开云体育

I'm working on Vol. 1, track 2 as well. I'm a total beginner, so I

can't

offer any advice, but basically I've been running scales, chords
against those trackes. Before I even pick up my instrument I

practice

singing the scales and chords w/the track, bc I
want to make sure that anything my fingers play I hear in my head

first.


I just have to say this is an amazing posting. I learned to play
guitar by picking the coolest riffs and phrases from guitar magazine
tabs and learning to play them fast... Forget about singing the
notes, I just wanted to sound cool! I'm sure there are many
guitarists like that.

All week, I have been attending this improvising workshop (more free
improv type stuff) with many saxophone and other horn players,
bassists and guitarists. One of the first improvising exercises is
for one person to do a short phrase and others to mimick it.
I can't tell you how hard this is and embarassing it is when you
can't do it (even a simple 3 note phrase) ! It's one thing to play
along records or TV because usually once you figure out the key, the
rest is easy, but in the above exercise, no key is given, and these
sax players don't blow phrases from any specific scale! (also,
mimicking phrases back and forth during jam sessions are not so
difficult because you are usually in a given key, or progression).

What was totally obvious from this exercise is that NONE of the
guitarists can play what they hear because none were even close to
getting the first note right... Since I have OK relative pitch,
once I play one note, I can sort of get the rest because I know where
my note is versus the notes I'm supposed to play.

Anyway, it is obvious to me that a sax player wouldn't think of
playing what they're not 'hearing'. All of them get the first note
right on. (Steve Coleman, one of the teachers tells students to
learn to SING Charlie Parker solos before trying to play it on the
sax!)

This does not necessarily require perfect pitch though, because
before the exercise, you can hit a note and hold it in your head
(nobody in the workshop felt they had perfect pitch, even though
their pitch seemed perfect to me!)...

Because of all this I am going through now, this message just totally
blew me away. My first thought was jeez... if I did that when I
started to play in high school, where would I be now?.... wow...

Anyway, ear training (not necessarily perfect pitch, but more melody
retention/ability to repeat) is now a much higher priority than it
was a week ago...

I am happy to see such maturity and foresight from a 'beginner'.

Ken

Hi Dan, Louis Stewart is from Southern Ireland. He is doinga gig next week in
North Wales as part of the North Wales Summer Jazz School.

Also appearing are: Jack Wilkins, Randy Johnston, Jimmy Bruno, Fapy Lafertin,
Gary Potter and Adrian Ingram.

Best Regards

Vernon Fuller

Thanks,
I appreciate your comments..
So, to me it seems it is essential and necessary to learn (this
approach(arps and scales) to be able to use them, and at the same
time to eventually be free of the constraints of all the specific
notes. i.e. so that approach notes, passing tones and chromaticism
can come in to play.
For where I am now it seems really necessary to do this as I wont
necessarily think of the sounds of superlocrian over a given chord
unless I work for awhile on those particular notes..

I expect that over time it will be as obvious to my as ears as
playing pentatonic minor rock/blues riffs.

Seems like some of the best advice I've heard on developing lines is
to sing along with what you are playing(or play what you are singing)
so the lines are in your head first and your fingers arent just
playing patterns..Seems Joe Pass and Herb Ellis both mentioned this
in some of their instructional vids.
I also heard it from Jay Roberts(son of Howard Roberts) at my first
lesson with him. When I went back for the second lesson he noticed I
wasn't singing along with my playing...."Gottcha!!"

workin on it:-),
Eddie

--- In jazz_guitar@y..., "Zeek Duff" <zkduff@q...> wrote:

Laying various scales over something just because they fit
the math/mode is mechanical BS, and is forgetting the only
reason to know them at all is to contain the ability within
one's palette to play what taste and desire dictate in the
mind as appropriate; or to be able to play what's already
been written. Otherwise, you're simply generating nonsense a
trained monkey could reproduce...

I think you're painting this too much as a black/white kind of issue.
For example, let's say someone can hear the melodies they want to
play in their head but only to within a 7-tone-per-octave resolution.
Working through some possibilities for chord/scale relationships will
help you put your fingers in the right place as these ideas flow out
of your head. Of course, once you're experienced enough with this,
you'll find that there are times you want to play the "wrong" notes,
and you'll stop relying on the theory because your head/hands will
immediately be able to serve your aural imagination. But you have to
learn to walk before you can run!

Most of the "fake book" and even a lot of sheet music
transcriptions have huge gaps, mistakes, and may even be
someone's other than the composer's "common" interpretation.
So, if you can find an author's recording of the original to
compare with the charts, that's the most "honest" and
complete approach, IMO. Then, you can HEAR the subtle
nuances and ways the melody falls on chords and it's
relationship to them. THEN fill work may be added or not, to
achieve a truly memorable essence, keeping all of the
original appeal intact. :)

Very true . . . many standards became famous precisely because of the
magic, un-notatable nuances of the original recordings.

Hi Dave,

Sounds like you've got it! Isn't music just fascinating?

--- In jazz_guitar@y..., Graham Cox <jazzguitar@o...> wrote:

Hi,

All your choices are good, to them you could add:

Altered (or Super Locrian) [...] for 7b9

Actually this is what he was doing: the melodic minor scale built a
half-step above the tonic _is_ the altered or super-locrian scale.

Use arpeggios as a major part of the tool box as opposed to purely

thinking

scales.

Very important -- that is, think about all the arpeggios you can
derive from the scales, regardless of whether they have much to do
with the underlying chord -- the logic will often still carry
through! For this approach, using scales without "avoid notes" will
work better, so use Lydian instead of major, etc.

See if diminished scales work for you over those 7b9 chords . . . or
harmonic minor scales based on the tonic they will resolve to . . .
it never hurts to add to your bag of tricks . . .

--- In jazz_guitar@y..., "Deolindo Casimiro" <dcasimiro@h...> wrote:

From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>

You can use the diminished scale in almost any tune . . . even over
the tonic chord.

Paul, could you please elaborate?

For example, if the tonic chord is a Cm7 chord, the half-whole
diminished scale (aka symmetrical octatonic scale) will fit:

C C# Eb E F# G A Bb
- -- - --

If the tonic chord is a C6 chord, again this scale will fit. Also a
Cm6, or C7. Or any of these chord types over Eb, F#, or A, due to the
symmetry of the scale.

I've heard a lot of jazz players do this sort of thing. Adds color to
a solo (use heptatonic scales most of the time, but on some returns
to the tonic, go octatonic).


Another great "synthetic" scale is the augmented, or symmetrical
hexatonic, scale. Though not a "standard" jazz scale, it's a great
way to get an "otherwordly" sound without clashing with the
underlying chord. For example, over a Cmaj7 chord, the scale fits:

C Eb E G Ab B
- - - -

It also fits over a Cmin(maj7) chord, and over simple major and minor
triads. Also over any of these chord types over E or Ab (due to the
symmetry of the scale). John Scofield likes to use this scale,
especially over minor chords.

On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 barrettd@... wrote:

Is this a real bass
ackwards way to approach improvising or has everyone else already figured
this out and considers it too obvious to even mention?

Hey there,

I'm working on Vol. 1, track 2 as well. I'm a total beginner, so I can't
offer any advice, but basically I've been running scales, chords
against those trackes. Before I even pick up my instrument I practice
singing the scales and chords w/the track, bc I
want to make sure that anything my fingers play I hear in my head first.
After I'm done w/that, the scales and things I then start to improvise
little melodies.

I can't follow a lot of the technical discussions here,
but am learning a lot from you guys anyway.

Best,
Lynn

jazz_guitar@... wrote:

Message: 25
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 07:19:23 -0000
From: "Eddie" <eddie@...>
Subject: Re: Stella suggestions..


Anyone have comments on the way they approach and analyze a new tune?

I know sometimes it is a bad habit not to see it all the way thru the
first time but there is so much to work out and I find it more
inspiring to be working on many tunes simultaneously.

If it's appropriate and it seems it is...as I go thru the tunes in
more detail and finish at least a first analysis, I will post some of
my thoughts and folks can chime in with comments.

Thanks for the suggestion about looking at the actual notes in the
scale and how they relate to the chord of the moment...

I agree with and commend Mark Stanley's comments about
playing scales too much, to the detriment of his playing the
music, and I think his remarks bear repeating. Mark
brilliantly stated an epiphany: "I just think you have to be
careful about how you approach improvising. I really screwed
up my playing by practicing licks and scales all the time.
Guess what I played when I improvised.... I am glad that I
got the language down, because that's really important too,
but you have to work on just hearing and finding the sound
you are going for over the changes."

With that in mind, one would do well to remember that in
writing a "popular" song, an artist composed something with
certain things in mind to create a certain aesthetic, and it
became an appealing work of art. What caused that is
something contained within that makes it memorable, and I
believe that "something" is much more than a set of chord
changes to analyze in classic mathematical terms in order to
discover a number of scales which may be lain over them,
having nothing to do with the melody, intent, mood, beauty,
or actual accomplishment of the song's creator.

Without understanding the original arrangement in total, and
getting the feel for "the message," you may as well feed all
the data into a computer and hit "randomize." While that
might be fun and even interesting for a time, I seriously
doubt that technique would yield something very memorable.
After many years of listening and playing, I've determined
that the most pleasing and even most popular interpretations
of songs retain the intent of the original, even with some
very "outside" stuff that may at first appear quite
different. Yet, in listening closely or not, a mood is
conveyed true to the original, sometimes even improving it;
and even if changing it somewhat, emphasizing it.

With that in mind, I like to find and learn a version of the
original, in the style it was played (as closely as possible
for me), and THEN toy around with other ways to express the
same ideas; those variations often coming naturally, with
little or no effort. It's also become fairly easy for me to
write similar original music after such an accomplishment,
and even use the same tools to improve it (not as easily,
though) um, well, occasionally it's fairly easy... ;)

Laying various scales over something just because they fit
the math/mode is mechanical BS, and is forgetting the only
reason to know them at all is to contain the ability within
one's palette to play what taste and desire dictate in the
mind as appropriate; or to be able to play what's already
been written. Otherwise, you're simply generating nonsense a
trained monkey could reproduce...

Most of the "fake book" and even a lot of sheet music
transcriptions have huge gaps, mistakes, and may even be
someone's other than the composer's "common" interpretation.
So, if you can find an author's recording of the original to
compare with the charts, that's the most "honest" and
complete approach, IMO. Then, you can HEAR the subtle
nuances and ways the melody falls on chords and it's
relationship to them. THEN fill work may be added or not, to
achieve a truly memorable essence, keeping all of the
original appeal intact. :)

Far be it from me to suggest what anyone should play or
focus on in terms of taste, style, derivatives, or beauty.
At this point in my career, I'm just beginning to focus 40
years of professional playing experience into something
complete that makes sense for/to me. What I will offer is
this however; without an audience, I'm nothing. That means
people have to listen to what I perform and hopefully, enjoy
it. I've learned that some simple things such as a groove,
or a hook, lush chord work, or a beautiful line is much more
appealing to the masses than machine gunned rifs. Chet
Atkins is far more widely known than Al DiMeola, i.e.
Regardless, somewhere out there, is a spotlight for all of
us who sincerely work at developing our meager modicums of
talent...

Regards,
...z



"The magic of listening brings us closer to the central core
of the universe. To begin to comprehend... life, it is not
sufficient to touch and see."
-Yehudi Menuhin

-- =---Seek the truth, speak the truth!---= --

L.G. "Zeek" Duff
WHAT!Productions!
Blue Wall Studio
303.485.9438
ICQ#35974686

Hi!
I'm starting to do some duo stuff and i really want to put a more
modern sound in my conping, just like Mick
Goodrick/Rosenwinkel sound.
What kind of things can i do like for eg. improve the bass lines
and pedals.
So, thanks for your answers ( i expect receving a lot ).

Vitor
Portugal.

Thanx for all the hellos. Vancouver *is* a beautiful place. I am so
excited - this is my first digest and I already got some stuff I can use.
Thanx guys and gals.

Natalie Anne Lanoville

Dave, basically you're right. I NEVER think or hear scales when
playing jazz. I play substitute chords and reharmonize changes.
One word of caution.... the minute you learn a solo from ANY jazz
great your theory will be blown out of the water.
Heres my point. Learn two measures of a Charlie Parker, Stan Getz,
Wes, Joe Pass...I can go on all day. You will see all kinds of notes
which do not fall into major scale or other modes. Some notes are
passing tones, but many are deliberate. Over a dominant chord, most
bop players will play b9, #9 or b5 or # 5. These are accepted tensions
for dominant chords, these notes pull hard for resolution. Many of the
folks on this site will go into how these notes are blah blah harmonic
minor, locran whatever. I look at these as #9,b9,#5,b5, off the
arpeggio.
It sound like you are trying to simplify something that is already
simple. Im not sure if I made sense, Im rushing...

--- In jazz_guitar@y..., barrettd@l... wrote:

Hi All,

After a significant number of years playing rock/blues guitar as a

hobby

I've decided once again to dip my toes in the jazz waters. Way back

when I

was a teenager I took some jazz lessons and I think I did OK for a

teacher;

years later I've still got a copy of Melodic Rhythms for guitar,

Real Book

(Pacific Edition), and volume 1 of Mickey Baker. I've always been

stumped

when approaching improvising because it appears that you have to

learn

about 20 different arpeggios in 5 inversions each before you can do

much of

anything. Jerry Goldstein's site lists examples of 6 string

arpeggios in

god knows how many types for a few different positions.

On the strength of what people have said on this list I found a copy

of

volume 1 of the Aebersold books and dug in. The first thing I

noticed was

that Jamey concentrates on scales. What's this? Everyone knows

that most

jazz improvising is based on arpeggios, not scales! I forge on, on

the

assumption that perhaps he knows more about the subject than I. He

points

out (repeatedly) that a scale is basically an inverted chord and

once

you've added a 7, 9, 11 and 13 you've played the whole scale.

Eventually

the penny dropped on this one and now I get it.

So I'm working through the first track on the disk (after the tuning
notes!) and I've figured out some scale patterns (the track is eight

bars

each of F-, Eb- and D-) for F- and Eb- in eigth position and I'm

noticing

some familiarity here. So I poke around on the web and find

somewhere that

lists a bunch of major scale patterns and for the minor scales he

basically

says, "Surprise! Since relative minor scales use the same notes as

the

major scale you already know the minor scale patterns too." So I

take a

look at this on my guitar. I transpose my F- pattern down to A- and

check

it out. Hang on, its got a flat in it so something's going on here

and

it's not the same as C major.

Then I notice that my F- pattern is the same as an Eb Maj pattern

and the

second penny drops. I've been working with Dorian mode minor scales

(as

per the Aebersold book). Suddenly this mode stuff comes sharply

into

focus. Sure, we were taught about it in high school but I always

thought,

"so what? these are just major scales starting on the wrong note".

It

never occured to me to think of them as scales in their own right.

Then

another penny drops and I see that those other scales for dominant

and 7b5

chords are going to also be spins on the same patterns.

Now this changes things. Instead of having to learn a gazillion

arpeggios

in a gazillion inversions I've distilled the whole thing down to 5

scale

patterns (I know that Jerry Goldstein insists on 7 "easy to play"

patterns

but I don't see the last two, maybe later) which will have different
meanings depending on where you place the root note. What I need to

study

and internalize now is how those 5 patterns relate to the different

modes,

to get a feel for where the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th are going to fall.

All

the other chord extensions can be built on the fly because they are

just

scale notes.

Then the final penny drops. If you are playing something that is
completely diatonic, like a II-V7-I, all of the notes from each of

the

scales are going to fall not just in the same position, but in the

same

scale pattern and all you have to do is keep rotating the pattern

around in

your head to keep a handle on where the chord tones are going to

fall

through the changes. This seems to be a huge leap in thinking.

Instead

of jumping around from arpeggio to arpeggio and having to deal with
smoothing out the transitions, now you are playing within a single

scale

and simply shifting your note emphasis to follow the changes.

I made a chart with the five scale patterns I chose layed out beside

each

other, one row each for major, dorian and dominant with the same

pattern

repeated in each column. This way you can see exactly what I'm

talking

about. I posted it in the egroup files section:

.jpg

Of course, none of this addresses diminished, pentatonic or whole

tone

scales, but I'm going to master this stuff before I move on. In the
meantime, I'm interested in what you guys think. Is this a real

bass

ackwards way to approach improvising or has everyone else already

figured

this out and considers it too obvious to even mention?

thanx,
dave.
*8-o

Louis Stewart is a great player born in Waterford,
Eire (Ireland) and the last I heard still living around
the Dublin area in Eire! He plays regularly around the
area. With a name like Stewart he could come from Scotland.
Close but wrong country!

Alisdair MacRae Birch
Jazz Guitarist

Hi All,

After a significant number of years playing rock/blues guitar as a hobby
I've decided once again to dip my toes in the jazz waters. Way back when I
was a teenager I took some jazz lessons and I think I did OK for a teacher;
years later I've still got a copy of Melodic Rhythms for guitar, Real Book
(Pacific Edition), and volume 1 of Mickey Baker. I've always been stumped
when approaching improvising because it appears that you have to learn
about 20 different arpeggios in 5 inversions each before you can do much of
anything. Jerry Goldstein's site lists examples of 6 string arpeggios in
god knows how many types for a few different positions.

On the strength of what people have said on this list I found a copy of
volume 1 of the Aebersold books and dug in. The first thing I noticed was
that Jamey concentrates on scales. What's this? Everyone knows that most
jazz improvising is based on arpeggios, not scales! I forge on, on the
assumption that perhaps he knows more about the subject than I. He points
out (repeatedly) that a scale is basically an inverted chord and once
you've added a 7, 9, 11 and 13 you've played the whole scale. Eventually
the penny dropped on this one and now I get it.

So I'm working through the first track on the disk (after the tuning
notes!) and I've figured out some scale patterns (the track is eight bars
each of F-, Eb- and D-) for F- and Eb- in eigth position and I'm noticing
some familiarity here. So I poke around on the web and find somewhere that
lists a bunch of major scale patterns and for the minor scales he basically
says, "Surprise! Since relative minor scales use the same notes as the
major scale you already know the minor scale patterns too." So I take a
look at this on my guitar. I transpose my F- pattern down to A- and check
it out. Hang on, its got a flat in it so something's going on here and
it's not the same as C major.

Then I notice that my F- pattern is the same as an Eb Maj pattern and the
second penny drops. I've been working with Dorian mode minor scales (as
per the Aebersold book). Suddenly this mode stuff comes sharply into
focus. Sure, we were taught about it in high school but I always thought,
"so what? these are just major scales starting on the wrong note". It
never occured to me to think of them as scales in their own right. Then
another penny drops and I see that those other scales for dominant and 7b5
chords are going to also be spins on the same patterns.

Now this changes things. Instead of having to learn a gazillion arpeggios
in a gazillion inversions I've distilled the whole thing down to 5 scale
patterns (I know that Jerry Goldstein insists on 7 "easy to play" patterns
but I don't see the last two, maybe later) which will have different
meanings depending on where you place the root note. What I need to study
and internalize now is how those 5 patterns relate to the different modes,
to get a feel for where the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th are going to fall. All
the other chord extensions can be built on the fly because they are just
scale notes.

Then the final penny drops. If you are playing something that is
completely diatonic, like a II-V7-I, all of the notes from each of the
scales are going to fall not just in the same position, but in the same
scale pattern and all you have to do is keep rotating the pattern around in
your head to keep a handle on where the chord tones are going to fall
through the changes. This seems to be a huge leap in thinking. Instead
of jumping around from arpeggio to arpeggio and having to deal with
smoothing out the transitions, now you are playing within a single scale
and simply shifting your note emphasis to follow the changes.

I made a chart with the five scale patterns I chose layed out beside each
other, one row each for major, dorian and dominant with the same pattern
repeated in each column. This way you can see exactly what I'm talking
about. I posted it in the egroup files section:



Of course, none of this addresses diminished, pentatonic or whole tone
scales, but I'm going to master this stuff before I move on. In the
meantime, I'm interested in what you guys think. Is this a real bass
ackwards way to approach improvising or has everyone else already figured
this out and considers it too obvious to even mention?

thanx,
dave.
*8-o

Item # 1453149119 on ebay
Not trying to sell anything here, just wanted you all to be aware of
it since some recent posts have been asking about a good 'starter'
guitar.

Isn't Louis Stewart from there as well? I saw him last month in NY at
the Vanguard and he was as great as ever!

-Dan


--- In jazz_guitar@y..., "Alisdair MacRae Birch" <akmbirch@y...>
wrote:

Skantzos

There are quite a few good players and teachers to choose
from in the Edinburgh, UK area.

Try an old friend of mine Ged Brockie
You can mail him here - you will have to delete
the spaces in the address.

g.brockie @ blueyonder . co . uk

Also check out:



Alisdair MacRae Birch
Jazz Guitarist


--- In jazz_guitar@y..., skantzos1@y... wrote:

Does anybody know of any guitar teacher in Edinburgh, UK?
Does anybody know of any affordable flatwounds?
Cheers.

I've got an older style PolyTone Mini-Brute II that looks & works
like new. Home use only & non-smoking.

I'm not sure what size the speaker is but there are no covering rips
or faded material. Grill is black cloth. All looks/works as new.
(except the on/off mini-bulb is burned out) I've never figured out
how to replace it nor cared.

$300 to include shipping in the 48 states.

Jim Klein
jim.klein@...

Minneapolis Mn.

IMHO Mark's point about "such and such chord = such and such
scale" is a starting point and not the end story cannot be
over emphasised!

I agree with Mark that when you are really truely
improvising, you are not thinking of scales etc, but more
you are composing on the spot a nice melody or line which
tells a story.

In teaching, I find some people come to me knowing a
mountain of scales and theory, but they (and others have not
been too kind about their playing) are unhappy with their
playing.

One of things I have found very "freeing" for schooled
musicians is that I play some backing harmony, which I make
up on the spot, which makes sense musically and say is 16
bars long. I tell them the key signature only. I ask them to
improvise a line for two choruses choosing as many wrong
notes as they can! The beauty is that it is hard to do, our
ears instinctively wince when we play something unpleasant,
but the whole experience can free someone up to play "wrong
notes".

Next I ask them to try making up a line which sounds good
for two choruses and then back to a line which sounds bad
for two etc.

For some people being given the "permission" to play wrong
and without scales, to trust their ear can be be a freeing
experience! (And you'd be amazed at the number of people
who at first are completely terrified by not having a
chord chart and practiced their scales over those chords!)

Try it with Stella!

Alisdair MacRae Birch
Jazz Guitarist

Hello,
Thanks for the responses guys...
I have been working on many tunes..Autumn leaves, Blue Bossa, Girl
from Ipamema, Wave, How Insensitive, In a Sentimental Mood,
Reflections, All the things you are, and on and on just to mention a
few. I have a tendency to start working on a song when I go thru the
Real Book and hear how the melody flows with the chords and it really
catches my ear and brain.
It's hard to leave it alone, altho at my stage of analysis and
understanding, what I am doing is working on the parts of the verse
and bridge that seem more obvious first and then go away for a bit
and each time I go back I try to add another little section.

Anyone have comments on the way they approach and analyze a new tune?

I know sometimes it is a bad habit not to see it all the way thru the
first time but there is so much to work out and I find it more
inspiring to be working on many tunes simultaneously.

If it's appropriate and it seems it is...as I go thru the tunes in
more detail and finish at least a first analysis, I will post some of
my thoughts and folks can chime in with comments.

Yes, I recognize that Stella is a fairly deep tune...
There are several other tunes like Round Midnight,
and Body and Soul that I am eager to tackle as well.

Regarding my comment about using Dorian... I meant for the Cm7
sections to use C dorian, for the Dm7 measure-D dorian etc...
Is this whacked out or makes sense?
I had the understanding that in general, the appropriate dorian mode
over a min 7 chord makes good sense..

Thanks for the suggestion about looking at the actual notes in the
scale and how they relate to the chord of the moment..

thanks again,
Eddie

--- In jazz_guitar@y..., jazzgtr85@a... wrote:

its cool that u have started looking at some jazz charts. Have u

learned

many other standards yet? Stella is a pretty advanced song. My

suggestion

for playin over would be to learn the scales as if they were thier

own. Like

... instead of saying melodic min up a min 3rd, learn the scale and

the right

name. this will give u a clearer understanding of what ur doing!

I dont

think u can use dorian all the way through on the min 7 because it

changes

keys.

good luck