# Music by Genre > Jazz/Blues Variants, Bossa, Choro, Klezmer >  Want to learn Jazz mandolin

## MSGrady20

Hi!  I am a beginner mandolin player and I am wanting to learn jazz mandolin; however, I don't know what the first steps are to start learning it?  Any help would be great!  Thanks!

----------


## Steve Lavelle

Start by checking out all the resources at Jazzmando.com. Ffcp alone is worth the effort.

----------

B381, 

David Lewis, 

DavidKOS

----------


## Pete Martin

Assuming you can already play the instrument, there is no "correct" way to learn.  Ted's Jazzmando site mentioned above has a lot of info.  So does my www.Jazz-Mandolin.com site.  

Learning tunes is one method.  Start with easy tunes and advance to harder pieces as you go along.

This one is easy to learn.  Learn the melody and the chords.

http://jazz-mandolin.com/mack%20the%20knife.html

I am a big fan of the Barry Harris method if you want to learn bebop improvisation.  I have done several videos on that.  They, along with many other jazz mando instruction vids are here:
http://jazz-mandolin.com/instruction%20videos.html


You will eventually need to study keys, chords and chord construction, common progressions, what to play over each chord type, how to construct logical improvised lines, etc.

Best of luck, a fun journey!

----------

David Lewis, 

DavidKOS, 

GrooverMcTube

----------


## Bob Visentin

I moved to Georgia in the 70's and started to play mandolin.  Everybody said "are you going to play bluegrass?"  Being a Yankee I had no idea what that was and would reply, "No I want to play jazz."  I was told to get a saxophone.  One day I was listening to WREK-GA Tech FM radio and heard a Tony Trishka record with Andy Statman on mandolin.  That was it for me.  Yankees playing twisted jazz bluegrass.

Learning to play any instrument is a slow baby step process.  Ain't no short cuts but a good teacher helps.   Lots of practice.  My advice, practice, practice, and listen to the greats.

----------

Rick Jones, 

Tom Haywood

----------


## 40bpm

Choose a song you really really love that's somewhat simple and learn the components. First the melody, then the easiest chords you can find - especially the 3 note variants (plain major chords are acceptable and necessary). Then try to play the simplest chord melody version you can make up. Got a song stuck in your head? That's a good candidate.

I found that starting with easy and simple quickly led me on an exciting journey of more and more complex and satisfying music. Even simple jazz progressions sound wonderful. Just start and learn to love the journey. Best of luck.

----------


## DavidKOS

> I moved to Georgia in the 70's and started to play mandolin.  Everybody said "are you going to play bluegrass?"  Being a Yankee I had no idea what that was and would reply, "No I want to play jazz."  I was told to get a saxophone.  One day I was listening to WREK-GA Tech FM radio and heard a Tony Trishka record with Andy Statman on mandolin.





> You will eventually need to study keys, chords and chord construction, common progressions, what to play over each chord type, how to construct logical improvised lines, etc.



One does not learn to play "jazz mandolin" - one learns to play* jazz,* applicable to ANY instrument, be it sax, guitar or mandolin.

Like Pete said, you need to learn ALL your scales in every key; you need to know chords and chord arpeggios; and you need to know how to play solos over those chords.

This is the same for all instruments in jazz.

The only thing unique about "jazz mandolin" is that the music is played on a mandolin, the music itself is just jazz.

So to play jazz mandolin you have to dedicate yourself to being a jazz musician as it is the *process of how music is played that defines jazz*, not a set of particular tunes.

Finally, to learn the language of jazz, you need to listen to a lot of recordings by the masters of jazz - Louis Armstrong, Sidney Bechet, Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young, Basie, Ellington, the Dorseys, Parker, Diz, Coltrane, and Miles Davis as the main innovators.

Sadly there are no "important" jazz mandolin players in the sense that jazz books list influential players.

One of my favorites was Jethro Burns, who had a wonderful swinging style of playing jazz.

Just a few thoughts from a New Orleans native - as in "jazz _is_ my folk music".

----------


## DavidKOS

> I am a big fan of the Barry Harris method if you want to learn bebop improvisation.


That's an excellent choice - but I would not begin to learn jazz by starting with bop. Start with swing, like the guys that invented bop did.

Once the basics of playing traditional and swing jazz have been learned, then it's time to learn "modern" jazz.

I firmly believe you cannot play bop well unless you can play swing.

You cannot play swing well unless you can play trad (aka "Dixieland") jazz.

And you cannot play trad unless you can play the blues and ragtime.

It's a historical progression:

Blues and rags led to "Dixieland" which led to swing from which bebop was developed.

So when you are ready, the Benny Harris method is excellent.

I also suggest learning the older chord tone- chord arpeggio method of playing changes before learning the Aebersold-Baker chord scale method.

https://www.jazzadvice.com/how-the-c...les-and-modes/

https://www.berklee.edu/bt/121/chord.html

----------

Explorer, 

GrooverMcTube

----------


## CES

“Getting Into Jazz Mandolin” by Ted Eschliman is a nice launching point, and puts a lot of what’s on his website onto paper...

----------


## UsuallyPickin

D.K and P.M give good advice here...... there are many steps on the road to JAZZ and skipping any just makes the journey more difficult. Patient practice .... I am still working on the patient part. R/

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Drew Egerton

One thing that has helped me after years of being a bluegrass only guy, is just starting by learning the basic melody of several jazz standards. My first was Lady Be Good.
The note choices and phrasing of even the very basic melody can really demonstrate some of the differences. Learning a few of those starts to give you a bit of the "language".

There are the "real books" out there for download if you search them out which have many of these melodies. Don Stiernberg's Swing 220 record is a great place to start listening.
Don also has some excellent courses on Sound Slice that are reasonably priced, but I found a bit too advanced for the very new jazz student at first.

Pete Martin has done a great monthly series of posts here and provided chords and melodies to some tunes so check those out as well. He also has some good videos on his Youtube channel.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## JEStanek

He won't do a direct link b/c that's gauche but Ted's Book Getting into Jazz Mandolin is a great resource.

Jamie

----------


## mandocrucian

Not for _"beginner"_ players.  (someone just switching over to mandolin from guitar or violin/fiddle is not a "beginner" musician)

If you are a true_ "beginner"_ learn the basics and some common melodies/tunes before going _"jazz"_ And prepare yourself by listening to some of the best CDs by various players.  And learn to *read standard notation*, tab won't do the job if you pursue this genre.

NH

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Tom Morse

Lots of good advice here from some of the most seasoned cats at the Café. Kudos. 

Let me weigh in on the importance of listening, which some say you should do three times as much as you practice. 

A must-have recording for any aspiring jazz mandolinist has to be the David Grisman-produced “Back-To-Back” featuring Jethro Burns (Homer & Jethro) and Tiny Moore (5-string solid body mando for Bob Wills & The Texas Playboys) along with Shelly Manne on drums, Eldon Shamblin on guitar, and Ray Brown on bass. Put me on the jazz mandolin path with just one play.

Tiny did an album called “Tiny Moore Music,” and someone (thank-you) has posted it on Youtube in its entirety. It’s hard to find. Even scarcer, Tiny did a book of transcripts to go with the album. 

Jethro recorded “Swing Low, Sweet Mandolin” with Don Stiernberg on rhythm guitar that is simply wonderful. 

And then there’s Don. Listen to anything and everything Sternberg’s ever done. My favorites include his CDs “Angel Eyes,” “Home Cookin’,” and “By George.” One of Don’s hottest go-to guitarists, John Carlini, did an album called “Further Adventures.” No mandolin content, but Don plays guitar on a couple numbers and, as far as string jazz goes, this gem is an exquisite listen. 

Austin’s Paul Glass tears it up on his CDs “Road To Home” and “One More Night.” Wish he’d come up and play New England. 

Back to Grisman. His live album with Stephane Grappelli features some great jazz standards. Grisman’s album Dawg Jazz/Dawg Grass has some cool takes, but his Miles Davis-inspired “So What” album with Jerry Garcia is even cooler still. 

Harder to find, but they’re out there are Homer and Jethro’s “Playing It Straight” and “It Ain’t Necessarily Square.” And violinist Joe Venuti teamed up with Jethro, Eldon, and pedal steel player Curly Chalker to record an amazing “S’Wonderful: 4 Giants of Swing.”

Lastly, you need to be stalking him, studying his videos, and digging every thing this young guy named Aaron Weinstein is doing. OK. Aaron’s 33 years old, but the bow tie makes him look younger. 

Just the tip of the iceberg, man. So listen up. Have fun. Learn the ii-V7-I in every key and memorize the Amin7b9 and D7b9 chord patterns (they're dead simple).

----------

DavidKOS, 

Mandobart, 

MSGrady20, 

Rick Jones

----------


## Don Stiernberg

QUESTION for Original Poster Michael:

       I'd like to recommend some things as far as first steps toward learning jazz mandolin, but I'm just wondering what sparked your interest...a certain player, recording, live band? Jazz played on other instruments? If you could share a bit of backround on what inspired or intrigued you, that will help me choose things to guide you towards...Thanks, and thanks for jumping in here. Greatest Instrument in the World, one of the greatest styles of music as well. It's gonna be fun!

----------


## MSGrady20

I wanted to play bluegrass for the longest, but after hearing gypsy jazz I started finding myself more attracted to that style of music.  I just love the way the music sounds when I listen to it.  Honestly jazz is fairly new to me and I don't know a lot of popular jazz musicians other than Django Reinhardt and some of the others that were mentioned in the above posts.  Thanks for reaching out as well as everyone who has posted great information in this thread.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Jim Garber

> Let me weigh in on the importance of listening, which some say you should do three times as much as you practice.


I was about to say the same thing but Tom beat me to it. +1 and then some. All excellent advice. Certainly true for jazz but also for almost any other genre you want to play.

----------

DavidKOS, 

Tom Morse

----------


## DavidKOS

> Let me weigh in on the importance of* listening*, which some say you should do three times as much as you practice. 
> 
> Harder to find, but they’re out there are Homer and Jethro’s *“Playing It Straight”*


Anything "Tiny Moore" is worth listening to!  “Playing It Straight” is wonderful and a must-hear for mandolinists that play jazz.

Back to listening...I cannot over-estimate the need for any aspiring jazz player to listen to as many styles of jazz and as many players as possible.

Not to be repetitive, but listen to players of other instruments. It helps!

----------

Jim Garber

----------


## DavidKOS

> after hearing gypsy jazz I started finding myself more attracted to that style of music.  .


Gypsy jazz is an amazing mix of American music and European sensibilities...with a touch of Manouche thrown in.

The tunes a attractive, the players are extroverts, and the style is fun. General audiences (an archaic term ) like it, as opposed to many other jazz styles that are not popular to the public.

That why I mostly have been performing as a "Gypsy jazz" jazz player...something I loved and studied in the early 70's when it was not so easy to get instructional material.

But it's still jazz. It's called Gypsy jazz, but in his lifetime Django was the French guitar player that played American music. Go figure.

----------


## brunello97

Not sure just what David means by "important" but here's Paul Glasse, Austin home-boy. 

He may be cutting as sharp as a jazz mandolinist as anyone these days.  

Mick

----------

James Todd, 

Jim Garber, 

Tom Morse

----------


## Jim Garber

Another example of contemporary jazz mandolin. Jason Anick:

----------

brunello97, 

Tom Morse

----------


## David Lewis

Ted Eschliman and Pete Martin are not just the place to start, they're the place to continue as well. Get ahold of both men's books - Getting into Jazz Mandolin, and Pete has several books. Work through them. They compliment each other. 

Also, in the town I'm in, being a 'jazz' musician means that you studied jazz at a certain institution, and no others need apply. Ignore anyone who tells you you can't. But of course, listen to good and constructive criticism.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> Not sure just what David means by "important"


"Important" as in listed in almost all jazz history books as a major innovator in the development of jazz.  The majority of jazz studies just do not rank ANY mandolin players in the company of the greats like Armstrong, Parker, Davis, etc.

That's not to say jazz mandolinists are not fine players - but in a certain sense there has been no player that changed the face of jazz in the way that the most influential players of horns and piano have.

----------


## David Lewis

> "Important" as in listed in almost all jazz history books as a major innovator in the development of jazz.  The majority of jazz studies just do not rank ANY mandolin players in the company of the greats like Armstrong, Parker, Davis, etc.
> 
> That's not to say jazz mandolinists are not fine players - but in a certain sense there has been no player that changed the face of jazz in the way that the most influential players of horns and piano have.


You're right, but this is the problem: jazz has become so institutionalised that there is a 'right' way and a 'wrong' way. Yet, Jethro Burns, Jason Anick, Chris Biesterfieldt, Don Stiernberg, Dave Appollon, Mike Marshall, David Grisman, Sam Bush, can be just as innovative and exciting as Armstrong, Monk, Davis, Coleman, Parker, Gillespie. (Not always, of course, but there are moments) (and list in no order). Bela Fleck and Tony Trishka and Bill Evans on banjo... 

I guess we work out - 1) Jazz is dead and is being curated. You can only play it on certain instruments, and each instrument must follow a certain format (though you can be creative within that format). This has happened with musch music. Write a sonata, and try and break the rules. Or write a sympony. Or even a musical.

or 2) Jazz to survive needs to remember that the great players innovated - they broke the rules and pushed the format further. They also caught an audience. Jazz currently holds something like 2% of the recording sales... maybe we need innovators - real ones, not just 'sounds like Miles, or Alan Holdsworth, or Parker'. Maybe it's waiting for its next innovator. Maybe that's the OP. 

Learn the forms of jazz. Then break the rules. And don't listen to anyone who tells you 'you're doing it wrong'. The whole history of jazz is 'doing it wrong'. Armstrong's alleged criticism of bop as 'Chinese music', or Miles' disdain for the technique of bop. The traditionalists dislike of Metheny.  Learn it on the mandolin, or learn it on the tin-whistle, or learn it on the bagpipes. (All of these instruments have great jazz players). Until we fail, we haven't succeeded.

----------

DavidKOS, 

Jim Garber

----------


## DavidKOS

> *You're right*, but this is the problem: jazz has become so institutionalised that there is a 'right' way and a 'wrong' way. Yet, Jethro Burns, Jason Anick, Chris Biesterfieldt, Don Stiernberg, Dave Appollon, Mike Marshall, David Grisman, Sam Bush, can be just as innovative and exciting as *Armstrong*, Monk, Davis, Coleman, Parker, Gillespie. (Not always, of course, but there are moments) (and list in no order). Bela Fleck and Tony Trishka and Bill Evans on banjo...



I don't deny the musical greatness of the mandolinists you mention.

However without Armstrong those guys wouldn't even be PLAYING jazz. 

I'm a New Orleans native, and know the history of the music as I learned directly from players that worked with Armstrong. 

However, we agree on the "institutionalization" problem in jazz today.




> I guess we work out - 1) Jazz is dead and is being curated. You can only play it on certain instruments, and each instrument must follow a certain format (though you can be creative within that format). *This has happened with much music. Write a sonata, and try and break the rules. Or write a symphony.* Or even a musical.


Read "The End of Early Music" for more on this subject!

Jazz is also "dead" when players insist that everything has to be over-reharmonized and every chord has to be substituted with an even more dissonant chord, and anytime you feel like it throw in a #4 (#11), etc.

Cookie-cutter  thinking has ruined jazz.




> or 2) Jazz to survive needs to remember that the great players* innovated* - they broke the rules and pushed the format further. They also caught an audience.


It's waiting both for a new innovation that is listenable - free jazz and such is not audience friendly!

Back to Armstrong - he was also an entertainer!  Yes he was the first important innovative jazz soloist, but he was a consummate entertainer.




> Learn the forms of jazz. Then break the rules. And don't listen to anyone who tells you 'you're doing it wrong'. The whole history of jazz is 'doing it wrong'. Armstrong's alleged criticism of bop as 'Chinese music', or Miles' disdain for the technique of bop. The traditionalists dislike of Metheny.  Learn it on the mandolin, or learn it on the tin-whistle, or learn it on the bagpipes. (All of these instruments have great jazz players). Until we fail, we haven't succeeded.


I'm with you on this.

Learn what already is - then go you own way musically.

However, new jazz innovation does need to be built on tradition. SunRa's band played some out there stuff - but could also swing hard when they played more inside stuff.

"Learn the forms of jazz. Then break the rules...don't listen to anyone who tells you 'you're doing it wrong'. "

Some rules are like gravity, they cannot be broken - like the need to know your instrument, whatever it is, and to know scales, chords, and such. You can innovate a style, but a CMAJ9 chord is what it is.

Thus sometimes a player can be doing it wrong - such as not playing the notes of the correct chord! One needs to be able to play the melody of a head "correctly" so as to blend with other players in a group.

So there are times when a player NEEDS to be told that they are wrong. Every player I know has stories about having their @ss handed to them at an early jam session when they were not yet fully competent jazzers. That's how we learned to play better.

But apart from non-negotiable musical issues like harmony, playing in tune and in time, etc.,  _sounding like yourself_ is entirely up to you! and that's where any jazz player has the ability to make the music their own.

One of my teachers (Dalton Rousseau of the Original Crescent City Jazz Band, I think) used to say:

"Why you wanna sound like him? You gonna be on the radio one night and yo mamma's not gonna know it's you?"

Yes be original...but know the tradition too.

----------

David Lewis

----------


## Dave Martin

Don  Stiernberg (post above) has 4 courses on Soundslice that provide excellent instructional value. 

Pete Martins books and Getting Into Jazz Mando are also excellent. I have gotten so much out of those three resources. 

Pete also has a number of well done videos on various subjects, scales, improvisation, etc.

----------


## John Goodin

Coming a little late to this excellent conversation. Mostly I agree with almost everything already said, especially about the importance of actually listening to a lot of jazz, live and recorded. It's a lifetime's occupation and a constantly rewarding one. 

My two cents here are mostly to mention two more fine players, Don Julin and the late, great John Abercrombie. In recent years Don has been gaining a reputation as a fine bluegrass mandolinist and teacher but, I think, at heart his first love is jazz. He can play the old stuff and the new stuff, inside and out, with real soul. Plus he's a nice guy, like all of the other living players mentioned so far.

John Abercrombie, while always primarily a ground-breaking guitarist, played a lot of electric mandolin from the mid-70s into the 80s. He used the instrument quite a bit in his fabulous duo recordings with Ralph Towner, in Jack DeJohnette's band, and in his own first quartet (recently re-released on CD by ECM). You can find some videos on youtube of him doing things no one else has every done with a mandolin. Not burning hot licks stuff but beautiful, adventurous, improvisations that constantly inspire me.

P.S. A hello to DavidKOS who I met last week at the CMSA convention in Santa Rosa without realizing that he was the same guy who frequently makes informed comments here at the Cafe. The mention of the "End of Early Music" made the penny drop. I certainly enjoyed our conversations in the vendor room.

John G.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> P.S. A hello to DavidKOS who I met last week at the CMSA convention in Santa Rosa without realizing that he was the same guy who frequently makes informed comments here at the Cafe. The mention of the "End of Early Music" made the penny drop. I certainly enjoyed our conversations in the vendor room.
> 
> John G.


Hi John, it was great meeting you!

----------


## mandocrucian

*Dave Apollon* is probably the closest you're going to hear a mandolin at near Django-level artistry.  Another guy that deserves mention is *Andy Statman*. *Johnny Gimble* too, when he played one, but that's more Texas swing.

That said, listening to "jazz mandolinists" is no substitute for listening to the jazz giants who have pioneered the various eras. If you have the mindset of *"learning jazz mandolin"* instead of *"learning JAZZ",* you're are missing the boat, imo.

Listen to *your favorite players*, and let that stuff seep into your brain over time. (the _crockpot method_ rather than _kill it and grill it_). If you don't have "favorites", then you need to go down to your library and start checking out CDs until you realize whose playing you prefer.

Aside from a few guys (Django, Charlie Christian, Wes Montgomery) I was never that enamoured of jazz guitar. Though there are some of the solid body electric players (Lee Rittenour, Robben Ford) who use rock/blues articulation and techniques and who actually phrase more like sax players than those archtop guitar guys, and I like what they do.

For trumpet....Cootie Williams (early Duke Ellington), Chet Baker. Miles Davis (but that's more for everything rather than his trumpet 'sound)'.

Sax is where it's at for me:  Coltrane, Sonny Rollins, Johnny Hodges (alto, Ellington), Ornette Coleman, Rhasaan Roland Kirk, Johnny Almond (saxes & flutes w/John Mayall, Mark-Almond), Stan Getz, Paul Desmond (alto w/Dave Brubeck), Lester Young.  There *lots of guys* worth listening to. Art Pepper (alto) - there's no sax player I would rather listen to playing blues than him.

Piano: Tommy Flannagan, Bill Evans, Red Garland. (Bud Powell leaves me cold)

There are plenty who "shred", but I go for the lyrical players who really have a vocal quality on their instrument. (Same criteria for players of country, BG, blues, celtic, Nordic or almost every other genre I listen to.)  Listening to players should be like listening to singers....there are plenty that are good, but there are those select ones which really take it elsewhere (for you). (or the type of restaurant you prefer going to and what you choose off the menu.)

Niles H

Oh...and you might want to consider playing mandola and get a little lower.  And/or, think about retuning your mandolin to F-C-G-D  or your mandola to Bb-F-C-G  to make life easier playing in those "flat" horn keys.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> *Dave Apollon* is probably the closest you're going to hear a mandolin at near Django-level artistry.  Another guy that deserves mention is *Andy Statman*. *Johnny Gimble* too, when he played one, but that's more Texas swing.
> 
> That said, *listening to "jazz mandolinists" is no substitute for listening to the jazz giants who have pioneered the various eras*. If you have the mindset of *"learning jazz mandolin"* instead of *"learning JAZZ",* you're are missing the boat, imo.
> .........
> 
> Aside from a few guys (Django, Charlie Christian, Wes Montgomery) I was never that enamoured of jazz guitar.
> 
> 
> .......
> ...


I could have written much of the above!

I really liked sax players - I used to listen to Parker bootlegs when I was a teenager.  

There are other jazz guitar players I liked - Joe Pass, Kenny Burrell, among others - but like mandolin players they were not at the forefront of jazz until fusion.

----------


## Don Stiernberg

Hello again original poster Michael,

           Here's some tips, observations and steps to take toward improvising and playing in general...

         Start with concrete goals. Don't be afraid to take smaller pieces or go slower in tempo.
   Your basic goals both musically and mandolinistically might boil down to:
            Chord Progressions and Rhythm Playing    and
              What notes go with each chord? a/k/a scales, modes, rows of tones..
    When locating all of the above on the mandolin remember it is your friend and will help you since it's fretboard patterns are symmetrical: When you learn a major scale with all fretted notes, for instance, you've learned all of them in a sense-look for the shape and feel of a scale, move it up a fret you have that scale in the next key higher. Same with chords of course--all the forms are moveable. 
               Django styled jazz is a good starting point believe it or not because the tunes of the era have rich but accessible progressions. One thing that distinguishes jazz chords is the regular use of color tones, say the 6th and the 9th. A tune in G would use a G6 chord. A tune in Gm might use Gm6 in gypsy jazz and Gm9 in other places. On Dominant chords, say D7, the V chord of the key of G, if you add the color tone of the 6th you now have D13. The other thing added in this style on the dominant chord are called alterations. These are b5#5b9#9.. they add chromaticism, tension, interest. A 7th chord with an alteration often resolves to a minor chord, for example D7b9-Gm6.
              As far as the swing rhythm stroke, to me it sounds like Da-Dit Da-Dit Da-Dit, or long-short. The shorter of the notes is enunciated much like a chop in bluegrass-lift the fingers off in the left hand and let them stop the sound of the strings. The Da-Dit rhythm reminds one of the sound of the hi-hat cymbal in a big band. You can also play steady quarter notes, chunk-chunk-chunk-chunk.
              I like to practice chords key by key. The default basic progression in this style is ii-V-I, as in the key of G, Am7-D7-G. If moving from any chord to another seems awkward, just drill that one change. Move the progression to all the other keys to see what challenges arise. That same progression in minor is Gm-Am7b5-D7b9 or i-iim7b5-V7b9...
             There are four most basic chords Major Minor, Augmented, and Diminished. And not that many ways to play each kind! Again look for shape, feel, and always say out loud the pitch and function, like G6-Am7-D7, I-ii-V7.
             Similarly with scales-when you learn a scale with all fretted notes, you have a shape or pattern that serves the same function in the other keys.
              List 6 favorite tunes in the style. Make a chart of each one even if you have one already. Learn a memorize a rhythm part including the progression and the form(sections). This yields something you'll see in your mind's eye as the changes fly by in real life.
  Next jot down a scale for each chord. These will be the notes to choose from when constructing solos. Generating ideas one chord sound at a time at slow tempo works fine. Then when you string them all together for the entire song form, if you play all eighth notes (dogga-dogga-dogga-dogga, and no repeated notes)it will force you to think quickly of the next note, and hear things in the basic underlying rhythm of jazz soloing. By the time you try these things on your six favorite tunes, you're probably playing in all keys, and it's more fun to do in the context of the tunes than just sitting drilling scales...
           OK maybe I better make this our first installment of tips etc., except for this most important one: Keep it fun! You can do it.

----------

AMandolin, 

Barry Canada, 

Bhiyao, 

Bill McCall, 

colorado_al, 

Dave Martin, 

DavidKOS, 

Drew Egerton, 

DSDarr, 

GrooverMcTube, 

JEStanek, 

Jim Garber, 

John Soper, 

L50EF15, 

Luke P, 

Rick Jones

----------


## ralph johansson

Jazz mandolin, of course, is jazz on the mandolin, so there are two main steps here: 1) getting into the mandolin and 2) getting into jazz. Of course, in learning the instrument you will also gradually acquire some jazz vocabulary and improvisational devices (such as playing through the chords, scale- and arpeggiowise, playing around the chords, diatonic and chromatic approach notes), playing past the chords, e.g., whole tone and dim scales, and altering and extending the chords (ninths, thirteenths, augmented elevenths, etc.) Note: gradually !!!,  beginning, e.g., with variations on the melodies of standards.

As for getting into the instrument, my approach on learning the guitar more than 60 years ago, was to proceed key by key, traveling along the circle of fifths in both directions, C, F, G, Bb, D, etc. in first position, *without the use of open strings*, proceeding to higher positions after that. You will probably find that at least the first few flat keys, F, Bb, Eb, sit very comfortably on the mandolin.  And the keys of Ab, and Db, are really A and D pulled back one fret. 

The instrument does matter, to some extent. For one thing, do you plan to play single-course electric or double-course acoustic? The two have very different possibilities and limitations. E.g., acoustic instruments have very little sustain, and tremolo (to be used sparingly in jazz) doesnt really work on single-course instruments. Acoustic mandolin works best in a string ensemble, or with trimmed-down percussion, although our man Stiernberg has recorded with horns, piano and (as I recall) drums.

For most styles of jazz you will need fairly thorough training in harmony. Do you play guitar or piano? Otherwise (or anyway) you may need a teacher for that. One great disadvantage of being completely self-taught on guitar and mandolin (I could not afford lessons at 12-13) is I never had formal ear training, so my ears are   too slow for  jazz at a professional level.  

No one asks the important question what and who attracted you to jazz in the first place? Listen to these cats and catesses, transcribe their solos (not right away ) if you hear something reallys triking elaborate on these ideas. In the swing and bop idioms of course there are soloists at least worthy of study. E.g., Charlie Christians Minton sessions and Clifford Brown (esp.on Valse Hot and Pentup House, two 16-bar tunes) are excellent studies in building solos over several choruses; and in Browns case you have his wonderful interaction with Max Roach.

I wont enumerate more soloists, at least not until I know more about your preferences. The late John Abercrombie was mentioned. Im not familiar with his (electric?) mandolin work but on guitar hes often so far on the outside that he leaves me behind. Ive heard an album of his with Vassar Clements on vioiln, whose approach is the exact opposite, often gravitating towards the melody.  Without the strong bass playing of David Holland the whole thing would fall apart.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> J
> 
> No one asks the important question what and who attracted you to jazz in the first place? Listen to these cats and catesses, transcribe their solos (not right away …) if you hear something reallys triking elaborate on these ideas. In the swing and bop idioms of course there are soloists at least worthy of study. E.g.,* Charlie Christian’s Minton sessions* and ......
> 
> I won’t enumerate more soloists, at least not until I know more about your preferences.


Great point.

There are so many styles of jazz - including what I call "jazz tunes" played by somewhat non-jazz musicians. 

Almost ALL jazz teaching material is for modern jazz, that is bop and it's derived styles. If you love swing, or love traditional New Orleans or Chicago style jazz, the materials for learning are much less common.

Back then you learned jazz by ear, or from lessons from a specific pro player - and on the job as one worked with (hopefully) better bands as time went on.

"what and who attracted you to jazz in the first place?"

In my case it was just the "folk" music of the city I was born in . - New Orleans. It has been said that New Orleans is the ONLY city on earth with an over 100 year tradition of jazz, and of using jazz as a part of the everyday culture.

That's older than Bluegrass...older than bebop...older than rock and roll.




But what about you guys from other places? Of course cities like New York, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Kansas City, San Francisco and Los Angeles have their own jazz "traditions", so maybe you heard some jazz in one of those places.

What about folks that hear their favorite mandolin player - not necessarily a specialist jazz-only musician - play some "jazz tunes" and like that music?

I've also met people that are primarily into swing-style singing, from solo front singers to groups reproducing the close jazz harmonies of the 30's.

Each of these sub-styles has somewhat different needs if you are learning.

What is common is some fluency on your instrument and some theory knowledge, even if you just can play all the chords you need by ear.

I'll leave y'all with a thought from one of my music teachers and bandleaders, a man that had wide-ranging musical skills.

He said that just being able to *swing the basic melody* of a tune is an art form.

----------

Rick Jones

----------


## Pete Martin

> He said that just being able to *swing the basic melody* of a tune is an art form.


 :Smile:  :Smile:  :Smile:

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Carl23

One of the best books I've found on learning jazz and improvising in general is "the art and language of jazz vibes" by Jon Metzger.

Yes, I know it is a "vibes" book, however the section on "two mallet exercises" is a great approach for any melodic instrument. 

Also, the chord section is structured quite well. You would need to figure out the Mandolin shapes, but the general theory is sound. Chords are spelled out in standard notation in treble clef. most of the progressions are in "slash notation" (chord name above and a slash for each quarter note)

So, with the exception of the occasional Vibes only content, a highly recomended book. It is not cheap, so I'd check with your local library (interlibrary loan is your friend) and check it out to see if it is right for you.

Each chapter has a list of song recordings to check out, 25+ songs per chapter. Includes publishing info.

Carl

----------

Pete Martin

----------


## mandocrucian

_Thats what improvisation is all about: losing conscious thought. You cant think and play at the same time. ... You just have to put yourself in the state of mind where theres no conscious thought. And then let the music come out._ 

  --*SONNY ROLLINS* (from a 2017 interview in _Pitchfork Review_)

----------

colorado_al, 

DavidKOS

----------


## Mark Seale

Add Dave Peters to your listening list:

----------

DavidKOS, 

Rick Jones

----------


## DavidKOS

> _“That’s what improvisation is all about: losing conscious thought. You can’t think and play at the same time. ... You just have to put yourself in the state of mind where there’s no conscious thought. And then let the music come out.”_ 
> 
>   --*SONNY ROLLINS* (from a 2017 interview in _Pitchfork Review_)


Exactly.

But this is from a master sax player that used to practice for hours on the bridge and took at least 2 sabbaticals from performing to focus on his playing.

He spent a lot of time and effort to get his fingers to match his "mind where there’s no conscious thought" in a musical way.

----------

Drew Streip

----------


## Rick Jones

> Add Dave Peters to your listening list:


Man, I sure wish I could find this disc floating around out there somewhere!

----------


## DavidKOS

> Add Dave Peters to your listening list:


Who said jazz (well, bossanova) mandolin has no tremolo? He had me from the opening long notes. Nice use of tremolo and phrasing with other techniques.

----------


## Ted Eschliman

Classic. Yogi Bera on jazz. 

Interviewer: Can you explain jazz? 

Yogi: I can't, but I will. 90% of all jazz is half improvisation. The other half is the part people play while others are playing something they never played with anyone who played that part. So if you play the wrong part, its right. If you play the right part, it might be right if you play it wrong enough. But if you play it too right, it's wrong. 

Interviewer: I don't understand. 

Yogi: Anyone who understands jazz knows that you can't understand it. It's too complicated. That's whats so simple about it. 

Interviewer: Do you understand it? 

Yogi: No. That's why I can explain it. If I understood it, I wouldn't know anything about it. 

Interviewer: Are there any great jazz players alive today? 

Yogi: No. All the great jazz players alive today are dead. Except for the ones that are still alive. But so many of them are dead, that the ones that are still alive are dying to be like the ones that are dead. Some would kill for it. 

Interviewer: What is syncopation? 

Yogi: That's when the note that you should hear now happens either before or after you hear it. In jazz, you don't hear notes when they happen because that would be some other type of music. Other types of music can be jazz, but only if they're the same as something different from those other kinds. 

Interviewer: Now I really don't understand. 

Yogi: I haven't taught you enough for you to not understand jazz that well.

----------

Carl23, 

colorado_al, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

DavidKOS, 

Drew Streip, 

Rick Jones

----------


## JonZ

In terms of how to organize your practice, I like the www.jazzadvice.com website’s approach. Don’t get bogged down in “learning scales, chords, and arpeggios”. Choose an easy tune. Learn one set of scales, chords and arpeggios necessary to play and improvise over that tune. Then choose a new tune with new challenges. Repeat.

For a typical, busy person, this is the only way get joy out of learning jazz. 

Finding a guitar player who wants to share this journey would be very helpful. Set a date where you will perform one tune after dinner for your families. Then set gradually more ambitious performance goals.

----------

40bpm, 

Carl23, 

DavidKOS, 

Rick Jones

----------


## DavidKOS

> In terms of how to organize your practice, I like the www.jazzadvice.com websites approach. Dont get bogged down in learning scales, chords, and arpeggios. Choose an easy tune. *Learn one set of scales, chords and arpeggios necessary to play and improvise over that tune. Then choose a new tune with new challenges*. Repeat.


_That's the way_ you learn to apply those "scales, chords, and arpeggios - by learning tunes. Using familiar songs you like - but which also have a musical reason for study, like they use ii-V's, secondary dominants, etc - are excellent choices and more fun than just sitting practicing scales...although practicing technique is helpful too.

----------


## colorado_al

> _“That’s what improvisation is all about: losing conscious thought. You can’t think and play at the same time. ... You just have to put yourself in the state of mind where there’s no conscious thought. And then let the music come out.”_ 
> 
>   --*SONNY ROLLINS* (from a 2017 interview in _Pitchfork Review_)


This seems to be my entire approach to music...I need to do some more concerted listening, especially to the other members of my band  :Grin:

----------


## Perry

> Hi!  I am a beginner mandolin player and I am wanting to learn jazz mandolin; however, I don't know what the first steps are to start learning it?  Any help would be great!  Thanks!


Perhaps if the you asked "what is the meaning of life" there would be an easier answer  :Smile: 

I only have this to add regarding first steps:


1) learn how to read standard notation
2) learn to name the notes anywhere on your fingerboard
3) realize this will be a lifetime pursuit
4) enjoy the journey

----------

Carl23, 

DavidKOS, 

Rick Jones

----------


## JonZ

> _That's the way_ you learn to apply those "scales, chords, and arpeggios” - by learning tunes. Using familiar songs you like - but which also have a musical reason for study, like they use ii-V's, secondary dominants, etc - are excellent choices and more fun than just sitting practicing scales...although practicing technique is helpful too.


It is funny, when you think about it, how it is common to use songs as mnemonics to memorize non musical things. Then, we take music and try to learn it by breaking it down into components that are no longer musical.

----------

colorado_al, 

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> It is funny, when you think about it, how it is common to use songs as mnemonics to memorize non musical things. Then, we take music and try to learn it by breaking it down into components that are no longer* musical*.


I'm not sure what you mean - ii-V's, scales, etc. - these are the *musical* tools used in jazz.

----------


## JonZ

> I'm not sure what you mean - ii-V's, scales, etc. - these are the *musical* tools used in jazz.


We make them less musical when we remove melody from how we practice them.

----------


## DavidKOS

> We make them less musical when we remove melody from how we practice them.


That's the reason *tunes* are used when teaching these musical elements.

----------


## Don Stiernberg

Melody is difficult to define.

  The way I see it is there's THE melody of a tune or piece, the notes dictated by the composer. But when we improvise a solo, is that not also a melody? It's a sequence of chosen notes that has a particular sound and effect. So I believe it is. Some melodies, particularly in the realm of improvised solos, are more accessible than others aren't they? Here we get into asessments such as "lyrical" or "having a vocal quality" or "soulful" etc. and by contrast "just a bunch of notes" or "licks"...

   I've been intrigued by these terms and concepts for a while, particularly after hearing people say "I don't like jazz, it's not melodic.." and also "when it's your turn to improvise a solo or break, just play the melody.." Well, hold up now, isn't jazz extremely melodic, melody after melody? Yes it is, it's just that some melodies are more accessible than others, more memorable, hummable, and so on. Others are more challenging. Secondly if your time to play a break or solo comes and you "just play the melody", you are not improvising, unless you paraphrase the melody, make it your own by adding variations, adding a note, leaving a note out, playing a fill in the spaces between phrases of the melody, etc.
           I recommend to students who want to improvise that when they take a ride, break, solo, chorus, whatever that they not play THE melody but create ANOTHER melody. This is where the ii-V's,iim7b5-V7b9's, scales, modes, rows of tones, arpeggios, progressions, cadences, tensions, alterations, substitutions all come in. They are the elements from which we draw to create our new melody. Think of the old beaten up analogy with verbal language--Paragraphs contain sentences which contain words which are made of letters, and there are conventional ways in which those things are put together.
             One book I saw made the contrast of the two(valid) approaches to improvisation this way: Paraphrase vs. Free Invention. How cool is that? You can Paraphrase THE melody, or you can make up(freely invent) your own...
               Dawg said a line that has stuck with me also. At a workshop he said "I don't believe in improvisation. I think think of it as spontaneous composition." I think he went on to say the main difference between a written melody and an improvised one was the amount of time it took creating them.
            What do you cats think? Please help, I wrestle with this stuff all the time. And I mean no criticism to any of the assertions made by friends and colleagues above. Just trying to getting a clear sense of what do mean by melody. And how we can get better at improvising. And how we can get more people to listen to and like jazz. And the mandolin of course, greatest instrument of all. Thanks.

----------

August Watters, 

colorado_al, 

Dave Kirkpatrick, 

DavidKOS, 

DSDarr, 

John Goodin, 

Josh Levine, 

Rick Jones, 

talladam

----------


## colorado_al

> Dawg said a line that has stuck with me also. At a workshop he said "I don't believe in improvisation. I think think of it as spontaneous composition." I think he went on to say the main difference between a written melody and an improvised one was the amount of time it took creating them


I love that idea!
I'm firmly in the "spontaneous composition" camp. I think it is important to learn the written melody of a piece, which might help inform your decisions when you take a solo. I'm also a believer in the saying by the great jazz drummer Shelly Mane that a jazz musician is someone who can't play the same thing once. Every time you play a piece, you get to re-compose it. I look at it as an opportunity to try out different ideas each time it comes around.

----------


## DavidKOS

> " Well, hold up now,* isn't jazz extremely melodic, melody after melody*? Yes it is, it's just that some melodies are more *accessible* than others, more memorable, hummable, and so on. Others are more *challenging*.


Technically jazz is extremely melodic, between tunes from the Great American Songbook, original jazz compositions, and what people play while improvising.

That does not mean everyone likes the melodies themselves, nor the speed at which melodic ideas can go by in jazz.




> Secondly if your time to play a break or solo comes and you "just play the melody", *you are not improvising, unless you paraphrase the melody, make it your own* by adding variations, adding a note, leaving a note out, playing a fill in the spaces between phrases of the melody, etc.


Most musicians in almost any style of popular dance music have to make a melody their own, using the methods you mention.

In traditional jazz there was also an element of just being able to "swing" any non-jazz melody.




> I recommend to students who want to improvise that when they take a ride, break, solo, chorus, whatever that they not play THE melody but create ANOTHER melody. This is where the ii-V's,iim7b5-V7b9's, scales, modes, rows of tones, arpeggios, progressions, cadences, tensions, alterations, substitutions all come in. They are the elements from which we draw to create our new melody.


That's the whole idea - all those tools, like the scales, modes, rows of tones, arpeggios, progressions, cadences, tensions, etc. you mention, are just the bits from which we create melodies.




> Dawg said a line that has stuck with me also. At a workshop he said "I don't believe in improvisation. I think think of it as spontaneous composition."
> ........
>             What do you cats think? Please help, I wrestle with this stuff all the time. And I mean no criticism to any of the assertions made by friends and colleagues above. Just trying to getting a clear sense of what do mean by melody. And how we can get better at improvising. *And how we can get more people to listen to and like jazz.* And the mandolin of course, greatest instrument of all. Thanks.


Last part first..."how we can get more people to listen to and like jazz?"

By playing jazz that is still creative and new but also is entertaining and even possibly danceable - like the jazz before bebop. Nothing against bop per se, but musically it's what Zappa refereed to as the "music of starvation".

Jazz was the MOST popular form of music in America from app. WWI - WWII. Then jazz became "art" and not an entertainment music, as in dancing. That's why "modern" jazz has a small percentage of the listening audience. It's almost like classical music in its narrow appeal.

"how we can get better at improvising."

I don't mean to sound sarcastic but the only way you get better at improvising is to do a lot of improvising.

When I teach, one thing I tell my newer jazz students is to give themselves permission to play lots of bad notes while they learn to solo.

"spontaneous composition"

Well, that's the real creative ideal, to be able to make new music in the moment that also has the elements of a composed work, in that it has a beginning, develops, has thematic continuity, and some sort of resolution, and has appropriate tension and release.

And, as one of my teachers said, also tells you a story.

----------

colorado_al, 

doublestoptremolo, 

John Goodin, 

Rick Jones

----------


## JonZ

> That's the reason *tunes* are used when teaching these musical elements.


Except, often people dont.

----------


## CarlM

Speaking as one who is scarcely a beginner in the jazz world but has worked a bit in bluegrass and fiddle tune improvisation one idea that has brought a lot of insight to me about improvisation and performance comes from the analogy of playing music to speaking.  Speaking can range from written and scripted plays or public speeches and presentations with every word and syllable planned out even down to gesture, accent and intonation. This would be like classical orchestral performance.  Or it can be casual conversation with nothing scripted but perhaps some conventions in speaking Like hello, how are you, I am fine etc.  Or it can be totally off the wall stuff out of left field like my dearly beloved spouse drops on me every so often.  It would be weird to script your casual conversation just as it would be presumptuous to start "improving" Shakespeare plays with your own edits on the fly.

The best improvisations and my favorite performances have involved musical conversation between the performers.  There is a topic, structure and outline in the melody, chord and song structure but the musicians discuss it between themselves gaining new insights as they pass the discussion back and forth.  How far you go in this discussion depends on what limits the musicians decide to impose on themselves, their ability to express themselves, their understanding of the piece and how well they are able to reach to or match with one another.  When it works it has spontaneity to it like a sparkling conversation.  That is my ideal in improvisation in any musical style.

The idea of having something to communicate with the music is a powerful one.  We all know people who talk and talk while saying nothing, who talk foolishly, who talk over people's heads or down to them, who speak ungrammatically and crudely or who babble nonsense.  There are musical analogies to all of this.  Also we have experienced ideas emerging and developing as we speak and maybe this is where musical improvisation works well.  Also powerful words and ideas can be uncomfortable.  So can powerful music.

Those are just a few thoughts maybe beyond jazz and what the thread is about.

Thank you to all of you for your ideas.  This has been one of my favorite threads I have read on this site.  There is a lot to think about here.

----------

colorado_al, 

DavidKOS, 

GrooverMcTube, 

John Goodin, 

Josh Levine, 

L50EF15, 

Ranald, 

Rick Jones

----------


## DavidKOS

Musical conversation is as old in jazz as traditional New Orleans collective improvisation - which makes it maybe 120-ish years old in the style.

Great post, CarlM, and one of my jazz playing buddies, a world-class reed player, likes it best when jazz is a "conversation" except that instead of words we use music as the medium.

----------

John Goodin

----------


## JonZ

> The best improvisations and my favorite performances...


We tend to equate the former with the later without any basis.

----------


## mandroid

Interesting Video on ,, the circle of 5ths   & music  Theory..
Using a Coltrane Classic..,

https://www.facebook.com/VoxEarworm/...524626704/?t=0

----------


## Ranald

> It would be weird to script your casual conversation just as it would be presumptuous to start "improving" Shakespeare plays with your own edits on the fly.


To expand your analogy, I've heard from Shakespearean actors that they improvise while doing a play. That is to say, that they more or less memorize the script, but get into character and speak as the character would, not following the exact script. Players in a professional production can deal with this, and perhaps add their own improvisation, only within strict limits though. On the other hand, I was in an amateur production with one professional actor in the cast; he threw the rest of us by not following the script exactly. For instance, he'd compact two short speeches into one while another actor would be nervously waiting for a cue which never came. I think that's quite similar to the situation of accomplished musicians who understand improvisation, and struggling musicians who fear any movement from the basic structure of a piece.

By the way, my brother who teaches jazz and theory at a prominent conservatory, says that his formally trained students tell him, "I find improvisation hard -- I just don't get it." He tells them, "Well, of course not; it goes against everything you've been taught. You have to learn to approach music differently." He says, most music training teaches people to obey, while to improvise, they have to learn to be creative, cut loose and go their own way. I've learned a few things about improvisation by jamming with Eric Clapton and Wynton Marsalis, who are very nice, love playing, never criticize, and are available 24 hours a day on YouTube. :Wink:

----------

John Goodin, 

Rick Jones

----------


## AaronWeinstein

I've really been enjoying this thread!  Lots of interesting analogies and big ideas about the genre, the nature of improvisation and jazz theory.  I just wanted to throw a little idea in the ring.  Of course Jazz is not instrument specific and great musical ideas can be absorbed from a player of any instrument.  But a mandolinist wanting to play Jazz should, among other things...listen to and learn from guitar players!  They've given us everything you could want to do in Jazz with a plectrum.  Just about all of it is there on record.  We just need to listen and catch up!  Lots of voicings to be learned!

----------

AMandolin, 

Dave Martin, 

DavidKOS, 

DSDarr, 

John Goodin, 

Rick Jones

----------


## AMandolin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FowB43JjyT4

Of course there is the maestro

----------

Rick Jones

----------


## Pete Martin

> But a mandolinist wanting to play Jazz should, among other things...listen to and learn from guitar players!  They've given us everything you could want to do in Jazz with a plectrum.  Just about all of it is there on record.  We just need to listen and catch up!  Lots of voicings to be learned!


Excellent suggestions here from a true state of the art player!

I also suggest IF you have a favorite player who you want to sound like and/or understand their approach, transcribe and learn their solos and comping.  That and learning tunes May be the best thing as far as learning to play the music.

----------

AMandolin, 

colorado_al, 

DavidKOS, 

Rick Jones

----------


## ralph johansson

> I've really been enjoying this thread!  Lots of interesting analogies and big ideas about the genre, the nature of improvisation and jazz theory.  I just wanted to throw a little idea in the ring.  Of course Jazz is not instrument specific and great musical ideas can be absorbed from a player of any instrument.  But a mandolinist wanting to play Jazz should, among other things...listen to and learn from guitar players!  They've given us everything you could want to do in Jazz with a plectrum.  Just about all of it is there on record.  We just need to listen and catch up!  Lots of voicings to be learned!


My main instrument is the guitar which I've been playing for 60 years, the mandolin only for 50 (off and on). I like to say that's there I learned *music*. Yet I'm sometimes frustrated even by the limitations of that instrument, compared to the piano. But, as I implied before, I believe you need to play a fuller chordal instrument  in order to acquire a reasonably deep understanding of harmony. If there's a piano or guitar in the band I believe that the harmonic foundation can be safely left to them. And without such backing one can use very simple devices to imply fairly advanced harmonic structures. When I hear very elaborate "chord melody" arrangements I am often struck by the effort involved more than anything else. 

I'm not particularly interested in mandolin players, The ones I dig, e.g., Grisman, Marshall, and Flinner, are mainly composers, arrangers, leaders, and conceivers. And I don't really think of them as jazz musicians. If I've managed to pick up ideas from jazz musicians, apart from Charlie Christian, most of them were saxophonists. Which brings me to this wonderfully rich document: https://ethaniverson.com/rhythm-and-blues/oh-lady/

Also note Iverson's thought-provoking comments at the end.

----------

DavidKOS, 

John Goodin, 

John Soper, 

Rick Jones

----------


## DavidKOS

> If there's a piano or guitar in the band I believe that the harmonic foundation can be safely left to them. And without such backing one can use very simple devices to imply fairly advanced harmonic structures. When I hear very elaborate "chord melody" arrangements I am often struck by the effort involved more than anything else. 
> 
> I'm not particularly interested in mandolin players, The ones I dig, e.g., Grisman, Marshall, and Flinner, are mainly composers, arrangers, leaders, and conceivers. *And I don't really think of them as jazz musicians.* If I've managed to pick up ideas from jazz musicians, apart from Charlie Christian, most of them were* saxophonists.* Which brings me to this wonderfully rich document: https://ethaniverson.com/rhythm-and-blues/oh-lady/
> 
> .


First, I somewhat agree with your concept of leaving the rhythm section work to the rhythm section - I tend to use a mandolin in jazz more like a sax, clarinet or violin than a piano or chordal-guitar style. Even the influence from playing jazz guitar affects my melodic mandolin more than my chordal work.

Of course it's useful to play chord on mandolin, but I like it better as a melodic instrument for jazz purposes.

I tried to make a point earlier about differentiating musicians that are focused and in the jazz world, and musicians that play some "jazzy" tunes along with a wide variety of other style mandolin playing.

Also, "improvising" alone does not make music into jazz, as any sort of style of music can be improvised to some degree. JAZZ improvisation has a history and tradition, a vocabulary, language, and repertoire that is quite broad but not all-inclusive. 

Great article! 

As one that advocates study of ALL periods of jazz, not just "modern" jazz, I love this:

" Some of my peers regard earlier jazz as harmonically restricted. Its less complicated, true. But those unworried diatonic/bluesy rubs seem more harmonically open than todays common practice of carefully agreed-upon changes, substitute changes, and advanced extensions. Might it be time to go back to early jazz and worry about the changes a little less?"

"for its technically and historically correct for the rhythm section not to be precisely together. It makes it funky or raw."

"These days, many young jazz players learn about how to play on standard chord changes by looking at a sheet from a Jamey Aebersold Play-A-Long."

I could have written that line. :Wink: 

I wish the article had gone on longer.

----------

ralph johansson

----------


## Dave Martin

I am finding the difference between short phrase 'improvised' fills supporting a vocal and solos to be very interesting.  Any 'freedom' in the solo is 180 degrees from the constraints of complimenting the vocal melodically and fitting timing to the lyric phrase.  It seems fewer notes can be harder to play.  Thinking and working on the different opportunities for providing color vs. solo has been educational, as has this great thread.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> I am finding the difference between short phrase 'improvised' fills supporting a vocal and solos to be very interesting.  Any 'freedom' in the solo is 180 degrees from the constraints of *complimenting the vocal melodically and fitting timing to the lyric phrase.*  It seems fewer notes can be harder to play.  Thinking and working on the different opportunities for providing color vs. solo has been educational, as has this great thread.


Accompanying a singer and playing fill-ins between vocal phrases is an art in and of itself. It uses the same toolkit as soloing but it certainly is a different thing.

----------


## AaronWeinstein

> If there's a piano or guitar in the band I believe that the harmonic foundation can be safely left to them.


Hi again.  I've heard an idea too often--the notion that because the mandolin has only 4 different strings, it doesn't have the capability to be a "fully functional harmonic instrument" in the same way as a guitar.  

Sure, the guitar has an extra 2 strings--3 if you're dealing with Van Eps people.  But lots of jazz guitar voicings have only 3 or 4 notes...and a "version" of those voicings are often playable on the mandolin--something you need to invert one of the inner voicings.  But still.  

The point is, mandolinist shouldn't be let off the harmonic hook.  Let's aspire to the same expectations we have for any great jazz guitarist.  Our instrument can function as the sole chordal (aka harmonic) voice in a trio, or a duo for that matter, it can play fills behind a singer--it can contribute little rhythm figures.  It can do all of those things!

The possibilities are endless, so let's keep searching for exciting ways to make this instrument "work" in Jazz.

----------

DavidKOS, 

Drew Streip, 

Jim Garber, 

StuartE

----------


## DavidKOS

> Hi again.  I've heard an idea too often--the notion that because the mandolin has only 4 different strings,
> ......
> The point is, mandolinist shouldn't be let off the harmonic hook.


First, your chordal mandolin work is world-class.

Second, I was one of folks that generally likes to play mandolin as a melodic instrument over a guitar or piano rhythm section.

Third, most important, if you play jazz, no one gets "let off the harmonic hook".  

Even when playing single note line you need to know the changes - or at least hear the basic changes at a high level as per the last  ralph johansson post.

I do not believe musically you get to leave _anything_ to another player. Now, as an arranger, yes, sometimes certain instruments, due to sound or function, work best in an ensemble when suited to particular roles.

But if you are the soloist, be it mandolin or what-not,  the piano or guitar cannot keep you own harmonic focus nor time. You are responsible for you own time and tuning and form...even unaccompanied.

----------


## AaronWeinstein

> Third, most important, if you play jazz, no one gets "let off the harmonic hook".  
> 
> Even when playing single note line you need to know the changes - or at least hear the basic changes at a high level as per the last  ralph johansson post..


To clarify, I was speaking in terms of accompaniment, comping etc.

----------


## DavidKOS

> To clarify, I was speaking in terms of accompaniment, comping etc.


Of course, - able to play chords as needed for accompaniment. 

And then there's the very hip chordal-melody mix you play so well!

----------


## David Lewis

Firstly, I want to thank @DavidKOS for his comments on my ramblings a couple of pages back. Rather than expand on all his points (and diminish mine further), I do want to say the rules I was talking about breaking were the rules of 'form'.

However, David did make an excellent point about having your arrogance handed to you on a plate in a jam - this is a major part of many musical folk stories - Robert Johnson, Coltrane, Coleman, even Eminem in hip hop goes through it (allegedly - it's documented in his Eight Mile movie.) The point is they all go away and get better. But it's an important rite of passage. Sometimes it's not brutal - sometimes it's a jam where you realize you're way outclassed, but noone else has really noticed (or are too polite to say anything). Sometimes it's a bad gig with a tough audience (welcome to Australia), and sometimes it's a brutal experience with your betters. It's important though. 

Apart from that, we're on exactly the same page. He just put it way better than I did - and I appreciate his musical background.

Now, to the OP - the debate on harmony has been interesting. I'm a mess as a jazz guitarist - I can do it, but the chords ... I keep them simple. That fourth than third on the guitar... 

on the Mando, the harmonies made sense - fifths all round - so everything, at least to me, makes sense. Diads, Triads, and the occasional four-note chords gives a much richer harmonic substance than you might think. As @Aaron Weinstein pointed out, most guitarists only use three or four note chords anyway, and the mandolin starts at the third fret of the guitar (in a sense). My few lessons in jazz on guitar were done with the great Australian jazz player George Golla - I'll never forget him pointing at the guitar's third fret and saying 'there's nothing past this one'. (I was retrenched just after starting so had to let him go, but the few lessons I had with him stuck hard). 

With the Mando, everything is there - but the possibilities are more varied than the guitar. And if you have a five string, you have a greater range...

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Pete Martin

On the guitar, "there ain't no money past the third fret"   :Laughing:

----------

David Lewis

----------


## DavidKOS

> On the guitar, "there ain't no money past the third fret"


except they mean between the 3rd fret and the nut!

not like mandolin above the 7th fret  :Laughing: 

Seriously, much 30's rhythm guitar was based on 6-4-3 string voicings that lay between the 3rd and 10th or so fret.

----------

David Lewis, 

Rick Jones

----------


## David Lewis

> To expand your analogy, I've heard from Shakespearean actors that they improvise while doing a play. That is to say, that they more or less memorize the script, but get into character and speak as the character would, not following the exact script. Players in a professional production can deal with this, and perhaps add their own improvisation, only within strict limits though. On the other hand, I was in an amateur production with one professional actor in the cast; he threw the rest of us by not following the script exactly. For instance, he'd compact two short speeches into one while another actor would be nervously waiting for a cue which never came. I think that's quite similar to the situation of accomplished musicians who understand improvisation, and struggling musicians who fear any movement from the basic structure of a piece.
> 
> By the way, my brother who teaches jazz and theory at a prominent conservatory, says that his formally trained students tell him, "I find improvisation hard -- I just don't get it." He tells them, "Well, of course not; it goes against everything you've been taught. You have to learn to approach music differently." He says, most music training teaches people to obey, while to improvise, they have to learn to be creative, cut loose and go their own way. I've learned a few things about improvisation by jamming with Eric Clapton and Wynton Marsalis, who are very nice, love playing, never criticize, and are available 24 hours a day on YouTube.


those limits would have to be strict, wouldn't they?:

MACBETH: You know, I'm happy being Thane of Cawdor, and I don't believe in witches and supernatural things. Arrest the witches, and let's go home.

LADY MACBETH: Kiss me you fool, you're exactly right!

BANQUO: Always knew deep down, he was a good guy.

Maybe this is why I never became a professional actor...

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## ralph johansson

> and the mandolin starts at the third fret of the guitar (in a sense). My few lessons in jazz on guitar were done with the great Australian jazz player George Golla - I'll never forget him pointing at the guitar's third fret and saying 'there's nothing past this one'. (I was retrenched just after starting so had to let him go, but the few lessons I had with him stuck hard). 
> 
> With the Mando, everything is there - but the possibilities are more varied than the guitar. And if you have a five string, you have a greater range...


"starts at the third fret of the guitar (in a sense)". What sense??

"everything is there", "more varied". Different, maybe, but more varied, I doubt that. 

One thing I've noted about the mandolin is that you can often state a melody credibly, with much simpler means, on the mando than on the guitar. FOr many of the melodies I know I would need more ntoes and richer chords on the guitar. Don't know why.

----------


## David Lewis

> "starts at the third fret of the guitar (in a sense)". What sense??
> 
> "everything is there", "more varied". Different, maybe, but more varied, I doubt that. 
> 
> One thing I've noted about the mandolin is that you can often state a melody credibly, with much simpler means, on the mando than on the guitar. FOr many of the melodies I know I would need more ntoes and richer chords on the guitar. Don't know why.


The low G on the mandolin is the G at the third fret of the guitar on the low E string. That’s the sense I was aiming for. 

As for the melodies, parallel fifths tuning. Why that works better? I’d have to examine it.

----------


## DavidKOS

> The low G on the mandolin is the G at the third fret of the guitar on the low E string. That’s the sense I was aiming for.


That's the guitar's written pitch on the staff - the actual pitch of the guitar is an octave lower, the mandolin's G string corresponds to the pitch of the open G string on the guitar.



http://www.hago.org.uk/faqs/transposition/

"In fact, the classical guitar is a transposing instrument because the sounded note is an octave below the notated note."

So from a music reading POV, yes, the written G notes are as you say, but the actual pitches are not the same.

----------

Dave Martin, 

David Lewis

----------


## ralph johansson

> The low G on the mandolin is the G at the third fret of the guitar on the low E string. Thats the sense I was aiming for. 
> 
> As for the melodies, parallel fifths tuning. Why that works better? Id have to examine it.


To be exact, the low g on the mandolin is on the open g string on guitar, the fifth fret of the d string, the tenth fret of the A string, and the *fifteenth* fret of the E string.


No, at least  in my case it has little  to do with the tuning. The fifths tuning to me simply means that fast notey pieces, like fiddle tunes, involve fewer awkward string crossings.
It's in the sound and range of the instrument.

People talk a lot about the lack of "symmetry" or "logic" in classical guitar tuning as being a serious obstacle, but it never was to me when learning, 60 years ago (not saying that anything was easy). It's just a different logic, e.g., the intervals add up to exactly two octaves and the open strings form an em7 chord (plus the low A). Strings 1-3 form a minor triad, useful as top notes of a maj7 or a 9th chord, 2-4 form a major triad and you also have a very nice 7th  between strings 6 and 4, useful at least in rooted harmony, were you can often imitate the left hand voicings of a pianist, at least in older styles.

 (The lowest four strings on the guitar in open position  just about cover all of bass clef, with the low E on the first ledger line below the staff and the open g on the highest space.)

On mandolin you can forget about rooted harmony altogether (someone else will supply the root anyway) and several guitar voicings carry over well if you omit one note. E.g., on guitar I might play d-g-bb-f (frets 10-12) for D9, on mandolin I omit the bb. But, of course I never think of it that way, the voicings I find on either instrument are those that appeal to me.

----------

DavidKOS, 

Rick Jones

----------


## Perry

In Fundamentals of Guitar-by Miles Okazaki one of the concepts he points out is that on guitar these notes on the fingerboard are unique..... every other fretted note not shown here is a repeat. This makes guitar unique among instruments. Mandolin does have some repeat notes on the fingerboard but not nearly as as many.

e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
b 0 1 3 3 4 5
g 0 1 3 3 4 5
d 0 1 3 3 4 5
a 0 1 3 3 4 5
E 0 1 3 3 4 5



Great book by the way.

----------


## Carl23

> In Fundamentals of Guitar-by Miles Okazaki one of the concepts he points out is that on guitar these notes on the fingerboard are unique..... every other fretted note not shown here is a repeat. This makes guitar unique among instruments. Mandolin does have some repeat notes on the fingerboard but not nearly as as many.
> .



This doesn't quite make sense to me... I thought the only non duplicated notes would be the lowest frets on the lowest string.

I'm not a guitar player, but can someone explain this to me?

C

----------


## ralph johansson

> To be exact, the low g on the mandolin is on the open g string on guitar, the fifth fret of the d string, the tenth fret of the A string, and the *fifteenth* fret of the E string.
> 
> 
> No, at least  in my case it has little  to do with the tuning. The fifths tuning to me simply means that fast notey pieces, like fiddle tunes, involve fewer awkward string crossings.
> It's in the sound and range of the instrument.
> 
> People talk a lot about the lack of "symmetry" or "logic" in classical guitar tuning as being a serious obstacle, but it never was to me when learning, 60 years ago (not saying that anything was easy). It's just a different logic, e.g., the intervals add up to exactly two octaves and the open strings form an em7 chord (plus the low A). Strings 1-3 form a minor triad, useful as top notes of a maj7 or a 9th chord, 2-4 form a major triad and you also have a very nice 7th  between strings 6 and 4, useful at least in rooted harmony, were you can often imitate the left hand voicings of a pianist, at least in older styles.
> 
>  (The lowest four strings on the guitar in open position  just about cover all of bass clef, with the low E on the first ledger line below the staff and the open g on the highest space.)
> ...


Changed from D9 to Eb9 in a couple of places, but forgot the others. Changing back, d-g-bb-f should be
c-f#-a-e, and bb should be a.

----------


## Bruce Clausen

> This doesn't quite make sense to me... I thought the only non duplicated notes would be the lowest frets on the lowest string.


Right, Carl. The "unique" notes on guitar are low E-F-F#-G-G#, then you have at least two options for all the rest except the very highest notes (which vary depending on number of frets).  Likewise on mandolin the low G-G#-A-A#-B-C-C# can only be played in one place.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Carl23

> Right, Carl. The "unique" notes on guitar are low E-F-F#-G-G#, then you have at least two options for all the rest except the very highest notes (which vary depending on number of frets).  Likewise on mandolin the low G-G#-A-A#-B-C-C# can only be played in one place.


Tell me about it... F# chords with F# in the root! :-|

----------


## David Lewis

In a sense...  :Wink:

----------


## Perry

> Right, Carl. The "unique" notes on guitar are low E-F-F#-G-G#, then you have at least two options for all the rest except the very highest notes (which vary depending on number of frets).  Likewise on mandolin the low G-G#-A-A#-B-C-C# can only be played in one place.


right I edited my post...was doing it w/o guitar in hand

----------


## Perry

> In Fundamentals of Guitar-by Miles Okazaki one of the concepts he points out is that on guitar these notes on the fingerboard are unique..... every other fretted note not shown here is a repeat. This makes guitar unique among instruments. Mandolin does have some repeat notes on the fingerboard but not nearly as as many.
> 
> e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
> b 0 1 3 3 4 5
> g 0 1 3 3 4 5
> d 0 1 3 3 4 5
> a 0 1 3 3 4 5
> E 0 1 3 3 4 5
> 
> ...



should be:

e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
b 0 1 2 3 4
g 0 1 2 3 
d 0 1 2 3 4
a 0 1 2 3 4 
E 0 1 2 3 4



Would be wise to equate this to mandolin.

----------

Rick Jones

----------


## Carl23

Perry,

I've been thinking about this and something bothers me...

Most of the "unique" notes listed are not unique... precisely because they are duplicated elsewhere on the neck. This allows mandolins to play unison pitches on two strings and other effects.

The only "unique" notes on any multi-stringed instrument would be the distance between the lowest string and the next highest string.

I"d have to see the context of Okazaki's presentation to see if I agree with the concept. It seems to me that this would be a very limiting approach to the fret-board.

Without copying too much from his book, could you give a summary of how he applies this idea?

Thanks,
Carl

----------


## DavidKOS

> The only "unique" notes on any multi-stringed instrument would be the distance between the lowest string and the next highest string.


Sorry to jump in on this - as a topic, we are now far from just _learning jazz mandolin_ - but the only unique one-and-only-one place to finger the note pitches on any multi-string instrument are the lowest notes on the lowest string that are below the pitch of the next string, and whatever notes are on the upper extreme end of the fingerboard that are not on any lower strings.

Other than that, there are alternate fingerings for all the other pitches, at times as many as there are strings on your instrument and of course, depending on the fingerboard.

----------


## JonZ

Is it some kind of natural law that every discussion of how to learn jazz must become over complicated? :Laughing:

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> Is it some kind of natural law that every discussion of how to learn jazz must become over complicated?


Yes, because it is more *theoretically complex music* than many other more rootsy folksy styles. This is not to say jazz is  "better" - but that jazz, due to its use of Romantic era harmonic vocabulary, key changes inside songs, and so on, IS more complicated than old-time, Bluegrass, rock, blues, or most other musical genres.

Sorry, it's the facts. You play more chords in a song like "All the Things You Are" than some bands use all night.

----------

Ranald

----------


## JonZ

But beginning to learn jazz should be kept as simple as possible.

----------


## DavidKOS

> But beginning to learn jazz should be kept as *simple* as possible.


OK.

Learn some tunes, practice your scales, chords, and arpeggios. Learn more tunes.

Repeat as needed. Don't start with bebop, start with swing tunes.

go to www.Jazz-Mandolin.com

----------

AMandolin, 

Ranald, 

Tom Wright

----------


## JonZ

But the internet is for porn, cats and digression. So carry on!

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> But the internet is for porn, cats and digression. So carry on!


My cat asked me to post this:




back to jazz mandolin

----------


## AaronWeinstein

Well, I got lost somewhere along the halfway point of this thread.  Just saying.

----------

Dave Martin, 

DavidKOS, 

Ranald

----------


## Perry

> Perry,
> 
> I've been thinking about this and something bothers me...
> 
> Most of the "unique" notes listed are not unique... precisely because they are duplicated elsewhere on the neck. This allows mandolins to play unison pitches on two strings and other effects.
> 
> The only "unique" notes on any multi-stringed instrument would be the distance between the lowest string and the next highest string.
> 
> I"d have to see the context of Okazaki's presentation to see if I agree with the concept. It seems to me that this would be a very limiting approach to the fret-board.
> ...


The point being that there is more then one way to skin a cat....less ways to skin a cay on the mandolin...so my point being that learning the mandolin fret-board and all the notes should be somewhat easier..someone else had brought the guitar fret-board into the thread 

See Miles book excerpt below:

----------


## Ranald

> But beginning to learn jazz should be kept as simple as possible.


I'm not a jazz player, but I agree with you. I've noted often that some people at the Cafe like to get into great detail about everything. Some poor beginner says, I just found a mandolin in my attic, restrung it, and I'm wondering what kind of pick to use, and next thing someone is talking about the weight and thickness of $40 picks. All he really needs is "Go to your music shop and ask for a mandolin pick," or "Try a few different ones." I exaggerate...slightly.

----------

David Lewis

----------


## Joel Glassman

It depends on how traditional you want to play. I'd suggest starting with swing
music standards and blues from the swing era. If that's the goal, begin listening to
[and learning] the blues solos of players in the Count Basie Orchestra 1936-43 or so.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> Well, I got lost somewhere along the halfway point of this thread.  Just saying.





> The possibilities are endless, so let's keep searching for exciting ways to make this instrument "work" in Jazz.


So instead of all the side issues, the OP wanted to "learn jazz mandolin"; several good ideas were presented. 

How do you make this instrument "work" in Jazz? - same as _any other instrument_ in jazz.

Learn your instrument 

Learn tunes

Learn to play over the chord changes

Have fun.

Simple enough?

----------

Ranald

----------


## David Lewis

> I'm not a jazz player, but I agree with you. I've noted often that some people at the Cafe like to get into great detail about everything. Some poor beginner says, I just found a mandolin in my attic, restrung it, and I'm wondering what kind of pick to use, and next thing someone is talking about the weight and thickness of $40 picks. All he really needs is "Go to your music shop and ask for a mandolin pick," or "Try a few different ones." I exaggerate...slightly.


You’re not wrong but there’s a difference between a pick which the complexity of the choice has to grow with your experience, if you’ve decided to play jazz you need to know that it may be more philosophically complex than you might be aware.

----------

DavidKOS, 

Ranald

----------


## ralph johansson

> Musical conversation is as old in jazz as traditional New Orleans collective improvisation - which makes it maybe 120-ish years old in the style.
> 
> Great post, CarlM, and one of my jazz playing buddies, a world-class reed player, likes it best when jazz is a "conversation" except that instead of words we use music as the medium.


"Conversation" is a useful concept, at least as analogy. You've said every single word before, but you're (hopefully) sticking to the current topic, at the same time being prepared for  unexpected response, or challenge from your fellow players.

  One saxophonist with whom I had many interesting conversations once said  that creativity occurs when information collides (e.g., when your idea of the next bar clashes with suggestions from your fellow players). I like to think of improvisation as a method of discovery. It's not *about* playing something different every night, because that's automatic.

Perhaps the greatest example I know of conversation in jazz is Miles Davis' live recording of My Funny Valentine. To my ears Davis doesn't strive for a complete coherent statement. I think of his  two choruses as a dialog between the trumpet and the  drums, moderated by the bass player.

By contrast, in some of Stan Getz' recordings of the 50's, I feel that his playing is so complete, so well balanced, that he doesn't really need the rhythm cats at all. (We, as listeners, need them, of course.)  And Getz performed and recorded with much more challenging musicians later in life. E.g., Kenny Barron on his very last album, recorded in Copenhagen.

----------

DavidKOS, 

Rick Jones

----------


## ralph johansson

> Great article! 
> 
> As one that advocates study of ALL periods of jazz, not just "modern" jazz, I love this:
> 
> " Some of my peers regard earlier jazz as harmonically restricted. It’s less complicated, true. But those unworried diatonic/bluesy rubs seem more harmonically open than today’s common practice of carefully agreed-upon changes, substitute changes, and advanced extensions. Might it be time to go back to early jazz and worry about the changes a little less?"
> 
> "for it’s technically and historically correct for the rhythm section not to be precisely together. It makes it “funky” or “raw.”"
> 
> "These days, many young jazz players learn about how to play on standard chord changes by looking at a sheet from a Jamey Aebersold Play-A-Long."
> ...


I've noted (e.g., in YouTube videos) that beginners are much too anxious to play the right notes over each single chord so that they all but lose direction and flow and rhythmic interest. I believe rhtyhm is more important than harmony in structuring and driving improvisation.

 And much of what is noted as "harmonically interesting" in analyses of recorded solos to my mind is just the supremacy of melody. 

That is one reason the aspiring jazz player must start with relatively simple chord structures, such as the blues, rhythm changes, Honeysuckle Rose, Lady Be Good, and tunes with relatively static outsides and circle-of fifths bridges (e.g, Stomping at the Savoy, Don't Be That Way, Topsy, Johnson Rag) and work on these until he's comfortable with just forgetting the changes and going where his ears and imagination lead him.

----------

Dave Martin, 

DavidKOS, 

Teak

----------


## Teak

> I've noted (e.g., in YouTube videos) that beginners are much too anxious to play the right notes over each single chord so that they all but lose direction and flow and rhythmic interest. I believe rhtyhm is more important than harmony in structuring and driving improvisation.
> 
>  And much of what is noted as "harmonically interesting" in analyses of recorded solos to my mind is just the supremacy of melody. 
> 
> That is one reason the aspiring jazz player must start with relatively simple chord structures, such as the blues, rhythm changes, Honeysuckle Rose, Lady Be Good, and tunes with relatively static outsides and circle-of fifths bridges (e.g, Stomping at the Savoy, Don't Be That Way, Topsy, Johnson Rag) and work on these until he's comfortable with just forgetting the changes and _going where his ears and imagination lead him_.


Well said, _ralph_! This has been my experience also. I have stuck with simple "jazz" tunes such as Honeysuckle Rose and Devojko Mala and created my own "alternate" melodies that stuck within the harmonic structure but also sounded like they "fit" with the basic tune. My best has come from noddling around in the practice room on my own, and finding patterns that sounded good. I don't try to improvise on-the-fly in performance. No one wants to hear meandering noodling, not even my bandmates, and that is what newbees are prone to doing.

There has been much said in this thread, and while it has all been well and good, it could cause us rank beginners to overthink jazz improv. If it doesn't sound good to the ear, what is the point?

----------

DavidKOS, 

Simon DS

----------


## JonZ

I have a son who is a professional jazz bassist and conservatory student, and this was very much his first teachers philosophy. For six years, the primary question was always What do you hear inside? It was not about running through scales and arpeggios or reproducing someone elses solo. It was about executing what he heard inside.

----------

DavidKOS, 

Teak

----------


## DavidKOS

> I have a son who is a professional jazz bassist and conservatory student, and this was very much his first teacher’s philosophy. For six years, the primary question was always “What do you hear inside?” It was not about running through scales and arpeggios or reproducing someone else’s solo. *It was about executing what he heard inside.*


My teachers said that you studied your instrument, scales, etc. so you _could_ eventually connect your "inside" as you call it to your actual playing. That's the point, but to do so requires technical ability so one can express the inner music one hears in ones head.

----------

Carl23

----------


## Perry

> My teachers said that you studied your instrument, scales, etc. so you _could_ eventually connect your "inside" as you call it to your actual playing. That's the point, but to do so requires technical ability so one can express the inner music one hears in ones head.


Looks like the OP is not following this thread anyway but I have finally come around to really thinking about chord tones when I play and not thinking in a scalar fashion. So
it's important to be able to name every note on your fingerboard and get familiar with chord construction and realizing that the 3rd and 7th of the chord are very important.

Also before you improvise learn the songs melody in as many locations and octaves on your fingerboard as possible.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> but I have finally come around to really thinking about chord tones when I play and not thinking in a scalar fashion. So
> it's important to be able to name every note on your fingerboard and get familiar with chord construction


Perhaps I should let this thread end, but the scales are there just to help with the chords...or do the chords come form the tonal center scales...but:

"be able to name every note on your fingerboard and get familiar with chord construction"

My teachers would have considered this* basic musicianship*, jazz notwithstanding :Smile:

----------


## Bill McCall

> .... So
> it's important to be able to name every note on your fingerboard and get familiar with chord construction and realizing that the 3rd and 7th of the chord are very important.


Maybe.  And certainly understanding chord construction is a key, but recognizing the patterns of the chord tones, ie, arpeggio shapes starting on any of the chord tones is, for me, a lot more useful than being able to identify the Bb, F# our any other specific note location across the fingerboard.  I can play in keys in which I can't name the scale notes easily but can grab the arpeggios by knowing just one of the chordtones.

ymmv

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## JonZ

> My teachers said that you studied your instrument, scales, etc. so you _could_ eventually connect your "inside" as you call it to your actual playing. That's the point, but to do so requires technical ability so one can express the inner music one hears in ones head.


Maybe I exaggerated a little. He did complete the Smandel book, too.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## JonZ

I have been thinking a little more about how my son learned the bass, and why I think he learned to play at a high level relatively quickly. His brother also got to a professional level on jazz violin rapidly.

A lot of people improve their scales, arpeggios, chords, licks and transcribed solos faster than they improve their ability to think musically. Those skills are a standard type of learning that you can get “right” or “wrong”, so people feel safe there. But, they end up with a lot of vocabulary and nothing to say. Learning how to think musically is a more difficult type of learning challenge, but it needs to be given primacy.

That’s why the people who learn fastest are the ones who are gigging; it drives home the fact that all of those tools have a musical purpose.

----------


## Perry

> I have been thinking a little more about how my son learned the bass, and why I think he learned to play at a high level relatively quickly. His brother also got to a professional level on jazz violin rapidly.
> 
> A lot of people improve their scales, arpeggios, chords, licks and transcribed solos faster than they improve their ability to think musically. Those skills are a standard type of learning that you can get right or wrong, so people feel safe there. But, they end up with a lot of vocabulary and nothing to say. Learning how to think musically is a more difficult type of learning challenge, but it needs to be given primacy.
> 
> Thats why the people who learn fastest are the ones who are gigging; it drives home the fact that all of those tools have a musical purpose.


Yes gigging has no substitute...

when you are thinking of the chord at hand you are thinking musically in the moment...when you run scales you are doing just that....running scales and hope you are hitting chord tones at the right time

When I play an A7 chord now I think where is my flat 7 where is my third, my ninth etc...

----------


## catmandu2

Re bass, there are probably folks who _didn't_ study simandl, like Dave Holland who are simply genius, mingus and cello, et al .  But for a mortal like me formal study was essential.   :Smile:   I'm all about intuition, but for jazz, man I have to technical rigor.  Jon your kids must be gifted for sure.  My kids went into the horns, and her attention is swaying due to boys ; )  and I'm too happy with harming temperaments :Smile: .

But old age has driven me from the king of strings and into harmonic temperaments wherever I can find them!  All those notes hurt my fingers!  : (

Re mndln, I had to through the banjo to get to jazzv
 - the notes are so clear man it's hard to deny.  Mndln was not a voice for jazz for me.  Or, I guess with gtr background that was inevitable.  But still..

----------


## DavidKOS

> Re bass, there are probably folks who _didn't_ study simandl, like Dave Holland who are simply genius, mingus and cello, et al .


How do you know those guys did NOT study Simandl, the standard system for bass playing?

- - - Updated - - -




> Re bass, there are probably folks who _didn't_ study simandl, like Dave Holland who are simply genius, mingus and cello, et al .


How do you know those guys did NOT study Simandl, the standard system for bass playing?

"Re mndln, I had to through the banjo to get to jazz" tenor banjo for traditional jazz? or 5 string?

----------


## Tom Wright

An issue is that acoustic stringed instruments’ tone spreads across the spectrum and seems not appropriate wth drums and a normal rhythm section. In drumless groups the acoustic instrument is better than an electric one for the same sonic reason; string quartets, old time, bluegrass groups don’t miss percussion because the strings have the grit and thump.

But in a “straight-ahead” jazz setting, that is, not a restricted genre, I prefer the fat and focused tone of a pure electric with magnetic pickups. This is partly familiarity with guitar sounds but mainly because it fits better sonically with horns and/or piano.

This means one should be aware, and choose whether to shoot for the broader jazz canon and community or stay in the friendly confines of acoustic jazz. For most mando pickers that seems to mean old swing, emulating Jethro, or chasing Django. I like playing the tunes coming out now by guitar players like John Scofield or Mike Stern, or the innovative tunes by pianists like Cedar Walton, and of course I want to chase the Trane (Coltrane’s “Moment’s Notice” is on our workshop list this month). My solid body is the better choice for that setting.

Gimble used CGDA but I use my E strings plenty, so absolutely need both the C and the higher E. The low notes get within a note of the bottom of tenor sax, and the high notes go up past trumpet range. I can always play a melody or harmony line in lower or higher octave to find the best sound or fit with the others, and I can handle useful chording if there is no piano.

So I would recommend the person wanting to play jazz get a playable 5-string. 10 is better but is pretty much custom, to my knowledge. An interesting approach might be an 8-string mandolin tuned CGDA. The doubled strings make up for the short length, to my ear, adding a richness that otherwise needs some crunch or overdrive to make interesting.

----------

Bruce Clausen, 

DavidKOS

----------


## catmandu2

Tom, I think moments notice is by Oliver Nelson, IINM.

David, in fact I _don't_ know - only observing (by way of Holland, Mingus, et al) the _departure_ from simandl.  But that of course is logical wrt jazz.

Probably nearly all players at that level _have_ studied simandl, and perhaps modified it as needed/personal preferences.  

My remark is likely wrong  - prbly everyone of that caliber has studied position exercises, simandl, rabbath, whomever...  and if not while developing, certainly when entering academia (such as the case with Holland).

Tenor/plectrum banjo.  My 5-str playing was always BG, OT, "classic,"...

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Tom Wright

> Tom, I think moments notice is by Oliver Nelson, IINM...


You’re thinking of Stolen Moments. 

Moment’s Notice is on Coltrane’s “Blue Train” LP of 1957. It’s a tune I’ve been chasing for something like 30 years, and finally feels great on electric 10-string instead of 5-string electric violin or electric viola.

----------

catmandu2

----------


## catmandu2

Oh yes, I'm getting old.

----------


## ralph johansson

> Gimble used CGDA but I use my E strings plenty, so absolutely need both the C and the higher E. The low notes get within a note of the bottom of *tenor sax*, and the high notes go up past trumpet range. I can always play a melody or harmony line in lower or higher octave to find the best sound or fit with the others, and I can handle useful chording if there is no piano.



alto sax. The lowest note on  alto is dd, the lowest note on a tenor is Ab.

----------


## JonZ

> Re bass, there are probably folks who _didn't_ study simandl, like Dave Holland who are simply genius, mingus and cello, et al .


The funny thing is that my son’s teacher is one of those old school cats who just jumped into playing the bass without any training and had some high profile gigs. After his music career wound down, he picked up Simandl and got into playing classical pieces.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Tom Wright

> alto sax. The lowest note on  alto is dd, the lowest note on a tenor is Ab.


True but rarely played and the Bb is the nominal bottom of the tenor scale. In any case, I am often doubling with our tenor sax in his octave, while I can join the soprano sax in his octave when appropriate.

My lowest note is in between the two saxes lowest notes. My point is I cover pretty much the entire jazz instrument melody range, as well as being able to play useful chords below those melodies when comping.

----------


## LiamB

> You're right, but this is the problem: jazz has become so institutionalised that there is a 'right' way and a 'wrong' way. Yet, Jethro Burns, Jason Anick, Chris Biesterfieldt, Don Stiernberg, Dave Appollon, Mike Marshall, David Grisman, Sam Bush, can be just as innovative and exciting as Armstrong, Monk, Davis, Coleman, Parker, Gillespie. (Not always, of course, but there are moments) (and list in no order). Bela Fleck and Tony Trishka and Bill Evans on banjo... 
> 
> I guess we work out - 1) Jazz is dead and is being curated. You can only play it on certain instruments, and each instrument must follow a certain format (though you can be creative within that format). This has happened with musch music. Write a sonata, and try and break the rules. Or write a sympony. Or even a musical.
> 
> or 2) Jazz to survive needs to remember that the great players innovated - they broke the rules and pushed the format further. They also caught an audience. Jazz currently holds something like 2% of the recording sales... maybe we need innovators - real ones, not just 'sounds like Miles, or Alan Holdsworth, or Parker'. Maybe it's waiting for its next innovator. Maybe that's the OP. 
> 
> Learn the forms of jazz. Then break the rules. And don't listen to anyone who tells you 'you're doing it wrong'. The whole history of jazz is 'doing it wrong'. Armstrong's alleged criticism of bop as 'Chinese music', or Miles' disdain for the technique of bop. The traditionalists dislike of Metheny.  Learn it on the mandolin, or learn it on the tin-whistle, or learn it on the bagpipes. (All of these instruments have great jazz players). Until we fail, we haven't succeeded.


Once upon a time, they gave me the same advice and its good. I started on a bagpipe of a similar model as here in the description AC Kilts Scottish. This helped me play more confidently in the future and better hear the correct melody  :Smile:

----------


## toddmars

study this one https://youtu.be/4EKFWjSU-wc?t=220

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## talladam

I realize that this thread has some age to it, but I wanted to chip in with a recommendation to listen to the 'learnjazzstandards.com' podcast.  I'm just at the beginning of learning to play jazz but this podcast has all kinds of good advice for how to start and is very inspirational.  My only problem is I'm listening to them all quickly and have not been able to digest each topic before listening to the next.  Hopefully I can go back and revisit some of the topics when I have time.

On a complete tangent, one of my frustrations with jazz instruction is how often someone says,"now go learn it in all 12 keys."  I'm always thinking, "Well, learning it in one key took a month, so I'll see you in a year and a half".  I do know that this is important and I realize why people do it.  I also think that it must get faster as we go.  Just something I always laugh about.  

Anyway, seriously, check out the podcast.  If I can do 1/4 of the things he recommends I think I will have come a long way.

----------

Rick Jones

----------


## Mike Rodbell

> One does not learn to play "jazz mandolin" - one learns to play* jazz,* applicable to ANY instrument, be it sax, guitar or mandolin.
> 
> Like Pete said, you need to learn ALL your scales in every key; you need to know chords and chord arpeggios; and you need to know how to play solos over those chords.
> 
> This is the same for all instruments in jazz.
> 
> The only thing unique about "jazz mandolin" is that the music is played on a mandolin, the music itself is just jazz.
> 
> So to play jazz mandolin you have to dedicate yourself to being a jazz musician as it is the *process of how music is played that defines jazz*, not a set of particular tunes.
> ...


Just ran across this & I'd agree 1000%. I found my way to mandolin by first playing guitar for many years. I recall fighting through the Joe Pass Guitar Style book many years back, which is essentially reinforcing David's premise. Its not the instrument, its the music. First step is to develop a feel & understanding for the music (or a subset).  Mastering the instrument doesn't hurt, although its simply a vehicle to a similar end. Develop a feel, ear, understand chord progressions, melody structure, scales, etc. all come to play. 

You also needn't be an expert in all of those things (could take quite a while). Start small, simple tunes perhaps, get comfortable & find a path to enjoy the journey first!

----------


## Simon DS

One simple exercise for connecting what you hear in your head to what your fingers are doing is to have your favourite tune, OldTime whatever playing along on say the computer, and you simply jump into the melody at different times. Deliberately stop yourself and then jump in again, like in a jam session, but more methodical. Get used to knowing exactly where you fingers should have been. 

Another one, though difficult to do properly because you can’t hear mistakes, is to play along with a well known piece using air-mandolin. No mandolin, just your fingers touching the right frets, in the air.
You’ll be saying, ’That’s a C I hear, my third finger moves there...’.

Yet another is to sing a measure, play a measure, sing, play.

And another, my favourite, is to have a simple tune playing and you play the melody as thirds above. First learn a couple of thirds above tunes and then go for it.
Sounds cool too... when used sparingly. 
Especially good if you can jump in and tremolo the final notes of a tune, but a third or fifth above.
Good luck!

----------


## Josh Levine

> I realize that this thread has some age to it, but I wanted to chip in with a recommendation to listen to the 'learnjazzstandards.com' podcast.  I'm just at the beginning of learning to play jazz but this podcast has all kinds of good advice for how to start and is very inspirational.  My only problem is I'm listening to them all quickly and have not been able to digest each topic before listening to the next.  Hopefully I can go back and revisit some of the topics when I have time.
> 
> On a complete tangent, one of my frustrations with jazz instruction is how often someone says,"now go learn it in all 12 keys."  I'm always thinking, "Well, learning it in one key took a month, so I'll see you in a year and a half".  I do know that this is important and I realize why people do it.  I also think that it must get faster as we go.  Just something I always laugh about.  
> 
> Anyway, seriously, check out the podcast.  If I can do 1/4 of the things he recommends I think I will have come a long way.


Thanks for posting! This podcast is great. I am already a few episodes in. I have wanted to get deeper into jazz as I have really only started to scratch the surface, so it is nice to have another resource to motivate me.

----------


## David Lewis

I have been working through Jazzology , from Hal Leonard. It's not any instrument specific - maybe piano. But it has some very nice ideas. Also, Ted's Getting into Jazz mandolin will get those fingers working in the right spots. (But that's already been mentioned)

----------


## David Lewis

Also, to learn jazz, you’ve got to know the blues.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> I firmly believe you cannot play bop well unless you can play swing.
> 
> You cannot play swing well unless you can play trad (aka "Dixieland") jazz.
> 
> And you cannot play trad unless you can play the *blues* and ragtime.





> Also, to learn jazz, youve got to know the blues.


As you see, you agree with me on this.

----------


## David Lewis

> As you see, you agree with me on this.


Seems so.  :Smile:

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Bill McCall

Maybe, but just two guys opinions.

Ymmv

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## catmandu2

To you all who participated in this great thread, many thanks.  It about makes me want to cry for my drums.  I love jazz more than anything in music.

* oh and I did want to remember John Abecrombie whose records I collected because Pete Erskine was on them, and Towner, et al.  But other cats have passed too, if I could but remember who..

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> Maybe, but just two guys opinions.
> 
> Ymmv


One of which is a native New Orleans jazz musician, which makes it his folk music.

And like other things, we all have opinions.

The other opinion would be something like "you don't have to know how to play blues to play jazz".

Tell that to Armstrong, ellington, Basie, Parker, Coltrane, Davis, etc.

----------

David Lewis

----------


## Tom Wright

We need to distinguish jazz blues from delta and Chicago blues. Jazz blues is jazz on a 12-bar blues chord progression. “St. Louis Blues” does not share much with “Born Under a Bad Sign”. What is shared are the melodic elements, which, to my ears, are the easy riffs one can do on guitar. Those are present in all popular music, including jazz. But jazz also uses Jelly Roll Morton piano figures, and Dixieland rhythms, and show-tune harmonies.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## Bill McCall

[QUOTE=DavidKOS;1740255..........And like other things, we all have opinions.

The other opinion would be something like "you don't have to know how to play blues to play jazz".......[/QUOTE]

No, another opinion is 'don't confuse the historic origins of the music with the development path of all modern players.'

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## mandopops

Following up on what Mr Wright said about distinguishing Jazz Blues from delta to Chicago Blues, I don't think the distance is Always that far. Most of the early big name Chicago guys, Muddy & Wolf, came from the Delta Blues & their Music took an Uptown turn once they reached Chicago. Muddy was almost exclusively a slide player until me met Blue Smitty & learned a citified approach. Guitar players such as Louis Meyers & Robert Lockwood, in their backing of Harp player Little Walter, certainly borrowed chord extensions & voices they shared with Jazz players. Even some early Buddy Guy, you'll hear some Grant Green & Burrel borrowings. I heard Sammy Lawhorn (& got to jam with him) use similar chord ideas, even ending a tune with a major 7th. Wayne Bennet backed up Bobby Bland & was a quite sophisticated player. I got to hear him back up Bobby once in Chicago in a rare reunion. He was very tasty.
When ever I heard B.B. live, I would pay attention to what ever rhythm guitar (or Piano) player would play behind him. Again, very tasty. 
There may be artificial walls between Jazz & Blues, but there are cracks in those walls. Ever hear Chuck Berry play St. Louis Blues? Quite fun.
Joe B

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## gtani7

That looks like good material.  There's some other resources i like, https://www.jazzadvice.com/ and Jens Larsen's youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/jenslarsen02/videos.  And Dix Bruce's swing jazz tab books (for mando, guitar, violin)

This was a good recent thread, enough people have mentioned Barry Harris that i think i will commit some time to the method https://mandolincafe.com/forum/threa...69-Improvising

----------


## Alfons

> Harder to find, but theyre out there are Homer and Jethros Playing It Straight and It Aint Necessarily Square.


These amazing recordings were re-issued on a single CD a few years back, and Elderly Instruments has been carrying them since then.

----------


## DavidKOS

> We need to distinguish jazz blues from delta and Chicago blues. Jazz blues is jazz on a 12-bar blues chord progression. St. Louis Blues does not share much with Born Under a Bad Sign. .


Jazz blues seems to be somewhat older...like 20's:

http://www.midnightflyerblues.com/fi...recordings.htm



https://www.earlyblues.com/chronolog..._on_record.htm

----------

mandopops

----------


## DavidKOS

> No, another opinion is 'don't confuse the historic origins of the music with the development path of all modern players.'


Indeed it is.

Another opinion is "modern players that do not include blues, "Trad" (Dixieland) and swing into their understanding of 'modern' jazz are not really playing jazz but some other form of improvised music".

----------

brunello97, 

mandopops

----------


## brunello97

> Indeed it is.
> 
> Another opinion is "modern players that do not include blues, "Trad" (Dixieland) and swing into their understanding of 'modern' jazz are not really playing jazz but some other form of improvised music".


Are these quotation marks around a _David_ quote?  Or from someone else?

In any event, I think this sounds like a very reasonable position to take. 

And a sentiment which I will likely quote myself!  :Wink: 

Mick

----------

DavidKOS, 

mandopops

----------


## mandopops

An example of breaking the boundaries, check out Allen Toussaint’s Bright Mississippi album. I’m sure my buddy, David from New Orleans, will appreciate this. Mr Toussaint recorded this album, the title track is a Monk tune based on the chords of Sweet Georgia Brown, of early trad, Jelly Roll, & Duke tunes. Appearing on the album were Don Byron, Nicholas Payton, Joshua Redman, Brad Mehldau, & others. A wonderful recording. I heard him at play it with some of the same players at Chicago’s Symphony Ctr, on his birthday. A most enjoyable evening.
So he have a New Orleans R&B piano man, playing “trad” Jazz/Blues, with “modern” Jazz Musicians. & it worked beautifully.
Joe B

----------

brunello97, 

DavidKOS

----------


## DavidKOS

> Are these quotation marks around a _David_ quote?  Or from someone else?
> 
> In any event, I think this sounds like a very reasonable position to take. 
> 
> And a sentiment which I will likely quote myself! 
> 
> Mick


I admit to it being one of mine.

----------

brunello97

----------


## brunello97

> I admit to it being one of mine.


I like it!  Thanks....

Mick

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## David Lewis

As, I think one of the two guys who have an opinion, I am a musicologist and historian who has taught 19, 20 and 21st century vernacular music at universities. My opinion might not be worth much, but others seemed to think it has value, even if limited value.

----------

DavidKOS

----------


## ralph johansson

> An example of breaking the boundaries, check out Allen Toussaints Bright Mississippi album. Im sure my buddy, David from New Orleans, will appreciate this. Mr Toussaint recorded this album, the title track is a Monk tune based on the chords of Sweet Georgia Brown, of early trad, Jelly Roll, & Duke tunes. Appearing on the album were Don Byron, Nicholas Payton, Joshua Redman, Brad Mehldau, & others. A wonderful recording. I heard him at play it with some of the same players at Chicagos Symphony Ctr, on his birthday. A most enjoyable evening.
> So he have a New Orleans R&B piano man, playing trad Jazz/Blues, with modern Jazz Musicians. & it worked beautifully.
> Joe B


A truly remarkable and unique album. 
 Toussaint's final album, American Tunes, was (I suppose) intended as a follow-up but didn't quite reach the same level.

----------


## Dave Martin

> And you cannot play trad unless you can play the blues and ragtime


I just started playing Pig Ankles, Entertainer and Dill Pickle...  [MAS] Thinking about a resonator or banjo mando

----------


## lowtone2

> Tom, I think moments notice is by Oliver Nelson, IINM.
> 
> David, in fact I _don't_ know - only observing (by way of Holland, Mingus, et al) the _departure_ from simandl.  But that of course is logical wrt jazz.
> 
> Probably nearly all players at that level _have_ studied simandl, and perhaps modified it as needed/personal preferences.  
> 
> My remark is likely wrong  - prbly everyone of that caliber has studied position exercises, simandl, rabbath, whomever...  and if not while developing, certainly when entering academia (such as the case with Holland).
> 
> Tenor/plectrum banjo.  My 5-str playing was always BG, OT, "classic,"...


Holland studied at conservatory. That instrument needs a strong fundamental foundation, or it will hurt you. 

I like to transpose solos I like. Its not just gaining vocabulary, it training your insides too. Those have to be educated just like your chops. Rarely do I sit down and write out the solo, but just play it along with the soloist. If I cant figure out how the solo relates to the harmony, then I will write it out. Lately, Been going through Leo Parkers recorded output. Man thats good stuff!  Occasionally will look at a Pepper Adams solo. Thats a challenge! theres something about the baritone players.

----------


## Perry

> An example of breaking the boundaries, check out Allen Toussaints Bright Mississippi album. Im sure my buddy, David from New Orleans, will appreciate this. Mr Toussaint recorded this album, the title track is a Monk tune based on the chords of Sweet Georgia Brown, of early trad, Jelly Roll, & Duke tunes. Appearing on the album were Don Byron, Nicholas Payton, Joshua Redman, Brad Mehldau, & others. A wonderful recording. I heard him at play it with some of the same players at Chicagos Symphony Ctr, on his birthday. A most enjoyable evening.
> So he have a New Orleans R&B piano man, playing trad Jazz/Blues, with modern Jazz Musicians. & it worked beautifully.
> Joe B


Great album...don't forget guitarist's Marc Ribot's contributions

----------

