Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 78
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    Laughable. Barry doesn't "feel" that there is such a thing as a bebop scale.

    Well guess what? There is if people play it. The end.
    lol. Knew that video would upset fumblefingers. Probably why I put it there.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Terms are important in music. Terms are important in any field or practice that is wide and deep.
    Terms are important because they help us remember a general area of info and refer to those ideas without further explanation.
    For playing, application of the content is where the potential for deeper
    value lies. Bebop scales and ma6 diminished scales represent different application derived from an overlap of content.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    fumblefingers

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    lol, didn’t you realise? He’s had more reincarnations than the Buddha.

  6. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    Well... 'feel' is quite soft word... I do not think Barry says that.
    Sure, but I had to listen to that guitarist in the video tell me that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    BH uses in line approach majo/minor/dom scales with added chromatics between particular tones... in particular places.
    This is a different thing.
    Is it now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    Barry Harris approach is interesting thing.
    It could be. And I think a free white paper would suffice.

  7. #56
    I think if people want to sound like BH they should consider taking his counsel and studying his approaches (no pun intended).

    Of course, many may study with him believing that they are experiencing a living, breathing lineage to Monk and Bird. And to an extent perhaps they are. All fine by me.


    For the guitarist, the jazz conception (to borrow a term) of players like Joe Pass and Wes Montgomery might be more effective though. I wonder what your critical thoughts about that are?

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    I think if people want to sound like BH they should consider taking his counsel and studying his approaches (no pun intended).
    His whole theory is that you should come out sounding like you given the understanding of the material.

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    Of course, many may study with him believing that they are experiencing a living, breathing lineage to Monk and Bird. And to an extent perhaps they are. All fine by me.
    If you listen he does not sound like Monk or Charlie Parker.

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    For the guitarist, the jazz conception (to borrow a term) of players like Joe Pass and Wes Montgomery might be more effective though. I wonder what your critical thoughts about that are?
    I'm not familiar enough to critique methods of those well known players but I choose Chris Parks of TILFBH to interpret BH concepts.

  9. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by WILSON 1
    His whole theory is that you should come out sounding like you given the understanding of the material.
    Understanding of HIS material, you mean? But sure, that's the last of the three I's - (Innovate). Who doesn't preach the same?

    Quote Originally Posted by WILSON 1
    If you listen he does not sound like Monk or Charlie Parker.
    Irrespective of how he sounds, people sure make a big deal out of his association with those historical figures. Meaning, there are so many great players of virtually every instrument, and many jazz methods out there. So what is his secret sauce that jazz musicians of all instruments and generations should take note of?


    Quote Originally Posted by WILSON 1
    I'm not familiar enough to critique methods of those well known players but I choose Chris Parks of TILFBH to interpret BH concepts.
    So please tell me why it's important for someone other than a period correct bebop pianist to study his stuff.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar

    Understanding of HIS material, you mean? But sure, that's the last of the three I's - (Innovate). Who doesn't preach the same?

    He starts with the C chromatic scale.

    This assumes we are all in the same boat ie using the major 7th scale and adding accidentals to taste.

    So instead of teaching the major scale and searching for tensions he starts with all the tensions and makes a harmonic system...
    that's backwards from any learning system I've experienced.

  11. #60
    Can't disagree with that.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    Hostile? Lol. That's far from hostile. I could likewise say.... "why so iconoclastic?"

    So, how about... critical?

    Seriously, I don't care what people "feel" when they set out on a course of logical argumentation. Feel/schmeel. (Something I told a relatively inexperienced Ivy League boss once. He didn't really appreciate it, but he knew he was weak on the point).

    The thing is, David Baker's books have the "student" doing a lot more than just playing the bebop scales (plural) ascending/descending by rote.

    But to Barry's point - there is more than just those scales. People can throw in chromatics all over the place, and they do. So Barry has a point, and he his favorite 8-note scales too, right? Or at least chromatic passages for a range short of a full octave? How about Joe Pass? How about Dave Liebman?

    So, is there any practical reason to create "synthetic" 8-note scales? (again, plural).

    I can think of one. Musicians practice sales.

    I can think of another. Telling people to practice diatonic scales (and arpeggios) - but - "also throw in some chromatics, and go from there!" probably won't cut it.

    So, are there patterns in what the masters did/do? Was/is there repeatability? If the answer is yes, then creating some drills (and yes, even "scales") that build skills along those lines seems like a practical thing to do.

    In the end it's not enough though, right? There is the music. That's why transcription is advised. Or shall we call it copying/stealing?

    Imitate-Assimilate-Innovate.
    This is a video I did on the subject


    What Baker would call the dominant bebop scale is by far the most common usage of the ‘Barry Harris added note rules’ I have encountered. So I don’t actually have a huge problem with people having a specific name for it .

  13. #62
    12:55 lol, ready to take the plunge.

    That was a helpful video about starting to learn the bebop scale in a simple ascending/descending manner. Thanks for that.

    And regarding David Baker, for someone who takes criticism for coining (or at least codifying) the bebop scale, one can easily observe that he included multiple strategies for using other chromatics within the first 16 pages of his first book (of three).

    I guess it would be helpful to see a side-by-side comparison of the two treatises in order to determine which has the greater utility. Or one could study both.
    Last edited by Donplaysguitar; 04-12-2021 at 07:13 PM.

  14. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by WILSON 1
    He starts with the C chromatic scale.

    This assumes we are all in the same boat ie using the major 7th scale and adding accidentals to taste.

    So instead of teaching the major scale and searching for tensions he starts with all the tensions and makes a harmonic system...
    that's backwards from any learning system I've experienced.
    so instead of saying, here’s what’s standard and here are the naughty notes which I need some rules for, he says here’s everything, and how we subtract from that to be more normative?

    if so, that would be a refreshing approach.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    12:55 lol, ready to take the plunge.

    That was a helpful video about starting to learn the bebop scale in a simple ascending/descending manner. Thanks for that.

    And regarding David Baker, for someone who takes criticism for coining (or at least codifying) the bebop scale, one can easily observe that he included multiple strategies for using other chromatics within the first 16 pages of his first book (of three).

    I guess it would be helpful to see a side-by-side comparison of the two treatises in order to determine which has the greater utility. Or one could study both.
    Well I was hoping it might explain the difference between the two conceptions. Basically Barry added note scales are further reaching, and also more complex, but the Baker stuff is probably easier to use at first (that said I think Barry makes some very helpful simplifications in application, most importantly chunking the ii and V together.)

    Anyway it might be interesting video fodder to compare the Baker How to Play Bop books to the Barry Harris DVD’s. It’s on the list, just need some time to do it.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    But then there’s the 8 notes scales such as the maj6 diminished which are a whole different thing...

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    To get an idea of what Barry’s approach is like, I would simply recommend anyone to take the time to watch episodes 1 to 6 of Chris Parks’ ‘Things I learned from Barry Harris’ youtube channel.

    It won’t take that long, and it will probably be a lot quicker than trying to find some written version anywhere. After that I think you would have a reasonable idea of whether you think Barry’s approach would be of further interest to you.

    Episodes 1 to 5 show some of his scales and half-step rules etc. as used for linear improvisation.
    Episode 6 gives some idea of his sixth-diminished scales used for his harmonic method (i.e. chordal movement).

    A good thing about Chris’ videos is that he nearly always demonstrates these concepts by applying them to an actual tune.

    For the record, I am not exactly a Barry devotee, but I have certainly found his harmonic method useful (I got Alan Kingstone’s book a few years ago which covers it).

    The linear improv stuff I have not delved into so much, simply because I had already spent years teaching myself improv simply by getting it off the records, long before I came across the BH methods. In fact Barry’s rules look a lot like the stuff I already know, which suggests that his rules do accurately reflect what those guys actually played.

    But I do find Chris Parks’ videos very interesting and useful. His approach of applying Barry’s scale outlines across a whole tune is something I use sometimes, to get a quick grasp on a new tune.
    Last edited by grahambop; 04-13-2021 at 04:33 AM.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    The funny thing is, those BH/David Baker half step rules are codifying the opposite of what you probably want to do 99% of the time. You don't want to end up on one of the chord tones of the current chord when you go to the next bar. More often you are targeting a non-common chord tone in the next bar when you're playing the changes. So you want to reverse those rules when you're playing the changes. Especially over dominant chords Moreover you can arrive at that note on the up beat or the down beat. They both work. So there are no rules about how many half notes you put. Of course you can also put any interval as the extra note, repeat notes, extend rhythmic values etc.

    There are some more frequent places that half notes go in the bebop era. These are easy to identify. Whether you want to put your half notes in those place or experiment with other options depend on what you want to sound like.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 04-13-2021 at 09:01 AM.

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    so instead of saying, here’s what’s standard and here are the naughty notes which I need some rules for, he says here’s everything, and how we subtract from that to be more normative?

    if so, that would be a refreshing approach.
    Now that's well put, very close.

    BH has said, " so they gave us the major 7 scale and left us with it, while they proceeded to improvise over everything ! "
    ( They gave us the wrong scale.)

  20. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    The funny thing is, those BH/David Baker half step rules are codifying the opposite of what you probably want to do 99% of the time. You don't want to end up on one of the chord tones of the current chord when you go to the next bar. More often you are targeting a non-common chord tone in the next bar when you're playing the changes. So you want to reverse those rules when you're playing the changes. Especially over dominant chords Moreover you can arrive at that note on the up beat or the down beat. They both work. So there are no rules about how many half notes you put. Of course you can also put any interval as the extra note, repeat notes, extend rhythmic values etc.

    There are some more frequent places that half notes go in the bebop era. These are easy to identify. Whether you want to put your half notes in those place or experiment with other options depend on what you want to sound like.

    Do you mean half notes or half steps?

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
    Do you mean half notes or half steps?
    I mean half steps. Half step rules as outlined by BH and David Baker for example contradict with guide tone resolution.

    Suppose scalar descend G7 -> C
    Start on a chord tone (F) descend 8th notes to the 3rd of C:

    | F E D C B A G F | E

    No half step needed despite starting from a chord tone.

    If I start from a non-chord tone, I need to put a half step to land on E

    |E D C B A G Gb F | E

    Opposite of the rules.

    Following the half steo rules would lead to landing on a chord tone of G7 on the next bar! Why come up with a messy set of rules only to codify that?

    Of course you can use the same rules if you want to anticipate 'E', that's also fine. So what's the point of any of the rules then?


    BTW I'm not saying guide tone resolution is be-all and end-all. But you'd think it'd be a good thing not to introduce a complex set of rules that circumvents it in a material aimed at beginning improvisers.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 04-13-2021 at 09:41 AM.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Ooooookaayyyy

    OK, so the way I interpret it, the advantage of the half step rules is that you know where you end up rhythmically.

    Generally, you want to connect to the next chord via ... well a connection of some kind.

    The simplest way to do this is a dim7 arp.

    If you run down an added note scale this is pretty easy to do.

    We use the dominant scale on the II-V

    So if you have
    Bm7b5 | E7 | Am6

    You have more than enough time to run a G7 scale on the first two bars and maybe do a G# dim arp on beat 3 of the second bar, play yer four notes of that, and finish up on an Am chord tone. As you'll end up G, B, D or F with the G7 scale on beat 2, all you have to is make the G into a G#and you can run into that scale as smooth as anything.

    I don't think guide tones are terribly relevant to this process. I don't think Barry has this conception of guide tones. Remember he's working with maj6 and min6 chords. (In general I don't like 3/7 guidetones as away to outline harmony. They often sound quite ugly to me on min/maj chords.)

    Sometimes educators contradict each other. That's life.

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    OK, so the way I interpret it, the advantage of the half step rules is that you know where you end up rhythmically.
    That's how I interpret it as well. Because of that, my point was, the specific rules outlined in detail in both sources don't really mean all that much. They capture some uses of the half notes but codification of them as rules are counter productive in principle IMO.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 04-13-2021 at 11:35 AM.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    That's how I interpret it as well. Because or that, my point was, the specific rules outlined in detail in both sources don't really mean all that much.
    I think you have to learn to connect chords. I don't think the half step rules help you to do that directly, but actually, they help you set up connections like dim7's and tritone subs and things. And if you end up on the wrong note, that's where you use 5-4-3-2 phrases.

    I think you can get yourself into trouble combining approaches. But I absolutely would NOT teach BH to a beginner anyway. It doesn't work.

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    I mean half steps. Half step rules as outlined by BH and David Baker for example contradict with guide tone resolution.

    Suppose scalar descend G7 -> C
    Start on a chord tone (F) descend 8th notes to the 3rd of C:

    | F E D C B A G F | E

    No half step needed despite starting from a chord tone.

    If I start from a non-chord tone, I need to put a half step to land on E

    |E D C B A G Gb F | E

    Opposite of the rules.

    Following the half steo rules would lead to landing on a chord tone of G7 on the next bar! Why come up with a messy set of rules only to codify that?

    Of course you can use the same rules if you want to anticipate 'E', that's also fine. So what's the point of any of the rules then?


    BTW I'm not saying guide tone resolution is be-all and end-all. But you'd think it'd be a good thing not to introduce a complex set of rules that circumvents it in a material aimed at beginning improvisers.
    All the Barry Harris half-step examples I have seen (e.g. in Roni Ben-Hur's book) are designed to operate over 2 bars, not 1 bar as in your example. They end on a chord tone of the dominant chord, somewhere inside the 2nd bar, because it's assumed you are still on the dominant chord at that point. (e.g. to cover 1 bar of Dm and 1 bar of G7, you treat the line as 2 bars of G7).

    After that (as Christian says) there is still time to do something at the end of the 2nd bar to connect the line to the next chord. Chris Parks' videos show plenty of ways of doing this.

    Didn't this question come up before? Someone said the rules don't work in the space of 1 bar, and the answer was that's not what they are intended to do.

    If you are trying to resolve in just 1 bar, then you probably need to adjust the rules. I guess Barry just thought the 2-bar scenario is more common and useful.

    I don't know anything about David Baker's material though, never seen any of it.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by grahambop
    All the Barry Harris half-step examples I have seen (e.g. in Roni Ben-Hur's book) are designed to operate over 2 bars, not 1 bar as in your example. They end on a chord tone of the dominant chord, somewhere inside the 2nd bar, because it's assumed you are still on the dominant chord at that point. (e.g. to cover 1 bar of Dm and 1 bar of G7, you treat the line as 2 bars of G7).

    After that (as Christian says) there is still time to do something at the end of the 2nd bar to connect the line to the next chord. Chris Parks' videos show plenty of ways of doing this.

    Didn't this question come up before? Someone said the rules don't work in the space of 1 bar, and the answer was that's not what they are intended to do.

    If you are trying to resolve in just 1 bar, then you probably need to adjust the rules. I guess Barry just thought the 2-bar scenario is more common and useful.

    I don't know anything about David Baker's material though, never seen any of it.
    Yes, that seems to be true.

    The thing is, the use of chromatic passing notes (or leaped diatonic notes) as a way to make lines come out right rhythmically is a more generally useful notion then in the specific implied context of 2 bar ii V's. It's certainly useful for connecting chords as well for example (on a down beat or anticipated). So the presentation of the half note application as a set of specific rules (as both BH and David Baker resources do) I think make that point less transparent.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 04-13-2021 at 06:58 PM.