Just to clarify Jens, Barry would consider Eminor to A7 in the key of C as a 3 to 6. It would take C major scale down to the 3rd of A7(C#) . Barry often said not everything is a 2 5.
Ok, interesting. . I never heard him do that, but I did hear him reduce rhythm changes like this to a I V progression. Would he then also play a 9th and not a b9 on the A7?
Fascinating! I wondered what the "rule" was for using that move that you demonstrated in bar 8 of the blues. Thanks, Chris! Your lessons have also helped me a lot!
@@JensLarsenIf you're descending from c major as chris is saying, then you don't quite get to the flat 9. You could upon arriving at the 3rd of a go up the diminished from there to get that 7b9 sound. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong @thingsivelearnedfrombarryh2616
I mostly use the minor 7th approach. Early on, I got my hands on the Pat Martino book, and worked through his "activities". Just kind of stuck with me, and that's how I hear ii-V's now. It seems one step closer to the blues, compared to the V7-I approach. Another trick I like is using the tritone sub in a iii-VI-ii-V progression. So, pretend you're playing over Em7-Eb7-Dm7-Db7-Cmaj7. That stepwise movement seems intuitively easier to navigate for me.
These concepts seem akin to learning soccer, you will prefer one foot over the other but unlock your true potential when you can use both feet equally well.
When I went to GIT, the school's curriculum combined both of these methods as improvisational approaches, but also did the simplification of grouping chords in a given key, which was called "key centering". For the further advancement levels, they got heavy into playing the altered sounds over the V7. But they mostly stressed the key centering idea. Really just another phrase to what you've explained. That's how I've learned about what you're describing. Thanks Jens for a great explanation! 😁 It's always great to hear this stuff again just to reinforce it.
GIT class of 2000 here. Great to see a fellow alum. I didn't get the "drop 2" and other jazz stuff until I started looking at Berklee's approach and terminology. From a GIT perspective, I would look at these things as: 1) Blanketed approach over progression using the most fitting tonality. Hard to do with a lot of chord extensions and a bit boring since it will probably be the most inside. 2) Coming up with a different scale/mode for each change. Hard to do while improvising without a lot of practice with fretboard visualization. 3) Playing slightly outside of everything and risking a wrong note but using clashing notes as passing tones to anticipate chordal changes in the melody and thus connect chords not only between each other but via the melody. In short, a slightly outside melody "pulls" the chords along until the melody and chords once again sync up diatonically.
@AAAA-lt9hq Hey, very cool dude, nice explanation. I was at school '85 to '86. It's back when some of the instructors were Frank Gambale, Scott Henderson, and Robben Ford! It was a great experience and loved every bit of it. I sure learned a lot and it made your head spin every day you came out of that place! The only thing for me is, I've always played more in rock and blues situations, so even though I still study a lot of the Jazz related theory and applications, I never really got a big-time chance of using it in the other musical formats. Once in awhile I'll get together with some friends and just jazz fusion and funk style jam out in a free-form way, I get to experiment a little more. I don't play or gig out anymore, don't have the time or the energy, but I still practice and keep the chops up all the time. Good luck in your musical journey dude! 🍀 😎🔥
@@jjamesmcguire6343 That's so awesome that you were there during the good old days! Yeah we were definitely CAGED and 3 note per string and modally inclined for sure. It's a real honor, man. Daniel Gilbert was there when I was there too and his fusion open counselings were scary complex. Scott Henderson was still there when I was there. Keith Wyatt as well. Danny Gill was visiting instructor when I was there and was a big influence on me. Derek Sherinian (then in Dream Theater) came by to do some open counselings and workshops. You guys were definitely the real deal in the 80s and we were just following in your footsteps by the late 90s. Again, a real honor. Best wishes. :)
@@AAAA-lt9hq So cool to hear back, thanks for all that! It's hard to imagine that I was their 38 1/2 years ago! Some of the same cats were there when I was there. I had Keith Wyatt for blues and rock class. Always really liked him, he was a super cool guy! Paul Gilbert was playing in his own band with a rehearsal space in town at the time. He was 6 months ahead of me and he became an instructor at the end of my tenure. I actually had to test out to graduate and he was my teacher for that and graded me on my performance. Scott Henderson also, he was just amazing! I would watch him play almost every day just blowing through real book tunes with incredible ease. Don Mock was there then and he was super impressive and knowledgeable, he was very influenced by Jon McLaughlin style. One of my favorites for Jazz chord Melody was Ron Eschete. That guy was playing a 7 string and would have bass line, Harmony, and Melody going sounding like 3 players playing real book standards. Just mind blowing! Also got to see Joe Pass perform 3 times in a trio at school. The other big tidbit of info I wanted to send you.... when I was there, Jimmy Herring was 6 months ahead of me and he was one of the absolute best students in the whole school. He had his own band formed with another smoking player that was from Texas and they were playing Steve Morse and Dregs tunes to the T! He was only 22 then and he was already just a monster! I'm sure the two of us could go on and on with all the great things we did and saw. A total amazing and rewarding experience. Never saw a pissed off or bummed face the entire time! The positivity was dripping from the walls! Peace brother! 😎🔥💥👍
Jens, I like your willingness to use different approaches for different situations. I gave up trying to use just the Martino approach, just the horizontal, the vertical, Lydian Chromatic, etc. (Learning here about the Harris-Pass has been helpful too). I think my love for systems kind of filled my mind with a lot of conceptual stuff that got in the way. I'm still not to the Holdsworth level of seeing the whole neck in the pure way he described, but I'm working on it. I do try to think of all the approaches as just aspects or possibilities within one grand "system".
The Dm7b5, Fm7, Abmaj7 share a common tone which resolves a 1/2 step from above to the target 5th (G) of Imaj7 (Cmaj7 in the last example). The IV7b9 (or Idim and bIIIdim) share a common tone which resolves from a 1/2 step below (F#) to the target 5th.
If you 'squish' a Dm7 (iim7 chord - spelt D F A C) together with a G7 chord (V7 chord - spelt G B D F), you get a G9sus4 chord (spelt: G B D F A C). That functions as a G7 (V7) chord (because it has G in the bass) - so you won't really need the Dm7 (iim7) chord before it. You can now simply use a G7 (V7) chord - or any other chord that functions as a G7 (V7). Likewise, if you 'squish' a G7 (V7) chord to a Dm7 (iim7), you get a Dm7(11,13) (spelt: D F A C G B - it has D in the bass). This functions as a iim7 chord. You can take out the extensions if you like and just use the plain old Dm7 chord - with no G7 (V7) following it. I would argue that you could practice either Barry Harris' approach - or that of Pat Martino. They will both work. It comes down to how you want to spell your chords. You could even reinsert the original extensions / suspensions as chord melody. You can add your own extensions to such simple Dm7 and G7 Chords depending on your taste. You can of course leave them as they are too. Simplicity is a good idea. What you said here Jens (at 7:45 and other places) about the 'TYPE' of chord being 'SECONDARY to its FUNCTION' is key here. It's like a type of cake versus its function. It is more important to eat a cake (i.e. a good function) rather than feed it to the dog next door (bad function). I wouldn't think the type of cake is so important as its function. Thanks for the video Jens, Happy Halloween, have a pineapple ! 😁🍍
Thank you for this inspiring and important video. I used to attempt to condense the harmonies of standards to "campfire-chords. As few as possible and as much as needed to accompany the song. This helped me a lot to identfy song structures and forms. Your video is a good hint to take this habit up again.
Thanks a lot sir. That was really very much "ear opening". I heard of this Pat Martino "Dorification" approach, but could not really figure out how it would work and sound. These examples, and off course the "make it dominant" ones were really beautiful to listen to. Time to test it out😊
so good Jens yet again, your explanations of things is second to none the best! thank you for all your time and effort you put in to these videos for us
It depends from the Chord progression and the speed change… in same cases i like to play some notes that mark all’ chords , but in other case only the main chords to avoid too much cervellotic phrases…
I've never heard of this song but it's in my real book so I will give it a shot. I do have a system from chunking along a new song to when it opens up and flows. I'm still not totally sure of what it is but it works. I guess if I keep learning more songs I will know. Then I can write my own book.
My problem with Martino's approach is that you don't introduce any alterations if you only think about the minor chord... If I want to add alterations or "outside" tension to the dominant chord, I have to treat it as such... Anyhow - Great video as always, I'm a long time patron of yours... :)
Great video, Jens! Thank you! I had a couple of questions, though: 1) If I am comping, do I leave the 2's or 5's in? It seems like a rhythm guitarist would add chords as opposed to an improvisor. 2) How would these guys approach a MINOR ii V? I think Barry played V7 -> bVII7. I'm guessing Pat would play Minor 7th b5 chords on the two, or the 2 & 4. Thanks!
1 - No, play the changes 2 - The same way but using Harmonic minor, that is what you get with Barrys description of the scale. Writing it in roman numerals just makes that unclear
It would be great to hear about your approach to songs like Conception by George Shering. This one is perticulary difficult for me since it has a lot of chords and some tricky progressions. Thanks for the video Jens !
I went to a workshop a few months back in which the teacher said that James Chirillo’s approach is that every chord is either a I or a V. I didn’t understand that concept at the time, but your turnaround analysis at 9:08 is probably what he’s talking about, right? Thanks for yet another great lesson, and happy Halloween. (My birthday is Oct. 30th, so I’ve always assumed that all the festivity on the 31st is in some way about me🎃.)
@ Thanks! The presenter just mentioned Chirillo’s idea in passing, but it’s stuck with me, and I’m willing to bet it’s related to that very cool reduction you did.
Knowing where the tension notes resolve to, I think is the key. If I play notes under tension and I want to resolve it, but don’t know what best ones are best. I get lost. I think all these different approaches are just doing that. If that makes any sense.
I like a lot of the idea of substituting chords with minor 7 everywhere, Pat Martino is the proof it Works and It sounds Amazing. Unfortunately, I'm not able to apply it in real playing situations. It would mean that I should Play a certain chord progression when I am Comping and then to think another progression when I am improvising. This is way too much thinking process for me. I would be interested in hearing how other people manage to do to do that. But using sometimes the five or sometimes the two depending on the context is totally fine and I'm using it all the time.
When you say "I'm not able to apply it in real playing situations" that is the answer to your question. It doesn't work in actual playing because thinking that way is confusing, limiting and moves away from what is actually doing on in the song. Pat is a self taught player that lived in his own musical world. Understanding it takes a very long time, and imho not worth it and unnecessary.
The approach of Pat Martino is simply to be able to reuse melodies, hoping that this simplifies soloing. There are others who also discovered and teach this eg Robert Conti. I could give a long explanation why I rejected this for myself because I spent much time on it. In short: this doesn't work, or at least the result is not satisfying.
@@armandosinger First I go back to the original version of the song. To understand the vision of the composer, see the correct harmonies and to avoid the influences and modifications of arrangers or transcribers that say "everything is ii V" (bebop - Barry Harris) or "forget the ii, there's only the V" (Joe Pass) or "everything is minor 7" (Pat Martino), because that depends on the context. Then I analyse what the real meaning is of the ii, the V or any other chord. From that I know which melodic patterns will work.
I have heard this advice many times in a couple of flavors (most often the Barry-Dom7 vs Pat-m7 stuff) but I guess my question is this: where does all the snobbery about 'following the chords' come from if that's really how great jazz soloists think when improvising melodies? While I certainly don't see as much of this from you or your fans, Jens, I can distinctly remember jazz-afficionados on internet forums dinging improvisers in other genres for not, 'following the changes.' Of course, a large number would refuse to elaborate, so I have to hazard a guess as to what they meant. Perhaps they were thinking every SINGLE downbeat gets a 'chord tone' in 'real improv.' How on earth anyone thinks this after studying solos is beyond me, and more importantly, that practice sounds rather insufferable as anything but a technical exercise. Anyway, it's just a thing that occurs to me from time to time.
Haha! Well, I think being able to spell out the changes is a useful (and in reality necessary) skill if you want to play Jazz. It is not the only thing and you should not do it all the time, but at the same time it is pretty jarring to hear a guitarist at a jam session playing Cm pentatonic on the entire form of Blue Bossa without even getting the II V I in Db in there. You can be creative when spelling out changes, and you have already heard 1000s of examples of this, but of course you can also program a computer to nail the changes and that doesn't have to be nice to listen to. Even in technical playing there is always room for creativity, but you can also be creative without always hitting every chord.
@@JensLarsen It's definitely useful, no disagreement here. I think about chord tones all the time. It just seems a bit robotic to say that every chord has to have the third and the seventh at the same time over and over. I also think players in other genres can target notes from the chord just fine, but at the end of the day, upper extensions can really make a line pop, so I don't see the problem. Anyway, thanks for the response, and keep doing what you do, Jens.
@@JensLarsen When I see Dm7 G7 Cmaj7, I know I have to improvise a melody in Cmaj and connect that melody to what came before and what comes next. Inherent in creating melodies is the responsibility to produce interesting movement, irrespective of the genre
8:03 In this case, i think we can simplify | Em7 A7 | as A7 Mixolydian b9, b13, since we are targeting Dm7 (tonicization). I'm not sure if Barry Harris discussed this.
@@JensLarsenThe Em7 is an ambiguous case because it can have a double function: it can be interpreted as either the ii chord related to A7 or the iii minor chord.
I'm beginning to look at these things less as a guitarist and more as a pianist/songwriter who is really just managing independent melodies moving in many different directions at once but grouped as chords for convenience. I'm also looking at it in terms of reharmonization where rules can be applied to individual chords and blocks of a few measures. If this helps anyone, I would like to recommend a video called "7 Levels of Reharmonization (ft. 88bit)" by 8-bit Music Theory (the channel studies music theory of retro video game music). That video takes the progression (Bb | Gm | Cm11 | F7) x 2 and reharmonizes it by the end as (Bb | Am7b9 | Eb(add2)/G | GbminMaj7 | Bb/F | E7(b9)(#11) | Cm11 | A9 (b5)(b13). The "levels" of reharmonization it describes as: Level 1 (simple substitution) Level 2 (adding chromaticism) Level 3 (relative minor) Level 4 (close key) Level 5 (distant key) Level 6 (bar-by-bar) Level 7 (voice leading) This probably adds in a lot of complexity whereas the point of the video is to simplify, but when simplifying with jazz I often do not know when I am throwing out something important. For example, I would consider the II to be very important since it strongly pulls back to I. While I would consider V7 to be important as a functional dominant, a V7 to I is such a common movement I thought it might sound stock and, like the 5th in a chord, often be omitted as non-essential, especially when playing outside. Believe it or not, I thought jazz players also thought in this 7 level analytical way even when improvising. They are just that good at visualizing the fretboard and thinking of music theory concepts quickly. I might add "counterpoint" to the 7 levels but I realize that implies a Bachian and diatonic view of looking at things with outdated, fixed rules. Still, if those rules help us see a problem from multiple perspectives, I find them useful. So, I actually end up with a lot of analysis paralysis when I look at a chart and begin to think about what else it could be and how that could affect the improvisation. If Mr. Larsen has his own system of reharmonization he prefers when songwriting, I would very much support and appreciate a video of his analyzing a progression at numerous levels of complexity. I find I get more out of analysis when writing a piece from scratch as opposed to analyzing a standard. Because standards are formulaic in a sense (II V I at the most basic), they do not seem as open-ended as simply writing a new progression to be as outside sounding as possible while still remaining musical. I would also like to restate to guitar players the usefulness of music theory lessons from pianists. We often simplify things in terms of harmony and because on the guitar it can be difficult to play large intervals or widely contrasting parts without using two or more guitars. If one thinks of the pianist's hands as "guitar 1" and "guitar 2" and both hands together as a two guitar arrangement, I find a lot of things open up. Even more so with the Baroque era technique of four handed harpsichord performances.
I'm trying to learn Giant Steps right now and the biggest problem I'm having is as soon as I play the head, which I'm able to do fairly well now, I start soloing over the changes and I'm lost in four bars. lol
Two suggestions to simplify it. The first one is to just play the major pentatonic of the V7 chord over the entire ii-V-I. For example, on Fmi7-Bb7-Eb maj just play the Bb major pentatonic over the entire progression. Alternately, play the major pentatonic of the I chord over the entire ii-V-I. So for Fmi7-Bb7-Eb major just play the Ebmaj pentatonic over the entire progression. Because the chords move quickly, these sound really good.
@@jonasaras Sure, but this works for the ii-V-I's in Giant steps. But the real challenge is the coltrane changes sequence : Bmaj7 D7 Gmaj7 Bb7 Ebmaj 7th, two bars each, tonalities shifting by maj thirds down.
Two advices that you can check out yourself because common knowledge. 1 : Analyse the bridge to the standards "have you meet miss Jones". Reduce the harmonic cycle. Same key changes (Major thirds going down) Then on Giant steps it can be useful to think B Maj7 Amin7 Gmaj7 Fmin7 EbMaj7, Like the Pat Martino approach Jens Larsen talks about in this video.
@@anneonym7346 But there are still V-I's everywhere. You can play just the V pentatonic over the V and I (which sounds "floaty") or the I pentatonic over both (sounds anticipatory and resolves). In either case, you're just shifting between 3 pentatonic scales for the entire song
@@jonasaras Listen bro, i am teaching harmony and guitar, been playing pro for more then 40 years, been studying at Berklee in the 80's etc. What you say is theoretically OK but not helpul. I gave two examples hints that can be helpful, common knowledge among musicians. Take them, or continue teaching me about pentatonics in a three tonic system context. 🤣Bye the way, can you solo on giant steps fluently ? I do. There are tunes much more difficult that uses Coltrane's use of three tonic system, including reharmonisations of standards and original compositions.
How do you approach difficult progressions? 🙂
➡The 3 Rules of Playing Jazz Chords
ua-cam.com/video/brCs-Os-saQ/v-deo.html
YOU ARE AMAZING I LITTERALY ASKED ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY
@@FrogletOW Thank you! 😎😁
Had to slow you down sooo much but I ended up understanding thank you
After learning two shapes I was caught up
Just to clarify Jens, Barry would consider Eminor to A7 in the key of C as a 3 to 6. It would take C major scale down to the 3rd of A7(C#) . Barry often said not everything is a 2 5.
Ok, interesting. . I never heard him do that, but I did hear him reduce rhythm changes like this to a I V progression. Would he then also play a 9th and not a b9 on the A7?
@@JensLarsenwe need a masterclass/ collaboration with you and TILFBH
@@JensLarsen A7 comes from Bb diminished so 'de gustibus non disputandum'
Fascinating! I wondered what the "rule" was for using that move that you demonstrated in bar 8 of the blues. Thanks, Chris! Your lessons have also helped me a lot!
@@JensLarsenIf you're descending from c major as chris is saying, then you don't quite get to the flat 9. You could upon arriving at the 3rd of a go up the diminished from there to get that 7b9 sound. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong @thingsivelearnedfrombarryh2616
I mostly use the minor 7th approach. Early on, I got my hands on the Pat Martino book, and worked through his "activities". Just kind of stuck with me, and that's how I hear ii-V's now. It seems one step closer to the blues, compared to the V7-I approach. Another trick I like is using the tritone sub in a iii-VI-ii-V progression. So, pretend you're playing over Em7-Eb7-Dm7-Db7-Cmaj7. That stepwise movement seems intuitively easier to navigate for me.
I hear what your saying .. been learning the The Barry Harris stuff but found the Pat Martino linear expressions to be really useful
These concepts seem akin to learning soccer, you will prefer one foot over the other but unlock your true potential when you can use both feet equally well.
Very good. LOTS of information here. should keep us all at work for months!!
That's the plan!
When I went to GIT, the school's curriculum combined both of these methods as improvisational approaches, but also did the simplification of grouping chords in a given key, which was called "key centering". For the further advancement levels, they got heavy into playing the altered sounds over the V7. But they mostly stressed the key centering idea. Really just another phrase to what you've explained. That's how I've learned about what you're describing.
Thanks Jens for a great explanation! 😁 It's always great to hear this stuff again just to reinforce it.
GIT class of 2000 here. Great to see a fellow alum. I didn't get the "drop 2" and other jazz stuff until I started looking at Berklee's approach and terminology.
From a GIT perspective, I would look at these things as:
1) Blanketed approach over progression using the most fitting tonality. Hard to do with a lot of chord extensions and a bit boring since it will probably be the most inside.
2) Coming up with a different scale/mode for each change. Hard to do while improvising without a lot of practice with fretboard visualization.
3) Playing slightly outside of everything and risking a wrong note but using clashing notes as passing tones to anticipate chordal changes in the melody and thus connect chords not only between each other but via the melody. In short, a slightly outside melody "pulls" the chords along until the melody and chords once again sync up diatonically.
@AAAA-lt9hq Hey, very cool dude, nice explanation. I was at school '85 to '86. It's back when some of the instructors were Frank Gambale, Scott Henderson, and Robben Ford! It was a great experience and loved every bit of it. I sure learned a lot and it made your head spin every day you came out of that place! The only thing for me is, I've always played more in rock and blues situations, so even though I still study a lot of the Jazz related theory and applications, I never really got a big-time chance of using it in the other musical formats. Once in awhile I'll get together with some friends and just jazz fusion and funk style jam out in a free-form way, I get to experiment a little more. I don't play or gig out anymore, don't have the time or the energy, but I still practice and keep the chops up all the time.
Good luck in your musical journey dude! 🍀 😎🔥
@@jjamesmcguire6343 That's so awesome that you were there during the good old days! Yeah we were definitely CAGED and 3 note per string and modally inclined for sure. It's a real honor, man. Daniel Gilbert was there when I was there too and his fusion open counselings were scary complex.
Scott Henderson was still there when I was there. Keith Wyatt as well.
Danny Gill was visiting instructor when I was there and was a big influence on me. Derek Sherinian (then in Dream Theater) came by to do some open counselings and workshops. You guys were definitely the real deal in the 80s and we were just following in your footsteps by the late 90s. Again, a real honor. Best wishes. :)
@@AAAA-lt9hq So cool to hear back, thanks for all that! It's hard to imagine that I was their 38 1/2 years ago! Some of the same cats were there when I was there. I had Keith Wyatt for blues and rock class. Always really liked him, he was a super cool guy! Paul Gilbert was playing in his own band with a rehearsal space in town at the time. He was 6 months ahead of me and he became an instructor at the end of my tenure. I actually had to test out to graduate and he was my teacher for that and graded me on my performance. Scott Henderson also, he was just amazing! I would watch him play almost every day just blowing through real book tunes with incredible ease. Don Mock was there then and he was super impressive and knowledgeable, he was very influenced by Jon McLaughlin style. One of my favorites for Jazz chord Melody was Ron Eschete. That guy was playing a 7 string and would have bass line, Harmony, and Melody going sounding like 3 players playing real book standards. Just mind blowing! Also got to see Joe Pass perform 3 times in a trio at school.
The other big tidbit of info I wanted to send you.... when I was there, Jimmy Herring was 6 months ahead of me and he was one of the absolute best students in the whole school. He had his own band formed with another smoking player that was from Texas and they were playing Steve Morse and Dregs tunes to the T! He was only 22 then and he was already just a monster!
I'm sure the two of us could go on and on with all the great things we did and saw. A total amazing and rewarding experience. Never saw a pissed off or bummed face the entire time! The positivity was dripping from the walls!
Peace brother! 😎🔥💥👍
@@jjamesmcguire6343 I've subscribed to you sir so I won't lose track of you! Hopefully YT will let us instant message one of these days. :)
Jens, I like your willingness to use different approaches for different situations. I gave up trying to use just the Martino approach, just the horizontal, the vertical, Lydian Chromatic, etc. (Learning here about the Harris-Pass has been helpful too). I think my love for systems kind of filled my mind with a lot of conceptual stuff that got in the way. I'm still not to the Holdsworth level of seeing the whole neck in the pure way he described, but I'm working on it. I do try to think of all the approaches as just aspects or possibilities within one grand "system".
Thank you Jeff! Yes, systems are a double-edged sword with both a way to order information but also limit yourself by ignoring some options.
The Dm7b5, Fm7, Abmaj7 share a common tone which resolves a 1/2 step from above to the target 5th (G) of Imaj7 (Cmaj7 in the last example). The IV7b9 (or Idim and bIIIdim) share a common tone which resolves from a 1/2 step below (F#) to the target 5th.
I'm having a Eureka moment right now with the maj7-min7 movement. Thank you🎉
If you 'squish' a Dm7 (iim7 chord - spelt D F A C) together with a G7 chord (V7 chord - spelt G B D F), you get a G9sus4 chord (spelt: G B D F A C).
That functions as a G7 (V7) chord (because it has G in the bass) - so you won't really need the Dm7 (iim7) chord before it. You can now simply use a G7 (V7) chord - or any other chord that functions as a G7 (V7).
Likewise, if you 'squish' a G7 (V7) chord to a Dm7 (iim7), you get a Dm7(11,13) (spelt: D F A C G B - it has D in the bass). This functions as a iim7 chord. You can take out the extensions if you like and just use the plain old Dm7 chord - with no G7 (V7) following it.
I would argue that you could practice either Barry Harris' approach - or that of Pat Martino. They will both work. It comes down to how you want to spell your chords. You could even reinsert the original extensions / suspensions as chord melody.
You can add your own extensions to such simple Dm7 and G7 Chords depending on your taste. You can of course leave them as they are too. Simplicity is a good idea.
What you said here Jens (at 7:45 and other places) about the 'TYPE' of chord being 'SECONDARY to its FUNCTION' is key here.
It's like a type of cake versus its function. It is more important to eat a cake (i.e. a good function) rather than feed it to the dog next door (bad function). I wouldn't think the type of cake is so important as its function.
Thanks for the video Jens,
Happy Halloween, have a pineapple ! 😁🍍
Thanks Kevin! That is indeed it 🙂
Happy Halloween 🧙♂️
Thank you for this inspiring and important video. I used to attempt to condense the harmonies of standards to "campfire-chords. As few as possible and as much as needed to accompany the song. This helped me a lot to identfy song structures and forms. Your video is a good hint to take this habit up again.
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks a lot sir. That was really very much "ear opening". I heard of this Pat Martino "Dorification" approach, but could not really figure out how it would work and sound. These examples, and off course the "make it dominant" ones were really beautiful to listen to. Time to test it out😊
so good Jens yet again, your explanations of things is second to none the best! thank you for all your time and effort you put in to these videos for us
It depends from the Chord progression and the speed change… in same cases i like to play some notes that mark all’ chords , but in other case only the main chords to avoid too much cervellotic phrases…
by the way....great great lesson.... Pat Martino is amaizing!!!!!
Thank you, Jens! This is one of those lessons that is so good I have to watch it over and over! Genuinely enlightening. Also, I don't even like jazz.
Glad it was helpful!
Standing ovation! Learn Jens, Make Music :)
Thanks for sharing Jens.🐨
My pleasure!
Great lesson Jens
Thank you, Frank
Very helpful, I've always found the C3PO chord a bit of a stretch.
😁🙏
Maybe that's not the D#ø/D you were looking for?
Thank you Jens! The R2D2/C3PO cadence is so spicy! 🤣
😂🙏
I actually remember you sitting in exactly that bay window🙂 Great video, as always!!!
I've never heard of this song but it's in my real book so I will give it a shot. I do have a system from chunking along a new song to when it opens up and flows. I'm still not totally sure of what it is but it works. I guess if I keep learning more songs I will know. Then I can write my own book.
My problem with Martino's approach is that you don't introduce any alterations if you only think about the minor chord... If I want to add alterations or "outside" tension to the dominant chord, I have to treat it as such... Anyhow - Great video as always, I'm a long time patron of yours... :)
great vid ...Jens...❤
Great video, Jens! Thank you! I had a couple of questions, though:
1) If I am comping, do I leave the 2's or 5's in? It seems like a rhythm guitarist would add chords as opposed to an improvisor.
2) How would these guys approach a MINOR ii V? I think Barry played V7 -> bVII7. I'm guessing Pat would play Minor 7th b5 chords on the two, or the 2 & 4.
Thanks!
1 - No, play the changes
2 - The same way but using Harmonic minor, that is what you get with Barrys description of the scale. Writing it in roman numerals just makes that unclear
@JensLarsen Thanks again, Jens!
It would be great to hear about your approach to songs like Conception by George Shering. This one is perticulary difficult for me since it has a lot of chords and some tricky progressions.
Thanks for the video Jens !
That one is mostly about reducing it to dominant chords similar to Barry's philosophy
Very valuable information.
Glad you think so!
Mark Levine takes similar approach, but he's using a 7sus4 chord which belongs to both subdominant and dominant family.
I went to a workshop a few months back in which the teacher said that James Chirillo’s approach is that every chord is either a I or a V. I didn’t understand that concept at the time, but your turnaround analysis at 9:08 is probably what he’s talking about, right? Thanks for yet another great lesson, and happy Halloween. (My birthday is Oct. 30th, so I’ve always assumed that all the festivity on the 31st is in some way about me🎃.)
Happy birthday! I don't know what James Chirillo's approach is so I can't really say.
@ Thanks! The presenter just mentioned Chirillo’s idea in passing, but it’s stuck with me, and I’m willing to bet it’s related to that very cool reduction you did.
Sounds like it might be related to Barry Harris’s six diminished ideas.
that dude playing em7 over a7 blew me away
missing the third seems like a bad idea but it sounds awesome
Thanks Jens.......!!!
Glad you like it!
Knowing where the tension notes resolve to, I think is the key. If I play notes under tension and I want to resolve it, but don’t know what best ones are best. I get lost. I think all these different approaches are just doing that. If that makes any sense.
I like a lot of the idea of substituting chords with minor 7 everywhere, Pat Martino is the proof it Works and It sounds Amazing. Unfortunately, I'm not able to apply it in real playing situations. It would mean that I should Play a certain chord progression when I am Comping and then to think another progression when I am improvising. This is way too much thinking process for me. I would be interested in hearing how other people manage to do to do that. But using sometimes the five or sometimes the two depending on the context is totally fine and I'm using it all the time.
Yes, that is indeed a consequence of that if you go all the way in one camp (nobody really does)
When you say "I'm not able to apply it in real playing situations" that is the answer to your question. It doesn't work in actual playing because thinking that way is confusing, limiting and moves away from what is actually doing on in the song. Pat is a self taught player that lived in his own musical world. Understanding it takes a very long time, and imho not worth it and unnecessary.
The approach of Pat Martino is simply to be able to reuse melodies, hoping that this simplifies soloing. There are others who also discovered and teach this eg Robert Conti. I could give a long explanation why I rejected this for myself because I spent much time on it. In short: this doesn't work, or at least the result is not satisfying.
What approach do you use now?
@@armandosinger First I go back to the original version of the song. To understand the vision of the composer, see the correct harmonies and to avoid the influences and modifications of arrangers or transcribers that say "everything is ii V" (bebop - Barry Harris) or "forget the ii, there's only the V" (Joe Pass) or "everything is minor 7" (Pat Martino), because that depends on the context. Then I analyse what the real meaning is of the ii, the V or any other chord. From that I know which melodic patterns will work.
Thanks!
Thank you for the support, Tom 🙏
I have heard this advice many times in a couple of flavors (most often the Barry-Dom7 vs Pat-m7 stuff) but I guess my question is this: where does all the snobbery about 'following the chords' come from if that's really how great jazz soloists think when improvising melodies?
While I certainly don't see as much of this from you or your fans, Jens, I can distinctly remember jazz-afficionados on internet forums dinging improvisers in other genres for not, 'following the changes.' Of course, a large number would refuse to elaborate, so I have to hazard a guess as to what they meant. Perhaps they were thinking every SINGLE downbeat gets a 'chord tone' in 'real improv.' How on earth anyone thinks this after studying solos is beyond me, and more importantly, that practice sounds rather insufferable as anything but a technical exercise. Anyway, it's just a thing that occurs to me from time to time.
Haha! Well, I think being able to spell out the changes is a useful (and in reality necessary) skill if you want to play Jazz. It is not the only thing and you should not do it all the time, but at the same time it is pretty jarring to hear a guitarist at a jam session playing Cm pentatonic on the entire form of Blue Bossa without even getting the II V I in Db in there.
You can be creative when spelling out changes, and you have already heard 1000s of examples of this, but of course you can also program a computer to nail the changes and that doesn't have to be nice to listen to. Even in technical playing there is always room for creativity, but you can also be creative without always hitting every chord.
@@JensLarsen It's definitely useful, no disagreement here. I think about chord tones all the time. It just seems a bit robotic to say that every chord has to have the third and the seventh at the same time over and over. I also think players in other genres can target notes from the chord just fine, but at the end of the day, upper extensions can really make a line pop, so I don't see the problem. Anyway, thanks for the response, and keep doing what you do, Jens.
Both are great concepts that I’ve used but once you learn to move mi11b5 around life becomes infinitely easier
In the I-II-V where C is the I, isn't G the V?
?
Fm-C-Cm-G-E-Fm (All the Things You Are cliff notes)
How about 'forgetting' both the ii and the V? After all, th I chord has the same notes as both :)
In Jazz, movement is important so if you remove that from your solo then you probably will find it difficult to sound like Jazz
@@JensLarsen When I see Dm7 G7 Cmaj7, I know I have to improvise a melody in Cmaj and connect that melody to what came before and what comes next. Inherent in creating melodies is the responsibility to produce interesting movement, irrespective of the genre
8:03 In this case, i think we can simplify | Em7 A7 | as A7 Mixolydian b9, b13, since we are targeting Dm7 (tonicization). I'm not sure if Barry Harris discussed this.
would you say that an analysis like that describes how Parker and Barry solo on rhythm changes?
@@JensLarsenThe Em7 is an ambiguous case because it can have a double function: it can be interpreted as either the ii chord related to A7 or the iii minor chord.
@@rodolfoamaralguitar would you say that an analysis like that describes how Parker and Barry solo on rhythm changes?
@@JensLarsen I don´t know. Some players tend to ignore the changes by playing the I major triad with embellishments.
@@rodolfoamaralguitar Maybe check that out then? Cmaj7 and A7(b9,b13) doesn't sound the same.
You are a funny man!
🙏🙂
I'm beginning to look at these things less as a guitarist and more as a pianist/songwriter who is really just managing independent melodies moving in many different directions at once but grouped as chords for convenience.
I'm also looking at it in terms of reharmonization where rules can be applied to individual chords and blocks of a few measures.
If this helps anyone, I would like to recommend a video called "7 Levels of Reharmonization (ft. 88bit)" by 8-bit Music Theory (the channel studies music theory of retro video game music).
That video takes the progression (Bb | Gm | Cm11 | F7) x 2 and reharmonizes it by the end as (Bb | Am7b9 | Eb(add2)/G | GbminMaj7 | Bb/F | E7(b9)(#11) | Cm11 | A9 (b5)(b13).
The "levels" of reharmonization it describes as:
Level 1 (simple substitution)
Level 2 (adding chromaticism)
Level 3 (relative minor)
Level 4 (close key)
Level 5 (distant key)
Level 6 (bar-by-bar)
Level 7 (voice leading)
This probably adds in a lot of complexity whereas the point of the video is to simplify, but when simplifying with jazz I often do not know when I am throwing out something important.
For example, I would consider the II to be very important since it strongly pulls back to I. While I would consider V7 to be important as a functional dominant, a V7 to I is such a common movement I thought it might sound stock and, like the 5th in a chord, often be omitted as non-essential, especially when playing outside.
Believe it or not, I thought jazz players also thought in this 7 level analytical way even when improvising. They are just that good at visualizing the fretboard and thinking of music theory concepts quickly.
I might add "counterpoint" to the 7 levels but I realize that implies a Bachian and diatonic view of looking at things with outdated, fixed rules. Still, if those rules help us see a problem from multiple perspectives, I find them useful.
So, I actually end up with a lot of analysis paralysis when I look at a chart and begin to think about what else it could be and how that could affect the improvisation.
If Mr. Larsen has his own system of reharmonization he prefers when songwriting, I would very much support and appreciate a video of his analyzing a progression at numerous levels of complexity.
I find I get more out of analysis when writing a piece from scratch as opposed to analyzing a standard.
Because standards are formulaic in a sense (II V I at the most basic), they do not seem as open-ended as simply writing a new progression to be as outside sounding as possible while still remaining musical.
I would also like to restate to guitar players the usefulness of music theory lessons from pianists. We often simplify things in terms of harmony and because on the guitar it can be difficult to play large intervals or widely contrasting parts without using two or more guitars.
If one thinks of the pianist's hands as "guitar 1" and "guitar 2" and both hands together as a two guitar arrangement, I find a lot of things open up. Even more so with the Baroque era technique of four handed harpsichord performances.
'Royal Conservartory'? 🤨
Maybe Google it?
Impossible to watch due to the amount of YT adverts.
How many ads are you getting? It's at most one every 7 minutes right?
I hate to give YT my money but premium was the best entertainment investment I’ve made..
@@bobvel7760 Yes, if you watch a lot of UA-cam you also save a LOT of time with premium.
Pay for premium. Best money you will spend this year
I downloaded it to avoid the ads
I'm trying to learn Giant Steps right now and the biggest problem I'm having is as soon as I play the head, which I'm able to do fairly well now, I start soloing over the changes and I'm lost in four bars. lol
Two suggestions to simplify it. The first one is to just play the major pentatonic of the V7 chord over the entire ii-V-I. For example, on Fmi7-Bb7-Eb maj just play the Bb major pentatonic over the entire progression. Alternately, play the major pentatonic of the I chord over the entire ii-V-I. So for Fmi7-Bb7-Eb major just play the Ebmaj pentatonic over the entire progression. Because the chords move quickly, these sound really good.
@@jonasaras Sure, but this works for the ii-V-I's in Giant steps. But the real challenge is the coltrane changes sequence : Bmaj7 D7 Gmaj7 Bb7 Ebmaj 7th, two bars each, tonalities shifting by maj thirds down.
Two advices that you can check out yourself because common knowledge. 1 : Analyse the bridge to the standards "have you meet miss Jones". Reduce the harmonic cycle. Same key changes (Major thirds going down) Then on Giant steps it can be useful to think B Maj7 Amin7 Gmaj7 Fmin7 EbMaj7, Like the Pat Martino approach Jens Larsen talks about in this video.
@@anneonym7346 But there are still V-I's everywhere. You can play just the V pentatonic over the V and I (which sounds "floaty") or the I pentatonic over both (sounds anticipatory and resolves). In either case, you're just shifting between 3 pentatonic scales for the entire song
@@jonasaras Listen bro, i am teaching harmony and guitar, been playing pro for more then 40 years, been studying at Berklee in the 80's etc. What you say is theoretically OK but not helpul. I gave two examples hints that can be helpful, common knowledge among musicians. Take them, or continue teaching me about pentatonics in a three tonic system context. 🤣Bye the way, can you solo on giant steps fluently ? I do. There are tunes much more difficult that uses Coltrane's use of three tonic system, including reharmonisations of standards and original compositions.
I figure when I’m much older and whole lot more gray and I don’t care to have people around. I’ll play jazz.