|
|
#46
12-31-2012, 07:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
JonPR, if your system works for you, that's awesome. If mine works for me, that's awesome too. The way my brain is wired your approach actually seems more complex, and mine seems simpler - to me. For me, "A Harmonic Minor" doesn't invoke an E7 chord with a b9b13 like "E Phrygian Dominant" does. You obviously see it in reverse. But the fact that we approach it differently is OK.
I know a guy with an 8th grade education who is a millionaire. I know another guy with an MBA who is a millionaire. Both guys have been successful but have traveled different paths to get there. Both have unique insights into business - which are different and unique. The same holds with making music - we're each going to approach it a bit differently. Rather than consume space here on my post, I'd like to submit the following links to my blog posts for anyone who may be interested. These deal deal with our paths to becoming better musicians and the value - and detriments - of focusing on theory. You certainly don't have to read them all (but if you do want to the entire blog it's HERE. These hopefully will clarify my approach to playing that may remove some of the dryness from the discussion of music theory. It's called MUSIC THEORY, not MUSIC FACT because it's never been proven Practice With Your Mind - Perform With Your Heart Exercising vs. Playing Time Traveling With Your Guitar Don't Ask Me How Little You Should Learn - Learn All That You Can The bottom line is to find that approach that works for YOU. Again we are all different and think and learn differently. BTW, we are in complete agreement with the following quote from your post. I've just found that for me engrafting lots and lots of modes and arpeggios into my hands and thinking of the notes in a mode as CHORD TONES and/or passing tones makes the approach below that much EASIER, and that as a result of knowing my way around the fretboard better than I used to (as a result of getting this theory into my subconscious) that I tend to come up with more interesting ideas than I used to. Its certainly not a formula that everyone should follow - it's just what works for me. Quote:
Last edited by 815C; 12-31-2012 at 07:35 AM. 
|
|
#47
12-31-2012, 09:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This really isn't about systems anyway, or what we choose to call what we play (you say tomato, I say - er - tomato  ). It's about the best usage of conventional music theory terms, in a way that best communicates what's happening in music, and/or best explains connections. (And of course we only need such terms if we want to talk about what it is we're playing. We can play well enough without any theory terms at all.)When you say "E phrygian dominant", that's a good name for how the scale (those 7 notes) works on an E7 chord. (Well, it's a good name if one already knows what both "phrygian" and "dominant" mean  .)When I say "A harmonic minor" I'm referring to the derivation of the notes, and the likely tonal scenario. (And - as above - for that to make sense one needs some background knowledge, in this case of how minor keys work .)"E phrygian dominant" - IMO - is appropriate for any context where E is the clear tonal centre. That's often the case in flamenco. It's arguably the case if the chord lasts as long as it does in "All Of Me"; 2 bars should be enough to give that sound. But your other "system" (altering the C major scale to accommodate the E7, ie just raising the G to G#) is also a good method, requiring no knowledge of either harmonic minor or the names of any of its modes! As I explained, I like to think in terms of the big picture: 2 or 3 chords at a time, rather than each chord individually. I like to look at what's common between the chords, and what's different. To me, looking at individual chord-scales is like not seeing the wood for the trees. It's too much detail. But I accept this is all personal preference .Thanks for the links, I'll give them a read. (As you say later, we're in agreement about general principles.)
|
|
#49
12-31-2012, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Bought Levine's book 15 years ago, and - as a relative beginner at jazz theory - was highly impressed. Firstly, as far as I knew, it really was "THE Jazz Theory Book" - no others around. Second, the wealth of illustrative quotes from recorded jazz solos made it seem extremely authoritative. (Not to mention the mind-boggling list of recommended recordings; I felt my life was too short to ever listen to all those...) Third, I was impressed with the notion that a scale and chord were just different aspects of the same thing, a pitch collection. I liked that fluid blurring of boundaries. Fourth, I liked his writing style, and the accessible design of the book - very readable. However, I never managed to apply any of his ideas to my playing. To be honest I didn't try very hard, for two reasons: (1) I was somewhat set in my ways then, having been an improviser (in gigging bands in jazz, blues, rock and folk) for over 25 years. I knew how to play satisfying solos on just about anything. I didn't think I knew everything, far from it. But I felt able to fake things pretty well. IOW, while I felt my theory was lacking, I didn't feel my ability to improvise was (much). (2) With the jazz tunes we were studying in those classes, I couldn't quite see how the concepts applied. Or, if I could, they didn't add anything to what I already knew. Eg, if I saw a maj7#11 chord, I knew the 5 notes in it (1-3-#4-5-7), and what the other 2 scale notes were likely to be. It didn't help me much to know that was called a "lydian" scale. Still, I did find the book intellectually stimulating, and (to be fair) I have yet to work my way properly through the chapters on reharmonisation. There is definitely gold in there. But then some years later, I began lurking on allaboutjazz's theory pages, http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/forumdisplay.php?f=34 and read Ed Byrne's ideas. http://byrnejazz.com/ Everything he said make perfect sense, exuded experience and authority, and - unlike Levine - it resonated with the way I'd always thought: the strategies I'd developed over the years through simply copying what I heard jazz musicians doing. (I never had any "theory" of improvisation; I just copied what I heard - not note-for-note rip-offs of other solos, of course, just the methods, attitudes, approaches. Easy.) When I'd read Levine, I'd been ready to receive a "proper" jazz education, to fill in all the holes in my playing, to give me a firm, deep, theoretical foundation; but - for all its inspirational content - I didn't find that in his book. Byrne, OTOH, made me realise my approach pretty much aligned with the conventional jazz approach anyway. I'd known more than I thought. (I still had lots to learn, but I was on the right track.) At around the same time, I found a convincing critique of Levine by Robert Rawlins. http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.00....1.rawlins.html He pointed out all the theoretical concepts Levine had omitted. This hadn't worried me, because I took most of those things for granted anyhow (functional harmony, keys). But it made me realise that Levine's book wasn't "The" Jazz Theory Book. It was just "A" Jazz Theory Book. Nothing really wrong with it; it was just one guy's perspective, and very much focussed on modal jazz and chord-scale theory, which - I was beginning to realise - was controversial. I later bought Rawlins' own book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jazzology-En.../dp/0634086782 This certainly covered lots that Levine didn't. However, it was flawed in its own way: 1. No quotes from recordings. All the musical examples were written by the authors. A serious drawback, IMO. 2. Less well designed, less well written, harder to get into. (YMMV there of course). 3. Uninspiring. (Again YMMV - maybe just because I knew most of it already.) In short, Levine's book has much to recommend it (at least for intermediate jazz musicians), but it's important to realise its angle and its limitations. I'd balance it with something like Rawlins, or maybe one of Bert Ligon's books (which I haven't read, but have read enough about to know they offer a usefully different perspective). Such as: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Connecting-C...6982432&sr=1-1 And for something really practical, Jerry Coker: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Improvising-...ref=pd_sim_b_2
|
|
#50
12-31-2012, 05:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
815C
'All of me' is a nice choice, however I do get this sinking sense of deja vu when I see that first C6 chord. It's some years now since I last improvised in a band, so what follows is from memory rather than current practice. For the first 8 bars my approach would be pretty much the same as you describe. However after that I would expect to continue more or less in the same fashion. When that second E7 comes along there is a sense of change in the melody and I'd like to think that I would reflect that in what I played but it wouldn't change the way I thought. It is difficult to describe exactly what I would be thinking. There has to be an awareness of the chord sequence and one's position in it and at the back of my mind somewhere would be the melody. A memory of what I've already played and a plan of what to do with what was coming up would also be there. There would be no time to think about modes. Along with the knowledge of the chord sequence there would be the awareness of which notes of the major scale need to be changed to fit the current and coming chords. There's always a kind of library of licks or favourite phrases, tricks, slights, quotes and sometimes jokes available as needed. And then there's the emotional content on top. I liked jazz up to Bee Bop and Cool. It started out as good time music and blues. Music of the heart rather than the mind. Maybe it's a cyclical thing and will change again but right now jazz seems to be more about technical ideas rather than emotions. As I see it, it has become the opposite of what it was when it started and it doesn't give me what early jazz still does. Here's another idea that came from this thread. 'All of me', or any other song for that matter, is a combination of words melody and harmony. The more you mess with these three the farther you go from the heart of the song. So by the time you get to improvising to 'All of me' you've lost the words, you've lost the tune and in the case of jazz quite often you have lost the original harmonies. That's a long way from home. My preference these days is to arrange the tune on guitar, and work out accompaniments for me to attempt to sing to. Come summer I hope to find some sessions at festivals and try stuff out. Gout, rhumatism and arthritus allowing. Cheers.
|
