m6 or dim

[AllanAllen]

It's an argument/discussion with a reason and purpose, it's not just stupid bickering. You seem to be a bit sensitive to robust exchanges. Shut your eyes if it all gets too much for you :-)

It’s just the same crap back and forth. Nobody is going to win and nobody is going to change their mind. One of you should read How To Win Friends and Influence People.

Which is a long way to say, I don’t think you guys are arguing correctly, you won’t reach a common ground this way.

[pamosmusic]

One of you should read How To Win Friends and Influence People.

Dear god, please no.

Which is a long way to say, I don’t think you guys are arguing correctly, you won’t reach a common ground this way.

Honestly man. I'm not really arguing. I said the way I teach and was told it was wrong and that it "wasn't very responsible" teaching. It's not the first time this has happened. It hasn't gotten less obnoxious.

[AllanAllen]

Dear god, please no.



Honestly man. I'm not really arguing. I said the way I teach and was told it was wrong and that it was "irresponsible" teaching. It's not the first time this has happened. It hasn't gotten less obnoxious.

However you want to define the exchange. It’s boring to read for the nth time.

[ragman1]

Dear god, please no.

We're definitely together on that one :-)

[RLetson]

"I came here for a good argument."

"No you didn't. You came here for an argument."

[ragman1]

I said the way I teach and was told it was wrong and that it was "irresponsible" teaching. It's not the first time this has happened. It hasn't gotten less obnoxious.

It's no good just cherry-picking a few words you don't like. Those words are contained in a rational argument and you should address that argument.

I explained what I thought wasn't a responsible approach to the teaching and explained why. It's the why that matters and you need to counter it from your view. Similarly I didn't just say something was 'wrong' and leave it there, there was a rationale attached to it. You have to tackle the rationale if you don't believe it true.

If you can't do this and only react to certain words which you take personally then there's no point in this.

[ragman1]

You posters that are objecting to this discussion are sounding like passive observers. But you're all players too so why not say what your experience was with shell voicings?

Did you do them first or after learning basic chords? And so on. If you've been following the thread, of course, and aren't just interested in people arguing because it's more exciting :-)

[Christian Miller]

Seems like a theological debate to me. But I would say that…

I don’t really believe four voice harmony is the basis of much common voice leading. Therefore I don’t really think there’s such a thing as incomplete voicings. That seems on a level with epicycles and the tooth fairy. I blame the Germans.

But getting down from my weirdo ivory tower and in terms of how you teach jazz gitter irl, shells were the first thing I learned and I’m very glad I did. I never had any trouble understanding these were incomplete voicings nor what omitted note would be.

The guy who taught me is considered one of the best teachers and jazz guitarists in the country.

You know or there’s a bloke on the internet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Average Joe]

To the OP - a triad or a grip can be different things depending on the context. The grip in your OP could also be a Db chord with the root on top. your grip can be a Dm6 or a dim chord depending on what it's suppsed to do

[James W]

It's telling that Randy Vincent's The Guitarist's Introduction To Jazz starts with shell voicings.

[ragman1]

It's telling that Randy Vincent's The Guitarist's Introduction To Jazz starts with shell voicings.

It certainly does. So do quite a few others, I've checked them out.

[pamosmusic]

It's no good just cherry-picking a few words you don't like. Those words are contained in a rational argument and you should address that argument.

I explained what I thought wasn't a responsible approach to the teaching and explained why. It's the why that matters and you need to counter it from your view. Similarly I didn't just say something was 'wrong' and leave it there, there was a rationale attached to it. You have to tackle the rationale if you don't believe it true.

If you can't do this and only react to certain words which you take personally then there's no point in this.

Only on the condition that you print this out and put it by your computer for the next time you decide I’m irresponsible or “dangerous” for teaching shell voicings.

1, They contain only the most important parts of a chord progression - voice leading and bass motion.

2. They are practical - both easy to play, and easy to modify later into more complex chords down the line.

3. They apply in numerous situations from playing in high school jazz band to playing duo with a friend who sings.

4. Actual jazz guitarists use them all the time.

[ragman1]

the next time you decide I’m irresponsible or “dangerous” for teaching shell voicings.

Pete, I won't go on with this. I never said you were irresponsible or dangerous. I used the word 'responsible' once in four pages and was talking about teaching. The word was used in the context of a rationalised explanation in this post here:

m6 or dim

I also used the word 'dangerous' once in one post in much the same way, as part of an entirely impersonal explanation. And it was addressed to JC, not you:

m6 or dim

You're obviously taking all this as some sort of personal attack which is upsetting you so I'm stopping. You must teach what you need to teach, it doesn't matter. Who am I anyway?

Best of luck to you.

[Christian Miller]

It's telling that Randy Vincent's The Guitarist's Introduction To Jazz starts with shell voicings.

I like that book. I should probably use it more for teaching


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

You must teach what you need to teach, it doesn't matter. Who am I anyway?

Nope. I just try to teach what works best based on my experience with actual human beings.

[supersoul]

You posters that are objecting to this discussion are sounding like passive observers. But you're all players too so why not say what your experience was with shell voicings?

I haven't objected to this thread. I find it entertaining. But it's also interesting, because there isn't just one way to learn this stuff.

The first "jazz" chords I learned were:

Cm7 8x888x x3534x
CM7 8x998x x3545x
C7 8x898x x3535x

I think I also knew C7b9 x3232x, C9 x3233x, C7#9 x3234x (the Purple Haze chord is E7#9 x7678x).

You can go a long way with those shapes.

After that I just figured out more chords by knowing what each note was and messing around. Notes can be played in different octaves, so Cm7 can also be xx8888, etc.

At some point I realized I didn't have to play all the notes, and that the 5th could easily be dropped. At which point I guess I'm into shell chord territory, but I didn't know them by that name until here.

Learning theory helped me figure out chords from there on. Everything after that was self taught.

So I enjoy these arguments. It's impossible to know how I would have learned if I first learned shell chords. Probably would have managed. But knowing those chords let me make it all the way through most jazz tunes, and that's a huge thing when you're starting out.

After that you're just finding your own way. Play with a bass player and you'll quickly realize you can ditch the your bass notes. They just get in the way of the bass player and sound muddy. It also frees up fingers to play more extensions.

[AllanAllen]

You posters that are objecting to this discussion are sounding like passive observers. But you're all players too so why not say what your experience was with shell voicings?

Did you do them first or after learning basic chords? And so on. If you've been following the thread, of course, and aren't just interested in people arguing because it's more exciting :-)

So, like everyone else, including Peters students, I learned regular old chords first, when I was playing rock guitar. Flash forward 20 years and I get the Mickey Baker book in 2019/2020, I learned those big full chords, then after that I learned shells and drops and whatever.

I think I did it the hard way and you could just use the sheet of grips I posted earlier and get along fine.

If I had a teacher and they started me on full chords after I told them my goal was to go play with a little band. I would be upset I paid someone to teach me what I don't need and won't use before teaching me the useful stuff.

I feel like today, the teachers job should be a filter, help the student focus on less, in the modern world we have access to everything. So someone can think they need to know scales, arpeggios, and all the chord inversions before they learn Autumn Leaves. A teacher should be like "here's 3 shapes and we'll play through the song by the end of the lesson" teacher paying melody, student strumming, just like in the Mel Bay Books. Nice and easy, tiny steps. They don't need to be confused by m7b5, half diminished and diminished at the first lesson, just "use this shape for now." Get them through a week and then add a little more.

My biggest struggle is that there are too many options and the advice is to play what sounds good to you, but everything I played sounded like crap and not jazz.

[supersoul]

My biggest struggle is that there are too many options and the advice is to play what sounds good to you, but everything I played sounded like crap and not jazz.

Just as important as knowing the chord shapes is knowing rhythmic feel (when to play them, how loud, how long, when to leave space, when just to go chick-ah on muted strings etc.) You can make good music with those basic shapes, as long as you have a good rhythmic feel.

[mr. beaumont]

There's a certain amount of trial and error that needs to go into any kind of learning...productive struggle. We think of this amazing teacher who lays everything out perfectly...but having it handed to you isn't always great teaching...

I love what Allan says about focusing on less. I've said it here a bunch of times--really know 5 things instead of "knowing of" 50.

And chord synonyms are definitely one of those top 5 in my book.

[AllanAllen]

Just as important as knowing the chord shapes is knowing rhythmic feel (when to play them, how loud, how long, when to leave space, when just to go chick-ah on muted strings etc.) You can make good music with those basic shapes, as long as you have a good rhythmic feel.

Yes, the last time I was asking about comping someone posted a bunch of Red Garland and I saw how simple it could be, compared to Reg's more complex rhythms. That helped to see another way of doing things. Just seeing it always doesn't have to be Ed Bikert and Bill Evans, sometimes it can just be bomp bomp, bomp bomp, ba domp bomp

[mr. beaumont]

Yes, the last time I was asking about comping someone posted a bunch of Red Garland and I saw how simple it could be, compared to Reg's more complex rhythms. That helped to see another way of doing things. Just seeing it always doesn't have to be Ed Bikert and Bill Evans, sometimes it can just be bomp bomp, bomp bomp, ba domp bomp

To quote Emily Remler (after playing a corny Charleston rhythm) "Nothing's corny if it swings."

[pamosmusic]

I feel like today, the teachers job should be a filter, help the student focus on less, in the modern world we have access to everything.
…..
My biggest struggle is that there are too many options and the advice is to play what sounds good to you, but everything I played sounded like crap and not jazz.

Right. Exactly this stuff. Just on this site, the shell voicings page is actually incredibly confusing. And there are pages with systematic explanations of drop twos and drop threes.

Generally the idea is to offer some distillation of all the stuff out there — along with a real world justification for why. Not just “I think this is better,” but “I think this is the best thing to work on now because of x and here is Jazz Guitarist U Like using it.”

[AllanAllen]

To quote Emily Remler (after playing a corny Charleston rhythm) "Nothing's corny if it swings."

My playing would improve if I stuck to the Charleston instead of trying and failing to be clever all the time.

[Christian Miller]

To quote Emily Remler (after playing a corny Charleston rhythm) "Nothing's corny if it swings."

Ain’t that the truth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mick-7]

"The problem is, I have come across others saying this is a diminished shape."

It is a diminished "shape".... take your example, C/Eb/A, and slide it up the neck 1/2 step > whole step, etc.

That will give you chords that contain the notes of a dim. scale:

C/Eb/A > Db/E/Bb > Eb/Gb/C > E/G/Db - etc. - which you could play over a Cm7b5 (> F7b9)

So it's a not a symmetrical Cm6 "shape" because the fingering would change at different fretboard positions.