figured-bass and the guitar

[Rob MacKillop]

Any recommendations
for books specific on voicings relevant to guitar? I have a gig where
this will become ultra important... I play some jazz, and do kinow how to
read the notation for figured bass, it's just a slow painful process to
get fluent with it.

I am not aware of any current publication regarding figured-bass for
guitarists. There are some old John Gavall books, long out of print,
but they are not really worth the effort hunting down. The best book
which could be used by guitarists is Nigel North's 'Continuo Playing
on Lute, Archlute and Theorbo' which might be available (see Google).
It has a lot of background info and theory. I contemplated writing a
practical workbook on the subject, but doubt if any publisher would
take it on. I am keen to develop decoration and improvisation in the
early classical guitar repertoire, and am encouraged to read in Sor's
Method that he could read figured bass.

Is there interest for a figured-bass tutor for guitarists? Once
learned there are about 5,000 songs from the Baroque period, not to
mention ensemble music, and it helps enormously with the classical
period.

One thing I did learn in my ten years (on and off) of playing lute
continuo, is that there is an academically correct way of playing AND
a players way - not always the same thing. A basic knowledge, though,
could cut your learning time for, e.g. a Bach Allemande to half the
time. Structure and chordal movement is hugely important, and a
knowledge of FB really helps you hone-in on it much quicker.
Architecture in music is the shape of emotions and ideas, after all.

Rob MacKillop

[Larry Deack]

"Rob MacKillop"

Post by Rob MacKillop
Is there interest for a figured-bass tutor for guitarists?

Yes. I'd love to see you get it published. I'll buy one copy :-)

I've always thought this would be fun to do on guitar and I like the idea
of being able to play with others that way. Are you doing this for 6 string
guitar? Seems like more strings would be nice for this kind of work.

BTW, glad you found RMCG.

[Terlizzi]

I have been teaching a course at the Manhattan School of Music for the past 15
years called "Fretboard Harmony". For the course, I use the fretboard harmony
concepts in the Sor method and then I use several texts: the Nigel North's
continuo book, the guitar harmony book by fred harz,. Most importantly, I
searched the keyboard harmony books by Robert Morris and the thourough bass
method of Herman Keller and many others for exercises that are playable and
approriate for guitar. Also, I make up lots of things for each individual
student according to their strength and weakness. After that, many works of
Corelli are perfectly suited to the guitar. For counterpoint the Bogdanovich
book is great. i also like to make up and suggest lots of other things ,too,
e.g.scales and arpeggios in contrary motion with the gradual addition of more
complex figurations and combined scale/arpeggio forms.
In fact, I've had many students get to the level where they can sight read the
figures of corelli trio better than a pianist!

after material like that that, we do pieces "in the style of".

I, too, have thought of writing a fretboard harmony book. In fact, it wouldn't
be all that difficult because I have a 2 year course of tested material at
hand. On the other hand, it works as a college course because I know the level
of student and what they are learning in theory class.Therefore. I know what
kind of things to refer to. To cover all the bases and define terminology etc.
in a book would be a huge task and probably wouldn't be worth the time
invested.

mark delpriora

Post by Larry Deack
I've always thought this would be fun to do on guitar and I like the idea
of being able to play with others that way. Are you doing this for 6 string
guitar? Seems like more strings would be nice for this kind of work.
BTW, glad you found RMCG.

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by Terlizzi
I have been teaching a course at the Manhattan School of Music for the past 15
years called "Fretboard Harmony".

I think one should be careful to consider "fretboard harmony" somewhat
differently than continuo realization. Richard Pick's School of Guitar
is perhaps the most thorough fretboard harmony book written
specifically for the classical guitar. It is based to a large extent
on the concepts developed by George Van Epps for the jazz guitar. When
I worked with him on this material, he pointed out that knowledge of
the fingerboard harmonically is an important aspect to sight reading.
As for realizations, he specifically pointed out the fact that jazz
chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line, and that is the
logic of all the fake books. Basso continuo is the realization of a
bass line where the melody is given to someone else.

Of course it helps if one knows the fingerboard thoroughly and can
finger automatically whatever chord is required in whatever inversion
is specified, and improvise on the realization to make it interesting.
It's a skill that can be very well remunerative to the one who
possesses it.

A good method in English which will complement the Pick School of
Guitar with exercises in realization of _both_ jazz chord symbols and
continuo figurations, would be indeed a useful tool to have.



Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.orphee.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html
http://www.savageclassical.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html

[thomas]

Post by Matanya Ophee
I think one should be careful to consider "fretboard harmony" somewhat
differently than continuo realization. Richard Pick's School of Guitar
is perhaps the most thorough fretboard harmony book written
specifically for the classical guitar. It is based to a large extent
on the concepts developed by George Van Epps for the jazz guitar. When
I worked with him on this material, he pointed out that knowledge of
the fingerboard harmonically is an important aspect to sight reading.
As for realizations, he specifically pointed out the fact that jazz
chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line, and that is the
logic of all the fake books.

This is utter nonsense, whichever way you parse it. If Pick
really said this, then clearly he didn't know squat about the
practice of jazz harmony.

Jazz chord symbols are printed above the staff. The chord symbol
is derived from the entire harmony of everything going on in the
measure. The bass is generally more important than the melody line
in determining the chord symbol. I could show you many jazz and
standard tunes in which the chord symbol directly conflicts with
the melody line--like nearly every time you see a blue note.

Too bad you have me kill-filed. You might have learned something.

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by thomas

Post by Matanya Ophee
I think one should be careful to consider "fretboard harmony" somewhat
differently than continuo realization. Richard Pick's School of Guitar
is perhaps the most thorough fretboard harmony book written
specifically for the classical guitar. It is based to a large extent
on the concepts developed by George Van Epps for the jazz guitar. When
I worked with him on this material, he pointed out that knowledge of
the fingerboard harmonically is an important aspect to sight reading.
As for realizations, he specifically pointed out the fact that jazz
chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line, and that is the
logic of all the fake books.

This is utter nonsense, whichever way you parse it. If Pick
really said this, then clearly he didn't know squat about the
practice of jazz harmony.
Jazz chord symbols are printed above the staff. The chord symbol
is derived from the entire harmony of everything going on in the
measure.

In a fake book, which was the material I worked with Pick on, there is
nothing going in the measure except the melody line and the chord
symbol. So what's your problem?

As for Pick's knowledge of the subject, it's too bad I cannot ask him
now. He's been dead for a couple years now. But his knowledge is
encapsulated in his School of Guitar, a document you may examine it at
your leasure, if you can find a copy to xerox someplace. If you have
any specific objections to the information printed in that book, I am
sure it will be an interesting subject for discussion.

Post by thomas
The bass is generally more important than the melody line
in determining the chord symbol.

That may be so, but what do you do when, as in a fake book, there is
NO bass line and the only harmony is the one indicated by the chord
symbol?

We are not talking on how these symbols are _derived_, but on how they
are to be _interprted_ and most importantly, how this system of
interpretation differs from the interpretations of figured bass
symbols.

Post by thomas
I could show you many jazz and
standard tunes in which the chord symbol directly conflicts with
the melody line--like nearly every time you see a blue note.
Too bad you have me kill-filed. You might have learned something.

I am simply restricting your access to my InBox. Helps me to relieve
the tedium of reading your garbage on the fly. As for learning
something from you, I am always willing to learn, but frankly, I have
no interest in learning about jazz anymore than I already know, and if
anything, I would be interested in learning something new about the
subjkect we are talking about here, and not about something else that
you think, erroneously, that it some how belongs in this discussion.

MO.

[Robert Crim]

Post by Matanya Ophee
That may be so, but what do you do when, as in a fake book, there is
NO bass line and the only harmony is the one indicated by the chord
symbol?

In most fake books I've used, the chords last from one to the next or
until a rest is indicated.

Post by Matanya Ophee
We are not talking on how these symbols are _derived_, but on how they
are to be _interprted_ and most importantly, how this system of
interpretation differs from the interpretations of figured bass
symbols.

In continuo practice you may not even be given the melody line at all.
You often just get the bass line with the figures above the bass line.
A really well trained and "on top of his game" continuo player won't
even need the figures.

Thorough bass symbols represent (at a minimum) the intervals of the
notes to be played *above* the bass note. The symbols (figures) are
a shorthand way for the composer to give the player the harmonic
realization of the bass line. That's why they call it "figured" bass.

Hope this is what you were after.

Robert

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by Robert Crim

Post by Matanya Ophee
That may be so, but what do you do when, as in a fake book, there is
NO bass line and the only harmony is the one indicated by the chord
symbol?

In most fake books I've used, the chords last from one to the next or
until a rest is indicated.

Indeed. But have you ever seen a fake book in which the chord symbols
are given above a bass line? or above a full harmony?

Of course I have seen the latter type in many compositions. I have
even published some such, like in Richard Pick's Christmas carols
books, the bossa nova movement in Jan Freidlin's Sonata of the
Wandering for guitar and cello, and some others. How a _composer_, or
arranger, derives the harmony from the context of the music and
encapsulates it in a chord symbols is an interesting subject, but not
the one we are talking about at this point. We are talking about
_realization_ of a symbol into a meaningful accompaniment.

Post by Robert Crim

Post by Matanya Ophee
We are not talking on how these symbols are _derived_, but on how they
are to be _interprted_ and most importantly, how this system of
interpretation differs from the interpretations of figured bass
symbols.

In continuo practice you may not even be given the melody line at all.
You often just get the bass line with the figures above the bass line.
A really well trained and "on top of his game" continuo player won't
even need the figures.
Thorough bass symbols represent (at a minimum) the intervals of the
notes to be played *above* the bass note. The symbols (figures) are
a shorthand way for the composer to give the player the harmonic
realization of the bass line. That's why they call it "figured" bass.
Hope this is what you were after.

Of course. This is another example of thomas (and/or any number of
rmcg hornets) arguing with me about something I did not say.


Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.orphee.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html
http://www.savageclassical.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html

[Robert Crim]

Post by Matanya Ophee

Post by Robert Crim

Post by Matanya Ophee
That may be so, but what do you do when, as in a fake book, there is
NO bass line and the only harmony is the one indicated by the chord
symbol?

In most fake books I've used, the chords last from one to the next or
until a rest is indicated.

Indeed. But have you ever seen a fake book in which the chord symbols
are given above a bass line? or above a full harmony?

My answer to the first is no, not without the melody line given also.
To the second, above a simple bass line, not often. Above a full
harmony (piano) yes many times......often with the chord given as a
diagram with spots and a fingerboard grid. Maybe they didn't think
guitar players could read the notes?

Post by Matanya Ophee
Of course I have seen the latter type in many compositions. I have
even published some such, like in Richard Pick's Christmas carols
books, the bossa nova movement in Jan Freidlin's Sonata of the
Wandering for guitar and cello, and some others.

Those are guitar composer/arrangers, doing the work for a guitar
playing audience, I suspect, but don't know.

Post by Matanya Ophee
How a _composer_, or
arranger, derives the harmony from the context of the music and
encapsulates it in a chord symbols is an interesting subject, but not
the one we are talking about at this point. We are talking about
_realization_ of a symbol into a meaningful accompaniment.

I see a real difference between realizing the symbol for the chord and
harmonizing the melody line. You build the harmony from the melody,
(Pick was very talented at doing that) and then you write down the
chord symbols based the harmonization.

A skillful composer type does the harmonization and writes down the
chord symbols. A skillful player plays those chords.

Am I missing something here?

Post by Matanya Ophee

Post by Robert Crim

Post by Matanya Ophee
We are not talking on how these symbols are _derived_, but on how they
are to be _interprted_ and most importantly, how this system of
interpretation differs from the interpretations of figured bass
symbols.

How the figured bass "figures" are interpreted is pretty easy. You
just play them as written according to the practices of the composer
and the times. They are merely shorthand for a full realization.
Most folks only see modern editions where that work has already been
done.

How the harmonization is done, is a question for guys like Angelo.
That's way over my pay grade.

Post by Matanya Ophee

Post by Robert Crim
Hope this is what you were after.

Of course. This is another example of thomas (and/or any number of
rmcg hornets) arguing with me about something I did not say.

I kind of think your pesky buzz flies need to brush up on their
basics.

Robert

[thomas]

Post by Matanya Ophee

Post by thomas

Post by Matanya Ophee
As for realizations, he specifically pointed out the fact that jazz
chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line, and that is the
logic of all the fake books.

Jazz chord symbols are printed above the staff. The chord symbol
is derived from the entire harmony of everything going on in the
measure.

In a fake book, which was the material I worked with Pick on, there is
nothing going in the measure except the melody line and the chord
symbol. So what's your problem?

Let me restate this--in jazz fakebooks, the chord symbol supercedes
the melody. It is far more important. In many jazz compositions,
the melody is derived from the harmony. The chord symbol is always
printed above the melody line.

There is no way to substantiate your statement that "jazz
chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line." There
are a number of ways to parse this claim, but none of them
make sense.

Post by Matanya Ophee

Post by thomas
The bass is generally more important than the melody line
in determining the chord symbol.

That may be so, but what do you do when, as in a fake book, there is
NO bass line and the only harmony is the one indicated by the chord
symbol?

[and...]

Post by Matanya Ophee
Indeed. But have you ever seen a fake book in which the chord symbols
are given above a bass line? or above a full harmony?

Yes, it is common to give the bass notes in a fake book. Typically
you will see the chord symbol, followed by a slash and the bass note.
If there is no bass note given, the bassist can assume the freedom
to interpret the harmony his own way.

Post by Matanya Ophee
We are not talking on how these symbols are _derived_, but on how they
are to be _interprted_ and most importantly, how this system of
interpretation differs from the interpretations of figured bass
symbols.

The two systems are quite similar. In a jazz fakebook, if the bass
note is given under a slash, then the bassist plays it. If it is
not given, then he fakes it.

[Scott Daughtrey]

Post by thomas

Post by Matanya Ophee

Post by thomas

Post by Matanya Ophee
As for realizations, he specifically pointed out the fact that jazz
chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line, and that is the
logic of all the fake books.

Jazz chord symbols are printed above the staff. The chord symbol
is derived from the entire harmony of everything going on in the
measure.

In a fake book, which was the material I worked with Pick on, there is
nothing going in the measure except the melody line and the chord
symbol. So what's your problem?

Let me restate this--in jazz fakebooks, the chord symbol supercedes
the melody. It is far more important. In many jazz compositions,
the melody is derived from the harmony.

Not a fair statement (and not realistic either). The day this is true we will
"re-melodicize" a harmonic progression instead of the other way around.

Another example - many jazz tunes share the identical harmonic progresssion,
such as the old worn rhythm changes (yeah, we got rhythm). Clearly it is the
melodic content that seperates one piece from another.

Are you in the habit of mistaking Donna Lee for I Got Rhythm? I seriously hope
not.

Scott

[thomas]

Post by Scott Daughtrey

Post by thomas

Post by Matanya Ophee
In a fake book, which was the material I worked with Pick on, there is
nothing going in the measure except the melody line and the chord
symbol. So what's your problem?

Let me restate this--in jazz fakebooks, the chord symbol supercedes
the melody. It is far more important. In many jazz compositions,
the melody is derived from the harmony.

Not a fair statement (and not realistic either). The day this is true we will
"re-melodicize" a harmonic progression instead of the other way around.

Yes, that is exactly how most bebop heads were composed--by writing
a new melody to a common chord progression. Many jazz composers
procede by this method.

Even when playing standards that were composed by harmonizing a melody,
once the melody has been stated, it becomes secondary to the harmony
for most jazz players. Modern jazz musicians usually pay much more
attention to improvising on the harmonic form than on the melody.

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Another example - many jazz tunes share the identical harmonic progresssion,
such as the old worn rhythm changes (yeah, we got rhythm). Clearly it is the
melodic content that seperates one piece from another.

That is rather irrelevant to the question of chord symbol derivation
and use. But it does demonstrate the primacy of harmony in jazz practice.

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Are you in the habit of mistaking Donna Lee for I Got Rhythm? I seriously hope
not.

Those are two radically different chord progressions. I don't
get the point you're trying to make with this example. Why
would I confuse Indiana changes with Rhythm changes?

[Scott Daughtrey]

Post by thomas

Post by Scott Daughtrey

Post by thomas
Let me restate this--in jazz fakebooks, the chord symbol supercedes
the melody. It is far more important. In many jazz compositions,
the melody is derived from the harmony.

Not a fair statement (and not realistic either). The day this is true we will
"re-melodicize" a harmonic progression instead of the other way around.

Yes, that is exactly how most bebop heads were composed--by writing
a new melody to a common chord progression. Many jazz composers
procede by this method.

And many composers do not. You're absolutely correct, most be-bop heads
(melodies, for those less in the loop) were/are written over common
progressions - however that doesn't mean they were derived from the harmony,
simply that it was the appropriate background setting for the melody. A
composer may easily hear a melody, one which can easily be later supported
thru common form, while the harmony remains in the background and isn't
considered till much later. When you constantly play/compose over a limited
framework it isn't surprising that the imagination when creating melodies is
subconsciously bound to an extent, we only have to look at greats like Bach
and Beethoven to see that they didn't have the freedom of imagination to
create or appreciate more modern compositional tools.

Be-bop is only a piece of what is jazz. Some melodies are derived from
harmonies. But many composers think melodically first, others may work in
combination, hearing bits of a piece with both harmony and melody
simultaneously.

The fact that many players reharmonize on the fly, essentially making the
chord symbols moot, also illustrates that the chord symbol does not supercede
the melody but rather that it must work in tandem. Knowledge of the melody and
how it specifically relates to the harmony is the foundation by which other
players can appreciate and follow another musicians' re-harmonization without
it being written (along with a strong understanding of jazz harmony and
substitutions among other things).

Post by thomas
Even when playing standards that were composed by harmonizing a melody,
once the melody has been stated, it becomes secondary to the harmony
for most jazz players. Modern jazz musicians usually pay much more
attention to improvising on the harmonic form than on the melody.

That's debatable as well, it depends on the approach of the improvisor.
Working around the melody and alluding to it is still a common practice, and
not just in be-bop which, yes, typically followed more predicatable harmonic
structures). Secondly, the fact that the harmonic structure becomes the focus
during improvisation has no relevance to the beginnings and inspiration for a
melody nor the choice of harmonic structure

It is all to easy for novice improvisors to get lost in the sea of harmonic
choices available using all the modern harmonic tools, easy to focus on "what
scales can I play over this section of the progression" and "how can I go more
outside, sound cool, impress my girlfriend, terrify my enemies, and resolve it
smoothly". Many mature jazz improvisors still work strongly with and around
the melody, it's one of the elements that seperates the players who see the
progression as a showcase to solo over and the ones that see a musical
opportunity to further enhance the piece. Not passing judgement, just
illustrating the various viewpoints players can have.

Post by thomas

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Another example - many jazz tunes share the identical harmonic progresssion,
such as the old worn rhythm changes (yeah, we got rhythm). Clearly it is the
melodic content that seperates one piece from another.

That is rather irrelevant to the question of chord symbol derivation
and use. But it does demonstrate the primacy of harmony in jazz practice.

Woah, hold on here, chord symbol derivation wasn't part of what I was
addressing here (I snipped that part) you were insinuation the importance of
the chord symbol over the melody, a point I still don't agree with. In fact,

Post by thomas

Post by Scott Daughtrey
We are not talking on how these symbols are _derived_, but on how they
are to be _interprted_

But since you want to bring it up, fine then, let's tie it in to what you've

Post by thomas
Yes, it is common to give the bass notes in a fake book. Typically
you will see the chord symbol, followed by a slash and the bass note.
If there is no bass note given, the bassist can assume the freedom
to interpret the harmony his own way.

OK, so let's take a simple beginner's piece like Autumn Leaves, one whose
harmonic structure is a straightforward study. A cycle of fourths, key of
Gmaj/E minor (B flat maj in some books). In the second section we are given a
chord progression: Em7 Eb7 Dm7 Db7 C maj7. In reality, the actual harmonic
progression serves a very specific purpose, an simple extended II-V
(II-V-II-V-I). The actual function of the harmonic progression is much more
accurately described as Em7 A7 Dm7 G7 Cmaj7. The progression has been
"misnamed", for all intents and purposes, to illustrate a figured bass line so
that it descends chromatically and is _not_ interpreted freely as you
suggested.

There's an example of chord derivation, one that is specifially _derived_ from
the intended harmonic structure and written in a specific manner to be used
for _interpretation_, which relates specifically to how the bass should move
thru a common harmonic form. And it uses no slash chords either.

If not for beaing a deliberate pointer to the bass line, the chords would not
be named as they were. An experienced improvisor, or anyone familiar with
basic jazz form, would not see the written progression as Em7 Eb7 Dm Db7 Cmaj7
either, they would see a II-Valt. followed by a II-Valt.-I, a much more
reasonable and substantive form to play thru/over.

So, yes, sometimes slash chords make the "obvious" statement of a specific
bassline however even standard chords often paint out specific bass lines to
the trained eye (well, it shouldn't take much of a trained eye to see the
chromatic movement in the bassline indicated in the harmonic progession of
Autumn Leaves I cited!).

Post by thomas

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Are you in the habit of mistaking Donna Lee for I Got Rhythm? I seriously hope
not.

Those are two radically different chord progressions. I don't
get the point you're trying to make with this example. Why
would I confuse Indiana changes with Rhythm changes?

I just confused two Parker titles, no biggie. I likely don't need to name a
Parker piece that uses rhythm changes for you, do I? I bet not. The point,
however, is if two pieces share the same harmonic progression then therefore
the melody is what instantly seperates them. To say the melody is subordinate
to the harmony is a matter of perspective considering the melody is the only
aspect that differentiates between them; some would say without the melody the
harmonic progression would be useless, it could be one of a thousand pieces,
and that a good melody can be played with no harmony - the harmony will be
implied (just as in a good solo). Which leads which (?) - chicken or egg
argument. As you say, in some styles it is more prevalent for "form" and
associated harmonic expectation to lead the melody, but that is a gross
overstatement where the field of jazz is concerned just as it would be in
classical music. Sometimes it takes hard work to fit the form around a melody;
it would likely be a much easier task if the melody was simply derived from
the harmony.

Scott

[TroyDonaghueIII]

Post by Scott Daughtrey

Post by thomas

Post by Scott Daughtrey

Post by thomas
Let me restate this--in jazz fakebooks, the chord symbol supercedes
the melody. It is far more important. In many jazz compositions,
the melody is derived from the harmony.

Not a fair statement (and not realistic either). The day this is true we will
"re-melodicize" a harmonic progression instead of the other way around.

Yes, that is exactly how most bebop heads were composed--by writing
a new melody to a common chord progression. Many jazz composers
procede by this method.

And many composers do not. You're absolutely correct, most be-bop heads
(melodies, for those less in the loop) were/are written over common
progressions - however that doesn't mean they were derived from the harmony,
simply that it was the appropriate background setting for the melody. A
composer may easily hear a melody, one which can easily be later supported
thru common form, while the harmony remains in the background and isn't
considered till much later. When you constantly play/compose over a limited
framework it isn't surprising that the imagination when creating melodies is
subconsciously bound to an extent, we only have to look at greats like Bach
and Beethoven to see that they didn't have the freedom of imagination to
create or appreciate more modern compositional tools.
Be-bop is only a piece of what is jazz. Some melodies are derived from
harmonies. But many composers think melodically first, others may work in
combination, hearing bits of a piece with both harmony and melody
simultaneously.
The fact that many players reharmonize on the fly, essentially making the
chord symbols moot, also illustrates that the chord symbol does not supercede
the melody but rather that it must work in tandem. Knowledge of the melody and
how it specifically relates to the harmony is the foundation by which other
players can appreciate and follow another musicians' re-harmonization without
it being written (along with a strong understanding of jazz harmony and
substitutions among other things).

Post by thomas
Even when playing standards that were composed by harmonizing a melody,
once the melody has been stated, it becomes secondary to the harmony
for most jazz players. Modern jazz musicians usually pay much more
attention to improvising on the harmonic form than on the melody.

That's debatable as well, it depends on the approach of the improvisor.
Working around the melody and alluding to it is still a common practice, and
not just in be-bop which, yes, typically followed more predicatable harmonic
structures). Secondly, the fact that the harmonic structure becomes the focus
during improvisation has no relevance to the beginnings and inspiration for a
melody nor the choice of harmonic structure
It is all to easy for novice improvisors to get lost in the sea of harmonic
choices available using all the modern harmonic tools, easy to focus on "what
scales can I play over this section of the progression" and "how can I go more
outside, sound cool, impress my girlfriend, terrify my enemies, and resolve it
smoothly". Many mature jazz improvisors still work strongly with and around
the melody, it's one of the elements that seperates the players who see the
progression as a showcase to solo over and the ones that see a musical
opportunity to further enhance the piece. Not passing judgement, just
illustrating the various viewpoints players can have.

Post by thomas

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Another example - many jazz tunes share the identical harmonic progresssion,
such as the old worn rhythm changes (yeah, we got rhythm). Clearly it is the
melodic content that seperates one piece from another.

That is rather irrelevant to the question of chord symbol derivation
and use. But it does demonstrate the primacy of harmony in jazz practice.

Woah, hold on here, chord symbol derivation wasn't part of what I was
addressing here (I snipped that part) you were insinuation the importance of
the chord symbol over the melody, a point I still don't agree with. In fact,

Post by thomas

Post by Scott Daughtrey
We are not talking on how these symbols are _derived_, but on how they
are to be _interprted_

But since you want to bring it up, fine then, let's tie it in to what you've

Post by thomas
Yes, it is common to give the bass notes in a fake book. Typically
you will see the chord symbol, followed by a slash and the bass note.
If there is no bass note given, the bassist can assume the freedom
to interpret the harmony his own way.

OK, so let's take a simple beginner's piece like Autumn Leaves, one whose
harmonic structure is a straightforward study. A cycle of fourths, key of
Gmaj/E minor (B flat maj in some books). In the second section we are given a
chord progression: Em7 Eb7 Dm7 Db7 C maj7. In reality, the actual harmonic
progression serves a very specific purpose, an simple extended II-V
(II-V-II-V-I). The actual function of the harmonic progression is much more
accurately described as Em7 A7 Dm7 G7 Cmaj7. The progression has been
"misnamed", for all intents and purposes, to illustrate a figured bass line so
that it descends chromatically and is _not_ interpreted freely as you
suggested.
There's an example of chord derivation, one that is specifially _derived_ from
the intended harmonic structure and written in a specific manner to be used
for _interpretation_, which relates specifically to how the bass should move
thru a common harmonic form. And it uses no slash chords either.
If not for beaing a deliberate pointer to the bass line, the chords would not
be named as they were. An experienced improvisor, or anyone familiar with
basic jazz form, would not see the written progression as Em7 Eb7 Dm Db7 Cmaj7
either, they would see a II-Valt. followed by a II-Valt.-I, a much more
reasonable and substantive form to play thru/over.
So, yes, sometimes slash chords make the "obvious" statement of a specific
bassline however even standard chords often paint out specific bass lines to
the trained eye (well, it shouldn't take much of a trained eye to see the
chromatic movement in the bassline indicated in the harmonic progession of
Autumn Leaves I cited!).

Post by thomas

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Are you in the habit of mistaking Donna Lee for I Got Rhythm? I seriously hope
not.

Those are two radically different chord progressions. I don't
get the point you're trying to make with this example. Why
would I confuse Indiana changes with Rhythm changes?

I just confused two Parker titles, no biggie. I likely don't need to name a
Parker piece that uses rhythm changes for you, do I? I bet not. The point,
however, is if two pieces share the same harmonic progression then therefore
the melody is what instantly seperates them. To say the melody is subordinate
to the harmony is a matter of perspective considering the melody is the only
aspect that differentiates between them; some would say without the melody the
harmonic progression would be useless, it could be one of a thousand pieces,
and that a good melody can be played with no harmony - the harmony will be
implied (just as in a good solo). Which leads which (?) - chicken or egg
argument. As you say, in some styles it is more prevalent for "form" and
associated harmonic expectation to lead the melody, but that is a gross
overstatement where the field of jazz is concerned just as it would be in
classical music. Sometimes it takes hard work to fit the form around a melody;
it would likely be a much easier task if the melody was simply derived from
the harmony.
Scott

Scott,
The more you say, the more it shows that you don't know a thing about
anything. I have heard your "jazz" playing. You posted it once for all
to hear, remember? It sucks, you suck, and I would guess that
Stittsville must have a foul stench hanging around the "Music"
academy. Look, I'm here to help so I'll offer you some advice. If you
have a limited ability which you already have said that you do. Don't
go advertising it by writing long stupid posts and try to come off as
if you "know" something. Spend more time listening, yes listening. You
need to learn before you can know. Have you ever signed up for a music
class? Maybe you can start there. I know that where you live there
probably is much to offer so if you want to know anything you can ask
me and I will give you the information for free. I will do this as a
favor to the group. So, now the ball is in your court. What do you
want to know?

Troy III

[Lutemann]

Post by TroyDonaghueIII
he more you say, the more it shows that you don't know a thing about
anything. I have heard your "jazz" playing. You posted it once for all
to hear, remember? It sucks, you suck, and I would guess that
Stittsville must have a foul stench hanging around the "Music"

As I recall, Scott, your playing is more than adequate and certainly adequate
enough to comment on how things are done.
*****************************************************
Kent Murdick
Free Guitar Instruction CD/Video: Go to http://stringdancer.com/
and search for Murdick
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/guitar.html

[thomas]

I think I more or less agree with what you wrote here, but
we're getting way off the subject of fake books. Fake books
are mainly for amateurs, and have next to nothing to do with
first-rate jazz musicianship. The Real Book was compiled for
students by students, and that explains the poor choice of
chord symbols that are rampant in it.

Post by Scott Daughtrey

Post by thomas

Post by Scott Daughtrey

Post by thomas
Let me restate this--in jazz fakebooks, the chord symbol supercedes
the melody. It is far more important. In many jazz compositions,
the melody is derived from the harmony.

Not a fair statement (and not realistic either). The day this is true we will
"re-melodicize" a harmonic progression instead of the other way around.

Yes, that is exactly how most bebop heads were composed--by writing
a new melody to a common chord progression. Many jazz composers
procede by this method.

And many composers do not. You're absolutely correct, most be-bop heads
(melodies, for those less in the loop) were/are written over common
progressions - however that doesn't mean they were derived from the harmony,
simply that it was the appropriate background setting for the melody. A
composer may easily hear a melody, one which can easily be later supported
thru common form, while the harmony remains in the background and isn't
considered till much later. When you constantly play/compose over a limited
framework it isn't surprising that the imagination when creating melodies is
subconsciously bound to an extent, we only have to look at greats like Bach
and Beethoven to see that they didn't have the freedom of imagination to
create or appreciate more modern compositional tools.
Be-bop is only a piece of what is jazz. Some melodies are derived from
harmonies. But many composers think melodically first, others may work in
combination, hearing bits of a piece with both harmony and melody
simultaneously.
The fact that many players reharmonize on the fly, essentially making the
chord symbols moot, also illustrates that the chord symbol does not supercede
the melody but rather that it must work in tandem. Knowledge of the melody and
how it specifically relates to the harmony is the foundation by which other
players can appreciate and follow another musicians' re-harmonization without
it being written (along with a strong understanding of jazz harmony and
substitutions among other things).

Post by thomas
Even when playing standards that were composed by harmonizing a melody,
once the melody has been stated, it becomes secondary to the harmony
for most jazz players. Modern jazz musicians usually pay much more
attention to improvising on the harmonic form than on the melody.

That's debatable as well, it depends on the approach of the improvisor.
Working around the melody and alluding to it is still a common practice, and
not just in be-bop which, yes, typically followed more predicatable harmonic
structures). Secondly, the fact that the harmonic structure becomes the focus
during improvisation has no relevance to the beginnings and inspiration for a
melody nor the choice of harmonic structure
It is all to easy for novice improvisors to get lost in the sea of harmonic
choices available using all the modern harmonic tools, easy to focus on "what
scales can I play over this section of the progression" and "how can I go more
outside, sound cool, impress my girlfriend, terrify my enemies, and resolve it
smoothly". Many mature jazz improvisors still work strongly with and around
the melody, it's one of the elements that seperates the players who see the
progression as a showcase to solo over and the ones that see a musical
opportunity to further enhance the piece. Not passing judgement, just
illustrating the various viewpoints players can have.

Post by thomas

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Another example - many jazz tunes share the identical harmonic progresssion,
such as the old worn rhythm changes (yeah, we got rhythm). Clearly it is the
melodic content that seperates one piece from another.

That is rather irrelevant to the question of chord symbol derivation
and use. But it does demonstrate the primacy of harmony in jazz practice.

Woah, hold on here, chord symbol derivation wasn't part of what I was
addressing here (I snipped that part) you were insinuation the importance of
the chord symbol over the melody, a point I still don't agree with. In fact,

Post by thomas

Post by Scott Daughtrey
We are not talking on how these symbols are _derived_, but on how they
are to be _interprted_

But since you want to bring it up, fine then, let's tie it in to what you've

Post by thomas
Yes, it is common to give the bass notes in a fake book. Typically
you will see the chord symbol, followed by a slash and the bass note.
If there is no bass note given, the bassist can assume the freedom
to interpret the harmony his own way.

OK, so let's take a simple beginner's piece like Autumn Leaves, one whose
harmonic structure is a straightforward study. A cycle of fourths, key of
Gmaj/E minor (B flat maj in some books). In the second section we are given a
chord progression: Em7 Eb7 Dm7 Db7 C maj7. In reality, the actual harmonic
progression serves a very specific purpose, an simple extended II-V
(II-V-II-V-I). The actual function of the harmonic progression is much more
accurately described as Em7 A7 Dm7 G7 Cmaj7. The progression has been
"misnamed", for all intents and purposes, to illustrate a figured bass line so
that it descends chromatically and is _not_ interpreted freely as you
suggested.
There's an example of chord derivation, one that is specifially _derived_ from
the intended harmonic structure and written in a specific manner to be used
for _interpretation_, which relates specifically to how the bass should move
thru a common harmonic form. And it uses no slash chords either.
If not for beaing a deliberate pointer to the bass line, the chords would not
be named as they were. An experienced improvisor, or anyone familiar with
basic jazz form, would not see the written progression as Em7 Eb7 Dm Db7 Cmaj7
either, they would see a II-Valt. followed by a II-Valt.-I, a much more
reasonable and substantive form to play thru/over.
So, yes, sometimes slash chords make the "obvious" statement of a specific
bassline however even standard chords often paint out specific bass lines to
the trained eye (well, it shouldn't take much of a trained eye to see the
chromatic movement in the bassline indicated in the harmonic progession of
Autumn Leaves I cited!).

Post by thomas

Post by Scott Daughtrey
Are you in the habit of mistaking Donna Lee for I Got Rhythm? I seriously hope
not.

Those are two radically different chord progressions. I don't
get the point you're trying to make with this example. Why
would I confuse Indiana changes with Rhythm changes?

I just confused two Parker titles, no biggie. I likely don't need to name a
Parker piece that uses rhythm changes for you, do I? I bet not. The point,
however, is if two pieces share the same harmonic progression then therefore
the melody is what instantly seperates them. To say the melody is subordinate
to the harmony is a matter of perspective considering the melody is the only
aspect that differentiates between them; some would say without the melody the
harmonic progression would be useless, it could be one of a thousand pieces,
and that a good melody can be played with no harmony - the harmony will be
implied (just as in a good solo). Which leads which (?) - chicken or egg
argument. As you say, in some styles it is more prevalent for "form" and
associated harmonic expectation to lead the melody, but that is a gross
overstatement where the field of jazz is concerned just as it would be in
classical music. Sometimes it takes hard work to fit the form around a melody;
it would likely be a much easier task if the melody was simply derived from
the harmony.
Scott

[Lutemann]

Post by thomas
I think I more or less agree with what you wrote here, but
we're getting way off the subject of fake books. Fake books
are mainly for amateurs, and have next to nothing to do with
first-rate jazz musicianship. The Real Book was compiled for

This, of course, is bullshit. In the world of pickup bands (which make up the
majority of all non-amateur jazz gigs), the Real book is the common literature.
Obviously, if a group has been together for some time, the book is necessary.
*****************************************************
Kent Murdick
Free Guitar Instruction CD/Video: Go to http://stringdancer.com/
and search for Murdick
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/guitar.html

[Scott Daughtrey]

Post by thomas

Post by Matanya Ophee

Post by thomas

Post by Matanya Ophee
As for realizations, he specifically pointed out the fact that jazz
chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line, and that is the
logic of all the fake books.

Jazz chord symbols are printed above the staff. The chord symbol
is derived from the entire harmony of everything going on in the
measure.

In a fake book, which was the material I worked with Pick on, there is
nothing going in the measure except the melody line and the chord
symbol. So what's your problem?

Let me restate this--in jazz fakebooks, the chord symbol supercedes
the melody. It is far more important. In many jazz compositions,
the melody is derived from the harmony. The chord symbol is always
printed above the melody line.
There is no way to substantiate your statement that "jazz
chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line." There
are a number of ways to parse this claim, but none of them
make sense.

This is also an untrue statement. I have two fake books written in double
stave systems; the top stave contains the melody and the chord symbols are
written right in the middle of the second stave. While not the norm, they
clearly do exist - I'm looking at one right now.

Scott

[Sean Winkler]

Post by Scott Daughtrey

Post by thomas

Post by Matanya Ophee

Post by thomas

Post by Matanya Ophee
As for realizations, he specifically pointed out the fact that jazz
chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line, and that is the
logic of all the fake books.

Jazz chord symbols are printed above the staff. The chord symbol
is derived from the entire harmony of everything going on in the
measure.

In a fake book, which was the material I worked with Pick on, there is
nothing going in the measure except the melody line and the chord
symbol. So what's your problem?

Let me restate this--in jazz fakebooks, the chord symbol supercedes
the melody. It is far more important. In many jazz compositions,
the melody is derived from the harmony. The chord symbol is always
printed above the melody line.
There is no way to substantiate your statement that "jazz
chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line." There
are a number of ways to parse this claim, but none of them
make sense.

This is also an untrue statement. I have two fake books written in double
stave systems; the top stave contains the melody and the chord symbols are
written right in the middle of the second stave. While not the norm, they
clearly do exist - I'm looking at one right now.
Scott

I may just be reading MO's statement differently than you (thomas in
particular), but I don't think he is talking about the location of the
chord symbols on the printed page.
MO: "jazz chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line"
To me, that is a statement of how one realizes the harmony, not where
you print the symbol on the page.

I would paraphrase this as "the choice of voicing for a specific chord
symbol (realization) is intimately tied to the melody line in fake
books." Physical limitations of playing the guitar make this so. If
you want to play a particular melody and simultaneously realize a
specific harmony beneath it, you are limited in the resulting contour of
the bass line.

In contrast, traditional figured bass works the other way around. The
bass line is the given, as well as the intervals above the bass that
create the harmony. Typically, someone else is responsible for the
melodic line, and the continuo player provides interest by filling in
around the stated harmony.

Now, these functions perhaps occur in jazz as well when one is part of
an ensemble. The bass plays the bass line, the guitarist/piano fills in
the harmony and adds texture, and the melody instrument plays the
melody. But I think when discussing fake books in the current context,
we're talking about a solo guitarist, in which case MO's statement makes
perfect sense.

Sean Winkler

[Larry Deack]

"Sean Winkler"

Post by Sean Winkler
But I think when discussing fake books in the current context,
we're talking about a solo guitarist, in which case MO's statement makes
perfect sense.

You're being way too sensible, Sean.

[John Wasak]

Post by Larry Deack
"Sean Winkler"
in which case MO's statement makes

Post by Sean Winkler
perfect sense.

You're being way too sensible, Sean.

Hey! Isn't that illegal in RMCG?!


jw

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by Sean Winkler

Post by Scott Daughtrey

Post by thomas

Post by Matanya Ophee
In a fake book, which was the material I worked with Pick on, there is
nothing going in the measure except the melody line and the chord
symbol. So what's your problem?

Let me restate this--in jazz fakebooks, the chord symbol supercedes
the melody. It is far more important. In many jazz compositions,
the melody is derived from the harmony. The chord symbol is always
printed above the melody line.
There is no way to substantiate your statement that "jazz
chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line." There
are a number of ways to parse this claim, but none of them
make sense.

This is also an untrue statement. I have two fake books written in double
stave systems; the top stave contains the melody and the chord symbols are
written right in the middle of the second stave. While not the norm, they
clearly do exist - I'm looking at one right now.
Scott

I may just be reading MO's statement differently than you (thomas in
particular), but I don't think he is talking about the location of the
chord symbols on the printed page.
MO: "jazz chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line"
To me, that is a statement of how one realizes the harmony, not where
you print the symbol on the page.
I would paraphrase this as "the choice of voicing for a specific chord
symbol (realization) is intimately tied to the melody line in fake
books." Physical limitations of playing the guitar make this so. If
you want to play a particular melody and simultaneously realize a
specific harmony beneath it, you are limited in the resulting contour of
the bass line.

One thing I forgot to mention, it's been more than 40 years ago!, is
that Pick insisted that I transpose the melody given in the fake book
an octave higher, and then realize the harmony prescribed by the chord
symbols below it. Here is an example of how Pick himself did that:

Loading Image...

Post by Sean Winkler
In contrast, traditional figured bass works the other way around. The
bass line is the given, as well as the intervals above the bass that
create the harmony. Typically, someone else is responsible for the
melodic line, and the continuo player provides interest by filling in
around the stated harmony.
Now, these functions perhaps occur in jazz as well when one is part of
an ensemble. The bass plays the bass line, the guitarist/piano fills in
the harmony and adds texture, and the melody instrument plays the
melody. But I think when discussing fake books in the current context,
we're talking about a solo guitarist, in which case MO's statement makes
perfect sense.

The problem Thomas is having with this issue is that he is not a
classical musician and simply does not understand the concept of
"realization" as used in reference to figured bass. My mistake here
was that I used the same concept in regard to chord jazz symbols.

What results is the same typical knee-jerk reaction which prompts this
hate monger to challenge anything I say, even when he hasn't a clue
what is being discussed here. I do not expect an apology from him.


Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.orphee.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html
http://www.savageclassical.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html

[William D Clinger]

Post by Matanya Ophee
What results is the same typical knee-jerk reaction which prompts this
hate monger to challenge anything I say, even when he hasn't a clue
what is being discussed here. I do not expect an apology from him.

Yeah, mongers who refuse to apologize are the worst kind.

(giggle;)

Will

[Larry Deack]

"William D Clinger"

Post by William D Clinger
Yeah, mongers who refuse to apologize are the worst kind.

No, idiots who take every post as an opportunity to snipe at another RMCG
poster are the worst kind.

That makes both of us idiots.

[William D Clinger]

Post by Larry Deack
"William D Clinger"

Post by William D Clinger
Yeah, mongers who refuse to apologize are the worst kind.

No, idiots who take every post as an opportunity to snipe at another RMCG
poster are the worst kind.
That makes both of us idiots.

Low five, bro!

Will

[Scott Daughtrey]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:40:37 -0500, Sean Winkler

Post by Sean Winkler
I may just be reading MO's statement differently than you (thomas in
particular), but I don't think he is talking about the location of the
chord symbols on the printed page.
MO: "jazz chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line"
To me, that is a statement of how one realizes the harmony, not where
you print the symbol on the page.
There is no way to substantiate your statement that "jazz
chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line." There
are a number of ways to parse this claim, but none of them
make sense.
The chord symbol is always
printed above the melody line.

I was simply pointing out he is incorrect.

Scott

[thomas]

Post by Sean Winkler
I may just be reading MO's statement differently than you (thomas in
particular), but I don't think he is talking about the location of the
chord symbols on the printed page.
MO: "jazz chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line"
To me, that is a statement of how one realizes the harmony, not where
you print the symbol on the page.
I would paraphrase this as "the choice of voicing for a specific chord
symbol (realization) is intimately tied to the melody line in fake
books." Physical limitations of playing the guitar make this so. If
you want to play a particular melody and simultaneously realize a
specific harmony beneath it, you are limited in the resulting contour of
the bass line.
In contrast, traditional figured bass works the other way around. The
bass line is the given, as well as the intervals above the bass that
create the harmony. Typically, someone else is responsible for the
melodic line, and the continuo player provides interest by filling in
around the stated harmony.
Now, these functions perhaps occur in jazz as well when one is part of
an ensemble. The bass plays the bass line, the guitarist/piano fills in
the harmony and adds texture, and the melody instrument plays the
melody. But I think when discussing fake books in the current context,
we're talking about a solo guitarist, in which case MO's statement makes
perfect sense.

But we are mixing apples and oranges in comparing solo jazz guitar and
figured bass accompaniment. When playing a solo guitar version from a
fakebook, then I agree that more often than not, you play the melody
on top. If that is what MO was trying to say, then he has a good point,
albeit poorly articulated. I would agree with that.

But figured bass is not used for playing solo guitar, as much as
it is used for making accompaniments in which you think from the
bass up. Comparing figured bass accompaniments with jazz guitar
accompaniments, we see that there is no need to fill in the chord
below the melody line, because someone else is playing the melody
line. It would be mistaken to argue that jazz accompanists habitually
realize chord symbols below the melody line.

When jazz guitarists are the sole comping instrument in an ensemble,
then very often they play chords over a bass line, realizing the
chord symbols from the bottom up. Any competent jazz guitarist
today does this routinely when playing duo gigs with a singer or
horn player. Listen to any Joe Pass duo album for examples. This
is standard practice, and it is quite analogous to a figured bass
realization, only with more harmonic freedom and complexity.

[David Kilpatrick]

On 30/1/04 11:37 pm, in article

Post by thomas
When jazz guitarists are the sole comping instrument in an ensemble,
then very often they play chords over a bass line, realizing the
chord symbols from the bottom up. Any competent jazz guitarist
today does this routinely when playing duo gigs with a singer or
horn player. Listen to any Joe Pass duo album for examples. This
is standard practice, and it is quite analogous to a figured bass
realization, only with more harmonic freedom and complexity.

Jazz guitarists use a fairly simple system of what they call 'movable
chords', typically on no more than four strings at a time, with or without
barre-damping and/or open strings depending on approach. Maybe four chord
shapes, riding up and down the middle reaches of the fingerboard, with the
entire chord imitating a movement not unlike the fundamental of a figured
bass, and its associated harmony.

In the mid to treble register, double-stops, ninths and tenths are more
common; full chords (three notes or more) are generally kept to the wound
strings, and jazz guitarists generally favour a wound third, even if tape
wound on an archtop. Full chords on the trebles, rather than mean or bass
strings, come in when soloing or providing a temporary lead or maybe echoing
the soloist improvisation.

I am familiar enough with this and I don't play jazz. But I know one or two
guitarists who do.

David

[thomas]

Post by Scott Daughtrey
This is also an untrue statement. I have two fake books written in double
stave systems; the top stave contains the melody and the chord symbols are
written right in the middle of the second stave. While not the norm, they
clearly do exist - I'm looking at one right now.

I'm sure there are a few anomalous fakebooks out there, but that
doesn't much help us understand common practice.

[Larry Deack]

"thomas"

Post by thomas
I'm sure there are a few anomalous fakebooks out there, but that
doesn't much help us understand common practice.

Read Sean's post or continue to embarrass yourself some more. Your choice.

[thomas]

Post by Larry Deack
"thomas"

Post by thomas
I'm sure there are a few anomalous fakebooks out there, but that
doesn't much help us understand common practice.

Read Sean's post or continue to embarrass yourself some more. Your choice.

We'll get to Sean's post, but first--ask yourself why we need Sean
to explicate the Gospel of MO. The answer is that MO, finding himself
on the losing end of an argument, did what he often does in these
situations. He began a new thread in which he launched a propaganda
campaign of lies and ad hominem to distract from the gap in his knowledge.
He wants people to kill-file me so that a trivial little ignorance
on his part won't be publicized.

Now, Sean did bend over backwards to provide a most charitable explication
of MO's argument, probably the only one that comes close to making any

Post by Larry Deack
I think one should be careful to consider "fretboard harmony" somewhat
differently than continuo realization. Richard Pick's School of Guitar
is perhaps the most thorough fretboard harmony book written
specifically for the classical guitar. It is based to a large extent
on the concepts developed by George Van Epps for the jazz guitar. When
I worked with him on this material, he pointed out that knowledge of
the fingerboard harmonically is an important aspect to sight reading.
As for realizations, he specifically pointed out the fact that jazz
chord symbols are realized _below_ the melody line, and that is the
logic of all the fake books. Basso continuo is the realization of a
bass line where the melody is given to someone else.

The problem with Sean's explication is that fake books are not
written for solo jazz guitarists. That is not "the logic of all fake
books." Fake books are written for amateur musicians of any instrument
who lack the basic musicianship needed to learn songs by ear.

Furthermore, Van Eps's books are perhaps unique among jazz guitar
methods in that he systematically explores placing the melody
in places other than the top voice. Anyone who opened up a
Van Eps method would see this immediately. And I doubt Van Eps
ever used a fake book in his life. I never saw one at his house.

Finally, we should note that fake books are often written to
indicate a bass line for accompanists who are not playing
a melody.

Thus MO's attempt to distinguish between figured bass and "the logic
of fake books" falls apart no matter how you parse it. There
are differences, but he doesn't understand them.

There is a cultural disconnect here, between people with
basic musicianship skills who can learn music by ear, and
people who are underequipped. It is rare to see first-rate
working musicians making any use of a fake book. Why would you,
when you can listen to the original source and not have to
worry about mistakes in someone else's transcription?

[Greg M. Silverman]

thomas wrote:

Hmmm... not meaning to quote Joey Goldstein out of context, but I just
read the following over at rec.music.makers.jazz wrt "How Insensitive"
by Jobim:

"I got my changes from Chuck Sher's Standards Real Book. I've learned to
trust him for the most basic "correct" and/or original changes of a
tune, for the most part.But there are lots of other ways that this tune
can be slightly reharmonized"


Now, if Chuck Sher's book isn't a fake book and if Joey Goldstein isn't
a jazz musician, then color me purple.

gms--

[Greg M. Silverman]

Post by Greg M. Silverman
Hmmm... not meaning to quote Joey Goldstein out of context, but I just
read the following over at rec.music.makers.jazz wrt "How Insensitive"
"I got my changes from Chuck Sher's Standards Real Book. I've learned
to trust him for the most basic "correct" and/or original changes of a
tune, for the most part.But there are lots of other ways that this
tune can be slightly reharmonized"
Now, if Chuck Sher's book isn't a fake book and if Joey Goldstein
isn't a jazz musician, then color me purple.

sorry, my "jazz musician" should read as your "first rate working musician."

Post by Greg M. Silverman
gms--

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by thomas
The problem with Sean's explication is that fake books are not
written for solo jazz guitarists. That is not "the logic of all fake
books." Fake books are written for amateur musicians of any instrument
who lack the basic musicianship needed to learn songs by ear.

I have NEVER heard anything like this. I would be curious what
responses you would get to this over at RMMGJ. Do me a favor--post it
there and then report back here with the consensus.

Steve

[Greg M Silverman]

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by thomas
The problem with Sean's explication is that fake books are not
written for solo jazz guitarists. That is not "the logic of all fake
books." Fake books are written for amateur musicians of any instrument
who lack the basic musicianship needed to learn songs by ear.

I have NEVER heard anything like this. I would be curious what
responses you would get to this over at RMMGJ. Do me a favor--post it
there and then report back here with the consensus.

it's funny, back when I was studying jazz, my teacher always used the Real
book for me to learn the melody and the changes and as a starting point for
further exploration. and he is a real working jazz musician. he basically
said the Real book is the jazz musician's bible.

gms--

Post by Steven Bornfeld
Steve

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Greg M Silverman

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by thomas
The problem with Sean's explication is that fake books are not
written for solo jazz guitarists. That is not "the logic of all fake
books." Fake books are written for amateur musicians of any instrument
who lack the basic musicianship needed to learn songs by ear.

I have NEVER heard anything like this. I would be curious what
responses you would get to this over at RMMGJ. Do me a favor--post it
there and then report back here with the consensus.

it's funny, back when I was studying jazz, my teacher always used the Real
book for me to learn the melody and the changes and as a starting point for
further exploration. and he is a real working jazz musician. he basically
said the Real book is the jazz musician's bible.
gms--

I still have mine too. And I'm pretty sure my teacher didn't use is
just as a teaching tool.

Steve

Post by Greg M Silverman

Post by Steven Bornfeld
Steve

[Greg M Silverman]

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by Greg M Silverman

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by thomas
The problem with Sean's explication is that fake books are not
written for solo jazz guitarists. That is not "the logic of all fake
books." Fake books are written for amateur musicians of any instrument
who lack the basic musicianship needed to learn songs by ear.

I have NEVER heard anything like this. I would be curious what
responses you would get to this over at RMMGJ. Do me a favor--post it
there and then report back here with the consensus.

it's funny, back when I was studying jazz, my teacher always used the Real
book for me to learn the melody and the changes and as a starting point for
further exploration. and he is a real working jazz musician. he basically
said the Real book is the jazz musician's bible.
gms--

I still have mine too. And I'm pretty sure my teacher didn't use is
just as a teaching tool.

indeed! Paul had all volumes and they were quite well used!

did you see my quote from Joey Goldstein, posted by him today on rmmj? Chuck
Sher's book is quite good, BTW.

so anyway, assuming Thomas' claim is right, that would mean the majority of
working mmusicians sit down and figure out the chord changes BY EAR! can you
imagine doing that with Giant Steps? :-)
sure it could be done, by working musicians have more to do than spend hours and
hours working these things out from scratch...

gms--

Post by Steven Bornfeld
Steve

Post by Greg M Silverman

Post by Steven Bornfeld
Steve

[thomas]

Post by Greg M Silverman
so anyway, assuming Thomas' claim is right, that would mean the majority of
working mmusicians sit down and figure out the chord changes BY EAR! can you
imagine doing that with Giant Steps? :-)
sure it could be done, by working musicians have more to do than spend hours and
hours working these things out from scratch...

Musicians with ears don't spend hours working out changes.
They hear changes as they are played.

[John Wasak]

Post by thomas

Post by Greg M Silverman
so anyway, assuming Thomas' claim is right, that would mean the majority of
working mmusicians sit down and figure out the chord changes BY EAR! can you
imagine doing that with Giant Steps? :-)
sure it could be done, by working musicians have more to do than spend hours and
hours working these things out from scratch...

Musicians with ears don't spend hours working out changes.
They hear changes as they are played.

As in most things, the truth here lies somewhere other than at either end.
The fake book was (note 'was'!) usually limited to "standards", i.e.,
popular songs from the 20's, 30's, 40', 50's. If a musician, who may or
may not have spent time figuring out the changes and the melody and, as
Dexter Gordon was fond of - learning the lyrics - was playing somewhere and
got a request for a tune where they hadn't done any of those aforementioned
mentioned things, asked to play a tune they didn't know, they could open up
a simplified musical blueprint - the fake book - and then "fake" their way
through the tune. But that was then and this is now, and these days there
are too many who will go to the fake book for the changes, bypassing, as
Thomas rightly points out, that all important (in jazz) ear "knowingness".

I do think thought that Thomas here paints the picture of more of what is
expected more at the upper reaches or apex of jazz musicanship rather than a
kinder, gentler rendering of the average Joe playing at the average Sunday
brunch.


jw

[thomas]

Post by John Wasak
I do think thought that Thomas here paints the picture of more of what is
expected more at the upper reaches or apex of jazz musicanship rather than a
kinder, gentler rendering of the average Joe playing at the average Sunday
brunch.

Yes, of course. Many GB musicians use fakebooks, but the good ones
don't need them as crutches. You don't find fakebooks on NY jazz
sessions, though. I don't agree that the ability to hear changes is
limited to the apex of musicians. I am a very mediocre musician,
but I have no trouble hearing changes to standards or pop tunes.
It doesn't take me hours to write out a chart. It's just basic
musicianship. Some people do the work to get it; some don't.

All of this is tangential to the core argument about the logic
of fakebooks, and George Van Eps methods.

[John Wasak]

Post by thomas

Post by John Wasak
I do think thought that Thomas here paints the picture of more of what is
expected more at the upper reaches or apex of jazz musicanship rather than a
kinder, gentler rendering of the average Joe playing at the average Sunday
brunch.

Yes, of course. Many GB musicians use fakebooks, but the good ones
don't need them as crutches. You don't find fakebooks on NY jazz
sessions, though. I don't agree that the ability to hear changes is
limited to the apex of musicians. I am a very mediocre musician,
but I have no trouble hearing changes to standards or pop tunes.
It doesn't take me hours to write out a chart. It's just basic
musicianship. Some people do the work to get it; some don't.

Ah, but I didn't say 'limited', that's your word. I said 'more expected' at
the higher levels. Again, we're speaking too generally. Hearing changes to
the usual pop tunes and standards is, I agree, a learnable skill for, as
you've said before, 'those with ears', which may include the less than cream
of the crop. But many play music without ever having acquired this ability.
Also some tunes are more harmonically simpler than others - so some may be
just tough to hear for a lot of folks.

Post by thomas
All of this is tangential to the core argument about the logic
of fakebooks, and George Van Eps methods.

I guess so.


jw

[Greg M. Silverman]

Post by thomas

Post by John Wasak
I do think thought that Thomas here paints the picture of more of what is
expected more at the upper reaches or apex of jazz musicanship rather than a
kinder, gentler rendering of the average Joe playing at the average Sunday
brunch.

Yes, of course. Many GB musicians use fakebooks, but the good ones
don't need them as crutches. You don't find fakebooks on NY jazz
sessions, though. I don't agree that the ability to hear changes is
limited to the apex of musicians. I am a very mediocre musician,
but I have no trouble hearing changes to standards or pop tunes.
It doesn't take me hours to write out a chart. It's just basic
musicianship. Some people do the work to get it; some don't.

now you say "as crutches"... before you had said "use" period. there is
a big difference. BTW, the thread you started over on rmmj is quite
interesting

and I don't disagree about the basic musicianship of being able to hear
chords. but truth of the matter is that some changes are harder to get
right away than others. Giant Steps again is a lot trickier than say
Straight No Chaser.

Post by thomas
All of this is tangential to the core argument about the logic
of fakebooks, and George Van Eps methods.

fine, but when you make overgeneralized claims, it's your fault the
thread got misdirected.

gms--

[thomas]

Post by Greg M. Silverman
now you say "as crutches"... before you had said "use" period.

Musicians who need fakebooks to get through life should find another
career. I understand why people own them, and carry them to GB gigs.
Some of those guys are quite good players, I know. But it is kind
of a pathetic type of career IMO, to have to play songs you don't
even know, because you wouldn't want to know them unless the bridesmaid's
father is footing the bill. That is why I got out of the music business.

Post by Greg M. Silverman
there is
a big difference. BTW, the thread you started over on rmmj is quite
interesting

Many posters are not first-rate musicians. Anyone who needs hours
to hear the chords and write out a lead sheet for a standard
is a beginner WRT ear-training.

Post by Greg M. Silverman
and I don't disagree about the basic musicianship of being able to hear
chords. but truth of the matter is that some changes are harder to get
right away than others. Giant Steps again is a lot trickier than say
Straight No Chaser.

Giant Steps is not the kind of tune you can read out of a fakebook on
a gig. You have to practice it at home.

Post by Greg M. Silverman

Post by thomas
All of this is tangential to the core argument about the logic
of fakebooks, and George Van Eps methods.

fine, but when you make overgeneralized claims, it's your fault the
thread got misdirected.

Mea culpa. I made the overgeneralized claim in response
to your challenge, just to get the thread going.

[Greg M Silverman]

Post by thomas

Post by Greg M. Silverman
now you say "as crutches"... before you had said "use" period.

Musicians who need fakebooks to get through life should find another
career. I understand why people own them, and carry them to GB gigs.
Some of those guys are quite good players, I know. But it is kind
of a pathetic type of career IMO, to have to play songs you don't
even know, because you wouldn't want to know them unless the bridesmaid's
father is footing the bill. That is why I got out of the music business.

no disagreement here... I couldn't stomach those kinds of gigs either.


but the point is: good players should be able to memorize anything under the sun; the source though may be bby
ear or from a fake book. does it really matter?

Post by thomas

Post by Greg M. Silverman
there is
a big difference. BTW, the thread you started over on rmmj is quite
interesting

Many posters are not first-rate musicians. Anyone who needs hours
to hear the chords and write out a lead sheet for a standard
is a beginner WRT ear-training.

no disagreement either... but, what ya gonna do?

Post by thomas

Post by Greg M. Silverman
and I don't disagree about the basic musicianship of being able to hear
chords. but truth of the matter is that some changes are harder to get
right away than others. Giant Steps again is a lot trickier than say
Straight No Chaser.

Giant Steps is not the kind of tune you can read out of a fakebook on
a gig. You have to practice it at home.

exactly...

Post by thomas

Post by Greg M. Silverman

Post by thomas
All of this is tangential to the core argument about the logic
of fakebooks, and George Van Eps methods.

fine, but when you make overgeneralized claims, it's your fault the
thread got misdirected.

Mea culpa. I made the overgeneralized claim in response
to your challenge, just to get the thread going.

hey, we all overgeneralize sometimes. the thing is you admitted it like a good boy, so it's time to get on with
life!


gms--

[Lutemann]

Post by thomas
The two systems are quite similar. In a jazz fakebook, if the bass
note is given under a slash, then the bassist plays it. If it is
not given, then he fakes it.

Not exactly. If you study transcriptions of fine jazz bass players ( I have
done this in order to learn to play walking bass from chord symbols) you will
see that they hit the root of the chord almost all the time on the chord
change. When a composer writes G6, he wants a G in the bass, and when he
writes E min7, he wants an E in the bass even though these two chords are
spelled the same. The comping pianist is usually advised to avoid the root so
he doesn't clash with the bass player.
*****************************************************
Kent Murdick
Free Guitar Instruction CD/Video: Go to http://stringdancer.com/
and search for Murdick
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/guitar.html

[Jasper Riedel]

... When a composer writes G6, he wants a G in the bass, and when he
writes E min7, he wants an E in the bass even though these two chords are
spelled the same. The comping pianist is usually advised to avoid the root so
he doesn't clash with the bass player.

Very musch so, good point, heavily agreed.

Regards

[thomas]

Post by Lutemann

Post by thomas
The two systems are quite similar. In a jazz fakebook, if the bass
note is given under a slash, then the bassist plays it. If it is
not given, then he fakes it.

Not exactly. If you study transcriptions of fine jazz bass players ( I have
done this in order to learn to play walking bass from chord symbols) you will
see that they hit the root of the chord almost all the time on the chord
change. When a composer writes G6, he wants a G in the bass, and when he
writes E min7, he wants an E in the bass even though these two chords are
spelled the same. The comping pianist is usually advised to avoid the root so
he doesn't clash with the bass player.

Yes, I agree that they usually emphasize the root at the chord change.
This practice makes the two systems appear even more similar. But the
question remains as to who gets to determine the changes. In a pickup
band, it may well be the bassist as much as the chordal players who
determines the changes. You might find it interesting to check out
Bill Evans classic trio recordings. He gave his bassists a lot of
instruction as to what changes to play.

[Rob MacKillop]

Mark and others,

It is encouraging to see some interest in FB and the guitar. We must
make a distinction between continuo realisation and harmonic analysis.
I was refering to the former. I too have taught Fretboard Harmony to
guitarists at The Royal Scottish Academy of Music (Glasgow) and Napier
Universtity (Edinburgh) for many years, and have studied the authors
mentioned by Mark: Morris and Keller, as well as others. We had many
students who could improvise rock and blues solos but who couldn't
connect two major chords on their classical guitar. They just viewed
it differently, couldn't 'see' any connection.

I haven't seen the Schaller-Scheit method or Richard Pick's book (must
seek them out). Mark mentions that...

Post by Terlizzi
To cover all the bases and define terminology etc.
in a book would be a huge task and probably wouldn't be worth the time
invested.

...which I agree with. But I think there might be room for a
practical, hands-on approach which wasn't overblown with endless
theoretical concepts.

As for practical uses:

At our (Goyescas) concert on Saturday of Sor's guitar/piano/voice
music, I forgot to programme an encore. As I had played the variations
on 'Ye Banks and Braes' as a solo, and as it happened to be the eve
before Burns Night (a big event here) we luckily found a copy of 'Ye
Banks and Braes' which had a bass line without figures. It was an easy
task to just sight-read through it, extemporising chords and runs. Ok,
it wasn't as complex as a Bach fugue, but it doesn't have to be. We
did a professional job. The point is that with just a little study,
these things are a piece of cake. It should be as easy as strumming
the chords to a Dylan song...

It suddenly struck me one day, many years ago now, that all my
favourite 'guitar' composers - Bach, Weiss, de Visee - were playing
continuo on a day to day basis. Now that I am experienced in continuo
playing (there is always room for improvement!) I cannot imagine
playing these works without seeing them from an improvisor's
viewpoint. And now that I am concentrating mainly on Sor, I can see
all the Baroque roots showing through much of his work.

I will think more about a book, with a disc of examples and
continuo-less bass lines and melodies to 'play along' with. But it is
a big project, so...

In the meantime, I am available for guitar festivals!

Rob MacKillop

[Lutemann]

Post by Matanya Ophee
think one should be careful to consider "fretboard harmony" somewhat
differently than continuo realization. Richard Pick's School of Guitar
is perhaps the most thorough fretboard harmony book written
specifically for the classical guitar. It is based to a large extent
on the concepts developed by George Van Epps for the jazz guitar. When
I worked with him on this material, he pointed out that knowledge of
the fingerboard harmonically is an important aspect to sight reading.

I wasted my money on the Van Epp's books and found them to be so unfocused that
they were useless. If I may quote Bill Bay, "there is more actual information
in your (Kent Murdick's) short volume (Jazz Comping) than in the hundred's of
pages of Van Epp's three books".

When learning a chord system one should focus on the minimal set of chords
needed that can create the intended effect, and then expand from there. For
example, if you wanted to learn to play 1930's style straight rhythm, you can
do this with about 8 chords. If you want to learn to read figured bass, you
should learn the fingerboard harmony in a book like Shearer's old volume two.
In a couple of weeks you can learn to play III, VI, II,IV, VII, V7, I in all
inversions in all keys, Major and Minor, using 4 note chords in two voicings
(with the upper three (1,2,3) and or lower three (2,3,4) strings on top). Four
note chords are easier than three note chords because there are fewer voicings.
From there you can learn to read the basic figures ( about a week) and then
learn to be more flexible with the voicings. Usuallthis means three note
voicings which are derived from the four note voicings.
*****************************************************
Kent Murdick
Free Guitar Instruction CD/Video: Go to http://stringdancer.com/
and search for Murdick
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/guitar.html

[Lutemann]

Post by Larry Deack
I've always thought this would be fun to do on guitar and I like the idea
of being able to play with others that way. Are you doing this for 6 string
guitar? Seems like more strings would be nice for this kind of work.
BTW, glad you found RMCG.

I actually wrote a book on figured bass for the guitar about 30 years ago.
I've still got it somewhere. It was meant to be a substitute for keyboard
harmony piano that most of us had to take in college. I sent it to Mel Bay but
they told me that they already had too many chord books for the guitar. A nice
beginning to this topic can be found spead throughout Shear's old Vol 2 (belwin
Mills) He doesn't use figures but he does run throught the iii, vi, ii/IV, V7,
I in many major and minor keys.
*****************************************************
Kent Murdick
Free Guitar Instruction CD/Video: Go to http://stringdancer.com/
and search for Murdick
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/guitar.html

[Sean Winkler]

This is a subject that has interested me off and on for years. But so
far I have only had several false starts. Without much opportunity to
actually play continuo, I haven't had to push myself to learn it.

A few years ago, I did look at Roland Stearns' dissertation, titled
"Continuo for lutenists and guitarists: a tutor and music theory supplement"
I can't remember what I thought of it at the time, but it might be worth
looking at it again to refresh my memory.

I would agree that facility with figured bass can greatly enhance one's
performance of music from any period. I am personally drawn to the
classical era, and one of the things that I am currently struggling with
is how to incorporate improvisational aspects into this repertoire. I
tend to approach things very analytically, which can be a detriment when
attempting to improvise--I try too hard. A thorough grounding in
figured bass would probably make it easier to create a reasonably good
harmonic progression when improvising.

Sean Winkler

Post by Rob MacKillop

Any recommendations
for books specific on voicings relevant to guitar? I have a gig where
this will become ultra important... I play some jazz, and do kinow how to
read the notation for figured bass, it's just a slow painful process to
get fluent with it.

I am not aware of any current publication regarding figured-bass for
guitarists. There are some old John Gavall books, long out of print,
but they are not really worth the effort hunting down. The best book
which could be used by guitarists is Nigel North's 'Continuo Playing
on Lute, Archlute and Theorbo' which might be available (see Google).
It has a lot of background info and theory. I contemplated writing a
practical workbook on the subject, but doubt if any publisher would
take it on. I am keen to develop decoration and improvisation in the
early classical guitar repertoire, and am encouraged to read in Sor's
Method that he could read figured bass.
Is there interest for a figured-bass tutor for guitarists? Once
learned there are about 5,000 songs from the Baroque period, not to
mention ensemble music, and it helps enormously with the classical
period.
One thing I did learn in my ten years (on and off) of playing lute
continuo, is that there is an academically correct way of playing AND
a players way - not always the same thing. A basic knowledge, though,
could cut your learning time for, e.g. a Bach Allemande to half the
time. Structure and chordal movement is hugely important, and a
knowledge of FB really helps you hone-in on it much quicker.
Architecture in music is the shape of emotions and ideas, after all.
Rob MacKillop

[Greg M. Silverman]

Post by Rob MacKillop

Any recommendations
for books specific on voicings relevant to guitar? I have a gig where
this will become ultra important... I play some jazz, and do kinow how to
read the notation for figured bass, it's just a slow painful process to
get fluent with it.

I am not aware of any current publication regarding figured-bass for
guitarists. There are some old John Gavall books, long out of print,
but they are not really worth the effort hunting down. The best book
which could be used by guitarists is Nigel North's 'Continuo Playing
on Lute, Archlute and Theorbo' which might be available (see Google).
It has a lot of background info and theory. I contemplated writing a
practical workbook on the subject, but doubt if any publisher would
take it on. I am keen to develop decoration and improvisation in the
early classical guitar repertoire, and am encouraged to read in Sor's
Method that he could read figured bass.
Is there interest for a figured-bass tutor for guitarists? Once
learned there are about 5,000 songs from the Baroque period, not to
mention ensemble music, and it helps enormously with the classical
period.
One thing I did learn in my ten years (on and off) of playing lute
continuo, is that there is an academically correct way of playing AND
a players way - not always the same thing. A basic knowledge, though,
could cut your learning time for, e.g. a Bach Allemande to half the
time. Structure and chordal movement is hugely important, and a
knowledge of FB really helps you hone-in on it much quicker.
Architecture in music is the shape of emotions and ideas, after all.
Rob MacKillop

Hi Rob,
Yes, major interest on my part, both from a practical and a theoretical
point of view.

And, I had thought that I had found a copy of Nigel's book, but
unfortunately, since it is out of print, someone had snatched it up
before me. Dern!
I did notice however that on his webste, he has the following comment:

"Indiana University Press has advised that copies of "Continuo Playing"
may be ordered through "REPLICA". The book is out of print, but if you
go to a large book store which can deal with special orders (eg, Barnes
and Nobles or Borders) , quote the ISBN # 0-253-31415-1 and tell them
that copies on demand may be had from "REPLICA", you may be successful.
If there are any difficulties, contact IU Press direct by email
***@indiana.edu <mailto:***@indiana.edu>(Gayle Sherwood)."

I'm wondering if anyone out there has succesfully obtained a copy this way?

Also, I'll try to keep my eyes open for the Gavell books you mnetioned,
but I would really like to see what you could do with this! :-)

Thanks again!

gms--

[Robert Crim]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:06:38 -0600, "Greg M. Silverman"

Post by Greg M. Silverman
And, I had thought that I had found a copy of Nigel's book, but
unfortunately, since it is out of print, someone had snatched it up
before me. Dern!

http://www.lacg.net/books_early_music_.htm ..........$64 cheap at
twice the price.

R.

[Greg M. Silverman]

Post by Robert Crim
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:06:38 -0600, "Greg M. Silverman"

Post by Greg M. Silverman
And, I had thought that I had found a copy of Nigel's book, but
unfortunately, since it is out of print, someone had snatched it up
before me. Dern!

http://www.lacg.net/books_early_music_.htm ..........$64 cheap at
twice the price.

U be the Man!

Another $64 spent! (but, my bday is coming up, so Damned if I don't
deserve it!)


gms--

[Lutemann]

Post by Matanya Ophee
That may be so, but what do you do when, as in a fake book, there is
NO bass line and the only harmony is the one indicated by the chord
symbol?

There are no hard fast rules, but the general rule of thumb is that jazz
harmony is in root position. The chord symbols indicate the bass, the quality
(maj, minor, etc.) and altered tones if there are any. It is almost prcisely
analgous to figured bass. It seems to me that this was what MO was saying.
*****************************************************
Kent Murdick
Free Guitar Instruction CD/Video: Go to http://stringdancer.com/
and search for Murdick
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/guitar.html

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by Rob MacKillop
I am not aware of any current publication regarding figured-bass for
guitarists.

Volume V of the Schaller-Scheit method:

http://www.uemusic.at/katalog/editionskatalog.pdf


Still in print. I have used it for this purpose more than 25 years,
and it still would work. The book begins with something else
altogether. How to read French tablature on the guitar and how to play
with (3) = F#. General description and then some exercises and pieces.

Next come several pages of exercises on how to read guitar music in
the bass clef. Then comes the section of figured base proper. General
explanation, examples of now to realize the various symbols, several
exercises of a bass line with parallel realization already made, to
follow with many exercises in which you are supposed to supply the
realization yourself. The book ends with a trio sonata by Johann
Ronsemueller (ca. 1620-1684) in score form (2 violins, cello with th
figured bass symbols, and a parallel guitar realization. The text is
strictly in German but should not be a hindrance to a practicing
musician who can read music.


Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.orphee.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html
http://www.savageclassical.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html

[Greg M. Silverman]

Post by Matanya Ophee

Post by Rob MacKillop
I am not aware of any current publication regarding figured-bass for
guitarists.

http://www.uemusic.at/katalog/editionskatalog.pdf
Still in print. I have used it for this purpose more than 25 years,
and it still would work. The book begins with something else
altogether. How to read French tablature on the guitar and how to play
with (3) = F#. General description and then some exercises and pieces.
Next come several pages of exercises on how to read guitar music in
the bass clef. Then comes the section of figured base proper. General
explanation, examples of now to realize the various symbols, several
exercises of a bass line with parallel realization already made, to
follow with many exercises in which you are supposed to supply the
realization yourself. The book ends with a trio sonata by Johann
Ronsemueller (ca. 1620-1684) in score form (2 violins, cello with th
figured bass symbols, and a parallel guitar realization. The text is
strictly in German but should not be a hindrance to a practicing
musician who can read music.

Thanks! Just ordered this... (still need to get the Flint, BTW :-)

BTW regarding fingerboard harmony: there is of course Richard Pick's
book, but that is not what I am looking for; I want something exactly
like this.

gms--

[Matanya Ophee]

Post by Greg M. Silverman
BTW regarding fingerboard harmony: there is of course Richard Pick's
book, but that is not what I am looking for; I want something exactly
like this.

Your observation is correct. The Pick's book assumes that the material
will be used by knowlegable teachers who should be able to make up
practice exercises for their students, without being spoon fed by a
method writer. The Schaller-Scheit book on the other hand, gives
enough exercises on the particular area of basso continuo, which Pick
does not discuss at all.


Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: [phone]
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.orphee.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html
http://www.savageclassical.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html