me sax sections would take a melody and do this on the fly - so they'd all use the 8 note scale harmonisation too harmonise the melody line, without having to have it notated. Just start on your note. Gospel vocal harmonisations run the same sort of technique but with a 6 note scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 (I would wonder if it's helpful if the scale not be a full diatonic scale for this type of thing?)
From this POV we can see things like four way close and drop2 etc less as an arranger's technique but a specific role that each player - alto, tenor or baritone, would know from experience and apprenticing in bands.
The practice got moved to piano...
Apparently this can all be traced back to African harmonic techniques using the balafon and so on called 'spanning' which will actually be familiar to any jazz pianist if I described it. I can give a reference to the paper if you like, it's super interesting.
I have a friend who worked out the minor 6th diminished scale from listening to Lester Young. He called it the Lester Young minor; never checked out Barry's theories. So it was all there on the records...
-
06-24-2020 03:52 PM
-
Where do you think the arrangers worked out the horn arrangements??? The piano.
It's like arguing which came first the chicken or the egg. It's a waste of time.
-
Originally Posted by rintincop
-
False. You are pulling at straws. It's a big band technique that was arranged. Four way close and Drop 2 are big band arrangement techniques, with passing notes harmonized as diminished.
-
It was folks like pianist Phill Moore who were arranging four-way close with diminished passing chords for the Dorsey Orchestra, the Harry James Band and the Basie Band etc. Horn players that arranged for sections would go to pianos to work it out. It wasn't Lester Young doing 4 way close arrangements by ear for big bands
-
Originally Posted by rintincop
I just thought it was an interesting thing. It was a long time ago he told me this, mind.
It's not unusual for horn players to improvise harmonies of course. This would be a fairly straight forward way of doing it in four voices. Think about it.
Take the melody, drop it by the relevant interval of the relevant key tonic chord (so in C major, if the melody is on E, you play C, A or G depending) and harmonise it with the same melodic shape but using the 8 note scale. You could totally do it with practice.
It also shows the Barry Harris wasn't really 'inventing' the scale (he always claims it has been around for centuries.) Again I find that interesting, because we tend to think of Barry as being the originator of those eight note scales.
-
Originally Posted by rintincop
I don't think my friend worked out the scale listening to arrangements. Again I'm not sure what Lester he listened to. He just demonstrated the scale, said where he got it from - and I said - oh that's the Barry Harris min6-dim and he said what's that? I got this from Lester.
Tickle Toe is an obvious dim7 - m thing, but it's not dim7 - m6. Perhaps someone who knows Prez really well might know an example?
Barry says he got these lines from Coleman Hawkins...
EDIT: furthermore, I think I read somewhere that Eddie Durham worked on a lot of the early Baisie arrangements. I haven't really dug deep into transcribing big band stuff (I know people who have, so could ask them), so I couldn't personally offer much about what I've heard in terms of their harmonisation style, but I think they used different schemes. For instance, in One O Clock Jump, they use a different scale - but the process is similar. I can dig out my source for that (very interesting paper) if you are interested.
Again, I think we tend to underestimate historically the extent jazz was communally composed. While there were certainly arrangers, being able to tell the saxes to 'harmonise a melody' would certainly be helpful for speed, and TBH if you spent 8 shows+ a week playing this stuff off chart, I don't find it at all outlandish that players could do this. The harmony of that era is pretty standardised. So maybe that stuff was never on chart.
-
If you haven't studied big band arranging you should, it was involved in important developments of jazz harmony/arranging. I majored in big band arranging at Berkelee in the 80's. Every day for two years we mostly studied the Count Basie and Duke Ellington Band arrangements. We harmonized melodies; the so-called "C6 diminished scale" was dead obvious to anybody, we knew all that, it's like talking about the ABCs. Then we progressed to Stan Kenton and Gil Evans. Every day we would arrange a different standard for the sections of a big band. Berkelee had a fantastic highly detailed course sequence at that time.
-
Originally Posted by rintincop
-
Originally Posted by rintincop
But surely that's the point - the C6-dim scale was dead obvious. And you could imagine people just coming up with ad-hoc arrangements using it easily enough. People probably don't learn that now just because there's not much point as harmony in jazz has changed a lot. Maybe specialists in 40s music might be interested in relearning that skill.... but, we have charts...
You know, at the end of it, I've actually got a lot out of revisiting the Jazz Theory Book. I'm warming up to it as it gets into the more advanced subjects. This is the meat of it. He doesn't want to have to explain the melodic minor modes, really, does he?
Reading it again, I feel in a much better position, because I know what's in it and what isn't. Would I recommend it? Yes, actually, but to the right student only, who was ready for it.
For my own part, mostly I feel I learn things best when I go through the process Mark did to write the book. Where I enjoy the book most is where I can detect the glee behind the words where he relates some discovery or other that he obviously really enjoyed working out. Rather than make me want to read through his examples, it makes me want to go out and explore the music more.
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Anyway, you'd think.. but Barry Harris actually does offer a sort of flat-pack approach to assembling jazz (well bop) lines. It's pretty amazing that's even possible.
-
Yea... I have 100's of big band arrangements. Before we got shut down... I was working with a few BB's , old charts and some of my newer ones... I learns voicing terms from arranging and orchestration teachers back in the 70's. I'm not a fan of BH... do respect his jazz voice and what he does, just don't like Diminished organization... I studies with Herb and went through his arranging classes back at Berklee and performed a few gigs back east. Didn't really think the vid of Mark with Wayne playing Easy Living at Pearls was that cool. And the block chord pn thing is thick... I've had the chance to perform with Mark doing his latin thing, with Mary Fettif and some other great performers... Mark can play and Mary is incredible player... anyway... composing and arranging for large ensembles, even smaller 4 horn bands... teaches your ears to hear complete harmonic organizations. You can't fake it...Big difference between just making head arrangements at gigs... most working jazz musicians can easily play live simple head arrangements...melody harmony lines and background lines for soloist... I'm just a guitar player and I play harmony lines to melodies all the time. Pretty easy to play melody up a 3rd or down a 6th and throw in some Blue notes at targets. I've posted this vid before... but is example of just faking a counter line
Very casual gig, I'm a sub ...
-
Fair enough. I now have my copy in front of me (first time I've had access to it in the duration of this thread).
Some comments:
Good glossary right at the start.
Intervals with examples from tunes. I think it’s better done with more familiar songs, for the purpose of learning the sounds.
Nice basic discussion of modes. Explains voice leading, cycle of 5ths.
Defines modal jazz.
Introduces chord scale theory. I like his take on chords and scales being the same thing. Well, more or less. A bunch of basic info on each mode. A lot of detail which takes some time to internalize. I didn't re-read all the text, but, hopefully, he mentioned that there are other ways to make music.
Introduces concept of avoid note.
Then, his best chapter, IMO, on melodic minor usages.
Next diminished harmony, then WT.
Then, extensive notes on how to apply scales to tunes, with examples from masters, and the important skill of connecting scales as chords change, if you’re going to want to acquire that kind of sound.
He might be read as having a doctrinaire, rule-based approach, but I don't read it that way. I think it's more of a scraps of theory approach, with some very substantial scraps.
I’m going to stop here, for now. That’s the first 120 pages or so.
For those of us who learned one tune and one sound at a time, without fitting these things into a more comprehensive way of looking at the music, the foregoing strikes me as excellent.
Does it inform you on how to play? To an extent. Does it improve your ability to talk to your fellow musician? Absolutely, if you didn’t already have this vocabulary. Does it give you a framework for understanding what a master may have practiced? Yes. An appreciation for how the masters use the devices covered? Sure. Something to work on, no matter what your level? Probably, for most, yes, for me.
Now, I don't have some other perspective to view Levine's book. I've read Nettles and Graf and I have the usual shelf of guitar methods. But, there's nothing on that shelf that covers what Levine covers. And, certainly not with the same level of clarity. I had an experience I've had with some other subjects that I came to in a piecemeal fashion. Even when you've hacked your way to some level of expertise, it can be a relief to read about the subject the way it's usually taught from the beginning. I felt that way about this book.
When I read it, a sent him an email complimenting him on writing the best textbook I've ever used. And, I have used a great many. I got a nice note back, btw. I met him sometime later at a group lunch, but never talked about music. I'm not surprised that it has become a standard in the field.
Admittedly, I don't think I understand all the criticisms. I may not have enough background in jazz ed for that. Sometimes people criticize a piece of work for what it is not. Is that happening here?
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
(jazz does a lot of old fashioned transmission education, which is kind of ironic really. I do it; we all do it.)
For students, maybe put it on a reading list along with other texts that present a contrary approach. TBH most students read it fairly early on.
I should be more forgiving... This is real nerd rage on some level. There's just so many grating little factoids in there; it's not the stuff Levine focuses on, because he knows that stuff as well as anyone, it's the stuff he mentions as an aside. It just damages the reading experience. Annoying as I personally find it, I'm not sure how much of a problem that actually is educationally (although I'm sick of people going 'I though the 4th was an avoid note on the dominant?' Don't worry about the flipping 4th Johnny, it'll be fine.)
When Levine actually brings up examples from Louis Armstrong he remarks on how modern his music is - his use of sequences, bebop scale and so on. The reason for that is that pre-bop jazz was not actually like the stereotype he describes in the book. It's not really that important to talk about whether the 4th was or wasn't used on dominant chords (it was), or whether pre war jazzers often used the bebop scale (they did) unless you are writing a history. Just chop it out. Focus on the stuff you want to address. Leave that history stuff to Berliner and Schuller...
There's certainly a lesson there for me as an educator, because I am the arch digresser. (No really?)
The organisation and structure of the book could also probably be improved upon, if we are to use it as Theory Book for post-bop jazz, and not simply a source book for cool shit.Last edited by christianm77; 06-25-2020 at 06:19 AM.
-
Nice vid Rintin, love that stuff.... marks Mornings... Which scales...
What's interesting is back in the 60's I would have just said VI- and that would have been the basic reference and gone on from there, then the 70's and 80's happened and now I generally say II- and go from there, the Reference, relationships and Development approach etc...
Christian always needs vanilla academic justification... cookie cutter layout. LOL I'm trying to lighten you up.... last time I was teaching college... part of using texts was to add all the missing details. Our job is to already understand and put the material into contexts for the students. Not figure it out.
-
This is a result of how Mark Levine thinks. Hip voicings and 4 basic scales: the modes of major, the modes of melodic minor, diminished scale and whole tone scale. Melodic sequencing is one of his favorite devices.
Last edited by rintincop; 06-25-2020 at 02:38 PM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
In this post, you mention the avoid note issue. I think Levine is clear on this point. He calls it a "handle with care" note, which I think is a good way to think about it, at least for the beginning jazz player. He also makes it clear that you can play any note against any chord, if you do it well. But, for me, that's about as helpful as the advice to use only the chromatic scale, and use it at all times.
Noting that playing an F in a line against Cmaj can bring the sound of G7 when you don't want it, seems reasonable to me.
Or noting that an F in a chord that's supposed to sound like a C major -- might make it sound like a G7. In fact, I do this all the time, usually in stacked 4ths, but I don't disagree with Levine. Making the stacks of fourths work is facilitated by the awareness that you have to handle the F with care -- and not lean on it in the wrong place.
Of course, later on in the text, he covers sus chords and other devices relevant to the avoid note issue, as more advanced topics.
-
Originally Posted by Reg
how dare you sir!
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
I’ll dig out the ref if it’s actually interesting. He starts taking about the history, and it’s ... not specifically true. As I demonstrated above the 4th has been employed pretty freely on dominants in general since at least the 30s. I also have an example of Louis playing Fmaj7 against C7 in 1928.
To be honest I think it’d be better not to think the 4th as being any sort of avoid note on dominant out because I have people who actually worry about this stuff. 4ths are fine on dominants and always have been.
Its funny that people see my thinking as being a bit hidebound because that’s exactly how I feel about the CST stuff. I think it’s a generational thing and it’s to do with our initial experiences learning jazz. CST is what people learn first these days. They start with Levine.
One thing I notice about the Levine books is that he’s actually lot more relaxed about avoid notes than more conventional CST books. Like he doesn’t say 13th is avoid over m7 for instance*
*yes Reg I am aware this is a voicing thing.
-
Christian, your examples were unconvincing. Levine is talking about the 4th in terms of harmony, chords, I don't understand how you don't get that. Your examples were instances of playing the key of the song, not the chord harmony of the moment, in a melodic solo.
-
I have visited my storage closet and unearthed my copies of great The Jazz Piano Book (1989), the so so The Jazz Theory Book (1995), and the great "Jazz Piano Masterclass with Mark Levine - The Drop 2 Book (2006) - Mark's personal block chord techniques, tweaks, and practical usage tips. Basically an even deeper survey of the block chord systems that he covered in "The Jazz Piano Book" and omitted from "The Jazz Theory Book."
So with books in hand, I am ready to go page by page and explain (defend) any of Mark's statements that seem to be misunderstood and condemned.
Last edited by rintincop; 06-25-2020 at 08:21 PM.
-
Originally Posted by rintincop
A typical one is Rose Room where Charlie Christian plays Dbm6 over Eb7. He does this a lot. Fairly common for music of that era. Or that Louis example. There’s some Django things too. And so on....
It doesn’t matter. The only thing that elevates it above nitpicking is that I think a lot of things that are written in books people (students for instance who think the answers are found in books) accept uncritically. it is annoying to have to unpick these (unintentional) stitches.
It probably makes people think I am obsessed with recreating the past which is not the case either. But I do think that there is value from learning it.
if you were interested you’d have spotted this stuff anyway. You are not going to change your mind, and in any case it’s just going to make you more annoyed at me and feel I’ve got a massive hate boner for Mark, which is not actually the case.
OTOH uncritically accepting stuff that’s said in these books just because a top bloke and an awesome player wrote them is equally silly. Everybody’s human.
16" 1920s/30s L5
Yesterday, 08:44 PM in For Sale