Allan Holdsworth - What he plays in a solo

[JensL]

Allan Holdsworth - What he plays in a solo
This Allan Holdsworth Solo Lesson takes a look at the scales and arpeggios he is using in a few phrases from the Sixteen Men Of Tain solo. I love Holdsworths playing and it is really interesting to try to figure out what is going on because his melodic language is pretty much unique.


The video breaks down 4 phrases and talks about how they are constructed using different scales sounds such as Lydian Augmented and 2 different Messiaen Modes.


Of course this is an interpretation and an analysis based on what I know about him and what I think he is playing, but if you don't agree then feel free to leave a comment!

Hope you like it!

Jens

[Jazzstdnt]

Thanks for your post. Holdsworth was a unique voice, and is certainly missed.

In a joint interview with McLaughlin some years back McLaughlin was asked what he thought of Holdsworth's playing and said something to the effect of "I would steal everything he plays, but I have no idea what he's doing".

To which Holdsworth replied "the truth is, neither do I".


So, if there is a logic to his playing then that's not a big surprise, but it would appear that he worked out his preferences more by ear/trial and error, than by theoretical guidance.

[Steven Herron]

All I know is that one evening about 15 years ago I was fortunate enough to find myself sitting at a table with Jim Cunningham who was the guitarist for the U.S. Naval Academy Orchestra right in front of Allan Holdsworth who was playing at a small club in Annapolis.

We just sat there aghast the entire evening!

[JensL]

Thanks for your post. Holdsworth was a unique voice, and is certainly missed.

In a joint interview with McLaughlin some years back McLaughlin was asked what he thought of Holdsworth's playing and said something to the effect of "I would steal everything he plays, but I have no idea what he's doing".

To which Holdsworth replied "the truth is, neither do I".


So, if there is a logic to his playing then that's not a big surprise, but it would appear that he worked out his preferences more by ear/trial and error, than by theoretical guidance.

I think we all work out or preferences by ear/trial and error? What else is there?

Jens

[ragman1]

I think we all work out or preferences by ear/trial and error? What else is there?

Jens

Well, yes, but informed by proper theory... hopefully. Unless you're into 'free' stuff

[JensL]

Well, yes, but informed by proper theory... hopefully. Unless you're into 'free' stuff

Proper Theory? That's for another thread

But Holdsworth was checking out stuff like Slonimsky and Bartok plus being around jazz musicians. He did not live in a cave somewhere.

Making things more mysterious than they are is not a good idea.

Jens

[ragman1]

Making things more mysterious than they are is not a good idea.

Spot on

[christianm77]

I think we all work out or preferences by ear/trial and error? What else is there?

Jens

That's a really interesting thought, I shall go away and think on that.

Theory can reveal things to the ear that you might not notice. I see a lot of theory's use in jazz as ear training.

[Jazzstdnt]

I think we all work out or preferences by ear/trial and error? What else is there?

Jens

Precedent.

[JensL]

Precedent.

Would you play something that you don't understand or like just because somebody else played it? I am sure I would not.

Jens

[JensL]

That's a really interesting thought, I shall go away and think on that.

Theory can reveal things to the ear that you might not notice. I see a lot of theory's use in jazz as ear training.

Yes, theory can show you things you are not aware of. But you are still left with trial and error + your ears to get it into your playing

Jens

[christianm77]

Yes, theory can show you things you are not aware of. But you are still left with trial and error + your ears to get it into your playing

Jens

Well the question I would naturally ask is what purpose does theory serve except as a classification system for what you hear?

And to what extent theory shapes the way you hear?

[JensL]

Well the question I would naturally ask is what purpose does theory serve except as a classification system for what you hear?

And to what extent theory shapes the way you hear?

Well, this will go off topic very fast...

Theory is a way to describe what you hear so if you look at chords and see IV IVm or II V I then you know what it sounds like.

But in terms of working out your preferences theory can only give you ideas and your ability to turn them into music will decide whether it becomes a part of your playing, hence trial and error(making lines) and your ears(judging if it sounds good).

Jens

[christianm77]

It’s a philosophical question more than anything.

[christianm77]

Well, this will go off topic very fast...

Theory is a way to describe what you hear so if you look at chords and see IV IVm or II V I then you know what it sounds like.

But in terms of working out your preferences theory can only give you ideas and your ability to turn them into music will decide whether it becomes a part of your playing, hence trial and error(making lines) and your ears(judging if it sounds good).

Jens

Funnily enough one thing I haven’t seen from the spread of jazz education is a standardised system for naming these modules. While everyone knows 2 5 1, I’ve heard that I I7 IV IVm move called quite a few things, but correct me if I’m wrong there’s no standard label for it? I’ve heard it called:

1) descending blues ending
2) 4 n back
3) the horse (?)
4) Christophe (!)
5) whatever Jerry Coker calls it (would need to look it up)

Sure there’s some others. I actually think this is one area we could do with clarification.

Anyway back to Holdsworth. He had his own names for everything worked everything out on his own. Of course there’s no reason to not use the common practice terms.... but that raises an interesting question, assuming the desire of a student to be a high level jazz player - what is gained by describing someone’s music as a teacher? Should we just get them to walk through the process?

I’m not saying nothing is gained - that’s clearly untrue, for instance I would never have thought to look into Allan using the Messiaen scales - but I find things like this interesting to bat around in terms of streamlining my teaching.

[ragman1]

I have to agree with Jens here. Of course we need musical knowledge to produce a sensible and workable tune/progression. But, in terms of playing it, it's then up to us how we phrase it, solo it, arrange it, and so on.

That's not defined by the composer, it's down to each player's own feeling, experience, and all that - in other words, his ear, trying out this and that, seeing what works for him, and so on. Even in classical music there are different interpretations of exactly the same notes depending on the conductor, orchestra, etc.

So we need both but, especially in jazz where interpretation is the name of the game, we must rely far more on our own expertise than what's on the page.

[lawson-stone]

In many realms, "theory" is simply the name for the model we construct to account for a body of existing evidence. The value of theory is in its ability to bring insight to the evidence or experience we are looking at, and also to predict or make possible future developments. I rather like this as a way to think about music theory. Music theory is second-order reflection on music that has been played and found pleasing, successful, beautiful, socially valuable, whatever. We then examine that body of evidence looking for relationships that explain how the music "works" and see if those conceptions explain and illuminate other bodies of music, and whether it also makes possible the creation of more music.

As such, "theory" would remain a continually refined body of insight, always incorporating new developments unless/until a type of "evidence" (music) emerges that stretches the theory to a breaking point, at which time, a new theory becomes necessary.

So theory is first an explanation of existing music, second a way to understand more music, and third a guide or prompt (though not a law) for creating new music.

But what do I know?

[John A.]

In many realms, "theory" is simply the name for the model we construct to account for a body of existing evidence. The value of theory is in its ability to bring insight to the evidence or experience we are looking at, and also to predict or make possible future developments. I rather like this as a way to think about music theory. Music theory is second-order reflection on music that has been played and found pleasing, successful, beautiful, socially valuable, whatever. We then examine that body of evidence looking for relationships that explain how the music "works" and see if those conceptions explain and illuminate other bodies of music, and whether it also makes possible the creation of more music.

As such, "theory" would remain a continually refined body of insight, always incorporating new developments unless/until a type of "evidence" (music) emerges that stretches the theory to a breaking point, at which time, a new theory becomes necessary.

So theory is first an explanation of existing music, second a way to understand more music, and third a guide or prompt (though not a law) for creating new music.

But what do I know?

"Music theory" can (and arguably should) be used in that second order sense, but at least in jazz it often blends/blurs into "how do I do this?" rather than strictly "what is done and why?" The way jazz people use "theory" strikes me as closer to "praxis," especially in the sense of "unity of theory and practice," though that word has problems of its own (e.g., Marxian baggage, pretentious art students).

John

[christianm77]

Praxis is such a good word, thanks for bringing it up so I could properly look up the definition - one of those terms I heard used without really understanding what it meant.

[Tal_175]

After all, just like 99% of practical science and engineering don't go much beyond the high school calculus, algebra and Newtonian physics, applied theory in most music (including Jazz) can be understood with a few basic concepts (diatonic harmony, tonicization etc.).
I agree theory (for a practicing musician) is mainly for ear training and fretboard organization. It also informs how one practices, extract concepts from repertoire to ingrain, but hopefully not so much how one performs.