# Learnning Jazz from a book?



## trippled (Apr 23, 2012)

Hi,

I've been playing guitar for 8 years, my theory knowledge is very basic,
I know the pentatonic\major\minor\harmonic minor scales very well through all the neck, same goes with Major\Minor\Major 7\dominant 7\minor 7th chords.

I even took a few jazz lessons lately and learned to harmonize the C major scale with triads including their inversions and septh chords and their inversions on each string set.

I think the teacher is great but he's also abit expensive and budget is tight.

What I'm actually interested in is learnning to phrase like tom quayle\holdsworth\guthrie govan, I'm not much into the real jazz thing.

Could you guys recommend me a book that would help me to study in an efficient way more chords, scales, modes and in depth explanations on using these when improvising?

It's very important for me that when learnning new information I'll have a "system" to apply it anywhere on the neck and not just 3-4 shapes.

Another thing is that I feel I dont know the neck that well in terms of which note lies where, I mean, I could find what the 17th fret on the A string would be in a few seconds, but I dont have that time when I improvise.

Your recommendations?


----------



## Trespass (Apr 24, 2012)

Get the Jazz Theory Book by Mark Levine. It's not going to be easy to break into, and goes far beyond what you need.

A lot of the Govan/Howe/Holdsworth/Quayle fusion stuff is pretty harmonically simple overall. It's usually modal, non-functional progressions that hang on chords for a long time. Basically, they just run scales and modes over top - I'm hearing a lot of it as just pattern playing.

What makes their pattern playing different than most guys, is that they've worked those patterns out so that chord tones land on downbeats. 90% of Quayle's stuff reminds me of that. Govan gets very chromatic, but the concept is the same. 

Look into Bebop scale patterns and enclosures as a way to learn how to play lines that rhythmically place chordtones on downbeats.

After you understand the concept, start transcribing those guys, and start using the patterns into your playing.


----------



## trippled (Apr 24, 2012)

Trespass said:


> Get the Jazz Theory Book by Mark Levine. It's not going to be easy to break into, and goes far beyond what you need.
> 
> A lot of the Govan/Howe/Holdsworth/Quayle fusion stuff is pretty harmonically simple overall. It's usually modal, non-functional progressions that hang on chords for a long time. Basically, they just run scales and modes over top - I'm hearing a lot of it as just pattern playing.
> 
> ...



Will that book get me from the very beginning into bebop phrasing? or it won't really touch bebop phrasing probably?

Really all I'm interested in is to be able to phrase like quayle does here, this is the most appealing fusion phrasing
I've ever heard, really amazes me.


----------



## Trespass (Apr 24, 2012)

trippled said:


> Will that book get me from the very beginning into bebop phrasing? or it won't really touch bebop phrasing probably?
> 
> Really all I'm interested in is to be able to phrase like quayle does here, this is the most appealing fusion phrasing
> I've ever heard, really amazes me.





> A lot of the Govan/Howe/Holdsworth/Quayle fusion stuff is pretty harmonically simple overall. It's usually modal, non-functional progressions that hang on chords for a long time. Basically, they just run scales and modes over top - I'm hearing a lot of it as just pattern playing.
> 
> What makes their pattern playing different than most guys, is that they've worked those patterns out so that chord tones land on downbeats. 90% of Quayle's stuff reminds me of that. Govan gets very chromatic, but the concept is the same.



It's just scales and patterns. Learn how phrasing lines with chord tones on downbeats work (David Baker's bebop book would be more than enough). Then transcribe Quayle's lines and analyze what variation on the concept he's done. I also hear some exotic scales in some of the stuff, but most of it is overwhelmingly diatonic.

That's it. That's the modern fusion style in two-three paragraphs.



If there's anything I've learned from listening to the fusion guys, it's twofold:

Don't leave any space in your lines. 
Don't interact with other members of your band. Treat them like a backing track.

/Yeah, don't do that. But it's what I hear in every modern fusion guy. Zero band band interaction, zero space between lines.


----------



## trippled (Apr 24, 2012)

Trespass said:


> It's just scales and patterns. Learn how phrasing lines with chord tones on downbeats work (David Baker's bebop book would be more than enough). Then transcribe Quayle's lines and analyze what variation on the concept he's done. I also hear some exotic scales in some of the stuff, but most of it is overwhelmingly diatonic.
> 
> That's it. That's the modern fusion style in two-three paragraphs.
> 
> ...



Well, there's allot more rock soloing attitude there than just traditional jazz phrasing.

I never got really into jazz guitarists honestly, not quiet my cup of tea, I always felt like I need to know allot of theory to understand why what the guy just played was great, at the same time my friend's family which aren't musicians at all are having guthrie govan's album in their car - to me this is an amazing achivement.


----------



## trippled (Apr 24, 2012)

I just realized that the book isn't really written for guitar players - this concerns me abit since I know for example that septh chord inversions are organized differently on guitar than on piano for example, not really sure about that.. also, will the book fit well to someone like me who doesn't have the best theoretical background out there?


----------



## Trespass (Apr 24, 2012)

trippled said:


> I just realized that the book isn't really written for guitar players - this concerns me abit since I know for example that septh chord inversions are organized differently on guitar than on piano for example, not really sure about that.. also, will the book fit well to someone like me who doesn't have the best theoretical background out there?



Err... This is why you just don't go stating in the OP that you know all of this stuff, when you don't.

Seventh chords aren't organized differently on the guitar than piano. Some voicings are more common on one instrument than the other, but if I play all the inversions of a Drop 2 Am7, it's going to be the exact same pitches on piano or guitar.

And yes, there isn't any tab in the book. All of the voicing demonstrations are simplified piano voicings. 

----------
Brush up on your theory (take a theory course, take lessons), then just transcribe a bunch of Quayle stuff. End of story. Knowing your scales across the neck (and understanding their intervals and how they relate to the chord your playing over - super simple) as well as your arpeggios will be it. Just plug in the common phrases and patterns Quayle uses into the matrix of scales/arpeggios you construct across the neck, and that'll get you the sound.

Everything after that is rhythm, articulation, improvised melody and "filler" licks in between.

I mean, what I was going on above about understanding the science behind the lines is moot if you really just want to sound the bare minimum like a fusion player. Just rip off everyone elses patterns, then come up with variations. It'll get you there quicker in the end.


----------



## trippled (Apr 24, 2012)

Trespass said:


> Err... This is why you just don't go stating in the OP that you know all of this stuff, when you don't.
> 
> Seventh chords aren't organized differently on the guitar than piano. Some voicings are more common on one instrument than the other, but if I play all the inversions of a Drop 2 Am7, it's going to be the exact same pitches on piano or guitar.
> 
> ...


Well will drop II voicings on piano would be 1-5-7-3 as the root position, 3-7-1-5 as first inversion etc...?

I do know those inversions, I'm just afraid there will be other stuff that is voiced differently for guitar - it is voiced differently by the way because it's impossible to play the regular voicings on standard tunning.

I didn't state I know anything I don't in the OP.


----------



## Trespass (Apr 24, 2012)

trippled said:


> Well will drop II voicings on piano would be 1-5-7-3 as the root position, 3-7-1-5 as first inversion etc...?
> 
> I do know those inversions, I'm just afraid there will be other stuff that is voiced differently for guitar - it is voiced differently by the way *because it's impossible to play the regular voicings on standard tunning.*
> 
> I didn't state I know anything I don't in the OP.



There isn't such thing as "regular" voicings. 
Each era features some distinct ideas on voicing, but there are tons of examples that break the mold. 

Drop 2s have been around since 1950s, both on guitar and piano. "Drop" is apparently a relatively modern term for it (70s/80s?), but the concept and the voicings have certainly been around for a very long time - a lot of 30s-40s big band stuff features horns using drop 2/3/4 voicings for a full sound.

As someone that plays both live, I can tell you that there is very little difference between piano and guitar voicings. The biggest my voicings will ever get on piano is 6 notes, and that's rare (and has a lot of doubling, frowned upon in jazz academia). 


In fact, the secret to being a versatile comper, is understanding how various structures you already know can be subbed over different changes. 

For example, I'll take your standard G13 voicing (F A B E), and shift it up 4 semitones. This produces (Ab C D G) over G, or a G7b9sus4. If I play it a tritone up from G, it gives me (B Eb F Bb) over G, a G7 b9b13 or G7Alt chord. 

And that's just taking a diatonic scale based idea. I can start pulling from different melodic minor scales to get even more different voicing or soloing ideas. The most obvious being playing a melodic minor a half step above a 7 chord, producing all of the possible alterations over a 7. (Ex. Abmm scale over G7 = G7 b9 #9 #11 b13 or G7Alt)


Most modern guys I hear around town (not referring to the post-Rosenwinkel crowd), are using drop 2s, upper structure triads, quartals and lots of chord scales.



trippled said:


> Well will drop II voicings on piano would be 1-5-7-3 as the root position, 3-7-1-5 as first inversion etc...?



Yes. These chords are used everywhere, by everyone, including soloists (at least Jerry Bergonzi advocates sax/melodic instruments learning chord voicings as arpeggios it in one of his books). Big band voicings etc.


----------



## trippled (Apr 24, 2012)

Trespass said:


> There isn't such thing as "regular" voicings.
> Each era features some distinct ideas on voicing, but there are tons of examples that break the mold.
> 
> Drop 2s have been around since 1950s, both on guitar and piano. "Drop" is apparently a relatively modern term for it (70s/80s?), but the concept and the voicings have certainly been around for a very long time - a lot of 30s-40s big band stuff features horns using drop 2/3/4 voicings for a full sound.
> ...



Didn't understand your example that much - too much chinese for now.

I'm happy I bought the book then, actually read a few pages on amazon, got me started playing II-IV-I's immediately (-:

Thank you.


----------



## StratoJazz (Apr 26, 2012)

trippled said:


> I think the teacher is great but he's also abit expensive and budget is tight.
> 
> What I'm actually interested in is learnning to phrase like tom quayle\holdsworth\guthrie govan, I'm not much into the real jazz thing.



I'd just recommend you transcribe those players. Get a copy of audacity, slow the tracks down, and then try to figure out how to play it. It sucks, but I've always found when I transcribe a lick it becomes more ingrained in my playing. Plus if you focus on getting it to sound like it does on the record, you capture the notes and phrasing too.

If you want to learn Holdsworth stuff, really transcribing it is the only way to do it. There aren't any Hot Licks books for Holdsworth(except for Reaching for the Uncommon Chord) and those REH videos(which are beyond blehhhhh). Guthrie is probably a similar story, and i don't know about tom quayle(definitely going to check him out).

Besides when you transcribe, you get it straight from the source unfiltered and unedited. You just have to put the time and the effort into figuring it out.

-------------------------------

As far as books to play over jazz changes go, the Jazz Theory Book is good. My personal favorite is *Hal Galper's Forward Motion:From Bach to Bebop*. Even if you aren't really into playing jazz, a quick read through the first chapter will get you think about alot of different aspects of phrasing and improvising in general.

Teachers are expensive, but worth it if you have a really good one. Then again, find a teacher in your area that can teach you to play like Guthrie,Allan, or Quayle. You'll get alot out of that.

-------------------------------

I forgot, if you want to play Legato-like fusion over standard jazz tunes, check out Holdsworth's album None Too Soon.


----------



## technomancer (Apr 26, 2012)

No idea if they're any good but it looks like Tom Quayle has a bunch of instructional videos out (assuming this is the guy you're talking about)

Lessons - Tom Quayle


----------



## SammerX (Apr 26, 2012)

Check out some of the lessons Brendan Burns did for JamPlay... They have a few on youtube I think. I did their 7 day trial recently and I watched a bunch of his videos on chord voice leading and they were extremely helpful. He had by far the best approach to teaching them that I have seen.


----------



## Hybrid138 (Apr 30, 2012)

There are some cool lessons on YouTube but you have filter through what is "mumbo-jumbo" to you and what makes sense. Some people know what they're talking about but can't cater to less educated players. I know theory and sometimes I have to stop the video, figure out what he means, and keep watching. 

IMO, in the long run, theory makes learning any musical genre easier for the player.


----------



## Judas Prius (May 2, 2012)

My recommendation... Frank Gambale Technique Books 1 & 2. They're about all you'll ever need and more. 

I just picked up Mark Levine's Jazz Theory book. I know I'll spend quite a few years studying that over and over.


----------



## trippled (May 2, 2012)

Trespass said:


> It's just scales and patterns. Learn how phrasing lines with chord tones on downbeats work (David Baker's bebop book would be more than enough). Then transcribe Quayle's lines and analyze what variation on the concept he's done. I also hear some exotic scales in some of the stuff, but most of it is overwhelmingly diatonic.
> 
> That's it. That's the modern fusion style in two-three paragraphs.
> 
> ...



Did you ever see this video? I think tom's playing here is very musical, I'm in love with that solo..


----------



## incinerated_guitar (May 3, 2012)

I think I saw a meme about this in the meme section


----------



## StratoJazz (May 4, 2012)

Finally got the time to check out Tom Quayle. BADASS!!!!

Now I'm going to be a bit of an attention whore, but i feel like I need to post something of mine. You may find it somewhat useful as well. Especially since it goes along with learning jazz in general. Because I do feel on some level every fusion player should be able to play some straight-ahead jazz. Like I said, check it out if you want, it's been around for a while.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/ja...arist-who-wants-delve-into-something-new.html


----------



## Solodini (May 7, 2012)

One thing I think will benefit you is to construct chords yourself. Pick a chord, voice it. Try to find where else you can play that exact same voicing in the same register, displace one note and move that new voicing around et c. Even if its just one chord, a lot of it will be transferable to other chords. Don't overlook open strings for use in chords, as well. They help with difficult voicings which you can't necessarily reach with all fretted notes. Take a chord sequence and revoice it, move the whole
sequence around. It's a fairly simple exercise which will be infinitely useful in the rest of your jazz career. 

Also, if you've learned to harmonise C major then you've learned to harmonise any key, provided you understand key signatures and scale construction. 

If you find the jazz books a bit much initially, have a go at the free sample chapters of my book linked in my sig.


----------



## celticelk (May 7, 2012)

StratoJazz said:


> Finally got the time to check out Tom Quayle. BADASS!!!!




It's Monday, and the coffee is still kicking in, so I'm going to take a moment to assume my self-appointed curmudgeonly old man role here on SS.org: why is it that guys who seem to play nothing but hyperspeed scale/arpeggio/sequence runs mixed up with half-assed B.B King-isms get heralded as "awesome fusion players"? Yes, he's technically fluent. He's also predictable and boring. If I'm going to listen to a rock/jazz hybrid, I'd rather listen to someone who can actually surprise me: Vernon Reid, Wayne Krantz, David Torn. Quayle isn't bringing anything to the party that McLaughlin and Beck weren't doing in the 70s. Jazz is a progressive music. Can we please progress a little?

/rant. As you were, citizens.


----------



## Trespass (May 8, 2012)

celticelk said:


> why is it that guys who seem to play nothing but hyperspeed scale/arpeggio/sequence runs mixed up with half-assed B.B King-isms get heralded as "awesome fusion players"? Yes, he's technically fluent. He's also predictable and boring. If I'm going to listen to a rock/jazz hybrid, I'd rather listen to someone who can actually surprise me: Vernon Reid, Wayne Krantz, David Torn. Quayle isn't bringing anything to the party that McLaughlin and Beck weren't doing in the 70s. Jazz is a progressive music. Can we please progress a little?
> 
> /rant. As you were, citizens.



Exactly. 

My unsolicited thoughts:
1) There's no energy or intensity here. At all. It's this mono-dynamic output throughout

2) The pacing of ideas is incredibly rudimentary. The use of space is the exact same every single time, and the lengths of his phrases are all really safe resolutions. It's pretty boring.

3) His ideas and phrases kept following the same contour every single time. It was all a variation on a rather boring shape. Go up, go down, perhaps bend a bit.

4) There is no band interaction. Obviously, he's doing it solo over a backing track, and that's the problem - Music is so much about communication and interaction between players, and with the audience, room, lighting etc.
It's been a problem with the fusion genre after the real jazz guys moved on.


----------



## jacksonplayer (May 9, 2012)

I'm mostly a free jazz and modal player, so I'm probably the exact type of wild and undisciplined guitarist that Trespass hates...  ...but I'm probably closer to what the OP is looking for, and my simplest piece of advice if you want to be a more "aggressive and progressive" fusion player is to never listen to guitarists. Guitarists are like the least inspiring jazz instrumentalists in the world... 

For leads, get your inspiration from the horns. For fusion inspiration, I recommend any of Coltrane's albums on Impulse Records or the amazing records that Joe Henderson made for Milestone Records in the 1970s. These aren't actually fusion albums, but they'll lead you in the right direction for your solos. You'll find that saxophone is a naturally far more expressive lead instrument than guitar, but you can still pick up lots of inspiration and ideas on not just which notes to play, but how to phrase them and get the right kind of swing going. You'll also find that many horn players are willing to throw caution to the wind and play really nasty stuff. I've gotten more "attitude" from Coltrane than I could from a million guitarists.

For rhythm/comping, listening to piano is where it's at. A solid diet of Chick Corea and Herbie Hancock will grow your brain...I promise. I favor the more ambiguous modal shadings of McCoy Tyner, myself, but that's personal preference.

The point of this is to transfer as much of that good stuff into your guitar playing as possible, even though the guitar is a damnable piece of inflexible gear that is tough to get the good stuff out of, compared to sax or piano.


----------



## celticelk (May 10, 2012)

^^^^ This. And for a guitarist seriously influenced by Coltrane and other "free" players, check out the late Sonny Sharrock: _Guitar_ (solo) and _Ask the Ages_ (with Pharoah Sanders on sax and Elvin Jones on drums) are good starting points.


----------



## Trespass (May 10, 2012)

jacksonplayer said:


> I'm mostly a free jazz and modal player, so I'm probably the *exact type of wild and undisciplined guitarist that Trespass hates*...  ...but I'm probably closer to what the OP is looking for, and my simplest piece of advice if you want to be a more "aggressive and progressive" fusion player is to never listen to guitarists. Guitarists are like the least inspiring jazz instrumentalists in the world...



Not sure why you would think that... I was critisizing Quayle for how boring and disciplined he was. And recommended that the OP should learn a bunch of scale patterns that place chord tones on downbeats to sound like him. 



> The point of this is to transfer as much of that good stuff into your guitar playing as possible, even though the guitar is a damnable piece of inflexible gear that is tough to get the good stuff out of, *compared to sax or piano.*



As a pianist, the guitar blows me away with how flexible it is as an instrument. I basically have control over amount of notes and volume, and come up with tonnes of variations on that concept. 

A good guitar player (Kurt Rosenwinkel, for example) can play the exact same sequence hundreds of different tonally significant ways, not to mention the possibilities with effect pedals. 

As for the argument that pianists have more range - in a jazz context, a lot of it isn't practical (especially when competing with bass, or comping behind certain high pitched, non-full body instruments). Or the fact that I can easily add or subtract voices while guitar requires new grips - not all of those sound good, or the difference is negligible.


----------



## kung_fu (May 10, 2012)

Trespass said:


> 4) There is no band interaction. Obviously, he's doing it solo over a backing track, and that's the problem - Music is so much about communication and interaction between players, and with the audience, room, lighting etc.
> It's been a problem with the fusion genre after the real jazz guys moved on.



Oh, god this! The fusion genre was looking like things were getting better in recent years, until the resurgence of these cheesy 80s backing tracks. I consider myself a pretty big frank gambale fan, but most of his albums are fairly boring for this reason (bad backing tracks and/or lack-luster rhythm sections). Backing tracks typically provide different harmonic obstacles to navigate, but never really have anything to push the soloist and give him anything to react to, just like the Quale video.


----------



## StratoJazz (May 11, 2012)

celticelk said:


> It's Monday, and the coffee is still kicking in, so I'm going to take a moment to assume my self-appointed curmudgeonly old man role here on SS.org: why is it that guys who seem to play nothing but hyperspeed scale/arpeggio/sequence runs mixed up with half-assed B.B King-isms get heralded as "awesome fusion players"? Yes, he's technically fluent. He's also predictable and boring. If I'm going to listen to a rock/jazz hybrid, I'd rather listen to someone who can actually surprise me: Vernon Reid, Wayne Krantz, David Torn. Quayle isn't bringing anything to the party that McLaughlin and Beck weren't doing in the 70s. Jazz is a progressive music. Can we please progress a little?
> 
> /rant. As you were, citizens.



First, most music is made up of scales, arpeggios, and sequences. As a jazz player, i can personally attest to this since the majority of the time you are playing some kind of sequence, arpeggio, or scalar idea over a ii-V-I progression. It's a common theme over giant steps changes as well. If anything, jazz musicians in certain ways are the worst offenders of using just scales,arpeggios, and sequences.

Shit the whole idea behind the modal jazz movement was to get away from the "plague" of change-chasing. In certain ways, it lends it self better to "true" improvisation. YOu spend less time focusing on what the changes of a tune are and more on building a solo. 

Granted, i think it's very important for all improvisers to become familiar and comfortable with the idea and execution of change chasing over tunes. If you can do that, it will give you new ideas in how to play over vamps or more static changes.

As far as i'm concerned, focusing on trying to find the next "John Mclaughlin", "Al di Meola", "Wayne Krantz" or "Insert Great Guitarist Here" leads to the same redundancy and sterility that has not only plagued the jazz world but also the metal, rock, and blues world for at least the last decade.

As far as i'm concerned, it's fine if you don't like Tom Quayle. But if your reasons are simply because he "seems to play nothing but hyperspeed scale/arpeggio/sequence runs mixed up with half-assed B.B King-isms", than i think you need to reevaluate alot of your favorite guitar players. Everyone in some way was touched by the licks of B.B. King and even more were touched by standard melodic devices which include but are not limited to:

Sequencing
Arpeggiation
Scalar Devices
Chromaticism
Motivic Development
Can't think of anything else 

If you don't like the energy he generates, or there is something about this you detest that you just can't put a finger on, then fine. Turn this shit off and listen to some awesome Return to Forever records like Romantic Warrior or Inner Mounting Flame from Mahavishnu Orchestra. *Please, just don't associate that music with progression or "moving-forward" because that's not the music of our generation*(maybe it is your generation, but it's not mine, i'm 21). That's the music of yesterday and what has been, not the music of now.

If you want to listen to some music that has it's roots in tradition and is inspired by the music of the Second Great Miles Davis Quintet and has the rhythmic and technical elegance of jazz than look no further than here:



So in essence, i guess this is my rant answering your rant. 

Back to the OP, if you want to learn jazz, alot of what has been suggested here is really good advice. Just don't get out of touch with what you want to be able to do and learn in the first place.


----------



## jacksonplayer (May 13, 2012)

Trespass said:


> Not sure why you would think that... I was critisizing Quayle for how boring and disciplined he was. And recommended that the OP should learn a bunch of scale patterns that place chord tones on downbeats to sound like him.



I was just being an ass. 

From your comments, you seem like a very disciplined and learned player, which is the exact opposite of what I am in the jazz context. I know my church modes well enough, but beyond that I'm very much a "seat of the pants" players, which is probably why I gravitate towards modal and free stuff. I don't love bebop enough to actually want to learn to do it. '60s Modal is pretty much where it starts for me as both a player and listener.



Trespass said:


> As a pianist, the guitar blows me away with how flexible it is as an instrument. I basically have control over amount of notes and volume, and come up with tonnes of variations on that concept.
> 
> A good guitar player (Kurt Rosenwinkel, for example) can play the exact same sequence hundreds of different tonally significant ways, not to mention the possibilities with effect pedals.



For me, the physical difficulty of executing voicings on guitar that are simple on piano is the root of the problem. Comping on the piano is easier because it's all laid out there in front of you, whereas comping on guitar is an exercise in finger contortion. I admit that I suck at it. I channel my inner McCoy Tyner and stick to 1-4-7 suspended voicings. I can manage that. 




kung_fu said:


> Oh, god this! The fusion genre was looking like things were getting better in recent years, until the resurgence of these cheesy 80s backing tracks. I consider myself a pretty big frank gambale fan, but most of his albums are fairly boring for this reason (bad backing tracks and/or lack-luster rhythm sections). Backing tracks typically provide different harmonic obstacles to navigate, but never really have anything to push the soloist and give him anything to react to, just like the Quale video.



I call it the "Baked Potato Syndrome." For those who don't know, the Baked Potato is a legendary fusion club in L.A. where all the great L.A. jazz and studio guys go to have fun on stage. Unfortunately, it's emblematic of how generic fusion has become. Everything I hear from that scene is the same sort of Holdsworth-meets-Steely Dan politeness that doesn't inspire me.

The crazy explorations of the early '70s are what inspire me the most in fusion, especially Herbie Hancock's Mwandishi band, which released albums under both Herbie's name and those of several of his band members (Eddie Henderson, Julian Priester, Bennie Maupin). 



StratoJazz said:


> Shit the whole idea behind the modal jazz movement was to get away from the "plague" of change-chasing. In certain ways, it lends it self better to "true" improvisation. YOu spend less time focusing on what the changes of a tune are and more on building a solo.



This is true. What modal really asks is that the entire band improvise together. It requires a much higher level of sensitivity and "togetherness" than playing complex changes, IMHO. At least if you want it to work. I'm not putting down playing changes, mind you. Any jazz musician who actually want to gig has to be able to do that and do it well. Audiences like changes and "tunes," too. There's obviously a lot of art to playing changes well. Jazz opens up the anarchic, primitive part of my mind that rock doesn't, so I try to keep them separate.



StratoJazz said:


> Granted, i think it's very important for all improvisers to become familiar and comfortable with the idea and execution of change chasing over tunes. If you can do that, it will give you new ideas in how to play over vamps or more static changes.



I'm not 100% sure I agree with this. Improvisation is a mindset. For me, the freedom to get away from the "16-bar showoff solo" rock approach and the freedom to play the wrong note and make it right were what allowed me to cross the bridge to being an improviser. 

Learning changes and the traditional ways jazz musicians have bent the harmonic rules have the benefit of giving you a vocabulary. But along with that comes the risk of staying within that vocabulary and not taking chances. 

Which is how you end up with 1,000 YouTube guys all trying to be like Scott Henderson (or Kurt Rosenwinkel, for that matter). Which is unfair to Scott, of course, since he is a very visceral and exciting player live (and can obviously negotiate whatever fucked-up music gets thrown at him with ease).

I guess my bottom line is that I would never recommend ignorance as a solution for anybody else. But it seems to work for me. 

Learn your shit so you can forget it.



StratoJazz said:


> As far as i'm concerned, focusing on trying to find the next "John Mclaughlin", "Al di Meola", "Wayne Krantz" or "Insert Great Guitarist Here" leads to the same redundancy and sterility that has not only plagued the jazz world but also the metal, rock, and blues world for at least the last decade.



Absolutely!!!


----------

