Request for a Barry Harris Pre-Quel on Music Theory

[pcjazz]

whether the Bm6 or Fm6 sounds good depends entirely on context

[NSJ]

Possibly what Navdeep was getting at is that (as I understand it), BH thinks of the ‘family’ of 4 dominant chords all subbing for each other. So one way of getting to this (I guess) is by deriving those 4 min6 chords in the way Navdeep mentioned, and using them as dominants. However to my mind one of them (the Bm6) is a bit awkward because of that F#. So I probably would be less likely to use that one as a sub for G7. The Fm6 is better, though it has a 4th in it which might be awkward.

The other 2 (Dm6 and Abm6) are fine, as you mention.

I sometimes think some of this stuff works better on the piano for some reason, maybe just because they can move the harmony around faster and it sounds smoother or something, I don’t know. Always seems to sound good when Barry does it in those videos!

For the guitar, I tend to pick and choose which BH bits I like best, going by what my ears tell me.

Yes, exactly. Here’s a video of this guy exploring V7-I movements using the family of 4 minors derived from the diminished.

In this case, D7 to G or Gm

Am6
Cm6
Ebm6
F#m6

Note that by using these chords, he brings in a different diminished chord (B dim) than the one used with the tonic key (G), which would be C dim. That adds another layer of creative listening and potential distance as well.

[rintincop]

Three of the four minor 6 chords work really well (Dmi6 Fmi6 Abmi6) borrowed over G7 in C, but B-6 (acting as if it is Bb7alt and "the backdoor chord" to C) is pretty out sounding, IMO ... the backdoor bVII7 to I is not usually an "alt", it's usually the more relative bVII7 Lydian Dom.

The Fmi6 is well suited on G7 and used frequently by most playdersuch as Bud Powell, Bill Evans, to Keith Jarrett (Fmi6/G = G7 sus4 b9)

[rintincop]

Get Alan’s book on jazz guitar harmony using BH.

1. the Dim chord on the M2 of the key. Which is the same as dim chord on the M7 of the key, the P4 of the Key, and b6 of the Key. A series of chords built on m3 and tritones that keep on cycling up minor 3s with the same notes. B°=D°=F°=Ab°.
2. Treat the V7 as a diminished chord and move it up a minor 3d, giving you a series of related chords. Key of C: G7-Bb7-Db7-E7. Each of these versions or related iterations of the V7 moved up a minor 3rd can serve as a V7 function, yielding different tensions (#5, b5, #9, b9, #11, 13, b13, etc).
3. Instead of playing the dim chords in #1 as diminished chords, play them as m6 chords moving up a minor 3rd. Bm6-Dm6-Fm6-Abm6. Each of these m6 chords played together or isolation can serve as a V7 function.

The reason it works is if you move any note of a dim chord down a half step, you get a dom7 chord. If you move any note of a dim chord up a half step, you get a m6 chord.

Thus, you get this kind of elegant, logical closed eco-system that has powerful, flexible real word applications.

Good summary, I do all that except Bmi6 family member...

However, I think the reason it works is more than just because you move a note in the diminished chord up or down a half step, that sounds like a slightly mysterious explanation that I never found sufficient enough. Okay it's true. But I think perhaps the more detailed reason it works is because there is a large amount of relativity in harmony that is symmetrical and interchangeable ("a family" as Harris would say), for example the so called "diminished scale's" symmetrical pattern is revealed within our interchangeable Ddim7 Fdim7 Abdim7 Bdim7 G7 Bb7 Db7 E7 Bmi6 Dmi6 Fmi6 Abmi6 big "family" of rather interchangeable chord relatives. Not because we moved a note, which to me doesn't explain the why it works enough... it is a clever demonstration but doesn't say much about why.

[rintincop]

I think Harris’ jazz theory is actually pretty easy. I think a problem is that it’s often explained poorly and then extrapolated to the extreme making it overly complicated too soon. The every permutation approach should be handled with more reserve, IMO.

[grahambop]

I just checked Alan Kingstone’s book, and while he mentions deriving those 4 min6 chords from the 4 dim chords, when it comes to playing over dominants, over a G7 he only advocates using the Dm6 and the Abm6, unless I’ve missed something. So I’ve probably never considered using the Bm6 or the Fm6 in that context anyway.

The great thing about the BH 6/dim concept for me is that it is so simple, in essence. Just by learning the 6th and dim inversions (as laid out very nicely in Alan’s book), you can harmonise most things very effectively, and the more you use it on different tunes, the easier it gets to apply it without much thought.

Of course any system like this is going to encounter a few contexts where it doesn’t work quite so well, I’m not bothered by that. It’s certainly made it a lot easier for me to create solo guitar things and chord solos. I tend to use it less for comping, but it’s good to have it there if I want to use it. E.g. particularly on slower tempos, I’ll probably throw a few BH moves in here and there.

[NSJ]

I think Harris’ jazz theory is actually pretty easy. I think a problem is that it’s often explained poorly and then extrapolated to the extreme making it overly complicated too soon. The every permutation approach should be handled with more reserve, IMO. “Labyrinth of 64 chromatic movements”... seems extreme.

It’s an exercise. He admitted it was extreme. He said no way would he use it in performance. He’s 64 episodes in, people who are viewing it should know his terminology, the family of 4, all that stuff. The extreme permeation approach simply means, to me, knowing your instrument inside and out so you are ready for anything, can do anything.

I was lucky to study with the best guy in Chicago, master jazz and classical musician (not many of those around: Benson asked to study with him, Diorio said he always wanted to study with him). You know what he said: the guitarist should be ready for any musical situation, which means they should know the instrument inside and out. Not virtuosity for it’s own sake, but to be prepared on the spot to serve the music, as needed.

In this situation, going from Am6 to Cm6 to Ebm6 to Gbm6 should be instantaneous, automatic, ingrained like it was NOTHING. That’s what we strive for, anywhere on the neck. That is a minimum pre-requisite. And this is actually not that hard, provided one has practiced.

Bob Fripp has a great quote: “sometimes, the music is not right, is beyond us; we wait for its calling. In the meantime, we practice”.

I think playing all 4 members of the family also reminds me of the most important lessons Barry Harris teaches us:

1. Music is about movement.
2. the most important quality of this music is rhythm.

This squares, in my mind, what Dizzy always said, what he imparted to Mike Longo: “I fill my bar lines with rhythm and throw some notes at it”. BH is the perfect compliment to this ethos: he gives you an elegant, self contained system of putting notes and chords together that you can throw at the rhythms.

You can move through the families and the diminishes rapidly, with pace and groove , that allows you not to get bogged down in “heavy, rusty anchor leaden boot chord melody” .

When it comes down to this, this is what makes BH so great to me.

[rlrhett]

At the risk of making another “misleading analogy” (whatever that’s supposed to mean), the reason why BH harmonic theory is so appealing is that it SIMPLIFIES harmony and comping. It is an elegant and straight forward system upon which you can always build complexity and “out” sounds.

Yes, BH was a monster player. He used his own system and expanded on it to add layers upon layers. Not sure that’s relevant to a question on how to get started. What I think is important to understand is BH taught harmony and melody differently. That can seem confusing at first, but not actually contradictory. To begin learning BH it is useful to know which you are talking about.

On the harmony side, BH reduces diatonic iii chords VII chords vi chords etc into an elegant system of four inversions and a diminished chord. He further simplifies functional harmony into “movement”, using these simple inversions and dim chords, to move from tonic to subdominant and back, or tonic to new tonal center.

Can you add substitutions? Of course. Can you borrow notes or add other complexity? Of course. If you want to truly master this system and play it like he did, you will want to add a lot of layers. But at its basic level it is beautifully elegant and simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[rpjazzguitar]

I appreciate the posts. Permit me to ask a few questions.


1. the Dim chord on the M2 of the key. Which is the same as dim chord on the M7 of the key, the P4 of the Key, and b6 of the Key. A series of chords built on m3 and tritones that keep on cycling up minor 3s with the same notes. B°=D°=F°=Ab°.
2. Treat the V7 as a diminished chord and move it up a minor 3d, giving you a series of related chords. Key of C: G7-Bb7-Db7-E7. Each of these versions or related iterations of the V7 moved up a minor 3rd can serve as a V7 function, yielding different tensions (#5, b5, #9, b9, #11, 13, b13, etc).


Let's look at these two points. If you know the notes in G7b9, you already know all four diminished chords. And, if you know the altered fifths and ninths and 13th, you already know the sounds you're going to get from those 4 7th chords. You can get the sounds directly without thinking about four different chords. So, for someone who has already learned all those notes (in 12 keys), is there an advantage to BH's system? Maybe if you're trying to build a solo out of sequences of such things? (not my approach to soloing, but I know others do).


3. Instead of playing the dim chords in #1 as diminished chords, play them as m6 chords moving up a minor 3rd. Bm6-Dm6-Fm6-Abm6. Each of these m6 chords played together or isolation can serve as a V7 function.

Here we have a theory that suggests 4 m6 chords. Except one contains an 11 and one contains a natural 7 against the original dominant chord. I wouldn't suggest playing an F# in your comp chord when everybody else is thinking G7. The 11 is more usable, but you have to be careful. The other two are the usual suspects.

Can you use them in soloing? Sure! But then what is the theory really saying? Are you just playing triads in sequences? Or is this just a pool of notes to draw from?

The chords, taken together contain B D F G, D F A B F Ab C D Ab B Eb F. What's missing? Db Gb Bb. Meaning "play the chromatic scale except for the notes of a Gb triad, against G7. And, in fact, two of those are perfectly good choices. (Gb is tricker, but usable). Or, in other words, play any note but be careful with the natural 7 and use the 11 with care. Which is pretty conventional thinking.

The reason it works is if you move any note of a dim chord down a half step, you get a dom7 chord. If you move any note of a dim chord up a half step, you get a m6 chord.

Thus, you get this kind of elegant, logical closed eco-system that has powerful, flexible real word applications


It looks elegant and it has a certain mathematical symmetry that's appealing, but if you drill down, some of the chords you get, don't work well.

Which is why I encouraged Christian to do his video. I'd love to see the applications.\

I understand that others see great value in it, but I don't yet get it and I don't want to buy a book to find out if it is valuable.

[A. Kingstone]

I learned late to differentiate Barry's Harmonic & Melodic theories. I still solo with Sixth Diminished Four Note Arpeggiated Chords because I like how it sounds and how it flows into diminished tensions. However, the Sixth Diminished, Sisters & Brothers, Sixth On The Fifth, Important Minor, Sixth - Sixth - Sixth thinking (replacing II/V/I) is (to my understanding) chordal. The beautiful lines that Harris used were built on his earlier theories based on the bop masters, Extra Note, Pivot, Five/Four/Three/Two Rules etc. are for creating melodies.
Howard Rees whom I studied with originally in 1986 told me that Barry introduced his harmonic method in the 90's. Don't let anyone tell you Barry's harmonies are archaic.

Indeed there is a simple elegance to Barry's methods but it took me a long time and lots of study and calluses before I became musical.

[NSJ]

I learned late to differentiate Barry's Harmonic & Melodic theories. I still solo with Sixth Diminished Four Note Arpeggiated Chords because I like how it sounds and how it flows into diminished tensions. However, the Sixth Diminished, Sisters & Brothers, Sixth On The Fifth, Important Minor, Sixth - Sixth - Sixth thinking (replacing II/V/I) is (to my understanding) chordal. The beautiful lines that Harris used were built on his earlier theories based on the bop masters, Extra Note, Pivot, Five/Four/Three/Two Rules etc. are for creating melodies.
Howard Rees whom I studied with originally in 1986 told me that Barry introduced his harmonic method in the 90's. Don't let anyone tell you Barry's harmonies are archaic.

Indeed there is a simple elegance to Barry's methods but it took me a long time and lots of study and calluses before I became musical.

My approach to Barry right now is to develop full and developed chord solos, with the concomitant goal of learning the neck of my 8 string. Which is why I am fixating on the drop forms, sisters and brothers, 6 on the 5, the four minor 6ths, the four dominants, moving from one to another, interchangeably without even thinking.

This is in line with my personal goal of learning to play the 8 string painaistially.

As for single note lines, my approach is to learn a lot of Indian classical music ornamentation, the slides, gamaks, sweras. I.e, ornamentation That is definitely not a jazz thing, but something that really excites me.

I want all the benefits of a piano with the lyrical things a piano can’t do.

[rintincop]

Has it been suggested that Barry Harris played the family B-6 D-6 F-6 Ab-6 as a sequence over G7? He didn’t do that. I’m not aware of that being a thing (sequencing the four minor 6 chords over a static V7). It is very different from sequencing Ddim Fdim Abdim Bdim over G7 which is common place. Further, I will argue that G7 Bb7 Db7 E7 are used one at a time over G7 but not run as a sequence. There is no time for that. And I will say it again that the B-6 is miscast over ii V I in C.

[Christian Miller]

I appreciate the posts. Permit me to ask a few questions.


1. the Dim chord on the M2 of the key. Which is the same as dim chord on the M7 of the key, the P4 of the Key, and b6 of the Key. A series of chords built on m3 and tritones that keep on cycling up minor 3s with the same notes. B°=D°=F°=A

2. Treat the V7 as a diminished chord and move it up a minor 3d, giving you a series of related chords. Key of C: G7-Bb7-Db7-E7. Each of these versions or related iterations of the V7 moved up a minor 3rd can serve as a V7 function, yielding different tensions (#5, b5, #9, b9, #11, 13, b13, etc).


Let's look at these two points. If you know the notes in G7b9, you already know all four diminished chords. And, if you know the altered fifths and ninths and 13th, you already know the sounds you're going to get from those 4 7th chords. You can get the sounds directly without thinking about four different chords. So, for someone who has already learned all those notes (in 12 keys), is there an advantage to BH's system? Maybe if you're trying to build a solo out of sequences of such things? (not my approach to soloing, but I know others do).


3. Instead of playing the dim chords in #1 as diminished chords, play them as m6 chords moving up a minor 3rd. Bm6-Dm6-Fm6-Abm6. Each of these m6 chords played together or isolation can serve as a V7 function.

Here we have a theory that suggests 4 m6 chords. Except one contains an 11 and one contains a natural 7 against the original dominant chord. I wouldn't suggest playing an F# in your comp chord when everybody else is thinking G7. The 11 is more usable, but you have to be careful. The other two are the usual suspects.

If you watch the DVD set 1 Barry remarks that the F# is beautiful

Anyway you can play what you like on a resolving dominant .

Can you use them in soloing? Sure! But then what is the theory really saying? Are you just playing triads in sequences? Or is this just a pool of notes to draw from?

The chords, taken together contain B D F G, D F A B F Ab C D Ab B Eb F. What's missing? Db Gb Bb. Meaning "play the chromatic scale except for the notes of a Gb triad, against G7. And, in fact, two of those are perfectly good choices. (Gb is tricker, but usable). Or, in other words, play any note but be careful with the natural 7 and use the 11 with care. Which is pretty conventional thinking.

The reason it works is if you move any note of a dim chord down a half step, you get a dom7 chord. If you move any note of a dim chord up a half step, you get a m6 chord.

Thus, you get this kind of elegant, logical closed eco-system that has powerful, flexible real word applications

It looks elegant and it has a certain mathematical symmetry that's appealing, but if you drill down, some of the chords you get, don't work well.

Which is why I encouraged Christian to do his video. I'd love to see the applications.\

I understand that others see great value in it, but I don't yet get it and I don't want to buy a book to find out if it is valuable.

nah I think you are trying to make sense of this based on other theory you know which isn’t really going to work. you run into the problem that a lot of jazz theory as taught today is simply incompatible with Barry’s stuff and also not especially relevant to bop line construction in any case. The avoid notes thing is a case in point.

I’m also not going to make the theoretical case because it’s a practical thing. It’s like here are some steps for building a bop line. Why it works is not so important actually.

Start with constructing lines using added note rules, arps and chords through the Dominant scale and connecting with dim 7 chords to target chords. Don’t worry about whether it’s a b9 or whatever over this chord, none of that stuffs important. It starts to sound like jazz surprisingly quickly.

there’s videos and stuff. I’ll see if I can find one that teaches this basic stuff well

[grahambop]

Bear in mind Barry has 2 systems, one for single-note improv, and one for chordal playing. The sixth/diminished system is essentially for chordal playing (although you can derive single-note lines from it if you want, I believe Barry does this a bit).

I think RP is possibly going to get a bit confused by some of the responses if he is not aware of this. I was under the impression he was mainly asking about the sixth/dim stuff.

[grahambop]

I understand that others see great value in it, but I don't yet get it and I don't want to buy a book to find out if it is valuable.

You can get some idea of how the sixth/dim stuff works from some of Chris Parks’ videos. The first one here shows some maj6/dim chord scales, the second one shows him deriving some comping ideas from it. He also has episodes covering the use of min6/dim. (The min6/dim scales are the same as the maj6, you just flatten the 3rd of all the sixth chords.)

I think there are also some later episodes where he derives single-note lines from min6/dim.

The big advantage of it all to me (as I've said) is that you can do it all with basically 2 chords (6th and dim), and we all know our dim chords already. So it's such a simple idea, but lots of ways to use it.

[Christian Miller]

Bear in mind Barry has 2 systems, one for single-note improv, and one for chordal playing. The sixth/diminished system is essentially for chordal playing (although you can derive single-note lines from it if you want, I believe Barry does this a bit).

I think RP is possibly going to get a bit confused by some of the responses if he is not aware of this. I was under the impression he was mainly asking about the sixth/dim stuff.

it was confusing to me too. After all improvisation and harmony are the same thing, right? (Actually, no, as it turns out.)

[Tal_175]

I doubt BH considered harmony and solo as having separate musical foundations. I think the separation is partly for practical pedagogical reasons but mostly to accommodate both the monophonic and polyphonic instruments in the workshops.

For example I think he applied single line half step rules to chords (Jens Larsen has a video on it) and applied 6dim scales to improvisation.

[NSJ]

If we are talking about a video explaining the BH concepts, I thought post #11 in this thread was very good, in that regard. A guitarist went on for 70 minutes explaining BH’s basic concepts, fairly comprehensively.

Was there something wrong with that video? I thought that was a very good, through explanation, with great playing examples.

[grahambop]

Yes that one is very good, here it is again. If RP can’t get it from this, I don’t think there’s much more we can do to help.

[Christian Miller]

I doubt BH considered harmony and solo as having separate musical foundations. I think the separation is partly for practical pedagogical reasons but mostly to accommodate both the monophonic and polyphonic instruments in the workshops.

For example I think he applied single line half step rules to chords (Jens Larsen has a video on it) and applied 6dim scales to improvisation.

there is a lot of overlap for advanced users. But it’s pretty limited at the early stages. We would spend typically a lot of the first steps in improv purely looking at the dominant scale which isn’t even in the list of eight note scales.

The classic confusion is people referring to the maj-6 dim as the bebop scale. A few well known theory book authors use this as well… which I think muddies the waters between a melodic and harmonic device. But in practice we aren’t even that interested in the major scale for line construction early on.

The harmony class is about chords (and movement), the improvisation class is about melodic lines. As we go along they become more and more connected but we start out from different directions. At least that’s been my experience.

[NSJ]

I mean there is no sure-fire, fool-proof, stock formulaic way to improvise play good melodies. If there was, we’d patent them.

What Barry offers, is a way to play SOMETHING that keeps us in that ball park, with his half step rules and 5432 thing and pivots and such. It’s not a bullet proof, but we all need to stay afloat while something inspires us to greater heights. I think his scale practice is really to learn the form of the song, and keep the right time feel, more than “This is how to craft a melody”.

The most forgotten way of improving is to actually play off the song melody itself. Lou Donaldson said that’s what separated Bird from his copycats-“when Bird was blowing on ‘How High the Moon’, you could hear the song in every aspect of his improv. The rest of them run their harmonics (Sic: changes, not harmonics on a guitar) and you’d never know what song they’re playing”.

One of these days, I’m going to sit down and read Mike Longo’s small little book on how to create melodies from rhythms. He told James Moody all about it, and James said it transformed his playing.

Yet again, like 5432, it’s just a way for us to get in that ball park, to stay afloat when we can’t come up with something original all the time.

It’s worthwhile, for sure. But not as valuable as what George Wein told Miles when Miles asked him what to do in ‘68 when he saw all those young hippies over run Newport: “play the melody, Miles. Play the Melody, like Bye Bye Blackbird”.

Miles ignored him. But he never really stopped playing the melody.

[Christian Miller]

Yes that’s a great point Navdeep, I’ve often thought that. To be honest the missing link is improvisation on the melody itself. So that saves a job haha.

There’s a link between this and improvising using diminutions (ie decorations) on a counterpoint schemata (ie formula)

A really obvious jazz example is how the melody of the bridge of Alone Together formed the basis of the way bop players liked to improvise on a VI II V I; you can see it developed into the bridge line on Night in Tunisia for instance. Specifically the b9s on the VI and V going to the third of the next chord, the stereotype bop lick we all learn. This is actually a very common counterpoint
schema/formula in Mozart and Haydn too… c18 theorist Josef Riepel called it a ‘hermaphroditic fonte’, there’s a term to conjure with haha.

Most Tin Pan Alley standards follow the formulae laid down for centuries and the same is true of more modern pop too. i think that’s well known for chord progressions but it’s also true of the relationships between the chords and the likely melody lines too. Some note choices are stronger than others and the strong ones tend to get used as nauseum. Most originality tends to be in the manner of the ornamentation and this is also 100% true of jazz which as Peter Bernstein reminds us is a decorative art.

You can learn these archetypes by being a stamp collector theory nerd like me (‘oh look it’s a Carousel variant of a Romanesca in There will Never be another you!’) or probably more productively, by simply learning a ton of standards and getting good at improvising on them. You learn the same stuff.

Anyway one day I may write a book about this. There’s lots of linguistic elements. Play 5-7-1 before the bridge as a ‘sign off’ for example. That kind of thing.

[NSJ]

Yes that’s a great point Navdeep, I’ve often thought that. To be honest the missing link is improvisation on the melody itself. So that saves a job haha.

There’s a link between this and improvising using diminutions (ie decorations) on a counterpoint schemata (ie formula)

A really obvious jazz example is how the melody of the bridge of Alone Together formed the basis of the way bop players liked to improvise on a VI II V I; you can see it developed into the bridge line on Night in Tunisia for instance. Specifically the b9s on the VI and V going to the third of the next chord, the stereotype bop lick we all learn. This is actually a very common counterpoint
schema/formula in Mozart and Haydn too… c18 theorist Josef Riepel called it a ‘hermaphroditic fonte’, there’s a term to conjure with haha.

Most Tin Pan Alley standards follow the formulae laid down for centuries and the same is true of more modern pop too. i think that’s well known for chord progressions but it’s also true of the relationships between the chords and the likely melody lines too. Some note choices are stronger than others and the strong ones tend to get used as nauseum. Most originality tends to be in the manner of the ornamentation and this is also 100% true of jazz which as Peter Bernstein reminds us is a decorative art.

You can learn these archetypes by being a stamp collector theory nerd like me (‘oh look it’s a Carousel variant of a Romanesca in There will Never be another you!’) or probably more productively, by simply learning a ton of standards and getting good at improvising on them. You learn the same stuff.

Anyway one day I may write a book about this. There’s lots of linguistic elements. Play 5-7-1 before the bridge as a ‘sign off’ for example. That kind of thing.

”There’s a link between this and improvising using diminutions (ie decorations) on a counterpoint schemata (ie formula)”

100%. I’ve thought about counterpoint A LOT In my non-studied, non music school ways). There has be a schematic formula to part of it, from my little peon perspective. One line has to do the non-fun heavy lifting, in terms of conveying the form, while the other line is pure imagination and fun all that jazz, doing whatever inspires it to it’s heart’s content. The two work together because of they can dance in tandem to different rhythms.

LIke the top line goes bonkers, but the bottom one conveys the form in half notes or whole notes, (C-C#-D-B or F, C or E—- to convey a I-VI7-ii-V7-I ) One person in the couple has to be responsible one.

Also, lots of lesions on how to convert baroque ornamentation and lines to Autumn Leaves. Hint: Know your 10ths and 6ths.

[Christian Miller]

”There’s a link between this and improvising using diminutions (ie decorations) on a counterpoint schemata (ie formula)”

100%. I’ve thought about counterpoint A LOT In my non-studied, non music school ways). There has be a schematic formula to part of it, from my little peon perspective. One line has to do the non-fun heavy lifting, in terms of conveying the form, while the other line is pure imagination and fun all that jazz, doing whatever inspires it to it’s heart’s content. The two work together because of they can dance in tandem to different rhythms.

LIke the top line goes bonkers, but the bottom one conveys the form in half notes or whole notes, (C-C#-D-B or F, C or E—- to convey a I-VI7-ii-V7-I ) One person in the couple has to be responsible one.

Also, lots of lesions on how to convert baroque ornamentation and lines to Autumn Leaves. Hint: Know your 10ths and 6ths.

Haha well I would imagine your 8 string would be handy for this.


Bars 8 on especially…. You can transpose these patterns into sequences around AATYA, AL etc and it’s a heap of fun.

I feel this stuff is well understood in jazz circles any way - guide tones around the cycle.

but there are other archetypes I don’t hear talked about so much by jazzers. The 5-b6-5-4-3 line against the 1-7-b7-6-b6-5 bass for example, in walked bud, insenatez, blue skies, no moon at all etc etc. and something you study in Fenaroli partimenti too (lamento.) But again, learn your standards and look out for these patterns. The names aren’t so important….

The thing is I used to think the great composers were just computing all the possibilities like in a Fux counterpoint study but actually mostly they were treading well worn paths, and using classic schematic routes over given basses. Take a look at something like the Bach invention I posted and underneath the harmony is actually very simple; it’s just that the decoration is very advanced and artful.

Quiet as it’s kept, bop is like this too… which is one reason why chord scales are no help for learning the ropes of jazz improv. Too much freedom, right?

Anyway Barry saw bop as a continuation and development of the classical tradition abandoned by classical musicians themselves, which is to say that Bach, Mozart and Chopin were improvisers.

[James W]

Anyway Barry saw bop as a continuation and development of the classical tradition abandoned by classical musicians themselves, which is to say that Bach, Mozart and Chopin were improvisers.

... As was more recently Messiaen.