[HN Gopher] Jazz Comping (2021) ___________________________________________________________________ Jazz Comping (2021) Author : RickHull Score : 69 points Date : 2023-07-19 04:41 UTC (18 hours ago) (HTM) web link (jazz-library.com) (TXT) w3m dump (jazz-library.com) | Pannoniae wrote: | I find it funny how jazz piano players have stopped using their | left hand since 1950 or so;) | MrGando wrote: | This is a very uninformed opinion that I see very often. In | bebop, LH can be deceptively simple (but actually rhythmically | it's not so simple). However things have dramatically changed, | Brad Mehldau who's a foundational modern jazz pianist, probably | the most relevant one after the last Big Tree (Hancock, Corea, | Tyner), popularized things like LH counterpoint in jazz. Some | of his arrangements if you watch them in mute, you could thing | he's playing a Bach Fugue almost. The amount of pianists that | followed this style after the 90s, is hard to keep track of, | probably every single relevant pianist took things from brad, | and LH counterpoint was one of them (a big one there too was | Fred Hersch, who heavily influenced Brad). | | Then, I recommend you to check out what Sullivan Fortner is | doing. Probably the next really heavy one that has managed to | push the jazz lang forward after Brad. | myfavoritetings wrote: | I don't understand this comment | staunton wrote: | I guess it refers to them playing very fast and elaborate | solos (right hand) with minimal accompaniment (left hand + | bass player + drums). Minimalistic comping will also mostly | leave the low notes (left hand) to the bass player and comp | in a fairly high range, with more notes allocated to the | right hand than left. | Pannoniae wrote: | Basically, since the advent of bebop, the overwhelming | majority of pianists use sparse comping. This means that they | don't really provide bass, they just provide shell/rootless | chords for themselves to play, the main focus is soloing in | the right hand, or when others solo, just providing chords in | pulses. The actual bass is provided by a double bass player, | who plays a bassline. | | Before that, the prevalent comping style in the left hand was | stride, which provides a rich bass backing. (You know, the | oom-pah stuff) Contrary to the common criticism, if | coordinated well, this can also work in the presence of a | double bass player (just check out Fats Waller recordings, | many of his Rhythm recordings had a double bass player!) | mastazi wrote: | The OP article contains a video of a performance by Emmet Cohen | (who was born many decades after the 50s) doing a complicated | solo based on stride piano techniques. | | PS In your other comment you blame bebop for this, but I don't | think that contemporary jazz is necessarily all in the shadow | of bebop, I think it is actually very diverse, with so many | genres that are not necessarily close to bebop such as neo- | swing and funk-jazz. | midiguy wrote: | Well that's not really true in any sense. Almost any jazz piano | player today worth their salt will favor two-handed voicings | for comping, and comp with left hand while soloing. | Pannoniae wrote: | Spreading a chord over two hands isn't really using your left | hand though.... and playing random shell chords isn't really | either. Playing an actual walking bass, stride, four-to-the- | bar chords, arpeggios or boogie patterns is more like it. | midiguy wrote: | > Spreading a chord over two hands isn't really using your | left hand though | | Kind of like how running with both legs isn't really using | your left leg? I don't really understand this train of | thought. | | > playing random shell chords | | Not many piano players these days use bebop era shell | chords. It's all about rootless, cluster and quartal | voicings. And just because they are played without | regularity doesn't make them random. A skilled player | places them very intentionally. | | > Playing an actual walking bass, stride, four-to-the-bar | chords, arpeggios or boogie patterns is more like it. | | These techniques create a metrical regularity that is | antithetical to the spontaneous and forward-pushing rhythym | of post-bop era jazz. It's fine for certain styles of | music. | m3kw9 wrote: | Can't there be a game that plays like Mario bros where it goes | super easy, but still have an incentive/fun system to let you | progress slowly to high levels? Is there such thing even close to | this? | trane_project wrote: | That's pretty much what I've been trying to do with | https://github.com/trane-project/trane/ | | I wanted something like you describe, but as far as I know | nothing existed. So I've been hacking at this and the basic | idea does work. It's now just a matter of designing the courses | and polishing the user experience. | | I am just coming up with the structure for how to define what | music would depend on each other. Trying to do it based on | music theory would be ideal, but probably beyond my capacity. | So I think the historical development of the genre you are | trying to learn is a good proxy. For jazz, for example, this | would be something like learning African music first, then | spirituals, then blues songs, then new orleans jazz, then basic | standards and so on. Trane works based on a graph, so the | progression does not have to be linear. | | It's pretty early stages at the moment. Only one course for now | since I've been trying to work out the process first: | https://github.com/trane-project/trane-music/blob/master/cou... | | These "transcription" courses first ask you to loosely sing the | song, then loosely improvise over it with your instruments (you | can customize your own), then sing in different keys and do it | more thoroughly, then improvise more closely to the actual | song. The last step is what is normally called transcribing, | but the course is meant to progressively lead you to that. The | whole process is meant to recreate the apprenticeship process | that all the early Jazz masters went through. | | Ideally there's a graphic interface that downloads the music | and lets you loop, slow down, and change the pitch. But for | now, there's only a command-line interface and the user has to | do that themselves. Not ideal, but it works. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | Practicing is a creative skill. Practice really is a terrible | word for it, because it suggests s dumb, inefficient way to | learn. Research, investigation, pushing boundaries get at the | idea better. | | Adults have a hard time learning new things largely because | beginner's mind feels so alien and tedious to them. A kid is | shocked to discover how great that first E major chord sounds, | and experiences like that are motivating. | | It's easy for beginners to find low hanging fruit, because | there's so much of it. But if you periodically step back to map | the terrain, there's always something within your reach that | will feel satisfying when you get it, no matter how much you | already know. How is my rhythm? Can I play to a click? Do I | recognize chords as fast as I want? Can I play doublestops? Can | I do funk? Counterpoint? Odd time signatures? How are my | biomechanics? Bichords (that's two chords at the same time)? | Symmetric scales? Microtones (instrument permitting)? Can I | convey peace? Excitement? Morose? Military? Exultant? Afraid? | Call and response with someone else? Between my two hands? | Within one hand? | | Also it's helpful to avoid the goal of "dominating" such | targets. I will never dominate "rhythm". It's too big. But I'll | keep improving. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | For those reasons, I'm skeptical any game will be good for | very long. It doesn't know what you need. But that said, | there is software that can teach you a lot. Practica Musica | was a mind-expanding experience for me. | cevn wrote: | If you can play it slow, you can play it fast. | | Start by listening to music you like, then pick an instrument. | Copy what they did, note by note, but 100x slower. It may not | be fun at first, but you will pick up speed slowly, and soon, | you're making music, and maybe you'll learn something along the | way. | m3kw9 wrote: | Parrot playing, I do that but I'm only able to play that song | and not really improvise much. Any ideas? | dgunay wrote: | For me the ability to improvise music emerged slowly after | doing a lot of playing other things by ear and embellishing | songs either from lead sheets or coming up with | premeditated variations on pieces I already knew. But | that's just how I did it. If improv is your goal then you | could probably benefit from doing it in a semi structured | format like 12 bar blues, where it can start very simple | and you can build up complexity. | mastazi wrote: | IMHO - parrot playing is concerned with "what" is being | played, and it's OK in the context of non-improvised music. | | If you want to learn improvisation it helps to also | investigate "why" - why this particular rhythmic figure | (e.g as shown in the OP article), why this chord voicing | (e.g. block chords? Quartal harmony? Drop-2?), why this | melody (e.g. ascending or descending? Arpeggiating the | chords or "playing outside"?) etc etc | | Edit: One more thing: it's OK to improvise with the help of | something like iReal Pro, but nothing replaces improvising | with real humans, find a group of like minded people that | would like to play with you | gerhardi wrote: | Learn scales. When you understand and know the scale of the | song you can quickly start improvising then. | trane_project wrote: | I don't disagree that this type of transcription leads to | good results, and in fact, it's what you should eventually | do, but I've found a different approach to transcription that | to me is easier, more fun, and more powerful. | | Take the song, load it up in transcribe | (https://www.seventhstring.com/) or similar software, pick a | part. Up to here, this method and yours is the same. But | rather than try to worry about the exact notes being played, | study the context by just singing and playing over the song | and seeing what works and what does not. | | There's just a lot more information than just the notes that | were played. So this type of transcription gets you to | navigate the same context the musicians were playing in. And | as you do it, you'll start hitting the actual notes, and | eventually you can close in on them. What's great is that | it's fun, playful, musical, and you can do it even with songs | that are way out of your level when transcribing note by note | or learning from a score. | | Using a human language analogy, your suggestion would be to | mimic conversations and mine would be to babble in other | people's conversations until you become fluent. It's clear in | human languages that one is much faster than the other. Sure | babies are geared for it, but I think the babbling would work | for adults too if they became cute as a baby or puppy, got | over themselves, and could shamelessly babble onto other's | conversations. | | The best book on the matter I've read of how to learn by ear | is "The Gift of Music" by Victor Wooten. It's kind of weird | in that it's written as a fiction book, but there are | definitely music lessons. And if some of them feel too out | there, just listen to him play. He's a master, not a stoner | pretender. | | There's also "Thinking in Jazz", but I am only a fourth or | third of the way and so far it's mostly about the historical | and cultural background of improvisers. It's not gotten too | into the weeds musically speaking. | sitzkrieg wrote: | rocksmith works like this i think | gnulinux wrote: | [deleted] | | Sorry, I think what I said was misunderstood and was not very | accurate, so I made the decision to delete it. | epiccoleman wrote: | In the context of the example I'll grant that it's a bit silly | to think of it as an E7. In the context of a band scenario, it | might make perfect sense. If you're playing a jazz tune from a | lead sheet, it might be very reasonable to mark that chord as | an E7, and the bass might be playing the root, in which case | thinking about it as a viio7 would miss some context. | | The problem with music theory is that it's _extremely_ | contextual, and I think you have to at least get a sense for | some of the "rules" of chord construction to be able to make | sense of the notation. Music theory is just a language for | talking about sounds and harmonies, and while there are cases | where "just focus on the intervals" would make sense, there are | just as many times that it's useful to say "it's a ii-V-I in Ab | major." Having the language be based on the diatonic chords of | the key you're in can make it easier to express a lot of | different concepts in a shorthand, instead of having to spell | out the intervals of every chord you come across. | | My advice to folks learning music theory would be to check out | the Signals Music Studio channel - that dude has helped me make | sense of theory concepts that I never grokked in years of | playing music. I think it's really one of those cases where you | have to get a good sense for the language before you start to | get frustrated by the limitations and blemishes of the whole | system. | macawfish wrote: | In my mind the point of calling it a "rootless voicing" is that | even if the bass player does play the root, not everyone has | to. Playing a rootless voicing is a choice to be made on the | fly given the knowledge of the root, melody and key, rather | than something you'd typically want to prescribe. It's a matter | of interpretation. The listener will often have the root in | their ear (the mode really) even if nobody is currently playing | it explicitly. Or maybe someone just played the root and nobody | is now but the rootless voicing still rings. Or maybe the last | chord had the same root and the sense of it is lingering. Or | maybe the root is in the melody. | | If I couldn't have any information about the key, I'd still | want the root and the melody. | [deleted] | anon291 wrote: | Honestly, I have to say I do not understand the obsession on | Hacker News and more broadly on music theory. Music theory is | interesting, but as an amateur jazz/blues/rock pianist for the | past twenty years or something, it's not going to make you a | better player. The best thing to do to learn these styles is to | simply play. I do agree you need to know some things (like if | you see an E7 in a jazz book you shouldn't play the E), but | really there's not that much complexity to it. Music is a | language, someone shows you how to play some licks and you take | and expand on that by practice practice practice. I honestly | couldn't tell you any of the theory behind half the stuff I | play. | | Thus, when I hear things like "Of course, a rootless 3-7-9-5 | so-called I7 (E7) chord is actually a diminished seventh chord | (minor third, diminished fifth, diminished seventh (major | sixth)) viio7 (D diminished 7th chord)" it makes sense in my | mind what you're saying, but I'm also thinking... if someone | showed you how to play it, rather than attempted to 'teach' you | by showering you in theory, there wouldn't be a whole lot of | confusion. | | At the end of the day, the American styles of music are | ultimately all aural traditions, whereas 'classical' has -- | unfortunately, in my opinion -- become transformed into a | written one. | | But going back to the E7. Only the piano pays Gsharp, B, D, | F#/F. The Bass player will play E, so while it's rootless on | piano, it's not rootless in a band. Which is probably another | reason you're confused. Jazz comping should not be played | without a band. If you're just playing jazz piano then you | should certainly play the root at some point (unless you want | to sound cerebral, in which case don't do that). | | > My advise to people who are learning music theory is to | ignore terminology as much as they can and focus on intervals. | Intervals are the true source of truth of harmony and | everything else is someone's opinion as to how a particular | structure should be named, perceived or modeled. | | I always tell people attempting to learn improv and piano to | 'play what sounds good and don't play what doesn't. | midiguy wrote: | > but as an amateur jazz/blues/rock pianist for the past | twenty years or something, it's not going to make you a | better player. | | Knowing theory won't necessarily make you better at playing | music in a certain style on a certain instrument. But it will | make you a much more adaptable musician who can pick up | styles and instruments faster, communicate musical ideas more | efficiently, and form a mental conceptual model of a piece | much more effectively. | | Particularly in music as harmonically complex jazz, if you | can't speak the language of theory other musicians frankly | won't be able to communicate with you on paper and thus won't | take you very seriously. | | Now if you want to play for example punk or Appalachian folk | music and nothing else, I would agree with you. But a working | musician these days needs to be adaptable. | jdietrich wrote: | HN has a slightly nerdy preoccupation with theory for its own | sake, but a solid understanding of theory is immensely | useful, particularly in jazz. You don't _need_ it per se, but | in an awful lot of situations it 's the difference between | desperately faking it in the hopes that no-one will notice | and confidently choosing from a broad palette of options that | you know will sound good. | | When taught properly, modern jazz theory is a clear and | pragmatic aid to improvisational fluency. The time investment | needed to get to grips with theory is really quite modest in | the overall scheme of learning to be a jazz musician. | coliveira wrote: | I think some basic understanding helps, but the problem is | to think that you need to master theory, especially | esoteric scales, to be able to play. Jazz is more | experimentation than anything else, you play what sounds | good. Practicing scales and chords per se will not take you | anywhere. | midiguy wrote: | You can experiment all you want, but to reproduce those | results consistently in any situation that might arise | you need to contextualize your experimentation within the | framework of theory so your mind has something to grasp | onto other than 'moving this muscle makes this sound'. | Let's say you are on the gig with a singer who wants to | do a standard piece in Eflat and you only practiced it in | G. Someone who knows theory well will be able to | transpose on the spot. Someone who relies on muscle | memory and ear will likely be pretty useless in that | situation. | coliveira wrote: | > I do not understand the obsession on Hacker News and more | broadly on music theory | | Agreed, jazz teachers have the tendency to overcomplicate | things. Jazz is not that difficult (on the theory side), | because most of what players do is to decide on the fly what | sounds good or not. All the complex analysis of scales is | just something that is introduced afterwards to try to | understand what is going on, not something you need to learn. | The only concepts that I believe you need to master to play | jazz is basic chords sequences (II/V/I style) and voice | leading. Everything else follows from that. | wizofaus wrote: | > if you see an E7 in a jazz book you shouldn't play the E | | "Shouldn't" seems a strange way of putting it - if you're | fortunate enough to be playing in an ensemble with a | dedicated bassist then sure, it's their job to provide the | root (for any chord!) but I've never heard it suggested as a | pianist that you should avoid doubling it... | coliveira wrote: | It is common in jazz for other players to avoid the root | note in its lower position, the idea is to give more | freedom to comp, and to avoid repeating the low note in the | bass. Remember that unlike classical music where the | composer can decide where each instrument will support the | music, jazz players have to do this on the fly, so they | need to follow some common rules like this. | wizofaus wrote: | I'd agree you'd normally not use the root position if | you're playing with a bassist (unless they're soloing), | but whether or not I avoided including the root at all | would depend entirely on what fit well under the fingers | and "felt right" at the time. I never imagined there was | any sort of "rule" around it... | anon291 wrote: | There are no rules, which was exactly the point of my | comment. There's no studying of systems to be had, | because there is no system. I said "I always tell people | attempting to learn improv and piano to 'play what sounds | good and don't play what doesn't." | | The particular sentence you quoted sounds rigid on its | own, but when put into the context of my entire comment, | it's clear that I'm not trying to give a hard rule, but a | general convention. Like I said... you should play what | sounds good; and don't play what doesn't | anon291 wrote: | typically pianists do avoid doubling the bassist though. | Playing jazz piano solo you do a whole different set of | things than if you're playing together. | [deleted] | wizofaus wrote: | > We have a "rootless" chord that's named after the unsounded | root | | From my reading of the article there wasn't a suggestion the | root was unsounded, just that it wasn't provided by the piano | or guitar voicings, i.e. left to the bassist (or potentially | even the soloist). Having said that I'd say there clearly are | times even playing solo it makes sense to think of a particular | chord as rootless, given what it's leading to or what it's | substituting for, or what you might reasonably expect a bass | player to do if they were present. | spankalee wrote: | As a jazz player, I have to say it's not imprecise at all. It's | more precise in fact. The root is important, and it _is_ | (often) played, just not by those voices. | spankalee wrote: | To expand on this a bit, you very rarely see specific | voicings written out in charts, at least outside of big band | arrangements and such. | | The player chooses what voicings to use, often on the fly. | Voicings like 7-9-3-5 for a ii chord are only the most basic | one-hand voicings that can give some minimal voice leading in | common progressions. | | Once a player learns a lot of different voicings, and more | voicing concepts, they will add other notes like the 11, 13, | and yes the root. Two-handed spread voicings on piano might | often have a root on top, or pass through a root via voice | leading in a progression. | | The simpler voicings are there for beginners to teach the | theory, enough practice to play a bit, and to emphasize | getting the root out of the low register where it muddies | things with the bass. | | So the important piece of information is the key and chord | quality. For an E7 as a V7 chord, it really matters that the | root is E (and that you're in the key of, and maybe resolving | to D) even if you don't, right at some particular moment, | play the E. | megmogandog wrote: | Where are you getting diminished 7th from? If you play the 3, | the 5, the 7, and the 9 of E7 it's G# B D F#. At least in jazz | we call that shape a "half-diminished" chord or "minor 7 flat | 5", and it will stay that way no matter how you invert it or | move the voices around between the hands. You'd only get a | diminished seven if you flat the 9th to F natural (which | actually often happens in jazz though not in the context | presented). | | The point I think you're missing is that the blog post isn't a | music-theoretical presentation of what E7 is 'ontologically', | it's a guide for what jazz pianists should play on that chord | in an ensemble context. And in that context what's written here | is very standard advice, since it's assumed the bassist will be | playing the E. If there was no bassist, say if they were | playing solo piano, a pianist will often play the E in the | bass. | | It's also clear from the way the article is written that | they're already assuming some basic theoretical knowledge. It's | never explained what notes are in an E7. If you don't know | that, yes it will be confusing, but only because the article is | not for you. | | Overall I think the post would be very helpful for someone who | knows the basics and is just getting starting playing with | others. | boomskats wrote: | Not much to add, apart from to say that the discussion in this | here comments section has been the best thing I've read on HN for | a long time. And I generally like the discussions on here, a lot. | Jeff_Brown wrote: | Empathy is a little-taught skill that's critical to, among other | things, teaching, storytelling, and music. When you're comping, | you want to be sure the listener (and the soloist) know where | they are in the song, without getting in the way. Doing it right | requires listening closely, because you want your dynamics | (generally) to mirror the soloist's, you want to anticipate when | he'll go slow or take a breath because those are the best times | to say something. As an accompanist your rhythm should be simpler | than the drummer's or the soloist's, but should also (or rather, | it often sounds good if you do) reflect any temporary motifs they | introduce. If the bass is playing a pedal tone rather than the | root, you might consider including the root more important than | it would be otherwise (it's common otherwise to play the third | and seventh, since the audience can typically infer the fifth | even if it's not in the bassline). | | These skills, which are often called "taste", are quite | temperament-agnostic. They would apply equally to music with 13 | notes per octave. | tmountain wrote: | Taste is often in short supply. In my experience, most people | overplay. My favorite musicians would often be referred to as | restrained. A great example would be Ed Bickert's playing on | Live at the Garden Party. It's just him on guitar with a bass | accompanying, and nonetheless, he doesn't really come into the | first song for at least two minutes. Instead he just does high | range chordal harmony to complement the bass. It's beautiful | playing that you really don't hear very often. | klodolph wrote: | I think part of the reason why restraint is so valuable is | because of the band context. If you listen to a solo guitar | piece or piano piece that you like, it might be really | complicated, with a million things going on. If you listen to | a guitar or piano accompaniment track from a song you like, | you might hear simple triads or intervals, played sparsely or | with a simple rhythm. | Pannoniae wrote: | I find it funny how minimalism is considered a virtue in a | band setting. All those New Orleans bands can manage | perfectly with everyone just blasting whatever into the | air..... :) | Jeff_Brown wrote: | That is a wonderful effect. However, while I've never | been in such a band, I suspect "whatever" wouldn't cut | it. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-07-19 23:00 UTC)