The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Posts 51 to 66 of 66
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    If you know the tonal center you're in at the moment and you know the chord tones you're on, then you've got a minimum of 7 notes which will work (the scale of the tonal center). You know the "important ones" because they're the chord tones. You can define the chord liberally, like adding a 6 or 9 to a major 7, or adding a 9 (of some kind) to a dominant 7th.

    There are only a couple of notes left over. I could go through some rules, but, at some point, you have to use your ears.

    Of course, if you get all of this information down pat, jazz is still not guaranteed. There's still rhythm and vocabulary. And, some advanced ways to superimpose one harmony over another. Among other things.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    How much does the key center dictate the scale choice?

    It only dictates in the widest sense. A series of chords in a certain key centre gives you choices and the choices aren't limited to scales.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Tbh I think a lot of guitar players have a sketchy idea of conventional tonality and functional harmony because that’s not the type of music most of us grow up with - pianists get this from age 6 or something playing classical rep day in day out. Even though they don’t necessarily analyse these works this world gets ingrained in their fingers and ears

    also the layout of the piano encourages this way of looking at the world; black keys and white keys.

    OTOH the guitar is well suited towards chromatic transpositions and intervallic shapes

    i find it quite interesting that one of our founding geniuses - Charlie christian - had a shapes based approach that often took him quite outside of the basic key. A good example is his solo on I Found a New Baby, where he consistently uses an A9/13 sound in Dm. So it’s not altogether a bad thing cos that solo is great.

    but if you are interested in learning those vanilla options, it’s all there in common practice classical music and so on. Reading helps can put you in that key-centred mindset.

    for me it was trying things out at the keyboard. A lot of pennies dropped when I started doing that.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    Sorry but I found this to be an incoherent, at times bordering on jealous rant. He is making a lot of generalizations that sometimes ring very false.
    Ethan does like to provoke sometimes, and can be a bit preachy and OTT for me, but I’m not finding much here I disagree with (and I agree with most of what he says based on my own lesser knowledge and experience; he is a high level musician.) Perhaps you can highlight some more things you felt were inconsistent…

    I also read the linked follow up article. Here is an excerpt from that article that's an example of the incoherent nature of the articles:

    "When people like Louis Armstrong, Lester Young or Charlie Parker improvised, they played in the home key of a song. For “Just Friends,” they would play in G major. They certainly wouldn’t move scales around in order to spell the harmony out on every chord. (Lester Young didn’t like chord charts. At rehearsal or a jam session, he’d just ask what key the song was in.) Compared to Pops or Prez, Bird plays considerably more material to imply passing chords, but on his famous version of “Just Friends,” most of the phrases are still in the home key. "

    It doesn't take many transcriptions to refute the claim that "Charlie Parker always played in the home key and he didn't move the scales around in order to outline the harmony". At the very least he consistently outlined the secondary dominants with notes not found in the home key.
    Does it?

    (Im rather amused by the implication that Ethan has done less transcription that you haha.)

    To be fair it probably all it depends what your definition of key is.

    Actually that’s not the easiest to define. My understanding includes secondary dominants* and other common chromatic but non-modulatory chords like the IVm6 and #IVo7 because that’s what you also find in common practice western music within a given key.

    Eg it makes little sense to say the progression |Dm G7b9 | Cm F7 | Bb is in two keys and makes more sense to say it is a progression in Bb with a chromatically altered VI chord functioning as secondary dominant - and that is how jazz players treat it.

    sure enough if you transcribe Parker you often find these details are generalised to some extent, more so by Prez exactly as Ethan says.

    For example, take a look at Bird’s solo on moose the mooche; it’s quite interesting what he does pick up on in the harmony and what he generalises.

    Presumably you know Lester’s famous solo on Lady be Good (if not check it out.) As Ethan points out elsewhere, Lester plays the major seventh on the IV7 chord on the second bar of Lady be Good, and so on. Why? Because he’s thinking in a generalisedkey of G, with blues and some line cliche elements. Harmonic correctness was not prioritised by these players above melody, swing and blues, exactly as he says. Neither is he the first person to point this out; according to Miles Davis (via Paul Berliner) Bird was quite conscious of this.

    *tbf there’s not really a binary technical distinction between secondary dominant and modulation, but I know it when I hear it :-) in 18th century classical music the modulation is generally confirmed by a clear cadence but this is less true in jazz. For instance if the Cm in my example was prolonged something more like a modulation to Cm might be felt.

    Also, so what if Jeff Goldblum's artistic concept is based on chord-scales, who cares? What matters is (apparently) many people like his music. What makes Jazz interesting is that different people pull it in different directions but every now and then it becomes fashionable to bring it back to its roots.
    I think you missed Ethan’s point, which is one I have often made independently here- anyone can use chord scales if they can already play, they are simply a resource for someone who can already make music. Ethan cites the example of the original recording of So What.

    We can contrast how good those players sound relative to Goldblum fairly obviously. The difference is that if you know only chord scales and are encouraged to ‘let it all hang out’ you don’t develop that real jazz approach that comes from the oral tradition, listening, learning music and being part of the community. None of the professional jazz players I know would disagree with that statement.

    and before anyone says I am strawmanning chord scale theory, you may wish to investigate the sort of thing that gets taught at adult weekend jazz courses, youth jazz education etc. “Here’s the scales, make something up” (I’ve critiqued this approach myself elsewhere, I think we can do better even with neophytes.) This is done for perfectly reasonable reasons - to get players having a go etc - but there is a tendency for those who don’t get tuition or input from high level practitioners to think there’s a direct through line from Jamie Aebersold-land to high level jazz playing.

    A good college level jazz course will emphasise the importance of language and transcription at the very least.

    I would regard those opinions as uncontroversial within the community.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-15-2022 at 07:47 AM.

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Re Ethan’s later point I feel the most important thing I learned from Barry was a sense of that tradition.

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Ethan does like to provoke sometimes, and can be a bit preachy and OTT for me, but I’m not finding much here I disagree with (and I agree with most of what he says based on my own lesser knowledge and experience; he is a high level musician.) Perhaps you can highlight some more things you felt were inconsistent…
    Sure.

    "Scales came into the performance of the masters in the 1950s, after bebop. Miles Davis may have had the most to do with it, although George Russell was the one who wrote the theory book. “So What” on Kind of Blue was the sounding bell."

    Well first of all by scales does he mean scalar runs, like Bebob scales (aka Dominant scale possibly with half notes)? Or does he mean consistent use of underlying non-chord tones in certain situations (like Harmonic minor with a b7)? Let's ask Barry.

    Scales and arpeggios, even as straight runs, are part of the bebop vocabulary. Of course like any single element of the vocabulary, it won't make good art to overuse them. But they have always been used. Certainly there was also the use of scales as sources of non-chord tones.

    "It’s all pretty scalar, especially the sequence of wandering D minor leaps. Goldblum knows that all the white notes are “okay” at this moment — Jamey Aebersold says so, after all: ...
    The masters don’t do this. Indeed, on the canonical first recording of “Cantaloupe Island,” neither Freddie Hubbard or Herbie Hancock play any D dorian passage work. "

    Again not clear what is the implication here. So he did play notes that are in D minor (as a II chord). You should never do that? Or Goldblum always does that? Or masters always play a blues lick in the home key over expanded harmony? Not sure if this is really an A-ha moment he makes it out to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Does it?

    (I mean I like the implication that Ethan has done less transcription that you haha.)
    I'm not implying that I've done more transcriptions of Bird than the author. I'm saying that the statement is false and it's easy to see why. He might be a great musician but great musicians aren't immune to going into long rants and getting carried away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    To be fair it probably all it depends what your definition of key is.
    I have a very similar definition of key as you. Key is not strict diatonic harmony with 7 notes. I was conscious of this when I quoted:

    They certainly wouldn’t move scales around in order to spell the harmony out on every chord.

    Which to me meant that he was making the point that these masters were using an even folksier version of the notion of key. Charlie Parker certainly didn't. He did move the scales around (so-to speak) and put extensions to fit the expanded harmony of chords.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    I think you missed Ethan’s point, which is one I have often made independently here- anyone can use chord scales if they can already play, they are simply a resource for someone who can already make music. Ethan cites the example of the original recording of So What.

    We can contrast how good those players sound relative to Goldblum fairly obviously. The difference is that if you know only chord scales and are encouraged to ‘let it all hang out’ you don’t develop that real jazz approach that comes from the oral tradition, listening, learning music and being part of the community. None of the professional jazz players I know would disagree with that statement.
    I do get what his beef with this style of playing is. But I don't agree with publicly policing every jazz album (even the relatively successful ones) in terms of how well they fit with what one think jazz should be. My point is if Goldblum is a product of the post 60's chord scale education, maybe we should accept that as a thing instead of trying to convince others that there can only be one tradition that one should study to be creative in this style.

    Don't get me wrong I do think his underlying points are valid. Recently I saw this recent jazz college grad kid in a bar. It was atrocious. He played like he never heard a single jazz record. I mean he wasn't even that accomplished in the chord-scale ways either. He couldn't even outline the chords consistently. I looked him up. He is teaching jazz asking for 100$ per half hour. That is my rant, lol.

    Yes, I wholeheartedly believe in the value of learning language from the masters. Having a good command of scales and arpeggios is I think essential for navigating the instrument, working on hearing the harmony of tunes, developing/maintaining technique etc. But jazz comes from the language.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 12-15-2022 at 09:46 AM.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    Sure.

    "Scales came into the performance of the masters in the 1950s, after bebop. Miles Davis may have had the most to do with it, although George Russell was the one who wrote the theory book. “So What” on Kind of Blue was the sounding bell."

    Well first of all by scales does he mean scalar runs, like Bebob scales (aka Dominant scale possibly with half notes)? Or does he mean consistent use of underlying non-chord tones in certain situations (like Harmonic minor with a b7)? Let's ask Barry.

    Scales and arpeggios, even as straight runs, are part of the bebop vocabulary. Of course like any single element of the vocabulary, it won't make good art to overuse them. But they have always been used. Certainly there was also the use of scales as sources of non-chord tones.
    yeah this is not well put. It’s clear from the context whta he means though. Colloquially, scale based improv’ is usually meant to mean chord scale based improv in jazz circles. Of course there are scales in pre modal jazz. Scales have been around for thousands of years.

    I think it was Reg who said a while back that chord scales are nothing to do with scales. Really it should be called applied pitch set theory or something, but no one would know what you are talking about.

    Anyway, there’s a stark difference between what Barry taught and the chord scale system. The first is a way of developing language and jazz lines from scalar raw materials. Chord scale theory is a theory that folds extended chord sounds into seven note scale format that is principally a theoretical structure and creates a theory of harmony based on t the application of these seven note pitch sets. They are apples and oranges; in fact you can use Barry procedures with any of the chord scales if you want.

    "It’s all pretty scalar, especially the sequence of wandering D minor leaps. Goldblum knows that all the white notes are “okay” at this moment — Jamey Aebersold says so, after all: ...
    The masters don’t do this. Indeed, on the canonical first recording of “Cantaloupe Island,” neither Freddie Hubbard or Herbie Hancock play any D dorian passage work. "

    Again not clear what is the implication here. So he did play notes that are in D minor (as a II chord). You should never do that? Or Goldblum always does that? Or masters always play a blues lick in the home key over expanded harmony? Not sure if this is really an A-ha moment he makes it out to be.
    Chord scale theory teaches that all the notes of a pitch set are applicable over a given chord and are equal or ‘good sounding’ (unless and avoid note) so may be used freely.

    a good jazz musician will use this info with intention, a poor player or a beginner will use it as a shortcut, as way of being ‘safe’. And you can always hear it.

    Firstly Ethan is pointing out Goldblum simply hasn’t done the homework on the tune by listening to the most famous version of it carefully.

    Theoretically, I’m not able to chip in because I haven’t properly studied that tune either past the Aebersold stage lol. But I do remember it’s in Fm so the Dm7 is not a ii chord here and moves directly to Fm afterwards. Tbf not knowing any better i’d probably use the Dorian; but that would be on a jam session, not in a working band playing shows. It’s an interesting point of detail, and makes me want to check out the original again.

    this sort of thing makes me think of the 7#9 chords in All Blues, similar situation where stock chord scale theory suggestions and what musicians actually played don’t match up. Jazz is full of stuff like this.

    I'm not implying that I've done more transcriptions of Bird than the author. I'm saying that the statement is false and it's easy to see why
    i don’t agree that Ethan’s point is disproved by transcription - in fact I think his wording is spot on in describing what I’ve seen/heard in that music. Bird very often articulates passing chords - sometimes at striking variance with the ‘vanilla changes’; but he also often generalises the harmony, and he frequently uses the blues on all tunes (it’s his favourite way to handle IV7)

    He might be a great musician but great musicians aren't immune to going into long rants and getting carried away.
    Ethan? Never!!! ;-) Not this time though.

    I have a very similar definition of key as you. Key is not strict diatonic harmony with 7 notes. I was conscious of this when I quoted:

    They certainly wouldn’t move scales around in order to spell the harmony out on every chord.

    Which to me meant that he was making the point that these masters were using an even folksier version of the notion of key. Charlie Parker certainly didn't. He did move the scales around (so-to speak) and put extensions to fit the expanded harmony of chords.



    I do get what his beef with this style of playing is. But I don't agree with publicly policing every jazz album (even the relatively successful ones) in terms of how well they fit with what one think jazz should be. My point is if Goldblum is a product of the post 60's chord scale education, maybe we should accept that as a thing instead of trying to convince others that there can only be one tradition that one should study to be creative in this style.
    Well obviously, a lot of jazz musicians were annoyed by Goldblum and Ethan wanted to vent. And he’s not wrong. Goldblum profile made him unignorable, and fwiw I think Ethan’s treatment is pretty fair.

    Good musicians are always going to judge music in private or public. They can’t help it.


    Don't get me wrong I do think his underlying points are valid. Recently I saw this recent jazz college grad kid in a bar. It was atrocious. He played like he never heard a single jazz record. I mean he wasn't even that accomplished in the chord-scale ways either. He couldn't even outline the chords consistently. I looked him up. He is teaching jazz asking for 100$ per half hour. That is my rant, lol.
    Grifters gonna grift sadly. Not the worst story I’ve heard.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-15-2022 at 02:25 PM.

  9. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by AaronMColeman
    I'm pretty bad at jazz. I'm uninteresting, I get lost on the fretboard, all my lines feel more like etudes than interesting music, the simple diminished scale gives me fits, I don't like flats (yet), my arpeggios usually include "unintended chromaticism". But, I am getting better on every single point every single week. I know my weaknesses. Like Jackson Browne said "Please don't confront me with my failures, I had not forgotten them".

    I try to focus on the facts that I am getting better, and I really enjoy it. One thing that helps me is to front load my practice and playing, meaning I work on the things I struggle the most with up front and end with a confidence booster that is FUN. I will likely never be as good as some of the mediocre players on here...that's fine. I put it in my head that I'm good at some things not at others and I'm getting better. I put the things I'm not good at up front, and end on a high note. Sorta the mentality of "fake it till you make it".
    Music is great and very rewarding. I try and remember my accomplishments, because music is endless. That vastness can be overwhelming. However, it would not be much fun if was any different. Enjoy the journey.

    Motivation is an interesting issue. Sometimes doing the work-ish things first, will be accomplishable. Other times doing the fun stuff, first will allow me to then do the work-ish stuff afterwards. It depends on where my mind and feeling are at.

    It can be helpful for me to focus on both what my thoughts are, and what my feelings are. That way I can realize what is making it difficult for me to accomplish this music thing.

    Musicianship can allow for a much deeper understanding of oneself. That depends on the mindset. (That is very complex discussion, and outside of the scope of this thread).

  10. #59
    Maybe I am being too simplistic but does not everyone hear melodic ideas, mostly inspired by the song’s melody, and then try and play them.

    I would assume no one is plying a full scale, except in limited runs to move to the next melodic idea, or when something throws someone off.

    Also is not everyone hearing the tensions.

    Scales are not melodies but melodies and (as a guitarist) certain fingerings live with in certain scale shapes.

    Here is something interesting… at my hieght of musicianship I would record an improvised solo with both my keys/synths and then use my midi guitar with the same patch to record (same song, often back to back) a improvised solo. Same everything but one was keys, one was guitar. It was strange that each solo would be different in interesting ways. I was just thinking melodic ideas, but those ideas were different based on the instrument. Not so much technique in the sense of speed. Just different types of melodies. It was apparent that I t differently based on instrument, but I could not sense that difference. I was just thinking music.

    I guess one way to see this, you can transcribe a sax solo and have it not really work on guitar. I always find that weird. Same notes but just not fitting 100% right. I think in part it is timbre, but I also think something else is happening… not sure what?

    …. or maybe I am just not hip enough yet

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Is this what Evan was talking about?



  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rintincop
    Is this what Evan was talking about?


    This must be a different one because I hear a lot of blues phrases in this one


    Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Lol, Golblum sounds pretty good. I suppose it's easy to hate on Hollywood types.

    I'd rather spend my time hating on the Instagram transcription players who are actually hurting jazz. Motherfuckers can't improvise their way out of a paper bag...but they can play somebody else's solo at 300bpm.

    But yeah, hate on Goldblum, playing live music in front of people. That's clearly the problem.

    Rolling my fucking eyes emoji.
    Last edited by mr. beaumont; 12-16-2022 at 10:12 AM.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by st.bede
    Maybe I am being too simplistic but does not everyone hear melodic ideas, mostly inspired by the song’s melody, and then try and play them.
    Yes, players on this forum play off the melody as part of their solos.

    I would assume no one is plying a full scale, except in limited runs to move to the next melodic idea, or when something throws someone off.
    Don't assume. Listen or read what players actually do. Scales are used constantly but they must be contoured into variations to sound interesting. While they are just run occasionally. Other melody contours are arpeggios and intervals.

    Also is not everyone hearing the tensions.
    Yes, we know how to play over changes and utilize tension.

    Scales are not melodies but melodies and (as a guitarist) certain fingerings live with in certain scale shapes.
    Yep, there are many ways to take a musical structure like a scale and make it musical or inspirational. Some of the main ways are rhythmic vocabulary and phrasing.

    I guess one way to see this, you can transcribe a sax solo and have it not really work on guitar. I always find that weird. Same notes but just not fitting 100% right. I think in part it is timbre, but I also think something else is happening… not sure what?
    I think part of it is the timbre. Their notes are fuller so they can play simpler melodies that sound more substantial. They also have the advantage of adding inflection that guitar doesn't really have.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    This thread has inspired me to try playing some tunes and just playing "in key," with of course being careful with secondary dominants and "oddball" chords...

    It's a pretty lovely way of playing. Very relaxing. I sure ain't Lester Young yet, but...

    I'm also still pissed at Iverson for shitting on Kamasi, saying his music is only interesting if you didn't know the 70's stuff that inspired it.

    I love Kamasi's stuff because it reminds me of the 70's stuff that inspired it.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    I think I read Ethan's article as only being mildly critical of Kamasi. He seemed mostly positive to me. Also I don't think he was shitting on Goldblum either exactly. Maybe you read it as more hostile. Tricky with text.

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    I think I read Ethan's article as only being mildly critical of Kamasi. He seemed mostly positive to me. Also I don't think he was shitting on Goldblum either exactly. Maybe you read it as more hostile. Tricky with text.
    I probably always assume the worst with Iverson because I think he's a shitstarter. I also really like his playing.