Great advice Shan! A lot of adults I've taught that had more classical lessons when they were kids tell me they never learnt about diatonic chords even though it really is such an important thing to know. So many people learn piano only to play other people's music and never make their own which is a shame.
I'm 3 months into Jazz Skills and doing the Developing Fluency course. It's fantastic, I definitely recommend it! Have been doing Autumn Leaves and am about to start on Fly Me To The Moon to delve into 1 6 2 5s. The backing tracks make it super fun :)
Been watching you for a while Shan and sent an email to you a while ago and got a respond almost immediately. I was very happy for this. Even though you're not my teacher (yet, hehe), I feel like you are. The way you talk and reason about being a pianist resonates with me and it has somehow become part of my attitude towards the instrument. Like, it is not about being able to play all the cool tunes and voicings neccessarily. It's about knowing what you want to say and being able to say it. Even though I'm sitting day in and day out, with "my own" constructed practice scheme, I feel like: even if I'm not taking the most efficient route to becoming a proficient jazz pianist, at least I have some sense of what it takes to become one. Thank you.
Classical musicians study harmony thoroughly, understanding how it really works, but unfortunately, they often only do so on paper. If they are not particularly intelligent, they might not realize that it can be applied in practice. Jazz musicians, on the other hand, do the exact opposite: they immediately apply what they study, but they believe that “their” harmony is different from that of Haydn or Chopin. In reality, functional harmony is simply functional harmony. Starting with “basso continuo” and partimenti practice right away is enough to understand everything about harmony and real-time composition: so-called “jazz harmony” is simply replacing the octave of a chord with the ninth and the fifth with the sixth. C6 for example is not necessarily C-E-G-A, but rather the first inversion of Am with a doubled third, which is typical of the deceptive cadence (V VI), so it’s C-E-A-C. When in partimenti we find a 6 next to the bass note (the lowest voice in a four-part chord), it indicates that the root is a sixth above. This concept has been preserved in modern chord notation as a legacy of basso continuo. Indeed, when you encounter V7 I6, from a functional perspective, it is actually V VI. The octatonic perspective of Barry Harris is different and very logic and beautiful but overlaps with this one like a superimposition, meaning it doesn’t replace it. The foundations are laid before building the palace. It is said that Barry Harris himself, a passionate admirer of Chopin’s music, was familiar with these concepts and partimenti method.
I don't want to say negative things about your YT video's, because they contain a lot of useful information. But what I regret is that there is absolutely no need to create a dichotomy between general modern music theory and jazz. In classical music there is also room for improvisation. 2 examples: Baroque where improvisation was very frequent and musicians where expected to have that skill, and a cadenza in a concerto. Let's say that in jazz, "composing on the spot", happens more frequently (although most jazz improvisations are not completely 100% new inventions). And there is a current evolution in jazz that playing prepared music is more often done than extensive improvisation. I consider jazz as a music style among others under the umbrella of general modern music theory.
The world is for opinions, and often difference is degree but presented as dichotomy. There is plenty of debate about what jazz is, if it’s even a legitimate term to use etc. But if we are going to have a category, is it not based on the great practitioners and some core principles. That’s why I think the language metaphor works well. It’s not an accent it’s a language, it has dialects but they must have a common set of principles in order to be part of the language. Other languages are available. Not better or worse. Some languages come from shared ancestors. Many forms of music around the world are improvised, they are not all jazz, but clearly it’s a key component. Lots of jazz right back to the beginning had arrangements, but usually left space for soloists. Small combos emphasised improvisation. Like languages jazz develops, new words new grammar, gets influenced by other languages. I personally don’t think we have to be too pure about it, but if everything is jazz nothing is, and no doubt we can’t get a definition for everything, but for me what Shan teaches firmly lies in the tradition of jazz. Even if you want to play different stuff, if you want to be able to play jazz in a more authentic way ( like the main thing that seems to be jazz) the I think you need to assimilate this stuff. People pick it up in different way, but for me at least Shans teaching removes the mystery, and allows me to approach playing this music ( what I think jazz is). More than anything (for me) a key element of jazz is that the language is used for a conversation between musicians. It’s not a rehearsed play, it more like a skilled debate. There are ideas, there are impactful ways to present them, but it’s also a real time reaction. It’s all music, but if a category is to have meaning, it needs some core to anchor it, even it’s more like fuzzy interlocking mist.😊
Great advice Shan! A lot of adults I've taught that had more classical lessons when they were kids tell me they never learnt about diatonic chords even though it really is such an important thing to know. So many people learn piano only to play other people's music and never make their own which is a shame.
Thank you and that's so true!
The muted lighting is good! Keep at it Shan ! 🎉
Yay! Thank you!
I'm 3 months into Jazz Skills and doing the Developing Fluency course. It's fantastic, I definitely recommend it!
Have been doing Autumn Leaves and am about to start on Fly Me To The Moon to delve into 1 6 2 5s. The backing tracks make it super fun :)
Been watching you for a while Shan and sent an email to you a while ago and got a respond almost immediately. I was very happy for this. Even though you're not my teacher (yet, hehe), I feel like you are. The way you talk and reason about being a pianist resonates with me and it has somehow become part of my attitude towards the instrument. Like, it is not about being able to play all the cool tunes and voicings neccessarily. It's about knowing what you want to say and being able to say it. Even though I'm sitting day in and day out, with "my own" constructed practice scheme, I feel like: even if I'm not taking the most efficient route to becoming a proficient jazz pianist, at least I have some sense of what it takes to become one. Thank you.
Nice to hear from you and make sure you stay on the journey!
Your the best.¡¡¡¡¡
Everything you say is the truth :)
Thank you and I wish you good jazz.
Classical musicians study harmony thoroughly, understanding how it really works, but unfortunately, they often only do so on paper. If they are not particularly intelligent, they might not realize that it can be applied in practice.
Jazz musicians, on the other hand, do the exact opposite: they immediately apply what they study, but they believe that “their” harmony is different from that of Haydn or Chopin.
In reality, functional harmony is simply functional harmony.
Starting with “basso continuo” and partimenti practice right away is enough to understand everything about harmony and real-time composition: so-called “jazz harmony” is simply replacing the octave of a chord with the ninth and the fifth with the sixth.
C6 for example is not necessarily
C-E-G-A, but rather the first inversion of Am with a doubled third, which is typical of the deceptive cadence (V VI),
so it’s C-E-A-C.
When in partimenti we find a 6 next to the bass note (the lowest voice in a four-part chord), it indicates that the root is a sixth above. This concept has been preserved in modern chord notation as a legacy of basso continuo.
Indeed, when you encounter V7 I6, from a functional perspective, it is actually V VI.
The octatonic perspective of Barry Harris is different and very logic and beautiful but overlaps with this one like a superimposition, meaning it doesn’t replace it.
The foundations are laid before building the palace.
It is said that Barry Harris himself, a passionate admirer of Chopin’s music, was familiar with these concepts and partimenti method.
I don't want to say negative things about your YT video's, because they contain a lot of useful information. But what I regret is that there is absolutely no need to create a dichotomy between general modern music theory and jazz. In classical music there is also room for improvisation. 2 examples: Baroque where improvisation was very frequent and musicians where expected to have that skill, and a cadenza in a concerto. Let's say that in jazz, "composing on the spot", happens more frequently (although most jazz improvisations are not completely 100% new inventions). And there is a current evolution in jazz that playing prepared music is more often done than extensive improvisation. I consider jazz as a music style among others under the umbrella of general modern music theory.
The world is for opinions, and often difference is degree but presented as dichotomy. There is plenty of debate about what jazz is, if it’s even a legitimate term to use etc. But if we are going to have a category, is it not based on the great practitioners and some core principles. That’s why I think the language metaphor works well. It’s not an accent it’s a language, it has dialects but they must have a common set of principles in order to be part of the language. Other languages are available. Not better or worse. Some languages come from shared ancestors. Many forms of music around the world are improvised, they are not all jazz, but clearly it’s a key component. Lots of jazz right back to the beginning had arrangements, but usually left space for soloists. Small combos emphasised improvisation. Like languages jazz develops, new words new grammar, gets influenced by other languages. I personally don’t think we have to be too pure about it, but if everything is jazz nothing is, and no doubt we can’t get a definition for everything, but for me what Shan teaches firmly lies in the tradition of jazz. Even if you want to play different stuff, if you want to be able to play jazz in a more authentic way ( like the main thing that seems to be jazz) the I think you need to assimilate this stuff. People pick it up in different way, but for me at least Shans teaching removes the mystery, and allows me to approach playing this music ( what I think jazz is). More than anything (for me) a key element of jazz is that the language is used for a conversation between musicians. It’s not a rehearsed play, it more like a skilled debate. There are ideas, there are impactful ways to present them, but it’s also a real time reaction. It’s all music, but if a category is to have meaning, it needs some core to anchor it, even it’s more like fuzzy interlocking mist.😊
Classical musicians used to improvise. When was the last time you think I met one who includes that in their teaching or playing?