PDA

View Full Version : George Garzone's triadic concept



DJ Soupalognon
February 1st, 2009, 08:57 AM
Through this thread site, I have stumbled upon someone's message that directed me to the Casa Valdez website. http://davidvaldez.blogspot.com/ If you don't know about it, there is a lot of stuff on that website but you have to look for it.

This guy shares a lot of links and study material etc...

But he had some George Garzone triadic etude stuff. I can see his etudes, I can play them, I understand them, I made a concept out of it. But does anyone knows George's concept itself? Does anyone has to add something to it?

yaboy88
February 1st, 2009, 11:32 AM
I am started to see this method as an important tool for improv. I am starting to work with triads with passing tones between.

DJ Soupalognon
February 1st, 2009, 01:12 PM
I am started to see this method as an important tool for improv. I am starting to work with triads with passing tones between.

What is the basic concept? You play any triads you want at any time?

yaboy88
February 2nd, 2009, 11:49 AM
no I try not to play any triad at any time...I stack triads on each other to make polychords. Sometimes I'll think of 3 different triads to work with all at the same time...especially over dominant 7th chords. This lets me create different alterations and substitutions over a stagnant chord. I try and do it conservatively so I can build on the notes in the triad on and not just play random chords. I also use this idea with 7th chords as well. Its a more refreshing approach than focusing on scales.

DJ Soupalognon
February 2nd, 2009, 02:29 PM
no I try not to play any triad at any time...I stack triads on each other to make polychords. Sometimes I'll think of 3 different triads to work with all at the same time...especially over dominant 7th chords. This lets me create different alterations and substitutions over a stagnant chord. I try and do it conservatively so I can build on the notes in the triad on and not just play random chords. I also use this idea with 7th chords as well. Its a more refreshing approach than focusing on scales.

Sure, I do that all the time... Do you know George's way?

yaboy88
February 2nd, 2009, 03:24 PM
I dont know much about his way of doing it. I do know that he links triads with different inversions chromatically....

EdByrne
February 2nd, 2009, 04:02 PM
There is a recent thread on this very topic, in which some of this was explored.

guitarjazz
February 3rd, 2009, 07:39 PM
There is a nice article about George in the Feb. International Musician A.F. of M. paper.

Dingo Jazz
February 12th, 2009, 01:53 PM
Here it is:

Play any triad in any inversion, when you get to the third note of the triad go up or down a half-step. The starting note of the new triad can be a root, third or fifth. This new triad must be a different inversion then the previous triad, unless the the new triad is displaced, in which case it is treated as a different inversion. That is about it. Very simple to understand, but nearly impossible to execute. Good luck.

EdByrne
February 12th, 2009, 02:03 PM
I have been working on this kind of thing independently. Since it involves vocabulary which is relatively new to me, I first write etudes out in Finale, and then learn to sing it before practicing it with the playback (slowed down at first).

This singing process takes me a great deal of repeated work, often involving making short vamps (with Finale repeats) out of small segments of each etude, before putting it all together. It is an organic evolutionary process of internalization which requires hard work and dogged determination.

I have published two mini-books on this: Polytonal Major Triad Etudes and Polytonal Minor Triad Etudes. My approach does not follow the above rules, however, and it includes various forms of retrograde and retrograde inversion.

(I avoid augmented and diminished triads for this approach, since they have less sonority.)

DJ Soupalognon
February 12th, 2009, 08:21 PM
Thanks for the concept!!!

Now, I execute that on any chord at any time? There must be some sort of frame? Or I guess you just try to resolve within the chord?

jazz oud
February 12th, 2009, 09:12 PM
I've been working on this for a little while, too . . . so far it seems to work best (for me) if I start with a triad that is fairly consonant with the chord and proceed from there. It also means I'm starting with a sound I know and use already. The subsequent triads are easy to resolve . . . kind of surprisingly so (to me anyway).

It was my understanding that you could actually move to/from the triads by whole step, not just half step . . . you just had to play the half step passing tone between the two triad tones (e.g., CEG G# ADF#)

DJ Soupalognon
February 12th, 2009, 09:38 PM
Interesting

EdByrne
February 12th, 2009, 10:43 PM
Thanks for the concept!!!

Now, I execute that on any chord at any time? There must be some sort of frame? Or I guess you just try to resolve within the chord?

I use a variety of approaches. One is to make a chord succession based on fairly distant transpositions of the M or m triads, for example: +4, MA3, +4, step, m3, MA3, +4; MA3, m3, m3, m3, MA2, MA3, m3, MA3, many of which create tension against the strong pedal point. I do this often by singing a root progression melody on a chord succession, and then creating a line employing any inversion or melodic contour through that triad succession. I use this technique mostly for outgoing playing.

Then I develop the resultant line in a variety of ways, using retrograde and retrograde inversion.

I also employ rhythmic development of the melodic rhythms, and I mix that with the line itself. One example of this is playing various motives extracted from the overall line, and played a beat or half-beat earlier or later, or recycled without rests.

Gazelle
February 18th, 2009, 12:35 PM
If your interested in Garzone's approach try checking it out from the source himself. A bit expensive but well worth it. Dig it!

http://www.jodyjazz.com/george.garzone.jazz.improvisation.instructional.dv d.html

Samadhi
February 18th, 2009, 09:43 PM
Here is the answer to your questions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75qoXG6kISk

Dingo Jazz
February 22nd, 2009, 11:18 PM
You must move to the next triad by a half-step, NOT a whole-step. The entire idea is to create 12-tone lines and this will not happen if you use a whole-step.

jazz oud
February 23rd, 2009, 12:16 AM
While I don't know if using whole steps will give you George Garzone ApprovedTM lines, it doesn't much affect the overall chromaticism.

four triads, all 12 notes, only 3 repeated tones:

G#BE
F
F#A#C#
D
EbBbG
Gb
FAC

DJ Soupalognon
February 23rd, 2009, 09:24 AM
I also read somewhere that the note of the next triad cannot be the same starting note of the other one:

ie: C E G next Ab C Eb That is not correct because you start with two roots.

Now, C E G Ab Db, F would be perfect according to the system.

Is that anything you've heard or read?

jazz oud
February 23rd, 2009, 12:08 PM
Yes, except that you can do it if they're not the same inversion.

In your example: C E G Ab C Eb
if the Eb was lower than the Ab, it would be OK (or if the first C was higher than the G).

In the bigger picture (outside of the Garzone concept), there's nothing wrong with playing successive triads in the same inversion, but if you did it all the time it sounds a little too much like patterns.

The discipline of changing the inversion/factor of the starting note helps develop better command over the use of the triads.

mcohen777
February 23rd, 2009, 10:32 PM
So basically, you just play random triads going up (or down) chromatically in different inversions?

jazzimprov
March 20th, 2009, 02:02 PM
'So basically, you just play random triads going up (or down) chromatically in different inversions?'

This is exacty the problem I have with this approach.

It seems to take you away from improvising in a way.

You are following a set idea of inverted triads seperated by a 1/2 step from the previous triad. ok, so the creative ideas seemed stifled.

It almost seems like a preconceived huge pattern of randomness that really isn't random.

It may sound cool and 'out' but I don't see it expressing the chord changes for one thing as you are not really following the changes (how could you really be unless andything outside the chords are altered extensions of the chord. (for the most part).

You also seemed forced to follow the restrictions of the approach.

I guess you could just use this as one limited approach to playing 'out' but superimposing other chords extensions on the original chord tones could create a parallel harmonic path with I would find more interesting.

Just some thoughts.

jim

jazz oud
March 20th, 2009, 02:21 PM
jim,

I think the restrictions of the approach are primarily just a way of developing a higher level of discipline and focus in your improvisation. I don't think Garzone is advocating thinking that way when you play, it's just a way of practicing. working within a set of restrictions is a great way to practice all sorts of things.

This approach simply gives you another color to work with in your palette. If you listen to Garzone, he doesn't do it constantly, but mixes it in with other stuff.
To be able to do this, it presumes that you can already play inside, play the changes, and can use triads as upper chord tone extensions in an inside way.
It's really not restricting, it's very liberating if you can do it and resolve back into the changes.

I think one has to spend some time with this to start to hear how it actually works before dismissing it.
(just to be clear, I'm not saying I've mastered it by any means, but I've been working on it for a little over 6 months and can incorporate it into my playing to some extent)

if you think about there being 12 triads to superimpose on a chord:
4 will be basically chord tones and extensions (inside)
another 4 with be a half step up from those 4, so they resolve easily back into the chord, while the remaining 4 will be a half step down, also resolving easily.
This is a slight oversimplification, but you get the idea.
It's random in a way, but the results aren't random since they depend on your musicality.

jazzimprov
March 20th, 2009, 09:16 PM
I'm not dismissing it by any means and may actually pick up the DVD's.

I'm looking at some of the pdf's to get a better idea of this approach.

Sounds like you havea found it to be a worthwhile investment then?


Another pallette is right.

Jim

DJ Soupalognon
March 21st, 2009, 09:04 AM
Make a web search for Casa Valdez, he has some pdf of his own writing within the Garzone Concept.

jazzimprov
March 21st, 2009, 12:27 PM
Thanks, those are some of the pdf's I am looking at.

The concept seems relatively simple so I guess the purchase would be mostly for additional study materials?

Jeff Brent
May 7th, 2009, 01:05 AM
This analysis relates exclusively to the "Standard Chord Progression | with George Garzone Solo" over "Miss Jones".

The link: http://valdez.dumarsengraving.com/Haveyoumetmissjonesline.pdf

I realize that there are very probably any number of other ways to analyze this solo, but here is mine for the record:


There are 39 chord changes in this transcription, a full two-thirds of which begin with a lower chord component (root, third [major or minor], or fifth) on the first beat of a chord's occurence (measures 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29[beat 1], 29[beat 3], 30, 31, 32[beat 1], 32[beat 3]).

Root as initial chord tone: 9 occurences
Third as initial chord tone: 11 occurences
Perfect fifth as initial chord tone: 5 occurences
b5 as initial chord tone over dim7: 1 occurence

This indicates a strong preference for choosing either the third [major or minor] or the root to play over the first beat of a new chord.

This also means that Garzone is "playing to the changes" and has an intimate knowledge of the chord progression.


Of those chords which do not have a lower structure chord component as their first note:

- There is only one instance of an initial chord tone being a 7th, and it is a bb7 over the dim7 in bar26.

- There are only three instances an initial chord tone being a 9th (measures 4, 9, 22[beat 3])

- There are only two instances of an initial chord tone being a #11 (measures 8, 23), and no instances of an 11th.

- There are no instances of an initial chord tone being a 6/13.

- There are three instances of an initial tone over a dominant chord being a b9 (measures 20[beat 3], 24, 28)


Over minor quality chords, I have two observations:

- Mr Garzone has a fondness for inserting the b5 over minors (measures 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, 22, 24, 30) with a tendency towards using diminished triads or dim7 arpeggios (measures 7, 13, 24, 30).

- In certain cases, the minor quality chord seems to be treated as an altered dominant 7 quality chord (measures 6 [7#5], 15 [7b9], 18 [7b5]). Due to the root motion, these are perfectly acceptable chord changes to insert into the progression (but it makes me wonder if the transcriber wrote down the true underlying changes that the rhythm section was playing, or just blindly accepted the RB changes – example: bar 20 where the written chord is an Em7 yet GG plays an E major triad).


The "out" triads are most typically played over beats 3 and 4. These can be categorized in at least three ways:

1. Side-Slipping (by half-step or whole-step): measures 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11[beat 3], 14, 23, 27, 30[beat 3]

2. Relative Thirds (by m3 or M3): measures 4, 9, 20[beat 3]

3. Tritone Substitute: measure 18


Note also that the vast majority of the "out" triads are major (measures 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 20, 23, 27, 30).

Other "out" triads, (ie. minor triads, diminished triads and Augmented Triads) are much rarer:

Augmented "out" triads: measures 3, 16, 18

minor "out" triads: measure 11

diminished "out" triads: measure 16


Beat 4 and 4.5 of the measures are often approaches to the initial note of the new chord in the next bar. These approaches can be categorized in at least four ways:

1. Surrounding Note Figures (aka enclosure or encirclement): measures 5>6, 10>11, 14>15, 15>16, 17>18, 19>20, 20>21, 25>26, 28>29, 29>30. (There are also many "internal" SNFs. See measures 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25.)

2. Ascending or descending half-step approaches: measures 7>8, 13>14, 18>19, 21>22, 22>23, 23>24.

3. Ascending or descending whole-step approaches: 9>10, 11>12, 26>27, 27>28, 30>31, 31>32.

4. Ascending or descending scalar fragments: measures 12>13, 26>27.

As can be seen, the SNF is the preferred approach.


Another trick that GG seems fond of are variations of the "sidewinder" pattern (F G, F# G#, G A, G# A#, A B, A# B#, etc).


It is interesting to note that the ii-V of the final bar 32 is a totally typical Bebop line that is 100% "in". This ends the solo with a great deal of satisfaction for the listener (a welcome relief after so many "aural challenges").


Conclusions:

The first couple of eighth notes of each bar tend to be "in".

The "out" triads, side-slipping and other chromatic tricks tend to occur towards the middle of each bar.

The end of the bar is usually a set up for the next bar.


My Bottom Line:
This analysis was interesting and fun to do. However, my ear still doesn't like things like major thirds played over minor quality chords, or b7ths played over major 7th chords or a non-resolving nat7 over a m7 chord (and I probably never will).

The fact that GG is always aware of the underlying harmony and typically manages to cleverly resolve to one of the lower components of the subsequent chord is certainly a good way to pull the listener back from the brink of madness, yet overall I am still left with an uncomfortable feeling.

Is this "Triadic Chromatic Approach" useful?

Maybe to you, but probably not to me. To me, a bum note is still a bum note, and I'm perfectly capable of blowing clams without the "benefit" of a codified system for doing so.


* * *

While reading up on George Garzone, I noticed that he mentions in his bio that he played with Bob Weir's band [B]RatDog.

I played in bassist/songwriter Gil Karson's band for over a year while living in the mountains near the Grapevine.

Mark Karan was the guitarist in Gil's band.

Here's a photo of us playing a sleazy dive in Valencia, CA circa 1994.

Mark has been the lead guitarist for RatDog for the last ten years.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j106/jeffbrent/HotHeads1994.jpg

I guess that makes me only one handshake away from the president (again).

jazz oud
May 7th, 2009, 01:46 AM
Interesting analysis, Jeff.

I haven't formally analyzed the piece, but your observations match up more or less with my own experiments about how to make it work.

Since I began investigation Garzone's ideas because I liked the sound of his lines ("bum" notes included), I guess I have a different conclusion about how satisfactory the results are. I will note though, that Garzone's actual improvisations on standards (at least on the records I have) have more balance between the inside and outside. This head is pushing the boundaries for sure.

DJ Soupalognon
May 7th, 2009, 08:43 AM
I will note though, that Garzone's actual improvisations on standards (at least on the records I have) have more balance between the inside and outside. This head is pushing the boundaries for sure.

That is very true. Although I saw him once live with Chris Potter, Antonio Sanchez and Scott Colley and let me say that he was playing a lot of that stuff.

I guess that his concept could be thought as an extension to the Liebman Chromatic Concept?

It seems to be rather useful.

DJ Soupalognon
May 7th, 2009, 09:01 AM
Anyone checked out the third measure? On a Gm7... there is a lot of chromatic stuff to get to an augmented triad. Anyone has an analysis for that?

Jeff Brent
May 7th, 2009, 04:39 PM
Anyone checked out the third measure? On a Gm7... there is a lot of chromatic stuff to get to an augmented triad. Anyone has an analysis for that?

I see this as simply a variation of a sidewinder pattern.

This genre of patterns are interlocking SNFs (I like the term "Surrounding Note Figure" better than the terms "enclosure" or "encirclement" not only because that's how I first learned it, but also because "SNF" is easier to type).

In the "sidewinder pattern" example I gave in post #27 (F G, F# G#, G A, G# A#, etc), the SNFs interlock like this:

F G F#; F# G# G; G A G#; etc.

With the target note always being the last in each set.



In measure 3 over the Gm chord (and the first two notes of measure 4 - C7) the sequence is (enharmonically spelled):

| G Bb A Cb Ab Cb Bb F# | D E


The first SNF is G Bb A. The target note A (the 9th of the Gm7 chord) is approached by the surrounding chord tones G and Bb.

This SNF could have also been played as Bb G A, with the target note A once again being approached by the surrounding chord tones G and Bb.


The second SNF is Ab Cb Bb. The target note Bb (the b3rd of the Gm chord) is approached by the surrounding non-chord tones Ab and Cb.

This SNF could have also been played as Cb Ab Bb, with the target note Bb once again being approached by the surrounding non-chord tones Ab and Cb.

That GG chose to use a variation of the Ab Cb Bb SNF, by playing it as Cb Ab Cb Bb does not alter the function of the SNF in the least.


If you're feeling masochistic, you could always make an entire boring exercise by expanding this sidewinder pattern to its limits:


G Bb A, Ab Cb Bb, A C B, Bb Db C, B D C#, C Eb D, C# E D#, D F E, Eb Gb F, E G F#, F Ab G, F# A G#, G Bb A

But then, of course, you'd have to figure out every other variation too (all directions and also using m2s, M2s and M3s), and that could be time consuming.


The F# on beat 4.5 is part of an SNF whose target note is the 3rd of the next chord (C7).

F# D E

While the F# D E SNF is not part of the sidewinder, I thought you'd still like an explanation for the F#'s presence.

As has been seen, GG likes resolving to lower chord components (especially the thirds).


PS: Thank you Jazz Oud for your kind words!

EdByrne
May 7th, 2009, 04:49 PM
The above chromatic targeting pattern (1/2-step below, 1/2-step above, target note) is Type 2a of the 10 Chromatic Targeting Patterns of the Linear Jazz Improvisation Method.

I understand what George is doing. I do a similar technique, but only with major and minor triads, which have the most sonority. But I use this technique almost exclusively TO play out--especially over vamps and other moments of stasis. It is like a rocket ship to pantonality when used for that purpose. I love it, but I am still working on it and find difficulty sustaining that structure for long lines in sustained passages.

It is also extremely difficult to sing, especially when mixed with other techniques such as retrograde, permutation, displacement, transposition, augmentation, diminution, and more. It is, however, mind-bogglingly interesting and useful to me.

DJ Soupalognon
May 7th, 2009, 10:05 PM
I see this as simply a variation of a sidewinder pattern.

This genre of patterns are interlocking SNFs (I like the term "Surrounding Note Figure" better than the terms "enclosure" or "encirclement" not only because that's how I first learned it, but also because "SNF" is easier to type).

In the "sidewinder pattern" example I gave in post #27 (F G, F# G#, G A, G# A#, etc), the SNFs interlock like this:

F G F#; F# G# G; G A G#; etc.

With the target note always being the last in each set.



In measure 3 over the Gm chord (and the first two notes of measure 4 - C7) the sequence is (enharmonically spelled):

| G Bb A Cb Ab Cb Bb F# | D E


The first SNF is G Bb A. The target note A (the 9th of the Gm7 chord) is approached by the surrounding chord tones G and Bb.

This SNF could have also been played as Bb G A, with the target note A once again being approached by the surrounding chord tones G and Bb.


The second SNF is Ab Cb Bb. The target note Bb (the b3rd of the Gm chord) is approached by the surrounding non-chord tones Ab and Cb.

This SNF could have also been played as Cb Ab Bb, with the target note Bb once again being approached by the surrounding non-chord tones Ab and Cb.

That GG chose to use a variation of the Ab Cb Bb SNF, by playing it as Cb Ab Cb Bb does not alter the function of the SNF in the least.


If you're feeling masochistic, you could always make an entire boring exercise by expanding this sidewinder pattern to its limits:


G Bb A, Ab Cb Bb, A C B, Bb Db C, B D C#, C Eb D, C# E D#, D F E, Eb Gb F, E G F#, F Ab G, F# A G#, G Bb A

But then, of course, you'd have to figure out every other variation too (all directions and also using m2s, M2s and M3s), and that could be time consuming.


The F# on beat 4.5 is part of an SNF whose target note is the 3rd of the next chord (C7).

F# D E

While the F# D E SNF is not part of the sidewinder, I thought you'd still like an explanation for the F#'s presence.

As has been seen, GG likes resolving to lower chord components (especially the thirds).


PS: Thank you Jazz Oud for your kind words!

Makes a lot of sense. That's what I was thinking (not knowing the term SNF) but thanks for going even further. Great analysis!!!

JohnHorne
May 8th, 2009, 09:55 AM
Not a real serious point here guys, but I really like the name "Sidewinder Patten" we need more cool names for the musical devices we employ.

Snowboarders don't say: "he just pulled a sweet Fig. 2a!"

They say: "check out this bitchin' McTwist."

No offense to Ed, I have been thinking about this for long time and I wish we had more colorful language that actually describes the music.

Go anymore of those terms, Jeff?

EdByrne
May 8th, 2009, 10:28 AM
You say tomeato and I say toemahtoe. :tanz:

Jeff Brent
May 8th, 2009, 01:16 PM
Not a real serious point here guys, but I really like the name "Sidewinder Patten" we need more cool names for the musical devices we employ.

I wish we had more colorful language that actually describes the music.

Got anymore of those terms, Jeff?

Thanks John (and thanks DJ Soupalognon)!!

Terms that are not descriptive are less likely to catch on, but there is a huge gray area between reinventing the wheel and building a better mouse trap.

It's easy to think of sidewinder patterns as "winding side-slipping" or "serpentine side-slipping".

There sure are a lot of permutations to these types of patterns though ...