Is it All about Lead?

[henryrobinett]

A solo has FORM, but you were talking about a SONG. There are many, many jazz tunes or performances where there's barely a song, yet the solo improvisation is incredible. It is not, in this case, the song.

 

What makes smooth jazz drivel is "Broadcast Architecture" and the marketng departments that demand that such drivel gets made and gets radio airplay. There are plenty of good composers applying their craft that rarely see the light of day. But we know that story, don't we?

 

It was my purpose years ago to compose jazz that had as it's focus THE SONG and plug in the great improvisors on top, to serve the song. It was a noble experiment and I haven't completely abandoned it. But I really think I had it the wrong way to, for the reasons I have already expressed. Jazz is about the improvisation. It's great to have a good song to go along with it, but it's NOT NECESSARY. When folks want to hear Scofield or Joe Lovano, or Dave Douglas, they don't go to hear tunes. They go to hear BLOWING.

 

I'm not talking about Vai. I don't talk about things I don't know anything about. I'm talking about jazz. I've heard Vai and I think he's a great guitar player. But that's still very structured music. It's not jazz. I'm talking about the difference in genres.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

[QB]

I respectfully disagree. Even in a genre or style that is instrumental, a solo that is simply scalar acrobatics is completely boring to me. Melody is just as important to instrumental solos as it is to lyrical songs. Playing without direction is just that... semi-random stabs at musical phrasing.

I didn't think we were talking about what was boring TO YOU. Once again there are brilliant instrumentalists who don't particularly play melodically. And they are definitely not directionless in their improvs. And I'm also not referring to mere scalular acrobatics.

 

I have no problem with disagreements. I just don't think we're even on the same page. No one likes to be misunderstood.

[Skip_dup1]

Hmm. Vai has stated, that he wants to make music that has interesting things going on but NOT sound like jazz. That doesn`t seem to be what he wants, so if it doesn`t sound like jazz he`s on the right track. But I would have to disagree that it`s not jazz because of the structure. There are innumerable jazz standards that stand on their own, whether or not there`s great soloing within them. I`m a nut for soloing, don`t get me wrong. But I wouldn`t be prepared to go so far as to say that`s what makes jazz. That`s one branch-albeit a major one-of a bigger tree.

[Tusker]

We are having a debate between conflicting values without really stating them explicitly.

 

1) Popular music - is popular, accessible and not always meaningful.

 

2) Music with artistic aspirations - strives for meaning and often sacrifices accessibility to do so

 

Obviously it's a continuum and there are examples of music which appear to have both values.

 

The trouble is that item 1 is often measured by acceptance and item 2 is measured by creativity , logic , complexity or other vaguely defined criteria.

 

The one path leads to mass produced hamburgers, and the other could lead to silly esoterica like snails in mango sauce.

 

Which leaves the "sweet spot" where IMO people like Mozart, The Beatles and Louis Armstrong tend to live. Somewhere between whoredom and artistry in their own reconciliation of these values. One quality I see in all these musicians is the ability to say deep things simply. And make simple things deep. This sort of approach is very different from the analytical extension (either Ted or Henry) referred to.... "since nobody has explored 9ths, let me do it". It synthesizes rather than analyzes, brings influences together rather than setting itself apart. By doing so it contains the voices of those that have spoken before without losing it's own unique contribution.

 

If music has that quality, I don't think it matters if it is an instrumental or a song. Lots of notes or a few. If we do reconcile these values (pop versus art) the terms of the reconciliation will likely not contain the definitions which set the two apart.

 

Jerry

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Ted Nightshade:

Lee, you mean you didn't know you're my spiritual twin? You're just figuring this out?

No, actually I think I had an idea almost from reading your first post. Certainly I knew by about your 10th post. It still shocks me though.

 

--Lee

[Tedly Nightshade]

Lee,

 

Henry, absolutely, McCoy is no one trick pony, and what you describe is certainly part of his palette. I must admit to being a bit perverse in describing his approach so reductively, there's a hell of a lot going on. That was kind of like "how to get the McCoy sound in one easy lesson", which although it only scratches the surface of the his sophistication, is a lot of fun to mess with and I hope someone here does, and enjoys it. Definitely the modal approach you describe should be explored as well!

 

I'm a bit cussed, as you may have noticed, and I do enjoy getting a rise out of folks by challenging accepted views in perverse ways, which are usually oversimplifications but contain enough truth for me not to be able to resist...

 

I would like to get your take on the (for me) infamous flat 5 chord that was reportedly innovated in the 40's.

I guess the big question is what's the 3rd, major or minor? If it's minor, how is it different from the old standby diminished chord? And if it's major, how is it not a sharp 11 like you'd build on a Lydian mode?

You hear so much emphasis on the tritone in an old Ellington piece like the East St. Louis ToodleO, how is that not a flat 5?

I would appreciate having this explained to me, I'm most curious.

 

BTW, a lot of my enjoyment of George Russell's book is because I have long felt that having the major scale as the center of the theory world has been stifling and confusing for me, and I'm just such a sucker for the yearning sound of the Lydian mode, plus I love to modalize colorful scales with big jumps like the harmonic minor scale, which the Lydian Dominant is a mode of.

I find it liberating to escape viewing everything in terms of the major scale.

Enjoy!

Ted

[henryrobinett]

Ted,

 

How's it? If the chord has a major third, flat5, flat7, it is indeed the flat 5 chord. If it has a minor third it's a "minor 7 flat 5", also called the HALF DIMINISHED chord, and differs from a full diminshed chord. The Diminished has a dim 7th (doubled flat 7), enharmonically the same as a 6th. Symmetrically all minor thirds.

 

It's not that the flat 5 chord didn't exist before Bird, it's that the use of it as a melodic device and it's standard use as a substitution vehicle/pivot point was new. People began hearing it as a strange, in-between the chord sound; out of tune and yet somehow not. It devides the scale/chord in half and has complete symmetry. It COULD be an augmented 11 and often they are synonymous. However there may be a case where the chord contains a natural 5 and as you go up the scale/chord the augmented 11th opens up, so you can have, in effect two 5s (not really!) -- the natural 5 and the flat 5. So C7b5 is spelled C-E-Gb-Bb (1-3-b5-b7) where C7+11 is spelled.

C-E-G-Bb-D-F# (1-3-5-b7-9-+11). Notice too the extra intervals. F# (+11)is ENHARMONICALLY the same as Gb (b5). Enharmonic means same sound, different name.

 

If the chord was built from the 4 scale step of a major scale it would indeed be LYDIAN and contain an +11. But it would have a MAJOR 7th chord. This is NOT the chord traditionally thought of as THE flat 5 and not the one in East St. Louis Toodle-oo. That's a DOMINANT chord, in other words it is built from the 5th scale step and has a flatted 7th.

 

Sorry, but it might be getting a bit thick. There is basically one DOMINANT chord -- this is the G7, C7, D7, in any one given key. There are TWO major chords in a major scale; the chord built on the 1st and the 4th scale steps. This is the C Maj7, FMaj7 C6, A, etc..

 

These chords have specific functions. Even the E7+9 (Foxey Lady Chord) is a dominant chord.

 

Sorry I don't have the time to be more clear. Hope that helps. Ask away if I can help.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by skip:

But I would have to disagree that it`s not jazz because of the structure. There are innumerable jazz standards that stand on their own, whether or not there`s great soloing within them. I`m a nut for soloing, don`t get me wrong. But I wouldn`t be prepared to go so far as to say that`s what makes jazz. That`s one branch-albeit a major one-of a bigger tree.

Skip, yep. The problem is I was trying to show that you CAN'T generalize about music and then, of course, I generalized in trying to make a point. When you generalize you open the door for telling a lie because there are just too many exceptions.

 

I think I was trying to point out that there are forms of jazz and performances in jazz where the song takes a backseat to the performance of the solo. So making a blanket statment that the solo has to ALWAYS serve the song is not true in every example and certainly not true or may not mainly be true in certain genres, especially hard straight ahead jazz. Miles Davis Quintets come to mind, as do the various ensembles of Coltrane; even Jarrett and some of Chick Corea, Sonny Rollins, etc.. It goes on and on.

 

But pop music is different. The problem with talking about music is there is no reference point unless it is heard. I could play many, many examples, but I can't.

[D_dup3]

I'd like to backtrack a bit in order to reply to some particular points (& bring up a side question).

Excuse me if some things seem backdated or obvious.

 

In editing out a double post, I realized I'd failed to mention a trivial but worthwhile fact.

Ted N. mentions Pete Townshend's idea that loud electronic music adds harmonics/overtones.

This is certainly true as can be attested by anyone who watched him play "lead" solos featuring sounds that were beyond the simple chords he was fingering. I guess this is akin to the sounds created by those Tibetan monks & Tuvan singers. It's also a (much ignored) reason why loud players need to keep things "simpler". Even a slightly complex guitar chord with massive amplification is a big blur compared to how, say, Jim Hall would sound.

 

Henry mentioned Beethoven "crossing all his 't's"---but weren't some of his later compositions viewed suspiciously? So much so that some thought they were symptoms of his failing hearing ?(&, truth be told, I'm not enough of a Romantic scholar to know).

He also states that, "Music theory's importance..." is such that without it music "...wouldn't survive."

I'd like to connect that with Pauldil's point about story-tellers & changing grammer.

There's lots of music 'round they world with different theory or even no theory at all (!), further, European music theory(grammer) has not been constant. At many points it has "outlawed" things that were either common in contemporaneous popular/folk music or that became accepted by later schools.

After all the developements of the last 100 years or so (12-tone, various jazz idioms, etc.) there's a musical theory for anyone's choice...and beyond that there's the "rules are made to be broken' concept. I think theory is best used to teach rudiments rather than to channel composition's course.

 

Tusker mentions the divergence of popular music & art music. "Music with artistic aspirations strives for meaning & often sacrifices accessibility."

This is true but communication is an artistic aspiration, too. (BTW, he knows from another context that I deal with some "thick" music myself.)

 

Finally, I have a question regarding diminished chords:

Recently I came across a mention of a "dim.6" chord. No one seemed to know exactly what that meant.

In trying to find the intended chord, I experimented with several variations.

I understand how diminished chords are built (& that subject's been covered).

My question is this: If you add a note to either a diminished triad or a 4 note diminished chord. How is that best designated ?

For example, a chord pitched (low to high) [F-B-Ab-D] is easily identified by standard nomenclature.

If you add E [now,F-B-F-Ab-B-D-E] is that (depending on surrounding context, of course) Fdim(addmaj7)? Ddim9add9)? Or something else altogether ?

[Tedly Nightshade]

There are places where it gets pretty messy, and several ways of representing a chord may work, or may cause complete confusion.

There are definitely way more chords than the ones that have established names, especially when you get into clusters and that, notes all in a chromatic row.

 

I work with a gifted player who knows the theory well enough to improvise incredible colorful harmonic structures, using all the colors we've mentioned so far, but she can't handle the taxonomy, so I just write her things like E-G#-A#-D!

 

I didn't realize that the notorious flat 5 chord had that flat 7. Thanks for clearing that up, Henry, it was easy to understand your run through of full and half diminished chords, the notorious flat 5, and the dominant chords. That confirms my understanding of the usual names for those chords.None of that is new to me except the name of the flat 5 chord, which is one of my very favorites.

Nonetheless the way I usually use it I would call it a C7(no9)#11, and I would end up moving stepwise between the #11 (#4, really) and the 5. That's why I would call it a #4 or #11 as it is usually put. And I wouldn't scream if somebody blew a 9th over it. I would consider that a case of a chord Lydian Dominant mode, a mode of the good old harmonic minor scale.

I like Wagner way before me really dig those symetrical chords where you could be in more than one key at once, and maybe are!

I have a little bit for trumpet and vibes where the vibes crawl down chromatically from an F# flat 5 chord, as you describe it, no 9th, through Fnatch, E, Eflat, D, all flat 5 chords, to resolve to B minor with a major 7 (what do you call that? A "major minor chord" I've heard, seems inadequate). I am a sucker for that last chord!

I find both diminished and wholetone scales work well over those chromatic flat 5 chords.

That's sheer beauty to me. Funny to think it upset so many vocal people at one time.

I'm sure Bird uses it totally differently, what I do is more of a Debussy ripoff, all that parallel crawling around.

ii-V-I's been around since Haydn, but it's still not as intuitive to me as the modal stuff, however convoluted that may get!

 

Hendrix and Page have touched on many parts of all this "modern harmony" at a number of times, those are usually my favorite parts! But Parker set a standard for thorough knowledge of all combinations in all keys that still offers quite a number of unexplored vistas in a more electric/psychedelic setting. The methodical approach and discipline of many of the jazz players is really something to emulate.

 

And you know I think the magic of the jazz playing that moves me most is when a player can make an old song new again, often in a way very unlike the original or usual conception, and most importantly for me in an emotional way. Jeez, they gave Billie Holiday the absolute dregs, songs no one else could have salvaged, and she gave them meaning unanticipated by the writers of the songs.

 

Then there are the compositions of the jazz players themselves. Monk we haven't mentioned so far, but those puzzles are as fascinating as ever for me. There's a lot in something like Off-Minor that is impenetrable to me theoretically, but it sounds so right!

Ted

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by d:

Henry states that, "Music theory's importance..." is such that without it music "...wouldn't survive."

Did I SAY that? That sounds like sometihng taken completely out of context. I don't THINK that's what I meant at all.

 

a chord pitched (low to high) [F-B-Ab-D] is easily identified by standard nomenclature.

If you add E [now,F-B-F-Ab-B-D-E] is that (depending on surrounding context, of course) Fdim(addmaj7)? Ddim9add9)? Or something else altogether ?

 

I'd call that chord E7b9. Dim6 is just confusing. Call it Diminished, as in Cdim or the symbol is a little circle to the upper right.

[Tedly Nightshade]

On that flat 5, if you used an 11th, in C you'd have E F and Gflat all in a row! That's pretty kinky, I do think. Nonetheless I like it.

Ted

[pauldil]

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

If it has a minor third it's a "minor 7 flat 5", also called the HALF DIMINISHED chord, and differs from a full diminshed chord.

I had always used either name interchangably, but I just recently found out that the difference between a m7b5 and a half diminished is in the way they resolve. For example, an Em7b5 would resolve to an A7. If it resolved to any other chord, it would be called a half diminished.

 

Is TamingIngrid is still there?

 

Paul

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by pauldil:

I had always used either name interchangably, but I just recently found out that the difference between a m7b5 and a half diminished is in the way they resolve. For example, an Em7b5 would resolve to an A7. If it resolved to any other chord, it would be called a half diminished.

Where did you hear that?

[henryrobinett]

Here it was regarding theory:

 

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

But even at that you must HEAR it in order to make it music. Music is NOT theory. Theory is simply the thought behind how music is constructed. If it weren't so the music wouldn't survive. There'd be nothing musical enough to hang your hat on. It has to have musical validity.

What I was saying was that theory is not some academic exercise divorced from actual music. You can go intellectually as far out on a limb as possible, but if it has no relationship to actual music it has no validity. It's music first and theory later. Theory is HOW music is made. If the music were all theory alone, exercises in intellectual futility, the MUSIC itself wouldn't survive. OR it could be theory first but it MUST become music, melody, emotion, vision, something that can communicate without the audience having to be aware of these theorems.

[pauldil]

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

Originally posted by pauldil:

I had always used either name interchangably, but I just recently found out that the difference between a m7b5 and a half diminished is in the way they resolve. For example, an Em7b5 would resolve to an A7. If it resolved to any other chord, it would be called a half diminished.

Where did you hear that?

Whenever I go on vacation, I always take a guitar and something to work on. This last April, I was working on a Johnny Smith tune with dturner on another thread, so I took "The Complete Johnny Smith Approach to Guitar", which I've had for probably 25 years, but had never opened it. That's where I read that.

 

Paul

[Tusker]

On the naming of m7b5 and half diminisheds.....

 

I generally find it helpful to be able to interchange names. That may be the writer's perspective, as opposed to the giggers perspective. The gigger might have to call for drop-two voicing on a chord and want it strictly adhered to by the horns.

 

I agree that Em7b5 is a good name for a chord that runs the cycle of fifths...Em7b5, A7, Dm7b5, G7, ... even simply because it calls to mind the literature that uses that.

 

In a pop/gospel idiom I would argue for calling it Em7b5 when it doesn't resolve to A7..... as in D, Em7b5, D/F#, Gm...because it's a variation of the classic D, Em, D/F#, G and calls that tradition to mind.

 

In a more chromatic (let's just call it classical) progression, you might want to call it by the half diminished name.. take this modulation from Bm to Bbmajor you might have Bm, Em, Em7b5, F#/E, Bb/F, F7, Bb. In this case, the Em7b5 recalls a classical tradition of pivoting on a diminished chord to change keys. Though one could also argue that calling it by the minor flat5 name recalls some george harrison'ish progressions.

 

I guess I'd like for a writer to realize that the two chords are really the same, so that the individual can find more uses for it. (Minor 6ths and minor flat 5's are my favorite chords actually.) Precision being the enemy of expression in this case.

 

Cheers,

 

Jerry

[Tusker]

Originally posted by d:

Tusker mentions the divergence of popular music & art music. "Music with artistic aspirations strives for meaning & often sacrifices accessibility."

This is true but communication is an artistic aspiration, too.

True enough D. It's all communication. I think the contrast I would draw is between easily accessible communication and meaningful communication.

 

I think of the following factors as evidence of someone reaching for meaning rather than accesibility:

 

- Use of metaphor rather than literalism

- Attempts to re-structure the experience (playing with form, texture, role, etc.) rather than working within a current tradition

- Attempts to say things previously unsaid

 

If I single out metaphor (e.g. "you are my sunshine") ...... it lends itself to powerful, but abstract thoughts and feelings. The price you pay is abstraction... which reduces accessibility. As I said there are artists who achieve both very well and with a high signal to noise ratio in their communication. If we don't frame things broadly ... we will not have any mechanism to go beyond statements like:

 

"Leads are dead. Rhythm rules."

"Jazz is about soloing. Rock is about the song."

 

.... which contain assumptions about context and how accessible or meaningful music should be.

 

Regards,

 

Jerry

[pauldil]

If you take the GH from lauGH, the O from wOmen, and the TI from naTIon, you have GHOTI, which would be pronounced FISH. OK, not really, but that bit of 3rd grade spelling humor just shows that there are a lot of ways to look at things.

 

When I read about the m7b5/half-dim in Johnny Smith's book, I just though to myself that you could look at the chord as a minor 7th with a b5 or as a diminished triad plus a b7, and that depending on that, you would call it one or the other. It's the same chord regardless, so it really doesn't matter, but I just thought it was interesting because I had never thought about there being a difference. I'll probably still call it a m7b5 no matter what.

 

Paul

[Tedly Nightshade]

The nomenclature is problematic, look at the example given that Henry said he would call E7flat9, which was voiced as described with an F (the flat 9) in the bass, and who knows the context or where it was going? Nonetheless E7flat9 is the most straightforward way to describe that chord- although my Beatles songbook would have said Fdim/E. When it gets to where you don't know what the root of the chord is, or it's function, you have to let something slide and just choose whatever is quickly intelligible to the reader

 

I think accessibility happens when the performer(s) has a crystal clear vision of what they are creating.

I've seen random audiences fail to get into something really straightforward and no suprises, if the performer's a bit murky on some of the timing details, for instance, or just doesn't have a lucid vision of it just then.

And I've seen random audiences spellbound by performers who had such a crystal vision of the art that the audience could just step right in, like a clean inviting house that's clearly architecturally sound and elegant.

My goal is to make the premises that open and inviting to the audience, and if that's the case metaphor will be just fine, or whatever eccentric thing.

Ted

[henryrobinett]

Interesting. I've always used the two interchangably. That chord Dizzy and Monk used to call in the early be-bop days and inverted minor 6th chord with the 6th in the bass. Standardization of these terms has been slow coming. It's the iiø chord of the harmonic minor and this is where it's mainly referenced. It's also the viiø chord of the major scale and the viø chord of the melodic minor. Chords come from scales and it's easier and proper to think of them as referring to them.

 

Ted, yes. Clarity in thinking is so important in communicating, be it conversation or music, or whatever! To have more clarity one needs more certainty and less confusion. Just my two cents!

[Nollykin]

I cant play lead for bonkers.

 

I've spent too much time on Chords, and I find myself getting frustrated with solos - because I cannot play them. I cant even keep up a simple 2 string repetition... I have trouble hitting the right strings.

 

Which is a problem.

 

But I'll sort it.

 

Anyone got any pointers?

 

Nolly

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by Nollykin:

I cant play lead for bonkers. (snip)

 

Anyone got any pointers?

Practice! Just keep trying. That old adage, 'pratice makes perfect' is the universal solvent for almost all things musical.

[Skip_dup1]

take four strings off the guitar, play yer face off, then start to put them back on one at a time, as you get comfortable. You can keep a separate cheapo guitar aside just for that purpose.

[Jedi]

Do your scales. Do a helluva lot of scales. That will get the technique and strength down. Do scales while you're watching TV, do them when you're on the phone, Do them anytime your hands are free. Start off slow and deliberate, slow and deliberate, the speed will come later. And make sure you can go up and down the fretboard with one scale. Pentatonic minor is a easy one to start with, especially if you play Rock.

 

And noodle sometimes, ya know. Play within a scale and do some riffs, bass lines, 12 bar-blues.

 

Go for it, Nolly.

 

Jedi

[pauldil]

Nolly, consider getting a beginning guitar book like the Mel Bay Modern Guitar Method. It starts you out playing a few notes on each string and works up from there. I started with that book 36 years ago and I know a lot of others who started with it too. And Henry is absolutely right. There is no substitute for practice. Remember, the more you do something, the better you get, and the better you get, the more fun it is, and the more fun it is, the more you do it, and the more you do it, the better you get... you get the idea.

 

Paul

[Mile]

Originally posted by dblackjedi:

Do your scales. Do a helluva lot of scales. That will get the technique and strength down. Do scales while you're watching TV, do them when you're on the phone, Do them anytime your hands are free. Start off slow and deliberate, slow and deliberate, the speed will come later. And make sure you can go up and down the fretboard with one scale. Pentatonic minor is a easy one to start with, especially if you play Rock.

 

And noodle sometimes, ya know. Play within a scale and do some riffs, bass lines, 12 bar-blues.

 

Go for it, Nolly.

 

Jedi

That's exactly what I've been telling my students. Scales should come from fingers, not from brains. That way you can easily improvise without thinking about whether the next tone should be played on 5th or 6th fret Do scales while watching TV! And don't think about them, while you're doing them.

[Nollykin]

Yes - I guessed that would be tha answer Yeah, I do need to practice hehe. But ah, I'll get there. Thanks guys

 

Nolly

 

(PS: Dont mind me, continue your discussion )

[whitefang]

Originally posted by Nollykin:

I cant play lead for bonkers.

 

Nolly

So what?

 

But if it means that much to you, listen to what was said up there! Scales, and any other excersize that works the fingers and explores the fingerboard helps. That Mel Bay "modern" system is far from modern, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

 

Nobody really comes by playing lead naturally. Takes that practice, practice, practice!

 

Whitefang

[henryrobinett]

A major part of it is just coordination. And I'm not the most coordinated person you'll ever meet. So it's one part physical dexterity. This can easily be addressed through practicing scales and exercises. This is heavy repetition. The other part is "data" - like what you might be playing or basing your playing on. The information you draw upon to play. This is wider and can be inclusive of learning licks, listening to performances, learning solos and/or "lines" and learning theory and just plain improvising on tunes, to "noodling", to living. Once you learn a solo, lick, theory device you burn it into your fingers and doing that will burn it into your mind or "being". It's called practicing. Repetition.

 

The more you do the above the better you get. It's hours logged on the things you need to work on + ability + desire + the energy of the being him/herself that make a good musician. A problem is just KNOWING what to work on.