开云体育

Try playing the chord progressions for the 2 tunes you mentioned using just the 3rd and 7th, all the way through, i.e. just using 2-note chords. I found this a really good way to get the essential notes (chord tones) of the harmonic progression 'in my head' so to speak. Try to do it with the minimum movement between the chord shapes - often just one note will change, and only by a semitone. Even an apparently complex progression like 'All the Things You Are' sounds a lot simpler after you've played it this way. If it sounds odd, you can add the root of each chord to begin with, but eventually you should play it with just 3rd and 7th, but still hearing the root note in your head.

If you do this long enough, the most important chord tones will sound in your head as you play the tune. Eventually to me they seem like 'harmonic colours' and I don't even think much about the chord or note names by this stage. (I don't like getting too hung up on theory for this stuff!)

Then you can start to build up phrases based on these chord tones. Listen to how the great players play those 2 tunes and try to copy and absorb some of their phrases into your playing. This should give you some ideas how to smoothly voice lead from one chord to the next.

Graham

John I guess my description of an arpeggio is not as literal as what I am actually describing that I'm working on.

I'm hearing a lot of arpeggio content in your solos on your posted tunes. If I didn't it would be sounding totally new and unusual to me. It isn't. Very nice but not in any way harmonically different from what a lot of jazz guitarists have done in the last 50 years and continue to do every day, as with pianists etc.

It is not a situation of running through the changes using all the notes of the arpeggio in a strict order that I'm trying to practice, but rather using chord tone groups that are part of the arpeggio - but rarely starting on the root of the chord and often only using three or four notes of that chord in a way that connects to the chord before it and one after it. There is logical sound to what most improvisers are doing. There are not infinite kinds of chord progressions nor or there infinite combination of those chord tones within most solos. 90% of the jazz guitarists I hear on recordings and live have a remarkable overlap in their soloing content. To me only about 10% sound really outside the norm, and even great guitarists I listen to are not that unique in their approach to musical lines, just a lot more flexible and witty in their choices in the moment and with a deeper understanding of the possibilities. Joe Pass, Wes, and people like that are exceptions and transcend any description because of an amazing sense of time.



--- In jazz_guitar@..., JVegaTrio@ wrote:

Hi John,

I hope you won't mind some additional comments, and perhaps a different
point of view...

"When one is improvising over a series of changes, no matter what you want
to call it, you are inevitably playing fragments of arpeggios of that
chord....which connects to fragments of the next chord."

Nope, "arpeggios" are chords that are sounded note by note, improvised
solos are linear musical statements. At certain times, a player may choose to
play an arpeggio in a solo, but this is the exception rather than the norm.

"Once you have these seamless series of arpeggios worked out THEN you can
be creative, stress any kind of melody note if you need to or use and
extended chord tone you want as an embellishment."

If this is true (I don't agree), then how would explain the choice of
"non-arpeggio/chord" tones in a solo? Note choice is not about
"embellishment", it is (to me, as I stated previously) about making a musical statement.
Done right (see my statement about rhythm/phrasing below) there are no
"wrong" notes in jazz improvisation.

"It isn't rocket science and it isn't even art but hear it EVERYWHERE from
Joe Pass and Wes Montgomery to Metheny and Frisell and it is the
foundation or road map to place your own content into."

I'd venture to say that "EVERYWHERE" is a bit broad, but the foundation of
any great player's approach is inevitably the fact they've spent countless
hours playing and (most importantly) listening; every great player hears
what he/she is playing, it's not necessarily built on a "system" (except
perhaps something like Ornette Coleman's "Harmolodics", with which I'm not
familiar.) George Russell came up with something called the "Lydian Chromatic
Concept" trying to explain an approach to jazz improvisation and it's
pretty much fallen by the wayside. Someone else mentioned Mick Goodrick, and
while I'm sure he knows tons of stuff, and is a decent player, his "Mr.
Goodchord" book is (to me) kind of a waste, and his playing doesn't move me
much...

"Most of these books make it so damn opaque and I think half of them do it
on purpose to sound more sophisticated than they really are."

I don't think so; the reason they're so "opaque" is because they try to use
words to explain sounds, and that's already flawed. When Pat Metheny
gives clinics, attendees inevitably complain, because he talks in abstract
(you'd say "opaque") terms about music, where what these people want is a
"cookie-cutter" approach to Pat's playing. Playing jazz well is frickin' hard,
and a lot of times the knowledge won't be found in a book; if it were,
everybody'd be able to do it pretty easily.

"Horn players are taught this stuff from the very beginning. Guitarists
often are almost never taught it in a clear way."

Horn (particularly saxophone) players work on arpeggios a lot because it's
characteristic of the instrument, not because it's useful for jazz
improvisation. A song like "Donna Lee" is quite a finger-bender on guitar, but
not particularly difficult on the sax; you're making an "apples/oranges"
comparison...

"Again, it has noting to do with creativity, just seamless harmonic
movement. The thing great musicians do from total instinct that is so difficult
for me."

You can have "seamless harmonic movement" without a shred of creativity,
just string a bunch of arpeggios together... The "instinct" possessed by
great musicians comes from lots of practicing, and more importantly, lots of
listening and "hearing" what they play. If it's difficult for you,
consider taking lessons from a jazz musician (not necessarily a guitar player) who
should be able to help you get closer to what you want. For instance, one
of the things that is critical to playing jazz is rhythm/phrasing, and I
don't think you've addressed this in your own playing. Apologies in advance
if I'm incorrect.

John Coltrane came to L.A. many years ago, and a fan and virtuoso classical
pianist named Zita Carno met him at a social event. Ms. Carno told Trane
she'd transcribed one of his solos, and asked him if he'd play it for her.
Trane took out his horn, looked at the transcription, and started to play;
after a few measures, he stopped, gave the music back to Zita Carno and
said, "I can't play this, it's too hard"(!). True story; when he played,
Trane was using his facility on the instrument to channel his creativity. We
all strive to do this as players, and one of the best ways is to not only
practice "formulaic" things, but to really try to hear what we play. As we
progress, the linkage between creativity and musicality becomes more
accessible, and things flow better.

I'm not trying to "pick a fight" or anything, but I sense your frustration
is because you're making what I think is a flawed connection between what
great jazz guitarists play, and arpeggios. Either way, if your way works
for you, then go for it, although I sense that's not the case. I still think
hooking up with a good teacher would be helpful for ya, but follow your
muse, my friend. Anyway, good luck!

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 11/5/2010 9:28 AM, musicmaker1245 wrote:

In another thread the 10,000 hours was quoted, so for fun I just did
the maths. If you are dedicated and do 1 hour/day for 365 days then
after 5 years you will have done 1825 hours. To reach 10,000 hours it
will take 27 years. 2 hours a day 13 years. Maintaining that
consistency will be hard for most people, so a few more years probably
needs to be added on.

Divide by at least 6 to 10, at least if you are dealing with either me
or other serious musicians. You obviously don't kone what "shedding" means!

Bobby

I remember when 8 hours a day was the norm for me - but that certainly is no
longer the case.? I have family and other responsibilities now.? And the quality
of practice can suffer with so many things vying for attention - kids,
maintaining a house, even spending time reading?the posts to?this group.? But
that poses a good question.....

How many hours a day is everyone?on this group?typically practicing guitar?? (To
be clear, practice would be defined as focused, undivided attention on the
instrument - not that musicianship can't be developed in other ways, but that is
not the question)

Regards,

Vince