Jazz Minor

[mambo4]

where's my Hal Galper Clip...
oh yeah

 

[Stick_Player]

... those professors who would sit with me and explain ad nauseam what the greats were doing when I brought them transcribed solos in college.

Yes... after the fact theory analysis. I have file drawers full of that stuff. The greats weren't thinking about them thar rules. They were just playing great.

The rules come after the fact. Analysis, College Profs., etc. It's all good, though.

I can do the double ad nauseam bit over Bach. A lot of people can and have for 300 years. Still no one has been better, even with ALL that analysis and rules to wok off.

Greatness cannot be taught. If you don't have the innate essence to be great, ain't gonna happen. College won't admit to that. It'll eliminate the profit.

I don't recall Babe Ruth taking lessons - he was merely gifted. As was W. A. Mozart, Michael Jordan, Winston Churchill, A. Lincoln... cats like that.

How do they do it? I don't, they don't know, it just happens - they're great.

But I do know what you are saying.

Back to the Minor Scales... and so many!

 

[lfmn16]

It is true that you need to play the scale in various ways to get the sound in your head,
but basschanges nailed it. If you want to find ways to use any scale musically,
you must find examples by the greats and learn them, analyze them, transcribe them.
That is how you build your vocabulary.

Anyone who doesn't get this should read it over and over again until they do. Putting on my cranky old man hat, it seems like a lot of people today want a short cut to learning - either a youtube video, a tab, or someone else's transcription. There is no substitute for sitting down and transcribing something yourself. It takes longer, but you'll learn faster and more thoroughly. It doesn't matter how many scales or arpeggios you know if you don't know how to use them. Context is everything.

 

[Stick_Player]

Anyone who doesn't get this should read it over and over again until they do. Putting on my cranky old man hat, it seems like a lot of people today want a short cut to learning - either a youtube video, a tab, or someone else's transcription. There is no substitute for sitting down and transcribing something yourself. It takes longer, but you'll learn faster and more thoroughly. It doesn't matter how many scales or arpeggios you know if you don't know how to use them. Context is everything.

But...

 

[basschanges]

Yes... after the fact theory analysis. I have file drawers full of that stuff. The greats weren't thinking about them thar rules. They were just playing great.

The rules come after the fact. Analysis, College Profs., etc. It's all good, though.

I can do the double ad nauseam bit over Bach. A lot of people can and have for 300 years. Still no one has been better, even with ALL that analysis and rules to wok off.

Greatness cannot be taught. If you don't have the innate essence to be great, ain't gonna happen. College won't admit to that. It'll eliminate the profit.

I don't recall Babe Ruth taking lessons - he was merely gifted. As was W. A. Mozart, Michael Jordan, Winston Churchill, A. Lincoln... cats like that.

How do they do it? I don't, they don't know, it just happens - they're great.

But I do know what you are saying.

Back to the Minor Scales... and so many!

eh, Idk man. You're missing a pretty big middle ground of amazing players that had to work extremely hard to get where they are.

You're also wrong about the value of practice and analysis of theory. Ever hear about the first time Bird thought he could play in a cutting session...took him two years of hard practice to come back like the Bird we know him as today.

 

[Stick_Player]

eh, Idk man. You're missing a pretty big middle ground of amazing players that had to work extremely hard to get where they are.

You don't believe that they already had "the stuff", and then worked it?

I do. And, I am NOT missing them - I play with some.

Just cuz one learns ALL the rules, doesn't mean they can do it.

I absolutely LOVE Baseball. I know a lot about it - rules, stats, etc.

I suck at it. Can't even do it at all anymore. I did try... But, I'm not going here:

 

[Ed Fuqua]

I do. And, I am NOT missing them - I play with some.

And continue to remain remarkably reticent about letting anyone hear what that sounds like.

 

[Stick_Player]

And continue to remain remarkably reticent about letting anyone hear what that sounds like.

Remarkably, I've never heard you. And, remarkably, I'm not interested.

If you have any problems with what I've posted - deal with it directly.

Good luck with that and have a blessed day.

 

[Schlyder]

LOL you guys have totally derailed this thread.
OP was just asking methods used to go about learning a scale.

I like the conversation about the approaches to jazz improve though. But it should be in another thread.

As I am not one of the pre-ordained gifted ones, and have had to, and still do, work hard learning my jazz vocabulary.
I have tried the chord/scale method and have tried the melody be your guide method, and just about every other method. You really have to use it all. Every one of those methods, you can learn something from.
You have to learn lots of melodies. You have to have a good understanding of chord theory, and progressions. And you have to have a real good ear.
You need to do lots of hard work to play good jazz no matter how you cut it. LOL There is no easy way.
It is the same with golf. If you are a 100 shooter and you want to become a scratch player. You have to do the work, and it isn't going to happen quickly.
As it is to become a good jazz improviser.

 

[basschanges]

No need to have a pissing contest fellas. We all suck at music compared to some other person. I'm just trying to emphatically argue against what I thought wasted a ton of my time. That's all.

Edit: Screw that...Ed, you sound Gd amazing. I'd love to take lessons from you if you're interested!

 

[Stick_Player]

No need to have a pissing contest fellas. We all suck at music compared to some other person. I'm just trying to emphatically argue against what I thought wasted a ton of my time. That's all.

Ditto.

Edit: Screw that...Ed, you sound Gd amazing. I'd love to take lessons from you if you're interested!

Play Double Bass? Ed is allergic to slabs.

 

[basschanges]

Ditto.



Play Double Bass? Ed is allergic to slabs.

I do indeed, but it's my second instrument. That's why I need lessons from a player with his feel and vocab.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

@basschanges - thanks for the kind words, I get lucky sometimes. If I lived somewhere other than NYC, I'd be happy to talk about lessons, but since we ARE here, my recommendation would be to study with the teacher I spent 16 years with, Joe Solomon. He's the one that helped me to get from speaking fluent gibberish to making what little sense I do in my playing. I'll PM you his studio number, I highly recommend both his pedagogical approach AND his ability to communicate on a personal level. He doesn't just teach one thing one way, if you're having trouble with an approach or concept, he keeps working it until he finds what DOES communicate most effectively. His website is down right now, but he's getting it back up soon. In the meantime, search his article DOING IT THE SLOW WAY, it's somewhere on the site, but I don't know where since the upgrade. See if anything there resonates with you.

@Stick_Player - certainly that's your prerogative, but it's there and freely available should you, or anyone, ever feel the need. As I've said many times in the past and I'm sure will continue to say many times in the future; it's not about measuring for length or distance, it's just information. Basschanges saw what I typed and, after hearing what that practical application sounded like, decided that it held meaning for him and that it might be a direction he'd like to pursue. He could have just as easily decided that it's NOT what he's interested in, has no desire to sound like anything in that direction and so may not want to investigate any direction or approach that I suggested.
Additionally, and this may interest basschanges as well, I am not "allergic to slab" and neither is Joe. He has a number of students that play bass guitar, indeed he has a number of students that are saxophonists, trumpeters, trombonists, pianists, singers and has, at least in the past, had drummers (I don't know about currently); what he teaches is not just the instrument, it's improvisational concept. And I'll address what I feel are your misconceptions about that in another post.

@Whousedtoplay - just to clear up a something in your post: I don't currently make my living playing music, I work a day job. I do get to play with a number of well known jazz musicians on a regular basis and do get to gig with them. But the folks that are making a living being a jazz bassist here are really head and shoulders above my skill level (and there's a pretty good list of the ones that I know in Paul New's thread in BASSISTS here) and the ones who are making a living playing bass are playing a lot of music and situations that I have absolutely no interest in pursuing.
My books doing OK, it's no EVOLVING BASSIST. I could probably do better if I was touring and doing workshops.

 

[Stick_Player]

Please, don't be too hard on Stick Player.

Please, don't worry about me!

I wouldn't want to be in his shoes

You probably would.

 

[Stick_Player]

@Stick_Player - certainly that's your prerogative, but it's there and freely available should you, or anyone, ever feel the need.

You hit the nail on the head... I'm feeling absolutely no need. However, if you feel compelled to validate your words by posting an audio demo, go ahead.

I'm simply putting out information. If you don't agree with it, fine. Challenge THE INFORMATION, or move on.

Music Theory/History does NOT require one to even play an instrument.

Try this: A History professor specializing (i. e., as an expert), in the American Revolutionary War -- does that require that he was actually toting around a musket and shooting at Red Coats?

As I've said many times in the past and I'm sure will continue to say many times in the future; it's not about measuring for length or distance, it's just information. Basschanges saw what I typed and, after hearing what that practical application sounded like, decided that it held meaning for him and that it might be a direction he'd like to pursue. He could have just as easily decided that it's NOT what he's interested in, has no desire to sound like anything in that direction and so may not want to investigate any direction or approach that I suggested.

Once again, that's all I've been disseminating -- Information. Feel free, at any point, to disagree, add to, or elaborate on it.

Glad to see that you are not repulsed by the Electric Bass. There are some fine Electric Bass players out there.

 

[mambo4]

Greatness cannot be taught. If you don't have the innate essence to be great, ain't gonna happen...I don't recall Babe Ruth taking lessons - he was merely gifted. As was W. A. Mozart, Michael Jordan, Winston Churchill, A. Lincoln... cats like that. How do they do it? I don't, they don't know, it just happens - they're great.

"Greatness" as innate woo is illusory. It cannot be taught, but it must be earned.
The fruits of countless hours of effort, study, practice, exposure, and experience are "Great".

 

[Ed Fuqua]

If you want to find ways to use any scale musically,
you must find examples by the greats and learn them, analyze them, transcribe them.
That is how you build your vocabulary.

.
I thought this was funny. I do think that there are some smart ways to transcribe and that it's useful, but not as mere "data mining" for vocabulary.

 

[Stick_Player]

"Greatness" as innate woo is illusory. It cannot be taught, but it must be earned.
The fruits of countless hours of effort, study, practice, exposure, and experience are "Great".

Okay.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Extemporization cannot be taught. You are either born with the skill or not. Of course nurturing will develop it. Improvising is a personality trait - accept it oh college professor! These musicians are already out in the world gigging - at age 20. And you, college professor, are not.

Improvisation is not something the needs to be taught, humans do it every day. Improvising in jazz (hanging new melodic material over a malleable harmonic framework within that duple/triple rhythmic base) is a matter of developing certain skill sets - hearing with enough clarity so that the vocabulary you have the most nuanced control over can get out into the air so that you can communicate with the other musicians how you are hearing the piece of music unfold, hearing that nuanced vocabulary with enough clarity that you can get to it in a timely manner to get it out in the air, having the physical wherewithal to get that in the air without the instrument you use being an impediment and doing all of that within the framework of music happening in the moment. There is no reason that anyone who desires to do this should be unable to achieve it. Not everyone "desires" this in music; classical musicians play the music they play because that's what coalesces meaning from chaos for them, blues players, gamelan players, etc., etc., etc. - musicians play the music that speaks most immediately to them and their lives.

However, if you don't have the innate skill, but you are capable of long, tedious hours of "study", you can become Good. Thank you, oh college professor! These musicians are vying for their college professor's gig - waiting for him to die, though.

It's true that there are people who are involved in music but don't want to put the work in, but anyone that I know that has made it to the top level of that sharp, pointy pyramid has never had "tedious" hours of practice, they've been focused and involved in every single second of it. The only "innate" skill I know of is absolute pitch (and the incidence of that in the population of musicians is about 10 times that of the rest of the population) everything else is acquired. Sure, there are folks that will have quicker reflexes, better hand/eye coordination, etc. But, what I've found, is that a lot of obstacles are psychological - we don't believe that we have a personal voice, we can't just pick something up and fool around, we've got to wait until something's perfect and so on.

One MUST develop (whether or not having the innate improvising ability), Instrument Technique. If you can't get what you are hearing in you head out through you chosen instrument - you will still suck. This is another facet of being a player. The practice rooms at any music school are jammed with technically great players. They can read the notes but cannot improvise. Then, off campus watching yoo-toob music lesson videos, there are the ones that (perhaps) can improvise, but have zero technical skills.

Well, this is part of the problem; it's not just "Instrument Technique"; it's ear training, understanding functional harmony, and discarding all of those "tricks and licks" that one has assembled to sound like you can play and concentrating on finding out what your own individual true voice is. And anyone who puts the work in can get there. I don't know what real meaning "technically great" has, jazz isn't about technique, it's about communication. ASIDE: that's yet another thing that Jeff Berlin said that I don't agree with (although I can't find the quote in the stuff that's been saved in locked threads), his contention is that "jazz is great to teach and learn from because it's so predictable", if what you're playing is "predictable", you're not doing it right.
Anyway, I agree that the university/semester model for teaching the skill sets involved in this music isn't a good one. But it's not the dichotomy that you present - BORN WITH IT or CAN'T LEARN IT IN SCHOOL. Doing it the way that it's been done in the past - one on one, with musicians that have a deeper understanding than you, not moving away from some idea, concept or approach until it's solid, building up from a firm foundation in a consistently progressive way. That's the way Louis did it, Prez did it, Bird did it, Trane did it and so on and so on and so on. And anyone who wants to, can.

Oh, Jazz is extremely difficult. It must be -- look around at all the average-joe players.

Jazz isn't really difficult, all you have to do is play what you hear. Getting to the point where you can do that, does require some effort and desire.

There are NO shortcuts.

Wait, I thought you said it was the whole born with innate ability thing?

 

[Stick_Player]

PM sent.

Improvisation is not something the needs to be taught, humans do it every day. Improvising in jazz (hanging new melodic material over a malleable harmonic framework within that duple/triple rhythmic base) is a matter of developing certain skill sets - hearing with enough clarity so that the vocabulary you have the most nuanced control over can get out into the air so that you can communicate with the other musicians how you are hearing the piece of music unfold, hearing that nuanced vocabulary with enough clarity that you can get to it in a timely manner to get it out in the air, having the physical wherewithal to get that in the air without the instrument you use being an impediment and doing all of that within the framework of music happening in the moment. There is no reason that anyone who desires to do this should be unable to achieve it. Not everyone "desires" this in music; classical musicians play the music they play because that's what coalesces meaning from chaos for them, blues players, gamelan players, etc., etc., etc. - musicians play the music that speaks most immediately to them and their lives.

It's true that there are people who are involved in music but don't want to put the work in, but anyone that I know that has made it to the top level of that sharp, pointy pyramid has never had "tedious" hours of practice, they've been focused and involved in every single second of it. The only "innate" skill I know of is absolute pitch (and the incidence of that in the population of musicians is about 10 times that of the rest of the population) everything else is acquired. Sure, there are folks that will have quicker reflexes, better hand/eye coordination, etc. But, what I've found, is that a lot of obstacles are psychological - we don't believe that we have a personal voice, we can't just pick something up and fool around, we've got to wait until something's perfect and so on.

Well, this is part of the problem; it's not just "Instrument Technique"; it's ear training, understanding functional harmony, and discarding all of those "tricks and licks" that one has assembled to sound like you can play and concentrating on finding out what your own individual true voice is. And anyone who puts the work in can get there. I don't know what real meaning "technically great" has, jazz isn't about technique, it's about communication. ASIDE: that's yet another thing that Jeff Berlin said that I don't agree with (although I can't find the quote in the stuff that's been saved in locked threads), his contention is that "jazz is great to teach and learn from because it's so predictable", if what you're playing is "predictable", you're not doing it right.
Anyway, I agree that the university/semester model for teaching the skill sets involved in this music isn't a good one. But it's not the dichotomy that you present - BORN WITH IT or CAN'T LEARN IT IN SCHOOL. Doing it the way that it's been done in the past - one on one, with musicians that have a deeper understanding than you, not moving away from some idea, concept or approach until it's solid, building up from a firm foundation in a consistently progressive way. That's the way Louis did it, Prez did it, Bird did it, Trane did it and so on and so on and so on. And anyone who wants to, can.

Jazz isn't really difficult, all you have to do is play what you hear. Getting to the point where you can do that, does require some effort and desire.

Wait, I thought you said it was the whole born with innate ability thing?