Default Harmony??? Some thoughts...

[paynow]

Originally Posted by timscarey

So,

Ex. Fm7 (Variable tone = D or Db) next to DMaj7 (Variable tone G or G#)

I'm not sure if I understand this. What do you mean by variable tone? Interesting thread.

[timscarey]

Originally Posted by paynow

I'm not sure if I understand this. What do you mean by variable tone? Interesting thread.

so, in a 7 note "f minor scale" you get the option of either Db (F aeolean) or D (F dorian)

the 7 note "D Major scale" can use either G (D ionian) or G# (D lydian)

the "inside choice" would be the choice that the other chord has in common in it's scale.

D scale has a D, F scale has a G, in this case as in many others we rely on enharmonics to help us, we use the G and not the Ab (G#) because of it's spelling in other words, a G is a G is a G.

in this case, if this were a 2 chord vamp, the D would be heard as the tonic as it implies a "tonic inside choice scale," the F uses Dorian which is non-tonic for it's chord type thus giving the F chord a non-tonic function.

but again, this is from chapter 21, there is a bunch of lead in stuff like vocab words and some assumptions about jazz notation.

[JonnyPac]

Thanks for all of this, Tim. It's great. It's exactly how I hear it...

[paynow]

Originally Posted by timscarey

so, in a 7 note "f minor scale" you get the option of either Db (F aeolean) or D (F dorian)

the 7 note "D Major scale" can use either G (D ionian) or G# (D lydian)

the "inside choice" would be the choice that the other chord has in common in it's scale.

D scale has a D, F scale has a G, in this case as in many others we rely on enharmonics to help us, we use the G and not the Ab (G#) because of it's spelling in other words, a G is a G is a G.

in this case, if this were a 2 chord vamp, the D would be heard as the tonic as it implies a "tonic inside choice scale," the F uses Dorian which is non-tonic for it's chord type thus giving the F chord a non-tonic function.

but again, this is from chapter 21, there is a bunch of lead in stuff like vocab words and some assumptions about jazz notation.

Thanks Tim. Good info. I appreciate the clarification. I like it; interesting approach.

[JonnyPac]

Tim, wanna give us a quick rundown on the book? Page count, readable by layman, "school of thought", jazz era bias, linear vs vertical bias, etc. I'm interested, $40 shipped is kinda risky for a buy without info, IMO.

[timscarey]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

Tim, wanna give us a quick rundown on the book? Page count, readable by layman, "school of thought", jazz era bias, linear vs vertical bias, etc. I'm interested, $40 shipped is kinda risky for a buy without info, IMO.

Sure,

It's 308 pages, to get into it you have to have a pretty good understanding of the modes, and how to build chords from chord symbols.

It is the theory text for 2nd and 3rd year jazz theory at Cornish College of the arts, it focuses on chord function, spelling chords, arranging for 4 parts, voice leading etc, for the first 7 chapters, then gets into all different kinds of scales for another 7, there is a section on pentatonic scales, slash chords, Melody, cadences, and about 3 chapters on "the theory of modal resolution" which is the truly unique thing about this book.

it starts with an assumption that there are 3 harmonic languages Tonal, Modal, and Blues, each has different characteristics and are dealt with separately.

This book is extremely to the point and pretty dry in terms of inspiration (it's not a composition text) he does use examples from standards and a lot of lesser known tunes by our favorite composers. There are not to many "assignments" in the book so the student has to either be pretty self motivated or be taking the class.

it is both linear and vertical in different sections.

The book is still being written (the one I have now is the 3rd edition I've had, probably the 10th so far) it changes from time to time (like the addition of the phrygian tonic idea and other things) but the fundamentals have been the same for like 25 years, be prepared to sit at the piano with some staff paper if you really want to get the most from it, it's required for a lot of the voice leading stuff. The scale stuff and modal stuff would translate right to the guitar though.

I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in theory, it is very interesting and in my opinion, in the cutting edge of jazz theory, his big band has like 5 CD's out too look for the Jim Knapp Orchestra.

[JonnyPac]

Awesome. Thanks. Sounds really good-- That's cool he's revising it. Mark Levine should follow suit. I'm always revising my wee 90 page guitar book based on new info and better terms, etc. I learn a lot right here with you guys. Thanks again!

Keep the discussion going. These seems like a very overlooked aspect of playing "inside" jazz; which IMO, has a lot to be explored still.

[brwnhornet59]

It is awesome seeing different facets of how we hear things and why they are what they are. The cool thing is that there are many correct paths leading to the same answer. Knowledge is power.

[paynow]

Here's a link to the Jazz Harmony book at Knapp's site:

Jim Knapp Music: Books

[JonnyPac]

Some more thoughts on this...

When this kind of "inside" harmony is worked with it seems to me that "skyscraper" tertian/quartal harmony happens. It's like the beautiful sounds of the impressionist composers happening in real time... They are what I consider the high point of Western harmony. That's my bias. Many jazz greats were inspired by them; many of my favorites.

On the other hand, I tend to steer away from inside/outside theories and the liberal use of superimposed harmony because it doesn't "stack" like the more cohesive approaches. Instead of a skyscraper we get one story houses mashed into each other!

Anyhoo, these are just outright opinions. I respect others and know damn well that they "work". There are many right answers in art.

[timscarey]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

Some more thoughts on this...

When this kind of "inside" harmony is worked with it seems to me that "skyscraper" tertian/quartal harmony happens. It's like the beautiful sounds of the impressionist composers happening in real time... They are what I consider the high point of Western harmony. That's my bias. Many jazz greats were inspired by them; many of my favorites.

On the other hand, I tend to steer away from inside/outside theories and the liberal use of superimposed harmony because it doesn't "stack" like the more cohesive approaches. Instead of a skyscraper we get one story houses mashed into each other!

Anyhoo, these are just outright opinions. I respect others and know damn well that they "work". There are many right answers in art.

Not sure that I totally follow you on this.....

Are you comparing harmonic ideas based on the diatonic/m.m systems to harmonies outside of those systems, or something different. some examples might help.

[JonnyPac]

I'm thinking like this... A solid bassline outlining the roots and using logical connections; a well-constructed chord voicing (or series); and a melody that tops it off... Bottom to top interest and cohesion.

Whereas a lot of jazz theory/performers are cool with a nondescript bassline with lots of outside notes (and careless intonation), a series of decent chords; and a melody that implies a different chord 50% of the time. The improvised melody outline is fighting the underlying chord which is built on an unstable bass... The fabric is loose, and the melody does not always top off the chord, it challenges it.

IMHO!

There is some great music that is build from a looser fabric... Miles 2nd Quintet, Dolphy, Trane Quartet, Andrew Hill. Still flippin' awesome. It all depends on the group in the long run.

[timscarey]

I hear ya.

And I agree that it depends on who is playing the music. One thing that is certain is that the amount of improvisation in a given "jazz music" varies dramatically.

I tend to heir on the side of composition and soloing on a harmonic structure of some kind, I am a big fan of challenging grooves and rhythmic forms (but that just me)

It sounds like we are two people looking for new frontiers in the language of jazz chord symbol harmony, but not all jazz musicians have a desire to do that and in my experience, most young players want to get as far away from that as possible.

This honestly (and i'm going to sound like a hater) makes me wonder about the real motivations of such players. Specifically people who would look down on a traditionally constructed jazz tune or performance as something outdated or irrelevant, or players who love to play free and call it jazz because it's all improvised. I mean, It really doesn't bother me because it's all music, whatever the motivation, but I suspect (given the output) that in more than a few cases there is some other motivating factor to this music other than the music itself, like (and im going to sound like a total douche) "if you don't like this, you're just not as hip as the rest of us" when how most people really feel is "I don't like this because there is no structure, it's frantic, and completely unpredictable" or "I like this because I'm supposed to like it"

don't get me wrong, I play free in two of my jazz groups, and enjoy it. I don't in my own group, and have many good friends who do all the time and who are wonderfully talented musicians who I respect very much. I'm just playing devils advocate for the sake of discussion.

[JonnyPac]

I'm there as well. Not a hater, just a bit of a skeptic. Peoples values are all over the place. Good post, my friend. Balls out.

I didn't grow up on jazz or atonal 20th century classical music pumped into my ears, so I have good old "rock" sensibilities, as it were. lol. I was really into songwriting and singing while strumming for my first 10 years on guitar. I sang some standards too. Thinking as a vocalist led me to play similar notes while soloing on guitar, jazz or otherwise. Some blusy stuff, but mostly the "right" notes that vocalists often use. Its hard as hell to accurately sing an "outside" line against a clear chord.

As a kid I always liked Fantasia's soundtrack, Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade, and the French Impressionists. I also used to watch/listen to Philp Glass's musical works on Koyaanisqatsi over and over between 4-7 years old. Strange... I know my arpeggios!! All of this kind of set a standard for my harmonic expectations. ...along with a good dose of the Beatles.

When I got into jazz, it was Charlie Christian, Bird, and Miles (late 1950's) that had me hooked. This was exciting music because of many reasons... Still is! It mirrored the things I dug in Bach, Debussy and blended it with the groove and sort song forms in pop. The idea that it was improvised and still sounded good was the real kicker! If it was improvised and sounded "out" I might not have even been impressed at all. That's a funny thought.

Shocking music is never on my plate. From loud metal to free jazz to prepared piano; I'd rather practice hackysack in my lawn. Seriously, I can kick some badass freestyle footbag. That's a tough act to follow.

Nothing wrong with beauty. Dolphin Dance (Hancock), Gaslight (Duke Pearson), Time Remembered, Very Early (Evans), Penelope (Shorter), Silver's Serenade (Silver) and some of the most beautiful tunes ever, IMHO. They are also in my personal "Goldilocks" area of what makes really good jazz...

That said, to me, some fusion and free jazz sounds like frustration being expressed. Musical/artistic frustration... trying to find something because everything has been done before... It mirrors some modern art; splatters, blank canvases, or the wacky stuff in big building lobbies. Perhaps I don't "get" it, but I've been spoon-fed lots being a "jazz guitarist" and an art gallery director.

...all of this and reading a lot (in layman's) books on music, brain science, evolutionary psychology, cosmology (yay Carl Sagan!), metaphysical naturalism and such has me thinking about things in a new light. Music is brain candy... why not make it sweet.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by timscarey

I tend to heir on the side of composition and soloing on a harmonic structure of some kind, I am a big fan of challenging grooves and rhythmic forms (but that just me)

You'll love this.

YouTube Video

[brwnhornet59]

Loved the rhythm's. Great build's. But for some reason it left me unsatisfied. I dig minimalism. Philip Glass, Brian Eno. Certain Fripp, etc.. I am not sure why it did not take me over the top. I will give it a few more whirl's!!

[JonnyPac]

YouTube Video

Try this one too. More in 7. Piano solo and vocals... mmm

[brwnhornet59]

I liked this one much more. Cool aeolian grove goin on.

[JonnyPac]

I'm really settling into the "inside choice" default harmony. I taught a lesson to a group yesterday on it and it went over well. Thanks again for the posts; more are welcome.