Definition - Playing the changes?

[Pualee]

I'm trying to improve (aren't we all) and I hear this idea of "playing the changes".

What does that mean exactly? Is that a way of phrasing... timing licks according to a change in the song... chord change, verse change, bridge, etc?

Is it a set of notes you target, again based on the chord change, or even a modal change?

When I improvise, I usually just play what I want (within a given scale)... I don't leave a lot of space. It gets old pretty fast. Think of a pop chord progression, like I vi IV V, and then playing the associated major (or minor) scale over it.

I'm trying to improve my phrasing and also better use target notes. I'm looking for ideas and hoping a definition of this term will help me refine how I play.

[Bikewer]

To my way of thinking, there are essentially two ways to improvise. "Over the melody" and "over the changes".
Improvising over the melody is straightforward, you play with the melody of the tune...making such changes and throwing in such figures as you find pleasing. (and hopefully, others do as well....)
Or, when playing over the changes, you adapt to each chord; playing licks, scalar runs, or arpeggios appropriate to each chord change.
Many jazz players do this, and considering the large number of chords in a typical arrangement, this requires an extensive knowledge of chord structure and scales.

The danger here....And I've heard this often....Is that the player ends up sounding rather as if he's playing exercises. A perfect little arpeggio for each chord change is a nice exercise, but it's not much musically.

[Pualee]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

To my way of thinking, there are essentially two ways to improvise. "Over the melody" and "over the changes".

Generally, if I am covering a song, I'll use either the melody, or the instrumentals from the song for a solo.

But if I am making something completely new, either for the song, or just jamming, I want something more interesting than just picking notes in a scale.

Originally Posted by Bikewer

The danger here....And I've heard this often....Is that the player ends up sounding rather as if he's playing exercises. A perfect little arpeggio for each chord change is a nice exercise, but it's not much musically.

And that is what I am trying to avoid. I want structure... but not too much Should I just lay down a backing track and practice various notes between the chord changes? Is that the best way to learn?

[Bingoccc]

I've always thought of "playing the changes" as just playing all the chords in a song. As opposed to doing a "fake" book or watered down version.

"Playing over the changes" I've taken to mean playing some type of enhancement or accompaniment to the song that follow the chords. A counterpoint to the melody or a more elaborate ornamentation of it.

[stanron]

Originally Posted by Pualee

I'm trying to improve (aren't we all) and I hear this idea of "playing the changes".

What does that mean exactly? Is that a way of phrasing... timing licks according to a change in the song... chord change, verse change, bridge, etc?

Is it a set of notes you target, again based on the chord change, or even a modal change?

When I improvise, I usually just play what I want (within a given scale)... I don't leave a lot of space. It gets old pretty fast. Think of a pop chord progression, like I vi IV V, and then playing the associated major (or minor) scale over it.

I'm trying to improve my phrasing and also better use target notes. I'm looking for ideas and hoping a definition of this term will help me refine how I play.

To me the phrase 'playing the changes' is referring to chord changes or, to put it another way, improvising in a way that respects the chord sequence.

The alternative of 'playing over the melody' means improvising by starting with the melody and developing variations from that. However if you do that without respecting the chord sequence you might not be too sucessful.

There are two distinct types of improvisation. One is the minor pentatonic blues scale type of improvising and the other is the melodic, shall we say European, style of improvising. They work to distinctly different rules. In blues improvising you don't have to respect the chords if you stick to the scale and play licks. In Melodic European improvising you modify what you play according to what chord exists at any particular time.

I'm reluctant to propose hard and fast rules here. Any rule can be broken by someone who knows what they are doing and can make it 'work'. That is make it sound musical. However here are a couple of pointers. Consonance and dissonance. If you play a note that is in the current chord and and let it persist you have consonance. (connotation of good) If you play a note that is not in the current chord and and let it persist you have dissonance. (connotation of bad) If you play a note that is not in the current chord and and let it persist until a change to a chord that contains that note you have a resolution from bad to good. (connotation of very good)

Another pointer is fast notes. The pointer above is about slow notes. Fast notes are different. In the major scale the first five notes alternate between notes that are in the root chord and notes that are not in the chord. After that you have two notes, the sixth and the seventh, which are not in the chord but on either you are still only one note away from a chord note. Incidentally this two non chordal position changes as the chords change. This means that most of the time you are only one note away from a chord note so as long as you don't prolong any notes you don't have to worry about what the chord is.

You won't be playing all fast notes or all slow notes, you will combine them. And, although it helps if you know your scales and know basic theory, you will do best if you can think in terms of melody. You have already suggested that using scales has it's limitations. A good exercise is to imagine a short melodic phrase and then try to play it. When you can do this on the fly to music you can hear you are improvising.

[rick-slo]

Not sure what "playing the changes" means - could mean different things in different situations and to different people - common notes, voice leading, phrasing, accenting.
However most likely it would be ending a chord's time slot on a note common to the next chord and/or voice leading:
A very simple example of a C chord to G chord change (common note and then voice leading):

--0------------3--------------------
--1------------0--------------------
--------0----------------------------
--------------------------------------
--3--------------------------------
---------------3--------------------------

--0-------------3--------------------
--1-------------0--------------------
----------------0--------------------
---------2-----------------------------
--3--------------------------------
----------------3--------------------------

as opposed to something like:
--0--------------3--------------------
--1-------0----------------------------
-----------------0------------------
--------------------------------------
--3--------------------------------
-----------------3--------------------------


Often in chord melody playing a tie in resides in the melody line as voice leading. Another tie in could be a bass line walk up or walk down. 　
　
　

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Pualee

I'm trying to improve (aren't we all) and I hear this idea of "playing the changes".

Hi Paulee…

Who did you hear it from? Or perhaps where did you hear it?

When Jazz players refer to playing over the changes or playing the changes, they are referring to playing a solo line over the chords someone else is playing as acCOMPaniment or to COMPliment the soloing - comping. And they draw what they are playing from the chord structure…

Originally Posted by Glossary of Jazz terms

Changes: (1) The chords of a tune. 'Playing' or 'running' the changes means using suitable scales, etc., over each given chord of the tune. Determining the exact changes to use is a big part of preparing a tune for performance. (2) Rhythm Changes (q.v.) for short.

Originally Posted by discussion in a jazz forum

1. "Playing the changes" just means using the chords as the basis for your solo. It doesn't mean hitting every note of the chords. And to musicians it is descriptive, not negative. Mozart played the changes. Charlie Parker played the changes (expanded changes are the basis of bebop).
2. What you feel has to have some relation to the tune you're soloing over. Otherwise, why bother playing a head melody at all? The listener has, we hope, a musical memory, for both the head melody and the harmonies. Suggesting those in the solo is a large part of what makes the music interesting.

It can be improvised, it can be arpeggiating, it can be playing the melody, it can be rehearsed, or made up on the fly. It can be slow or fast, rhythmically compatible or syncopated/offset in relation to the beat…

That's my accumulation from listening to jazz players, not definitions I was given in music theory in college.

That kind of language didn't exist in my formal music theory classes.

[JonPR]

posted in error

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Pualee

I'm trying to improve (aren't we all) and I hear this idea of "playing the changes".

What does that mean exactly? Is that a way of phrasing... timing licks according to a change in the song... chord change, verse change, bridge, etc?

As explained, it refers simply to the chord changes. "The changes" is jazz slang for the chord sequence of a tune.

Eg "Rhythm changes" means the chord sequence to "I Got Rhythm", the basis for a lot of bebop tunes.

Originally Posted by Pualee

Is it a set of notes you target, again based on the chord change, or even a modal change?

The former. Forget modes! Nothing to do with modes!
There are chord changes in modal tunes, of course, but generally speaking "playing the changes" refers to progressions in pre-modal functional harmony, pre-1960s jazz standards.

Originally Posted by Pualee

When I improvise, I usually just play what I want (within a given scale)... I don't leave a lot of space. It gets old pretty fast. Think of a pop chord progression, like I vi IV V, and then playing the associated major (or minor) scale over it.

Right. If you ignore the chords when doing that, then you are not "playing the changes".
However, if you target chord tones - even intuitively - while doing that (which you ear may lead you to do), then you are playing the changes.
E.g.,if you just play the scale at random, your ear should tell you that notes that work well on one chord don't work quite as well (or quite the same) on another chord. So you may change your phrasing accordingly. The more you do that - alert to how the scale works on each chord - the more you are "playing the changes".
To do that consciously, you need to know the arpeggios of each chord, all over the neck, and use them as the template for your phrases - not playing solely arpeggios, but using them as somewhere to start from, and to target.

A good goal is to play phrases which not only respect the changes, but communicate them. IOW, if the soloist is playing alone, with no accompaniment, you can still hear the changes. You may not always hear exactly what each chord is (the soloist won't play full arpeggios necessarily), but you will definitely hear when they change.
It's an essential challenge for any jazz soloist to be able to do this, while still constructing interesting melodic and rhythmic phrases.

I.e., rhythm and melody are foremost, but it should all be recognisably linked to the chord changes.

The distinction between bebop/functional harmony and postbop modal harmony is important, because in the former the chords change quickly and probably go through several key centres in a row. The "changes" therefore present you with a complex and tight formula to follow.
In modal jazz, chords last a lot longer, and the changes are usually non-functional. So there's not a lot of "meaning" in the changes to communicate! It's much more about melodic improvisation within each chord/scale or mode.
IOW, modal jazz can be seen as a way of escaping the need to play the changes, which could often feel like a straitjacket; or at least, a kind of playing that some jazz musicians were getting tired of by the late 1950s. They'd been there, done that.

Still, it's an important skill for any beginner jazz soloist to be able to negotiate functional changes, to understand how they work, and communicate them in his/her solo. That kind of music didn't die out in 1960!

[Archtop Guy]

In a lot of folk/rock/American tunes solos can be played using just one scale or mode.

In most jazz tunes each chorus has multiple key changes, or at least chords that are not derived from a single scale. So, the soloist needs to carefully follow the chord changes to play appropriate, good sounding, melodic notes. The soloist cannot use a single scale. I call that playing over the changes.

[Pualee]

I am at a point now where I can "hear in my head" what I want to play if I limit to a pentatonic scale... and limit to single note runs. I have even become comfortable switching scales when playing over a single chord sequence...

e.g. [D G C D] I can use Dmaj, Gmaj, or Cmaj and have it work out well - I look at the chords as playing Gmaj with a target of the D or 5th. The G scale is safe... as is the D and C because the pentatonics do not use the 4th or 7th... which is where the D or C scales would clash. So I actually have a lot more points (fret board visualization) to jump in and out of the song.

If I take something like the following... D G A D I can use either Dmaj or Dmin and switch back and forth between alternate phrases. I think of this sequence as being in the key of D - targeting the 1st or F (Dmin) - targeting the 6th.

Alternatively, I can use just a diatonic scale - but no key switching I can play with all the notes, but I have to stick within a single octave. For some reason, jumping gets me lost (and I get stuck primarily in the C caged position - for now).

I guess I was looking for a short cut... and cannot find one. It is hard being limited in ability by practice time. Oh well, I will keep plugging at it as much as I can whenever I can If I have time to work out a solo ahead of time, I am usually happy with a combination of trial/error and picking up other pieces by ear. But when I am preparing with limited time, my improvisation is still simple.

I'm going to try to start paying more attention to the chords when soloing - maybe that will give me a bump in the right direction. I think I do it some now without thinking about it... I hear good notes and I hear resolution notes. But if I make it a deliberate exercise, maybe things will open up... particularly when switching scales around during a song.

It is very likely I heard "playing the changes" in a jazz context. My playing is at church, so it is mostly pop/rock with limited instrumentals. However, when there is an opportunity, the solo really has to be "worth it".

Right now, I try to practice scales (pentatonic, diatonic), improvisation, and am starting to work on triads and quadrads. I'm also trying to take each of the CAGED patterns and engrain my head with which interval each note is, so I can jump in and out of the lead patterns and caged patterns as second nature. I have noticed my rhythm is slipping though Not enough time in the day!

[ShawnH]

Originally Posted by Archtop Guy

In a lot of folk/rock/American tunes solos can be played using just one scale or mode.

In most jazz tunes each chorus has multiple key changes, or at least chords that are not derived from a single scale. So, the soloist needs to carefully follow the chord changes to play appropriate, good sounding, melodic notes. The soloist cannot use a single scale. I call that playing over the changes.

I have to disagree with this. Just because you can wail away on one scale over a I - IV - V type progression doesn't mean you are playing the changes. If what you are playing doesn't address the chord you are on then you are not playing over the changes. So you need to target chord tones regardless of the complexity of the chord changes.

It seems that a lot of guitar players learn the minor pentatonic box and figure out that it sounds pretty good over lots of standard progression in rock etc. - I know I certainly did. But eventually hopefully you move past that and start addressing the chords - whatever they may be - to me that's playing over the changes. Genre has nothing to do with it (other than maybe it was jazz guys who came up with the lingo). Also to some extent scales and/or modes really have nothing to do with it - but you could probably argue that either way.

Also if you are playing the melody or improvising based off the melody of the song then you are almost certainly playing over the changes. I can't think of too many songs where the melody isn't rooted firmly in the chord progression. Anyway just my thoughts and it's all semantics of course.

[Marcury]

Playing the changes means improvising using the harmonic structure provided by the song. If a soloist is "playing the changes", you should be able to tell form their isolated solo what the chord progression is even if they are using higher extensions) from the logic and flow of what they play.