The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 130
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    What, and all that stuff about parental this and that, derived from augmented forms? You're smarter than I am, that's for sure. Or far more complex.
    You can ignore that bit, I think it just comes out of Pat’s mystical idea about deriving all the forms on the guitar out of one chord or something. As it happens, he doesn’t mention that in Linear Expressions, or if he does, it’s not obvious.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    There's only one scale:

    A Bb B C C# D Eb E F F# G Ab A

    All your problems solved. Forever
    and here is how to use it in minor



    how many Jazz players would get this chromatic?

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Yeah that Pat Martino video is the sort of thing.

    As I say, it’s the sort of thing that seems obvious and simple in retrospect but can induce headaches in those who are new to it. It takes a while to internalise.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    and - in a way - the whole point is that it could sound just the same - if you play well both ways!

    and - having been brought up on a diatonic picture I have not simply abandoned that - I couldn't

    we are dealing with two different schemes for describing the same reality - and the question is not just 'do both schemes capture the relevant facts' (if one failed to capture important parts of the music that would be a reason to be dissatisfied with it)

    you can 'make all the changes' without thinking diatonically - that is the claim

    and there are lots of practical pay-offs for the improviser that come from effective simplification - (if you lose lots of detail but gain a tool its simple to use, that's not as good as, gaining a tool its simple to use without losing very much detail.)

    - on my view - by thinking of the seven diatonic chords as either I or IV or derivatives of I or IV (or if you prefer minor-ish chords of vi and ii) - you can get all the relevant sounds - and if you use melodic minors (off the fifth of the dominant; the fourth of the tonic, and the flat nine of the dominant) you get loads of altered dominant harmony too.

    this afternoon's practicing: St Michael - it's a derivative of the more familiar St Thomas. Not sure what it illustrates - and it's more than 16 bars.

    Dropbox - ZOOM0149.WAV - Simplify your life

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    It's a bit like if someone sat down to analyse my lines (I mean why would someone want to do that) they would hear bop lines or whatever and analyse it whatever way they normally do.

    It's not like there's a specific sound I get by blocking things down the way I do; I see it more as a I way of understanding and conceptualising things that maximises the ways I can use stuff I already know and make sure the ZX Brain 48K doesn't overheat when playing busy changes.

    So I think Groynaid's concept is not about a sound so much as way of systematising material. At least that's the way I use these sorts of ideas. A bop line is a bop line. And you can do all the chord scaly stuff that way too.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Dropbox - ZOOM0139.WAV - Simplify your life

    here's another take from ten minutes earlier - gives some sense of the improvisational aspect of it all

    my basic idea is that focusing on these two sounds in any given key: in C:- C maj and F maj/ Am and Dm - simplifies song-book harmony sufficiently (and without excessive simplification and loss) to help significantly in opening up the improvisational dimension.

    that is 'one kind of minor sound' in the leading claim of my original post (you use it in two basically different places in any given key: off vi and off ii)

    the other is the melodic minor

    (one thing I know that both recordings I've posted do illustrate - the 'falling off' I was going on about in my recent surfing post. I don't know how to edit the recordings - I can 'trim' on my phone, but not on my laptop.)

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Can you define that? Dm + Am = D F A + A C E = D F A C E = Dm9

    Is that what you mean?

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    it's either ii or vi - not sure

    because I'm not trying to fit the sound into a diatonic picture - I'm seeing if I can put an interesting and helpful alternative picture together

    I'm saying they're major off I and IV and they're minor off vi and ii

    and I'm not trying to join the two sounds - I'm saying a key is a kind of stand-off between these two sounds

    if you think major - a symptom of not starting with the diatonic picture is that I believe the major sounds that go on I and IV are maj7sharp11 sounds...

    but that might be wrong; maybe IV is maj7 sharp11 and I is maj6. (I'm not worrying too much about these interesting details).
    Last edited by Groyniad; 12-22-2021 at 09:09 AM.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    when you approach I through vi - when, like me, you use nested triads off vi to get the I sound - you generate a Maj7sharp11 sound - the sharp 11 of the maj is the 6th of the (relative) minor

    that's why both major sounds seem like maj7sharp11 sounds to me now

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Groyniad
    this afternoon's practicing: St Michael - it's a derivative of the more familiar St Thomas. Not sure what it illustrates - and it's more than 16 bars.

    Dropbox - ZOOM0149.WAV - Simplify your life
    Nice playing! I have been listening to some Billy Bean stuff recently and I was reminded of that (and Pat Martino).

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    [QUOTE=ragman1;1166809]Groyniad -

    Ah, calypso! (St. Thomas is a bit like that). Nicely played. Well, I can hear clearly what you're doing because I'm used to those sounds. The earlier one was a tad more hesitant and you used fewer subs. But still good.

    I have to say, though, that that tune's a fairly simple kind of thing, quite easy to break down into 1-4-5 and so on.

    Have you tried it with a more complex tune, like one of the old standards, maybe like Stella, for instance? Or one of the more modern ones on the Jam threads? You know, with modulations and altered chords? Or even a tune like Blue In Green which needs a modal approach?

    .....To my ear it sounds simplistic when one actually comes to play something. There are ways of using those subs, not just any old how.
    -----------

    hard not to be a bit miffed at this tone! - I'll try to avoid miffed behaviour (I suppose I should not have responded to being 'called out' by Ragman!)

    the tune is one of my own - inasmuch as there is one - and it is based on St Thomas (as I said in the relevant post)

    I picked a rhythm-style tune so that the structures would be more transparent.

    Have I tried 'it' with a more complex tune? Well 'it' is just 'how I play' - so the question is 'have I played a more complex tune' - and the answer (assuming that e.g. Stella is 'more complex' than St Thomas or rhythm changes) 'yes'. Does it sound like the approach I'm using would leave me unable to 'make the changes' of Stella?

    the whole idea of 'breaking it down into 1-4-5' seems to show that you aren't following the gist of the thread. it is being 'broken down' so that the distinctions between maj/min and between min/dom get lost - where does that leave your '1-4-5'?

    if this is simplistic and hesitant could you show us what sophisticated and assured sounds like?
    Last edited by Groyniad; 12-22-2021 at 10:15 AM.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Judge the ‘expert’ by his playing.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Oh, dear!

    I'll answer this one first.

    Why do you say 'expert'? I've never, ever, claimed to be an expert on anything, nor 'advanced', or anything else. But I know what I know. So that's clear.

    It's also not true that commentators need to be able to perform what they say. If it were, there'd be no music, art or drama critics unless they too could play, paint, or act like those they critique. So that's nonsense.

    It's also true, by the by, that many really good performers become virtually inarticulate when trying to teach what they do. Not all, but quite a few.

    So that's that. In any case, without wanting to blow the trumpet, my playing is quite good enough. I don't recommend anything I don't use myself all the time and I perform it adequately, as well you know.

    You've got grumpy in your retirement, Graham! You didn't used to be like this. But I understand, I went through that myself for a while. But never mind. No offence, of course.

    You know, I really can't get on with this 'don't say anything' attitude. People post the most awful stuff (not Groyniad) and get told they're absolutely wonderful all the time. How are they ever going to learn anything? What are we, snowflakes? I don't get it.

    If you think there's something missing in my own playing feel free to say so, I don't mind. If it's true I'll know anyway, I expect. I don't claim to be brilliant, quite the contrary.

    this is mostly correct in some minimal sense - one can talk insightfully about how Liverpool's midfield failed to play the right through-balls even if one could not play a through-ball to save one's life....

    but if one is actually speaking to one of Liverpool's midfielders - and one knows one couldn't play a through-ball to save one's life - one might try to be more tactful - or something!

    and you certainly went for this line:

    'talk is all very well but the proof of the pudding is in the eating - so why don't you show us what you're going on about smarty-pants?'

    that is quite a line to adopt when one is not in a position to show anyone what you are going on about!

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    the more important point is that the very idea of showing someone what a particular approach to harmony 'sounds like' is misguided. If it is an approach to 'harmony' (to the way songs move) then it should sound like other things rightly called 'approaches to harmony'.

    having said that I do strongly suspect that this - 2 kinds of minor approach - is very close to the approach that be-boppers actually used....

    Monk said that a min7flat5 is really a m6 with its root in the sixth etc. etc. etc.

    ii V I played IV iv I is classic bird.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Despite what ragman says, of course you can play Stella using minor forms, I find it very useful especially over the 'trickier' chords e.g. altered dominants and min7b5 in particular. I'm a bit like Pat Martino in that respect, I just find these forms very clear to visualise on the fingerboard and the sounds are clear to me. I don't have any problem associating them to specific chords. The transposable nature of the guitar helps too. In fact I think I started picking these things up when I studied lines by Wes Montgomery, well before I heard about Pat Martino's approach.

    Anyway here's a version I recorded a few years ago, I was probably using minor-based lines all over the place in this one.


  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Groyniad
    this is mostly correct in some minimal sense - one can talk insightfully about how Liverpool's midfield failed to play the right through-balls even if one could not play a through-ball to save one's life....

    but if one is actually speaking to one of Liverpool's midfielders - and one knows one couldn't play a through-ball to save one's life - one might try to be more tactful - or something!

    and you certainly went for this line:

    'talk is all very well but the proof of the pudding is in the eating - so why don't you show us what you're going on about smarty-pants?'

    that is quite a line to adopt when one is not in a position to show anyone what you are going on about!
    Yes the tone of ragman's posts often annoys me. This is nothing new.

    I probably shouldn't interact with him.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    Groynaid, I have learned through many hard years of experience that it is more or less a total waste of time trying to explain anything to Ragman.

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    lol, the ghost of Targuit past.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    What a pity

    the topic is very engaging - it is so annoying when it descends into nippy defensive posts. I should not have ‘risen’ to it.

    I couldn’t resist posting examples of playing because it is hard to talk too seriously about it without showing people where one is at with it. I’m finding that the new approach - sort of super imposed on top of the diatonic picture I already have - allows me to get loads of better sounds without getting into complicated chord types which tend to stifle
    me. The simplest sounds seem to work much better - most obviously good old V (which reveals itself more fully when approached as a d m7 and a d mm than as a G7 - as if it were really a minor sound with its root on the fourth degree!!)

    put more personally -: I have found it to be a real
    joy to find an alternative to the seven diatonic chords. Both the straight min/maj sounds and the mm sound seem super friendly to work with ( which is grahams point.)

    and the idea that iv min6 (just friends - days of wine - east of the sun etc. ) is a ‘sub’ for some obscure alter d dominat seems wrong to me. The role or plays in birds playing makes it seem more basic than any ‘sub’ too.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Groyniad, I do apologise for stirring it with you-know-who, because it almost derailed what I agree is an interesting topic.

    I have put him on my ignore list from now on, if only for my own sanity.

    Anyway, hopefully back on topic, another thing I like about this approach is that it leads you towards phrasing in longer lines over several chords, rather than getting tangled up with each chord separately, so to speak. I think that's what I like about the Pat Martino and Billy Bean stuff, those long minor lines can be made to fit anything really.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Groyniad
    What a pity

    the topic is very engaging - it is so annoying when it descends into nippy defensive posts. I should not have ‘risen’ to it.

    I couldn’t resist posting examples of playing because it is hard to talk too seriously about it without showing people where one is at with it. I’m finding that the new approach - sort of super imposed on top of the diatonic picture I already have - allows me to get loads of better sounds without getting into complicated chord types which tend to stifle
    me. The simplest sounds seem to work much better - most obviously good old V (which reveals itself more fully when approached as a d m7 and a d mm than as a G7 - as if it were really a minor sound with its root on the fourth degree!!)

    put more personally -: I have found it to be a real
    joy to find an alternative to the seven diatonic chords. Both the straight min/maj sounds and the mm sound seem super friendly to work with ( which is grahams point.)

    and the idea that iv min6 (just friends - days of wine - east of the sun etc. ) is a ‘sub’ for some obscure alter d dominat seems wrong to me. The role or plays in birds playing makes it seem more basic than any ‘sub’ too.
    It can be used as a sub for dominant, mind. If you check out solos, bop heads etc, you see this a lot. It’s very pretty in this role.

    most often it’s a way of getting back to chord I usually from IV/ii so it works the same gig. But when it sits around for a while it kind of has its own vibe, like in Just Friends or Stardust. (That’s literally as rigorous as my theory gets these days haha.)

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    yes - I just want to think of e.g. the back-door progression as another form of the dominant, as important as e.g. sharp 5/flat 9, and 9 with flat 5 etc.

    I imagine bird got to one through the back door as often as through the front - so to speak.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    I'm not at all sure I understand this thread, but maybe this is worth contributing:

    (I've posted most of this before, so forgive that).

    Warren Nunes taught that there are two types of chords.

    Type I: Cmaj7 Em7 Gmaj7#11 Am7. Or maybe it was just Gmaj7. I can't recall.

    Type II: Dm7 Fmaj7 G7 Am7 Bm7b5

    All chords within a Type are interchangeable.

    So, minorization, not that Warren used that term, would flow out of this scrap of theory as follows. For Cmaj7 play Em7 or Am7. For Dm7, play Am7, or Bm7b5. Etc.

    I don't recall Warren talking about function. So, I don't know how he distinguished, say, Am7 as Dorian in the key of G, Aeolian in the key of C vs Phrygian in the key of F. That is, if the chord was Am7 would he substitute a Cmaj7, a Gmaj7 or an Fmaj7? If anybody knows how he addressed that, please post. It may have simply been by ear. EDIT: It occurred to me later that Warren always knew the tonal center he was in. That would give him the right function.

    Then, Mark Levine wrote in "Jazz Theory" that all melodic minor chords are interchangeable. There isn't a straight maj7 in melodic minor, but there is maj7#5. Per Levine, you can substitute any other chord from that melodic minor scale. You can play a minmaj or maybe a m6, like Cminmaj7 for any chord generated by C melodic minor.

    One other scrap of theory is useful with this. That's the idea of tritone subs. So, if you're in Cmajor tonal center and the chord is G7, you can substitute Db7. I don't recall Warren talking about the two Types in the key of the tritone. If he did, it might look like this. Db7 would appear in Warren's system in the key of Gb. So, the subs would be the Type II chords in Gb: Abm7 Db7 Ebm7 Fmin7b5. According to this, you could minorize in the key of the tritone and play, say, Abm7 or Ebm7 against G7 (watch the F#). Fm7b5 works more easily. That problem with the F# may be why Warren didn't mention it.
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 12-22-2021 at 10:14 PM.

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    Yes indeed - the W Nunes thing on two types of chord is what I’m going on about - just presented differently.

    the main point remember everyone is that this idea can help dramatically with learning to relax enough to improvise.

    there’s an intellectual interest to it too - because it’s a new way of speaking - but I’m not trying to learn to speak about music….

    so it is the huge practical pay off I’m interested in.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Nunes is not hitting the sweet spot because he isn't starting with maj sharp 11 chords

    When you do that you get a II7 chord - which is crucial

    In C major:

    Group 1: C maj sharp 11 / Am / D7 / Em / F sharp min7 flat 5 (this last one is Am6 with its root on the sixth - and the Am6 is the D7)

    Group 2: F maj 7 sharp 11 - Dm7 - G7 - Am - B min7 flat 5 (G7 = Dm6 and Dm6 with its root on the sixth is B min 7 flat 5)

    I've mentioned this before in past threads - but one of the thrills of this picture is taking a classic major idea, playing it over the I major and then re-hearing it over II7 and also over flatV half-dim (F sharp min flat five in C)

    One of the most familiar movements in the songbook - the Cherokee movement you might call it - takes a II7 sound and turns it into a regular ii sound: I always found that sequence very hard to understand diatonically - but it is easy to understand on this non-diatonic picture.