I don't know. Blues at its most basic doesn't seem much like functional harmony to me. I can think of no functional reasons why we can play a blues scale over a dominant chord and it sounds good.
Actually I think that one of the interesting things about jazz is the clash between the functional approach (developed from european composers) and the blues lines (originally from african tribal music). Can it get less functional than African tribal music?

I definitely agree about the clash between functional and non-functional... in the strict sense of the term functional. There is certainly no "European" function in African tribal music. So from that perspective, the blues scale creates a clash with the dominant chord. But I tend to think of the root, 5, and b7 as the stable tones and the function of the others is to create tension that releases to those tones. Even in the IV and V chords when playing the I chord blues scale, I think of it as layers of tension and release. The chords are just adding another layer of tension that wants to get back to the I chord. And during the IV chord, the 4 in the blues scale becomes temporarily more stable, the 5 and b7 less stable. Similiar types of shifts in stability happen over the V chord.

I guess this is pretty vague and could be over-analytical, but I think there has to be some kind of function at work, otherwise we could just noodle around on the blues scale and it would sound good. We all know that doesn't work.

I guess I'm just thinking that everything has to have some purpose. And while it's a part of the jazz tradition to invent new ways to express music, it's also part of the tradition to absorb the lineage of the music. In that absorbtion, we find ways of understanding the purpose of things and we can use that understanding to create new things.

I always go back to the analogy to language. If we want to speak a language, we have to understand it. We can't just learn words from the language and put them together any way we want to.

I agree to a point, but music doesn't have the same shared meaning that words have. A word has a (more or less) specific meaning to everybody (who understands the language) but chords or musical phrases do not. The rules of syntax are fairly strict whereas no such rules exist for musical phrases or pieces.



I tend to think that is just what I do, just play around with the notes, putting them in places that appeal to me. I have long since given up trying to work out why some combinations appeal and others don't, as probably somebody else just has a different idea about what sounds good. If I go further I could probably say that any combination of notes would sound good in the appropriate place - hard to prove though as note choice is virtually unlimited.

Beeboss, thanks for that introduction to another new style. I've not worked on a Major/dominant tonality before.

But this is really the crux of the debate. The whole idea to the use of perfect fourths and perfect fifths in jazz was to make the tonality vague and in itself changes the idea of functional harmony. The tune then takes a more modal flavor.

Take the progression (from a minor blues)
| C-7 | C-7 | C-7 | C-7 |
| F-7 | F-7 | C-7 | C-7 |

If you took this functionally, then you'll have to think about outlining C-Eb-G-Bb and F-Ab-C-Eb in the harmony (1-b3-5-b7 of the chord).

This is just one example since I can think of many. Thinking about this modally, if I don't play the thirds of the chord, I can imply this...
| C-11 | C-11 | C-11 | C-11 |
| F-11 | F-11 | C-11 | C-11 |

Now here I'm thinking of the common tones which happen to be D, Eb and F and are shared between the two chords. (9,b3,11 and 13,1,b7 for C-11 and F-11 respectively).

In a functional harmony sense, someone would label my note choices "wrong" harmonically since focusing on extensions like 9, 11, and 13 weaken the function (subdominant or dominant). Chord quality is vague.

But then now we're caught up with the rules and not focusing on modal tunes not really going anywhere. That being the case, then the progression can be substituted further as in:
| C-11 | C#-11 | B-11 | C-11 |
| F-11 | E-11 | Eb-11 | D-11 |

Or to be more accurate, since the bass player doesn't follow this:

| C-11 | C#-11/C | B-11/C | C-11 |
| F-11 | E-11/F | Eb-11/C | D-11/C |

So now what's the rule here? Harmonically someone would be over me like a cheap suit over my note choices. But now I've introduced tension and release within a modal tune.

Now to introduce more tension and release, the above isn't played to the barline. But I just stuck it within the barlines for simplicity.

This is an example of how I think of a lot of tunes. Sometimes I'll look at common tones and skip the function of the progression and stretch a note over.

Scott, we specifically discussed this when you aimed at my note choice of 'A' in | E-7b5 A7b9 | in the opening of Stella. One of the common subs I do is play the E-7b5 as E A Bb D (no b3) or Root-11-#11-b7. I've gotten used to this different sound (probably a modern styling) and now I hear this progression differently and that is with the common tone in mind.

It reminds me of the sub of |Vsus4 V| progression instead of |ii V|, another common reharm.

Maybe everyone thinks my note choices are random.

Another comment on the blues. Now talking about major blues along the lines of what I said earlier.

I learned to think of blues (alternatively) as:
I7 - IValt - Valt.

Now this is an oversimplification since obviously when anyone thinks of Alt, you automatically think tritone sub. But here, I'm thinking more along what I've been taught as the diminished cycle, which means all the subs I can do with dominants a minor third away (so there's always 4 options).

In any case without complicating it further, I just think of the opening I7 as the tonic and thinking of all the dominant subs on the IV and V chords I will in fact have full chromatic access, beyond just the idea of a tritone sub. If I think of the I7 as a tonic, can then think of the IV and V chords and subs thereof as serving to raise tension.

Now Chick's Matrix is an example I drew from here.

I haven't played Blues progressions like that here. Neither have I ever posted a true intervallic playing style. I've used snippets here and there. Partly it's because I'm too concerned about people's response. When I get over that, it might come out someday.

As you can see, I haven't mentioned the Blues scale. Because in my mind, the Blues Scale would be limiting. Intervals like b9, #5 aren't in the Blues scale and were heavily used by Chick. So now you can see why I think Alt instead.

Anyway, this is just a look at my modern jazz influence. I just have to build the confidence to play it like this and the bigger challenge: to hear it ahead of time. Very hard with some of these intervals.

From my point of view, these analogies are taken to levels that may not be so applicable.

For example, there are two kinds of story telling. There's the one with a plot where you build suspense and then there's a climax (equivalent in my mind to a functional progression).

Then there's the "slice of time" story where there's no real plot. This to me is the equivalent of modal playing.

Just my 2 cents.

JW, if you stick to anyone thing it will be limiting whether that is a blues scale or an altered scale. Maybe you could try thinking of them as curries - the altered scale is a hotter curry but we don't necessarily want to blow our heads off with each mouthful, what we need is a balance of flavours.
The blues scale is a tasty flavour in its own right and you can do many things with it. If you play it all the time then the taste buds will get bored but if you ignore it is like a curry without garlic and onion, a necessary flavour has been left out.
McCoy for instance uses those blues pentatonic all the time and he stretches the tonalities often by using different and unexpected pentatonics.

Or try Zawinul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkfz69dh5X0

Even Chick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-tmCLZlqVs

I think you are missing something about modal playing. Just because the plot is left up to the player rather than specified in the sequence doesn't mean there is no plot. The player has to work harder to create direction and suspense and release in the narrative, thats all.

In the story analogy, a "slice of time" story has mini plots. I think of the example of nature documentaries. There's moments of tension and release as animals are seen in nature facing life and death. But the ending of a nature documentary isn't necessarily based on some anti-climax thing. You're left to imagine when the actual end is.

I understand that's the difficulty in modal playing, which is why the aspect of creating your own "tension/release" points independent of the form just like that story style. It is very difficult of course to do it. But I think I understand the intent.

Understood. But as you already know, I don't even play it like this here. I'm so afraid to even play like that in public. So I'm at the other extreme.

In a gig for example, I tend to be more diatonic in my choices.

This is where I have to transition into finding my voice and being confident with it. Oftentimes, the analysis here leaves me lacking confidence and then I will tend to go with safety -- diatonic.

Sometimes it takes guts to play the blues with Alt. Or like using only black keys on a B scale over the entire Bb Blues form. I don't even have the guts because I'm thinking I will be criticized.

I agree, it's not a perfect analogy by any stretch. Just meant to point out that it's hard to speak or write in a language that's not understood through a certain amount of absorbtion.


Yeah, but you speak the language. You've spent enough time absorbing and practicing it that it comes automatically... which it should. Some of us are not to that point yet. If we don't absorb enough, we think alot about how to "say" things and it comes out weird... even if it is understood what is meant. "I no speak a English. You tell me where is bathroom?". We need more time absorbing things so we don't sound like "foreigners".

Of course I understand the value of vocabulary, which is why I'm refocusing my attention a little.

However, please refer back to the Pilc video I posted. The intervallic playing he demonstrates there over F Blues doesn't really exist in 'standard' vocabulary.

This why I'm noting that expected analogies don't really define anything so well in jazz. If you stick to idiomatic styles then of course I can understand the strictness of this approach.

But someone like me was influenced by a style that I could not describe as following the idiom. Here's a repost of my teacher's playing.

ATTYA
http://www.box.com/files#/files/0/f/0/1/f_603814250

We went through every device he used here and so that's an example of my vocabulary. I still don't have the guts to play this way BTW so I end up playing snippets and then it sounds out of place because my intent is not so strong.

Now understand that whatever he plays here follows harmony very very strictly (we did work it out in detail like I said). However, it should be obvious then that it's a reharm.

Man oh man, Weather Report. One of my absolute favourite bands, the stuff they came up with together . . . and Zawinul, Master of The Keys!
Thanks for reminding me, got to have a WR marathon soon.
Zawinul was a great blues player too (this tune was the first time I ever heard the Rhodes, it was love at first hearing:

The Blues.
It has nothing to do with harmony, its not about the chords, but melodic phrases - and a solid rhythm beneath. Not forgetting a 12-bar form that keeps it together.
Blues is story-telling.

JW,

I think you should stick to what you believe. Especially if you have a mentor who is already enjoying success doing it, and can show you the road.
You'll never be able to convince anyone that the blues scale is "limiting". The only limits are your ear and your technique. What you can accomplish while staying within the "blues idiom" is amazing.
But you don't have to stick to the blues idiom. Really, as long as it sounds good, I don't think anyone here will give you trouble. People might say "it's not the blues", or like my old teacher used to say "you're playing like white boy", but who cares. It's your music.

You should post some of this stuff you are talking about. Here is really the place to do it.
I think with the band might be difficult. Depends how good everyone's ear is, I guess.
As always, solo piano is the best option here. No bass to "limit" you.

I think your teacher knows the language. His playing is evolved beyond standard approaches, but the language and tradition is still there. Have you asked him if he feels that he's absorbed the tradition?

Take poetry for example... it's not "standard vocabulary". The phrasing and timing are unusual, not to mention the hidden meanings. But try to write poetry in a language in which you can't correctly ask where the bathroom is. You might think it's poetic, but for those who are familiar with the language and poetry in that language, it's probably not.

Language is more than just understanding what words mean and the grammatically correct way of arranging things. There's all kinds of hidden meanings, slang, non-verbal cues etc. This can only be absorbed through being immersed in it. You can't study this on paper or in discussion.

>>However, please refer back to the Pilc video I posted. The intervallic playing he demonstrates there over F Blues doesn't really exist in 'standard' vocabulary.

But isn't Pilc there basically bashing playing intervallically ?
He's calling it "intellectual construction", "like so many people play these days", "looking at your feet".
Instead, he is telling us to play melodies.

His whole DVD is about how to play solo piano like a band, starting off of a simple melody. You can hear the melody here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfLRjMHe0So

Scott, like I said, we worked on that tune in detail. So basically we worked out "a vocabulary". Of course, it doesn't sound like bebop. But I learned it.

In your definition, I didn't learn a vocabulary. In my mind, I did. It's just his. Now whether it's steeped in tradition or not, I learned it so whatever history it has or doesn't have, I got it too.

But like I said, I'm hesitant to try that style out here because it sounds 'out' and I don't have enough 'hearing' to do it like he does. I can only copy the actual notes he used. That I know.

I can tell you, since I know him well, that although he studied under the same masters steeped in deep tradition (like one his teachers is a well-known stride master), he clearly created his own sound.

Whether you or others like it or not, it's a sound that drew me to the jazz style originally. I didn't learn of jazz by listening to swing. I actually came in at the latter end mostly with an introduction to Herbie (Maiden Voyage was one of my early draw to jazz).

So I admit I'm different in what I like and do. Some have actually said that my likes have skipped the "black history" part of jazz. But I can't help it. It's what drew me in to the genre.

Give me time to get the confidence to do it. I really am too anxious to post it. I used the Pilc example only because it's the rare example of intervallic playing that I can remember easily. My teacher's version of intervallic was very melodic though so I can see what Pilc is talking about.

This stuff is so advanced though because as you know it's so hard to "hear" it. I think one has to learn to hear it. I hear portions. The story isn't complete.

I think the effect is to confuse my "message". I think part of this is confidence and intent. Not there yet.

In the meantime, I always post more traditional playing (straight harmony with a few variations).

BTW - when my teacher (the prior one, not Bill) criticizes my playing, he's saying that I can play to the changes but he wants to see me extend the idea beyond just the current chord (horizontal playing -- common tones -- ala Miles Davis). That's what led me to go beyond just the 1-3-5-7 chord tones.

I'm guessing you can't hear it yet because you still don't have the basics down. I've been through the same thing.



Both of my teachers in school were steeped in tradition as well, but also had their own sound. Especially Willie Pickens. Check him out if you haven't.

Also, I wasn't drawn to jazz by swing either. I came to it by way of Medeski Martin & Wood. And my favorite stuff is definitely not straight swing and traditional. I prefer Mehldau, Herbie, KJ, and stuff that's even more modern than that. And initially, I denounced the need to play anything that wasn't modern, with the belief that I could bypass it and get to the "good stuff". But I've since realized that the control needed to play the advanced stuff comes from getting the basics first. That's why I play the way I do right now. I'm absorbing the basics. If I try to play "out", it sounds bad. I understand intervalic playing, "advanced" reharms and all that ... at least on paper. But I haven't absorbed enough of the basics yet to be able to really pull that off in improvisation. And I now know that I was never going to get it by going directly to the advanced stuff, as much as I wanted to. You just can't run before you can walk.

Scott, of course that's true. However, how I'm trying to sound has a little different path and has different issues.

What I've been saying is that some of the criticism about my harmony choices is not part of the 'basics' issue. I've clearly made some choices though you and others may not like it. I've already stated some of the reasons for my choices earlier.

The basics I'm missing, IMHO, relate to hearing what I want to play and then that translates into some other melodic construct.

And I have tons of other developmental issues that come with time on the instrument (like groove, technique, LH, melodic phrasing, on and on... etc.).

I will not sound like anyone else here. That much I can guarantee.

My teacher BTW made a point in his personal playing to NOT QUOTE any vocabulary. In fact, he said he would cringe if did quote vocabulary. It's because he wants to come up with something different.

I don't think Charlie Parker was quoting vocabulary either. For some reason, they already had a message. Amazing when you think about it.

BTW Scott - MMW was an early draw for me too So we share that in common.

Here's why I don't play intervalic, quartal, outside/chromatic kind of stuff. This is Cm blues with overdubbed bass lines. LH is only quartal voicings with chromatic side-stepping. RH is mostly pentatonic/modal and triad pairs, again with chromatic side-stepping.

http://www.box.com/s/jltfotbyk3ok6124k0v7

I just don't have the control needed for this. I've practiced this kind of stuff alot, but I can't quite hear and predict where I'm going and keep it connected to the underlying changes so that it's clear what's happening.

Anybody else care to take a stab at this approach?

Oh, and the background noise in the recording is my washing machine!

Here's what I'd like to be able to do...

http://www.box.com/s/sagu3hs4x4y1y6nq73jy

Any guesses who's playing this?

I'm not sure this is true. There is always something that makes melody make sense, as there are always a number of things that detract from a group of notes having any meaning, otherwise what would the difference be between a cat walking across a keyboard and a jazz player playing certain notes over the same changes? Also, I'm not really sure what you mean by appropriate place exactly. Doesn't this imply some rules?

I'm fairly certain there is some algorithm that can be applied to how melody BASICALLY works, especially given the constraints of some underlying harmonic structure, implied or stated.

If there is an algorithm then why hasn't anybody been able to find it? Could it be because it doesn't exist?
Of course it is just my opinion, but Pilc says exactly the same thing here…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo71IYASARo
"what makes a good melody nobody knows"

I learnt that myself by spending a rather long time transcribing those beautiful long chromatic lines that Jarrett plays. When I played them out of context they sounded like nothing, bad even, but in the right place they are just perfect. I can analyse the notes and scales and relationship to the harmony but that is not what makes them good imo. The magic is in the moment and not the notes.

That is burning. I have never heard of that pianist before but a little sleuthing told me who it was. Brilliant.
I was going to post me playing a blues but I think he said it all.

If Dave's never heard of him, sounds like there's no way I'd know who it is.

Is it a latin player?

Quick story.

I've been playing with a lot of people. Dozens, I guess that's what happens when you're an amateur like myself, you try everybody out.

Few weeks ago, I got invited to fill in for a rehearsal. No biggie. It's a tenor I had played a couple of gigs with before.
At the drummer's house, small Korg keyboard. Whatever. The guys all brought sheets from obscure tunes. I played very average all evening, not knowing the tunes, and on a keyboard that wasn't mine, you know how it goes.
Anyway, I was very impressed with the drummer. It was like, everything I was about to play, he already knew. Anytime, I'd pick a comping pattern, he'd be right there. Any solo I'd play, he'd get the hits perfect, as if he knew exactly what I was gonna play. All that with a constant smile on his face.

I asked my regular bass player last week if he knew him. He said, "Yes, of course, that guy's amazing. Did you know he knew Bill Evans? He played with everybody".
Ah, and apparently, he's been enjoying a medical career and now taking it easy with retirement, playing with folks that I play with, making the small bucks like the rest of us amateurs.

So, I've invited this guy to come over and play with us. I have a really solid tenor player and bass, so that could be exciting....