Improving jazz chops

[Jazzwee]

You can't expect to be anything with modern playing without a deep understanding of traditional melodic ism. And Bert Ligon has codified NOTHING. He just wrote about "3 outlines" which is a misleading diversion. Everybody and their mother back to Bach knows 7 goes to 3....

 

Not disagreeing with you on this. But as my last post describes, this is all micro.

[GovernorSilver]

 

These just introduce a tiny piece of the pie IMHO. And again, you will find lots of players that don't adhere to this and still respond positively to the sound.

 

For example, where is the talk of "shaping" the theme and how to do it? A lot of descriptions of a melody are all about a "micro" view. Where's the macro view? Where's the focus on things like "common tones" in the harmony to maintain a theme? There's a ton of this that I'm just discovering myself that relates to harmony and rhythm.

 

Again, my perception has changed and I'm hearing the interconnections of ideas. And this has never been explained (to my satisfaction at least).

 

 

 

You guys are ahead of me in this jazz game, but I was curious to hear your take on that stuff. Good luck in your search and I'd like to know when you finally find what you're looking for.

 

 

[Jazz+]

I have spent the last 55 years singing and pondering simple melodies for many many hours each day, music has been my full time occupation every day since I was 5 year old, I have always been striving to discover the inner nature of melody, i have cracked the code just recently ... Anyway I feel my words are just falling on death ears here...

[Jazzwee]

If I have to do a solo for 3-4 choruses, simply knowing how to make small melodic fragments does not make me a hot shot. The only thing ever said about this is "you solo needs to make a story" or some such comment. Well, HOW?

 

Instinctively, it comes. But certainly not from books (so far).

[Jazzwee]

I have spent the last 55 years singing and pondering simple melodies for many many hours each day, music has been my full time occupation every day since I was 5 year old, I have always been striving to discover the inner nature of melody, i have cracked the code just recently ... Anyway I feel my words are just falling on death ears here...

 

Don't you think my previous teachers didn't know about this? They're just aware that there's more and they can't explain the "code".

 

As I said earlier, someone gave me a "code" too. And when presented to a master, the response was: "...drivel".

 

And obviously, smart educators know about classical theory etc. But I think the mistake is to view the melodic fragment in isolation.

 

[David Loving]

A lot of excellent artists really do not know how they do it. Like Ted Williams- he could hit, hall of fame hitter, but could not teach hitting. Many of these gaps are where talent kicks in. Take a look at Dave Franks' lessons on you-tube. Maybe we're overthinking this.

[Jazz+]

Let me give you a quiz.

 

Away from the piano, with a pencil and paper, with C major being tonic, write out the resolution tendencies for all 12 tones to C. You can simply write numbers... Use 3 notes for each of the 12 answers : Resolve each note to it's best case neighbor tone and then to the tonic for the a final resolve.

Now do it again for all 12 tones, but this time instead of revolving to C, now resolve to to the second strongest target in C. Then write them all out again for the third strongest target in C, etc.

 

("Strongest" meaning historically what is most commonly expected in western music.)

 

These are just the abc's of melody. The 6 embellishments and the several chromatic embellishments really raise the bar...

[Jazz+]

I have spent the last 55 years singing and pondering simple melodies for many many hours each day, music has been my full time occupation every day since I was 5 year old, I have always been striving to discover the inner nature of melody, i have cracked the code just recently ... Anyway I feel my words are just falling on death ears here...

 

Don't you think my previous teachers didn't know about this? They're just aware that there's more and they can't explain the "code".

 

As I said earlier, someone gave me a "code" too. And when presented to a master, the response was: "...drivel".

 

And obviously, smart educators know about classical theory etc. But I think the mistake is to view the melodic fragment in isolation.

 

No, I do not think they are really intellectually conscious of it. They are operating on imitation and intuition. Which is finer. But if YOU are stuck at a certain level melodically, it's probably a lot to do with this problem. A lack of a deep knowing-ness of the physics of melodic behavior. Thus one tends to rely on doodling in this scale for this chord and that scale for that chord.

[16251]

I have spent the last 55 years singing and pondering simple melodies for many many hours each day, music has been my full time occupation every day since I was 5 year old, I have always been striving to discover the inner nature of melody, i have cracked the code just recently ... Anyway I feel my words are just falling on death ears here...

I wish you would, once, share your music, so everything you say has more validity. I don't doubt your skills but it helps me and maybe others to connect your music voice (piano,) with your writing (these posts,) and take something useful from your posts and threads. No disrespect intended.

[Jazzwee]

Obviously you're not getting my point Jazz+. You think I'm arguing about classical theory whereas I'm thinking about the whole composition.

 

Classical theory may apply to the melodic fragments here but not as a "theory of all things" in the big picture. How does one teach this higher zone? Now I don't need instruction in this. I can hear it. But could the OP? (since this is a question about learning jazz skills).

 

[video:youtube]

 

It's like saying, here's an instructional and you will compose like Beethoven. Now here these two are creating music with no structure. All by responding to each other. How does one codify that? And YES their melodic fragments follow classical theory.

 

[Al Quinn]

I've been attending Chick Corea's online workshop for the past half year or so. He explains that there are a few scales/modes that we generally agree sound good and that some make the mistake of playing within a box that's created by their knowledge of these scales/modes which limits their options and creativity. When someone asked him what scale he plays over a particular chord he replied that he can't tell someone what notes to play over a particular chord -- that note choices are up to the individual artist. He consistently avoids talking about theory even when asked. Instead he has demonstrated how he finds the notes that sound good to him through exploration and experimentation. He did this to answer a question about playing outside. It's a very good workshop.

 

 

 

[Jazz+]

Jazwee, you are a master of digression.

 

 

[Jazzwee]

No, I do not think they are really intellectually conscious of it. They are operating on imitation and intuition. Which is finer. But if YOU are stuck at a certain level melodically, it's probably a lot to do with this problem. A lack of a deep knowing-ness of the physics of melodic behavior. Thus one tends to rely on doodling in this scale for this chord and that scale for that chord.

 

First, just being clear, this is not about me. I'm just responding to the topic and agreeing with you on the importance of melody. I don't doodle on chords.

 

I'm just trying to analyze my own learning process and determined that my understanding of melody evolved from just a chord-scale exercise (meaning fitting a melody into a specific progression) vs. a whole.

 

For example, one could be a micro thinker and say that Miles Davis was plays extensions instead of chord tones in his solos. Or one could analyze it melodically and see how the harmonic motion moves melodically and connects to a prior statement.

 

I choose to look at solos now in a whole different level than the Hal Galper Forward Motion style of just thinking of chord tones on downbeats as would be typical of Bebop.

 

So my entire thought process on soloing (at least as my goal) is driven by an attempt to connect the whole, even if I play outside of the harmony.

 

I don't have a theory for how this is done. I do it my way and strive to do it better. I listen to the top guys and am amazed at how automatic it is for them. I listen too to the many mediocre players I play with at jam sessions and can hear the non-connected constant pattern playing, doodling, or repeated licks.

 

All I know is that after years of doodling, I'm choosing less notes (not talking about speed here but less note options). In the past I've always equated fast playing with lots of notes. But with a melodic construct in mind, one tends to use less. Just an example of a global awareness here.

 

And regarding those teachers, trust me, our discussions can get really theoretical, including how "mathematical" jazz can be. So intellectualization was never lacking. It was more of a realization that one cannot contain innovativeness in music with some fixed rules after a certain stage.

 

The common mantra they repeat is "learn all the rules" then "chuck it".

 

 

 

[Theo Verelst]

The insisting on theory over feeling leads me to suggest alternatively there's a lot of harmonic motion in all the RealBook songs I know of. Just patterns are lost unless there's a harmonic motion. That's trivial, yet a lot of to me not known materials suggest motions (i.e. note sequences/intervals) as a sort of mathematical solution to something I don't understand (and I'm really smart). In fact it's a quest I think that doesn't really go anywhere. Since Bach at least, music pieces in the west are usually strong in harmonic sequences, in some cases with strongly connected melody, in some cases only fragmentarically connected with melody. Like: how do you get from Dixieland to Bebob.

 

It's funny and a bit sad to look at the history of practical, historic Jazz on the Wikipedia. If we take it that working on Jazz and it's motion has been logical and is justified by the great musical results and the connections with life that people , both Jazz aficionados and general people that happen to listen to Jazz, appear to feel.

 

Talking a swinging course out of to begin with renaissance European historic music and striving for more complication than standard danceable music (from Waltzes and Polkas to march music and new music from the early times of Jazz like the Charleston) must have appealed to intelligent people. Since Jazz is also associated with cool music, I think it has become hard to become just another interpreter of Jazz, a la the many classical players that can play Chopin or Rachmaninoff.

 

As I learned it, Jazz requires the daringness to solo, to make sure your playing matches the environment and audience, and of course the perseverance to strive for what you as a player find beautiful or interesting or appropriate as a musical statement.

 

Otherwise, why bother becoming a more than occasional Jazz player in the first place, maybe Pop or Rock lend themselves better to people who don't have those urges, and there too there's challenging music, some soloing, etc.

 

I mean if Jazz is only a ticket to be called an intellectual music making person, there's something very wrong.

 

Theo V.

[Jazzwee]

Jazwee, you are a master of digression.

 

 

No. I'm redirecting you. You think this is about ii-V resolution with 7/3 or tonic resolution from a half step, etc.

 

The reality is that write all these rules down and I bet the jazz student will still not come up with a good solo.

 

Melodic Fragment != Solo

 

There's a soloist program on BIAB that does a good job just based on these "rules". On that basis, we can just press the button.

 

If I were to teach this idea now (what I'm talking about), I'd just dissect a record with a student and discuss how the solo is flowing for a particular artist. Now there are books that actually do this somewhat. I recall some discussions of it in here

 

The Studio Recordings of the Miles Davis Quintet

 

But this is with a specific group.

 

[LX88]

I would like to know more about what Jazz + is referring to regarding resolution tendencies.

 

Relevant information does not fall on deaf ears necessarily. If you have some good information, by all means share it.

 

I come to all of this keyboard knowledge by being basically self taught. My first instrument was drums , then vibes and then I gradually moved to Hammond organ because I have always loved it.

 

I did fairly well in the jazz world when I was young, and when there were a lot more opportunities to work. Some very well respected jazz musicians encouraged me and hired me. So my first exposure to that music was through the rhythmic language, which came very naturally to me.

 

Trying to assimilate the language of melodic and harmonic improvisation has been another story. How many of us have been sidetracked by methods that did not necessarily bring fluency?

 

I talked about the Parker solos and I have had bits of breakthroughs but I am by no means at a masterful level as an improviser on keyboard instruments.

 

As a drummer however I found quite a few great books to sink my teeth into ( George Stone's "Stick Control" and "Accents and Rebounds" were among them) and also, I got to spend a day with Joe Morello when I was a sophmore in H.S. In one day , Joe explained to a system of mixing triplet patterns, some of which appeared in his book " Rudimental Jazz".

 

So I can say that having the exposure to Joe's concepts gave me a lot to work with. I would imagine that many keyboardists would benefit from understanding some of this, because learning some of these rhythmic ideas might very well influence some of the directions of improvised lines.

[David Loving]

When someone asked him what scale he plays over a particular chord he replied that he can't tell someone what notes to play over a particular chord -- that note choices are up to the individual artist. He consistently avoids talking about theory even when asked. Instead he has demonstrated how he finds the notes that sound good to him through exploration and experimentation.

 

 

This is how I think it works. I'm no Chick Corea, but what he says through Al's excellent post rings true. I think when you get down to it, it's not explainable, it's just talent.

[GovernorSilver]

I guess if somebody ever writes a document/book on how to tell a story during one's jazz solo, that person would be a genius.

 

I see the OP posting on other threads. Did he get what he wanted out of this one?

 

A couple of the musos that the OP mentioned - Larry Carlton and Pat Metheny - have instructional material out there. Pat's book "Guitar Etudes - Warmup Exercises for Guitar" in particular has caused some confusion in the guitar community. Some were disappointed to not find his signature licks or some other magical thing they were expecting. Some felt ripped off after the revelation that these "etudes" were all improvised then later transcribed from recordings that Pat made during his warmup sessions. I worked through some of them and to me, they sound like Bach preludes. Each etude that I tried started off in a specific scale and key, then gradually modulated into another key/scale, then modulated back to the original scale/key - just like the Bach stuff. So I get the disappointment in these etudes not sounding like bebop solos, monster licks or whatever. But its almost like Pat is practicing his (spontaneous) compositional skill and guitar stuff at the same time when he warms up. His boy Lyle, I'm guessing has a similar approach to "practice".

 

Anyway, leaving the above there for the OP in case he's still following the thread.

[Jazz+]

Vince had nice sense of the melodic tendencies (gravity) of the individual notes. He displays his understanding in this track. This type of melodic-ism should be effortless, it is fundamental:

 

[video:youtube]

[Jazzmammal]

I don't have a theory for how this is done. I do it my way and strive to do it better. I listen to the top guys and am amazed at how automatic it is for them. I listen too to the many mediocre players I play with at jam sessions and can hear the non-connected constant pattern playing, doodling, or repeated licks.

 

This is pretty much where we're all at Roberto. The top guys are that good because they were that good when they were 12 years old. They were basically child prodigy's who were playing and practicing the absolute crap out of very technical classical stuff at an early age. The only way to get that automatic, effortless sound is practice, practice and practice of scales, exercises and complex songs starting at about 5. As full mature adults we will never get to that level. I think it's physically impossible, our minds are not capable and our hands are not capable. Only gifted children can learn to do that.

 

Where does that leave us? With all these books and lessons where we hope to pick up bits and pieces of good stuff and try to tie them together into something coherent live on stage. With lots of clams and repetitive licks.

 

Bob

[Groove58]

I see the OP posting on other threads. Did he get what he wanted out of this one?

 

My original question was whether anyone could recommend a clear, concise guide to the [jazz] theory behind soloing over chords, and a number of resources have been suggested, which I appreciate and am now following up.

 

The thread has been helpful and interesting, and has extended to the broader question of the degree to which good soloing is a teachable skill, which has elicited a wide range of answers.

 

My feeling is that what the great improvisers do (along with the great composers, arrangers, poets, etc.) is partly an unteachable, innate talent or "knack" (and listening to alternative takes from historic sessions reveals that some classic solos are actually a product of both previous development and present spontaneity, while some performances are simply "magic moments"), but partly also an art with some principles that can be codified and taught.

 

If some great soloists are unable to say how they choose the notes in their solos, this does not necessarily mean that the notes have no discernible pattern or underlying logic but may only mean that the skill of those particular artists just happens to have been "more caught than taught" and that those particular artists just happen to be unable to articulate what they have learned to do through some combination of innate talent, good training, diligent practice, and long experimentation, which great teachers can then analyse and publish for others to glean something from ... which is where I came in.

[Jazzwee]

I think there's 3 elements here which are kind of separate.

 

1. Chops. This is perhaps the limitation that most of us will have. Most of us will not get Chick Corea chops. Guaranteed fact for me.

 

2. Having the ability to play exactly what you hear in your head. Now this can get improved too. But tough. Another one of those skills that's natural to the Chicks of the world and perhaps those with perfect pitch.

 

3. Developing a motif -- My theory though is that the genuises are not starting with a full solo in their head (extremely unlikely). Instead, I think the skill is to react to what you just did a moment ago just like I've seen Herbie and Wayne do it or to put it in another context, performing melodic embellishment on a melodic motif what you just did. Thus putting a connection between the melodic fragments.

 

I'd teach students THIS.

 

 

 

[Jazzwee]

I'm a total non-believer that we could take jazz vocabulary and box it in a theory of resolution tendencies. All it takes is to listen to McCoy Tyner to put that away. If you're playing just intervals of fourths like he does, then the whole point is NO resolution. A style, also that Chick Corea continues.

 

 

[nadroj]

Late to the party and I don't have anything to add; just something to support what's already been said:

 

 

Regarding being unable to say how notes are chosen, if I ever ask my teacher what he did at one point after listening to him demonstrate or play something to me (or if anyone asks him after a gig) he says he simply doesn't know. He has to go back to the chord he was at, then it takes him 5 minutes to work out what the hell it was that he played. For him and many others, the whole thing is simply decades of internalised and 'forgotten' theory knowledge, transcriptions, listening, playing and experience flowing out on the spot.

 

To get there he had to go through the process I and many others currently go through; of trying to play what your ear wants to hear, only to have your fingers fall on the wrong notes, internalising and substituting chords in his head like a complex maths formula, implying the subs with his lines, spending months upon months working out the same phrases and lines in every key so that they can be added to the vocabulary on a whim, etc. Even now when he probably doesn't even need to, he's working on a Bill Evans solo passage that he transcribed which goes through and reshapes a minor ii-V-i, and he's been at it for weeks, trying to internalise it in every key to the point where he can instinctively throw it in when his ear tells his fingers to play it mid solo.

[16251]

I like the idea of studying melody and resolution tendencies. Tonight I started playing Fly me to the moon and I was trying to remember the melody before opening the book. I realized this song has some interesting melodic resolution tendencies. The first 8 bars has like a stairs line but it's the 2nd 8 of first ending, then the 2nd 8 of second ending, and the ending that I think are kind of cool. Those all have shapes that use larger intervals but don't necessarily keep the same melodic interval. It's almost like the song wrote itself.

 

I found this version btw, it has the introductory sectional verse.

 

[video:youtube]

[GovernorSilver]

3. Developing a motif -- My theory though is that the genuises are not starting with a full solo in their head (extremely unlikely).

 

According to Lee Konitz in this book, some well-known musos prepared stuff in advance.

 

P. 109

"But what he played is basically very set, it's like he's actually playing exercises sometimes, it's so obvious. He's playing the same things I've heard him play over and over again. But he does it very well."

 

The book also includes interviews with Wayne Shorter, Rufus Reid, Sonny Rollins, and others. Very interesting to see how approaches to jazz varied so much among the greats.

[Jazzwee]

Even Bill Evans premade some solos and apparently the reason he gives is that it allows him to work at a professional level at all times.

 

To some the approach is the connecting of multiple bebop licks. If that's the approach, then careful study and memorization of all the licks and getting it on the fingers automatically is the approach.

 

I'm thinking though that for learning how to play jazz organically, for me at least, I'm looking for something that can expand my sound and something that's always available.

 

I like to listen to the other players and work off a motif that could come up and then engage each other in a musical conversation. So it's the passing of ideas and exchanging of ideas. This means that what happens at every gig is unpredictable and this is what makes Jazz fun.

 

That's what Herbie and Wayne Shorter were doing in that video I posted.

 

 

 

 

[GovernorSilver]

That's what Herbie and Wayne Shorter were doing in that video I posted.

 

 

 

 

Nah, they were locked in a contest to resolve each other's unresolutions, with great resolution.

[Jazzwee]

Maybe that was their New Year's resolution

[Joe Muscara]

2. Having the ability to play exactly what you hear in your head. Now this can get improved too. But tough. Another one of those skills that's natural to the Chicks of the world and perhaps those with perfect pitch.

Even Pat Metheny can't do this. From page 3 of the article.

 

But even Mr. Metheny's decades of experience doesn't give him the ability to always play the notes he wants to. "You've told me that actually the music coming out of the guitar is not nearly as good as what you're hearing in your head," Dr. Limb said.

 

"It's actually quite far away from that," Mr. Metheny said.