-
Christian - lovely copy/paste from Mike LeDonne
I've been getting a lot into what Chad LB calls 'melodic chromaticism' which is essentially an exploded/expanded version of Barry's 'rules' - but so as to include enclosures as well as approach tones
here is a candidate for a 'real' jazz scale
1 - flat2 - 2 - 4 - 3 - 6 - sharp5 - flat 5 - 5 - sharp 5 - 6 - 7 - 1
1 - 7 - 6 - sharp 5 - 5 - flat 5 - 4 - flat 3 - 3 - flat 7 - 7 - 2 - 1
this is a jazz major scale everyone!
honest.
-
01-11-2022 01:40 PM
-
Originally Posted by christian miller;[url="tel:1171644"
-
Ok, here’s a challenge. Pick a chord and outline it using a phrase that uses every note of the chromatic scale at least once, with the Barry harris rules.
I’ll start with Dm. Starting on D
D E C# C B Bb A Ab G Gb F G E Eb D
-
9 - flat9- 1- flat7- 7 - 6 - sharp5 - flat 5 - 5 - 4 - (sharp) 3 - 2 - 3 - flat 7 - 7 - 9 - 1 - 6
minor sound (that's why I had to say 'sharp 3')
-
So, I can completely understand . . . a person devotes his/her entire musical life to CST and playing other musicians solos and then, as a natural consequence, they develop a voice of their own and become a certified Jazz musician????? Why do you think Jazz music is, generally, so boring as played by musicians born after 1980? Their music is predictable, banal, lifeless, academic . . . with few exceptions. Why do 90% of the discussions on JGF focus on players that have been dead for at least 20 years? "Old School" Jazzers' were rarely formally educated. They learned like a good tradesman on the job playing 6 nights a week, 52 weeks a year. And, through that process, they developed a musical voice that said: I'm Bird, Wes, Miles, Chet, Trane. It's not that they didn't understand theory but rather than it was their ear that dictated their sound, not some mathematical paring of melody to chords as their basis for improvisation. And, what about the melody? Is this also completely ignored by the precedence of a song's harmonic structure? Listen to Dexter, Chet, early Miles, Coleman Hawkins, Hank Mobely, Wes, Gene Ammons, and try to understand that the melody IS the basis for all improvisation otherwise, what give's a song its message?
A final remark: one need not be a student of the history of Music, Art, and Literature to know that some periods of human history are creative, prodigious, and fertile while others are lifeless, dull, and unimaginative. The Arts reflect culture and we live in a techno-culture where everything can be reduced to a formula. What a difference a day makes.
Marinero
-
God help me Marinero that was a post I mostly agree with haha
-
Originally Posted by Marinero
The interesting thing about the above lamentations being expressed for the passing of intrinsically valuable jazz music is that Miles and Wes (any many others) moved away from what is being hailed.
Miles had had enough bop, and created Cool, Post-Bop, and Fusion. He was challenged by critics and pushed back ("you can't keep doing the same thing", etc.). Fusion was probably done more for economic than artistic reasons, but whatever.
I remember reading some comments from Carla Bley about NYC in the early-to-mid 60s and how jazz gigs had dried up, with the exception of a few places where Trane, Miles and a handful of others still gigged. I also remember a quote from Wes' wife saying something like "Wes if you don't stop playing that jazz we're all going to starve". So then he went pop and CTI, and Benson and others followed - successfully.
So what to do? Audiences passed on bop a long time ago. They've passed on fusion. Indulgent post-bop and modal jamming doesn't resonate the way it used to (with boomers). You can play authentic bop and the jazz police will love you - along with the tiny audience, you can play post-bop and modal but better have some great melodies and not play too long, or you can play fusion and have an audience so small that you can hear a pin drop (after you turn down your amp. )
Seems to me that Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z jazzers are in an unenviable position. I would think that striving for effective melodies and keeping in touch with the blues would be a wise plan.
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
I find your second statement to be bizarre. I don't want anybody to be passionate about jazz, least of all you. The reality is that many people here already are.
I think it best if you don't address me directly. I'll do likewise, promise.
-
One interesting reality is the progress that has been made in the analysis and explanation of jazz language by jazz educators. (Bergonzi, Ligon, many others). It's 2022 and look at what Chad LB is teaching.
Simple enough for a noob like me. So I tried it. Ok, it sounds “in” but kinda meh. Then I tried to mess with it and found that playing “before the changes” suddenly started sounding like very hip jazz.
I’ve been badly burned with the scales over chords approach before, lots of boring work and it still sounds blah. This was different though and a lot of fun. I’m guessing the success here is because it’s a set of simple instructions that leave brain space for own experiments.
Still, I wouldn’t have come up with the before the changes idea if I hadn’t listened a lot to Coltrane and Allan Holdsworth. The latter said in an interview that in such and such tune he is playing before the changes. And I’m lifting a lot of stuff off records right now and can recognize some hip sounds.
No idea what this means but one should probably emphasize transcribing before everything else. And introduce simple concepts at a later point when some language is absorbed. I wish I had gotten that advice 20 years ago.Last edited by frankhond; 01-16-2022 at 05:11 AM.
-
One important aspect of transcribing (what I think of actually as learning VERY detailed listening; musician listening, the writing down or playing of material is a separate issue)
Hal Galper says - it’s as much to train your sensibility. It’s actually to learn what you think sounds good and to hone those tastes. So transcription is a creative activity because you choose what you want to work on. The choice here is important, and can be for individual licks or whole solos.
Then when it comes to dealing with material from a book etc you can not only play the examples with feel but make musically informed decisions about what you want to incorporate into your musical language. (This is somewhere after the ‘learning to play’ stage which may be much more based around playing licks etc.)
I feel it’s really important that neither the students seek to delegate nor educators seek to impose these decisions; not or say there can’t be suggestions, but the real thing comes from the student.
-
"The interesting thing about the above lamentations being expressed for the passing of intrinsically valuable jazz music is that Miles and Wes (any many others) moved away from what is being hailed."
Donplaysguitar
Hi, D,
This is true but, in the case of Miles, he became rich and lost his Jazz audience completely. In Chicago, the Jazz DJ's stopped playing his music and when people called the radio station for a request, they would say we don't play Miles anymore. Famous Jazz DJ's like Marty Faye, Daddio Daley, and Dick Buckley refused to play his music and when his name came up it in was in derision . . . not praise. But, he became a huge commercial success.
In the case of Wes, I think it worked since rather than de-evolving into what I consider cacophony, Wes certainly followed his wife's advice and the rest is history. He played pop tunes with his signature style and brought huge audiences to Wes and "Jazz" guitar that never listened to the music before. The same case could be made with George Benson and really, all of the Smooth Jazz movement.
So, it is my opinion that when musicians move away from Jazz and seek more lucrative opportunities, who can blame them for wanting to live decently? However, artistic explorations are a different thing where an artist feels he needs to express his Art in new ways and there is no monetary consideration. Musicians like Archie Shepp, Coltrane, Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman, Lonnie Smith, and Wayne Shorter fall into that category for me. But Miles, no way. It was all about the money and the lifestyle.
Finally, we as listeners and musicians have our own tastes but when a person who says they enjoy literature and reads the poetry of Rod McKuen, or someone who enjoys Art says they love Jackson Pollack, or Jazz and listens to Miles, over the edge, its a different thing. And, in a long-winded answer, we must judge an apple as an apple . . . nothing else. Thanks for your reply, N.
Marinero
-
Yea like I've been saying for years.... don't learn from someone who can't backup what they're teaching.
And if your still have trouble being able to play how you want to, (if you even know what that is, beyond saying you want to sound like this or someone etc), anyway the only one you have to blame is yourself.
CST is not a performance method... try and get passed that. It's not the the reason you can't play jazz like you might want. Its a simple tool, one of many that are useful with analysis, composing, arranging, and to help understand possible musical understandings and how they are organized.
It's not about right or wrong, good or bad, it's based on common practice maj/min functional theory, expanded with modal functional theory and Modal Interchange, the expanded version of Borrowing etc... from analysis of jazz music.
The BS about learning 300 scales or the melody is the only true tool... is just that.
Most working pros, teachers... know what "scales" or as Herb Pomeroy used to call "Available Note Scales" , which are used for... the source or reference for creating Vertical chord structures or for melodic material for lines.
That being three minors and their modes, some symmetric and composite note collections. ( Diatonic and non-diatonic triads over bass lines). that's only 30 or 40 note collections . If you can't get that together... well that would be a different problem.
What is your goal, or where do you want to go with your playing. If you want to sound like a player... copy them, transcribe etc... which usually will expose your technical deficiencies in both ones playing skills as well as understandings of what one is trying to play.
Try voicing a simple 8 bar melody as a sax soli... 5 saxes. Then embellish that melody and then voice that new version of that melody. You'll be amazed of what you thought you were hearing. LOL You'll learn that harmony is the same as melody.... they are one in the same. I know it really helped clean my ears up, 50 years ago.
(I did already have my technical skills on my instrument, was gigging and had ears... at least I thought I did...LOL)
-
Originally Posted by Marinero
Also, I’d add McLaughlin to that list of artists who stayed true to their vision of artistic musical expression.
-
Originally Posted by frankhond
If John Mehegan had only devoted 40 pages to this instead of 4 (The Chromatic Tones) we might not be having this conversation…
-
Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar
Yes . . . exactly. And, the "betrayal" by Miles to the Art was considered the highest blasphemy and Miles was dubbed ,by most Jazzers, a shameful iconoclast. My take at the time was that I continued to listen to Miles' classic recordings but he dropped off my radar with "Bitches Brew" until his death. I must be moved by Art irrespective of the genre and if it doesn't communicate to ME . . . what's the point?
Marinero
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
-
These two pages were pretty much the core material I studied for drop 2 chord scales. It's the most condensed study material I've ever come across, it took me months to learn to play and hear them, learned a ton, and then moved into quartal ones.. I don't understand why anyone studying the guitar wouldn't want to go through that stuff, it's great.
There are a bunch of other approaches as well, go through them too!
-
Originally Posted by Alter
For the record, you are a fine musician and I have enjoyed the pieces you've recorded. However, the argument here is not anti-pedagogy but rather that when a musician becomes so entangled in theories of improvisation there is a distinct possibility that he may never be able to develop a unique voice of his own when doing what I call "scale/chord matching" as his soup du jour. This is what I see with the younger players today--they state the melody and they predictably go down the path of "matching." The result, for me, is that music looses its creative, organic nature and becomes a predictable math equation and quickly looses interest. I believe the real culprit is that the pathway to "Art" has changed significantly over the decades. Jazz musicians were the "folk" musicians of their time. They learned their trade on the job and as the years passed . . . honed their Art. Imagine musicians from my generation(Boomer) ,and older, that never left the trade and have played songs like "Misty," "The Nearness of You," "Stardust," "Imagination," etc thousands of times on the job. Is it even humanly possible to play the same licks and not loose your sanity? This is how their voice developed: imagining, re-imagining the melody/chords and shaping them into their own unique voice. Now, contrast this approach to "top" younger "musicians" today whose entire lives were spent in the classroom "matching" melodies to chord changes(or lost in the deep space of the internet) and why it is so evident to some musicians that their "music" is dead, lifeless, and de-personalized into an amalgamous potato soup served in long lines at a homeless shelter. They have the "chops" but they can't find the "sauce."(how's that for a mixed metaphor!) And, it's evident to many.
So, for the record, I am not anti-pedagogy, since I have thousands of hours in solitary practice and music conservatory classes in arranging/composing, theory, ear training, performance, big band, but it is not the end of the pathway to creativity but rather a stepping stone to finding one's own, unique voice on an instrument. And, drop 2 scales as other technical knowledge, are just part of the long journey. But, when the pedagogy becomes the goal of improvisation at the expense of musicality is where I part company with others. So, words are empty if you don't have examples and here's early Miles in "My Funny Valentine"-- a sensitive ballad played at Lincoln Center in 1964 that is musically organic and is honed by the ear and Art. Listen to Miles' creative, organic intro based on HIS ear. Where's the chord/scale matching here?? This is certainly one of the most creative interpretations of a song in the history of Jazz: I think I've listened to this song over the years ,more than any other, and it is just as creative and refreshing today as it was almost 60 year ago and it never looses its inspiration. I hope you enjoy.
Marinero
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
If you can keep this civil without personal attacks, I will forget our past retorts. Deal? So, let me answer simply:
1. Could Miles play this way without Herbie? Yes. However, could this exact moment be captured in future performances with other pianists. No original live music can ever be recaptured by anyone, including this performance by Miles. It's the magic of live performance.
2. Brass instruments DO play chords but they're arpeggiated. I never advocated dismissal of fundamentals. It's the stuff of all music.
3. Line three: no. I'm merely saying that one approaches music artistically . . . not mathematically. A guitarist is not a woodwind player. He plays with HIS tools, not others.
4. Line 4: where in my writing did I say/infer that?
5. Line 5: this is an absurd comment with no basis from my remarks. See line 4.
Look, Lobo. I have thick skin and don't hold grudges. I enjoy the free exchanges of ideas and others beliefs. But, don't put words in my mouth that were never spoken nor inferred. Use my direct quotes as a foundation for my beliefs and we'll get along just fine. If something is unclear, I'll gladly explain. Isn't this the process of civil communication?
Marinero
-
But still, today someone has to learn somehow. And the era of Miles is gone, the entirety of life seems to be more academic today, so music follows. If someone is motivated enough to go through all the academics, theory, etc, today, they are going to find a voice sooner or later. Chord scales and theory existed in the bebop era as well, whether taught on the bandstand or in a class, you either can play them or not. I always have considered the practical matter of learning to play, and the spiritual matters of what music means, musical life, etc, to be separate. Music theory and study is just that, theory and study. It's not going to make someone more spiritual, or going to help them develop a deeper connection to the instrument, music in general, gigging, etc. These are accomplished elsewhere.
That's why personally i always drifted to teachers that were practical and to the point. Meaning, i can read Krishnamurti or Schopenhauer, or watch a documentary about Coltrane, go sit by the beach, watch the sky, etc, go see a great player play live.. but then i still have to go back home to practice the pedestrian technical aspects of playing, or i won't learn them!
I think there IS a deep spirituality in studying music (and playing of course), in all aspects of it. You meet and socialize with great players at some point, they are ordinary people, even superfluous or unimpressive sometimes. But within, there is a deep reverence of some sorts, a heavy thing, that becomes obvious when they play, or when they might be silent. And you wonder where it comes from.. but that's a discussion for another thread..
-
A jazz musician learns all his life.
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
But the book doesn't really say anything about the admissions process. (Wikipedia says he 'passed an audition' but that's about all).
-
I’m in
Originally Posted by Alter
I can instantly tell players who have shedded this stuff; it’s like everything they play is a specific set of colours. And some of those basic jazz school colours are … interesting, coming back from more classical and old school jazz approaches. major seventh chords are … really weird actually don’t you think? They don’t really invert and so much dissonance in them. Maybe that’s what Lage Lund seems to like them so much, they ugly up his harmony in an interesting way. Anyway.
I do think if you go through these very systematic approaches like Goodrick (who Jimmy BN says is responsible for the Berklee guitar harmony syllabus) , or Barry Harris for that matter, it teaches you the process of going about harmony on the instrument.
(But there’s another viewpoint that might say; why try to keyboardise the guitar? What is trivial on piano takes months on the guitar; find what the guitar does best instead.)
So as I say, going about harmony in this way will make you sound like a modern Berklee grad type player, as opposed to an old school jazzer. So it’s good to know what you want to sound like and to prioritise.
Ethan Iverson put the differences between the schools- the old school barry Harris approach and the modern CST Berklee appeal by rather well in his obit.
The Greatest Teacher of America’s Great Art Form | The Nation
As you say there are also other ways of going about modern harmony too. There’s no shortage of info, of schools and concepts. It’s endless. I’ll still be learning chords if I get to 90 I’m sure. (Although I’m starting to see it all as counterpoint; Goodrick is interesting when approached that way.)
The purpose of the educator as I see it is to know as much of this stuff as they can; at least enough to introduce the student and prioritise all this material with the student in mind. You want a teacher who is knowledgable and systematic but not dogmatic with a broad understanding.Last edited by Christian Miller; 01-18-2022 at 03:51 PM.
-
Actually a lot of modern harmony be like - inverting things that invert interestingly into unfamiliar tone clusters and what I call ‘applied modal pandiatonic non tertial interval clusters’ (sure I don’t like theory) - which means stuff that belongs to mode that sounds a bit different to the normal chords.
Whereas the feature of 6th, dom7 and dim7 chords is they invert readily and don’t seem to change their sound as much.
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
It's really not about age, Lobo . . . it's about talents. How about a couple videos of your favorite young musicians who represent your idea of musical genius at a young age as was the case with Miles, Chet, Coltrane, Dexter, Blue, Monk, Herbie, Chet, Bird, Dizzy, Clifford, Lester, Mingus, Monk, Lee, Roy, Hank, Joe, Elvin . . whew . . I'm getting tired . . . should I keep going???? Who are these young master artists you keep talking about in generalities. C'mon, Lobo . . . I know you can do it! How 'bout a few names and tell me who you would compare them to of the greats in the past. This is, of course, a music forum.
Marinero
Transcriber wanted
Today, 04:35 PM in Improvisation