Song Analysis

[JonR]

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

Let me ask you analysts this question:







1. Take ATTYA. Are you looking at that tune, identifying key centers and outside chord tones to be fitted in a central key so you can play over it?

for example, ignoring the intro, I "analyze" this tune as 6,2,5,1, 4, b5,7,3 etc. I play the chords in their context but I'm aware the the 6,2,5,1, 4 section could be the 1Maj key, and b5,7,3 the 3Maj key. Playing it the latter way sounds boring beyond belief to me so I don't do it.

Could you explain the difference between playing the "b5 7 3" as you see it, and the 2-5-1 of the III major key? What would be your different note choices on the G7 and Cmaj7 (assuming usual opening key of Ab)?

Personally I don't find it "boring beyond belief" to think in C major at that point, but I think about a whole lot more than just the harmony. (If those chords are boring beyond belief, how do you approach something like So What?)

(Not being sarcastic here - I'm genuinely interested in your strategy.)

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

2. how do you approach a tune like Giant Steps with all its rapid key changes? ...what does your analysis do for you?

I try not to play Giant Steps. I don't like it as a piece of music, it's more like a technical exercise to me. The tune is dull, and it's normally a vehicle for a player to show off his chops. (It may be heresy on a jazz site, but I don't like Coltrane in general. "A Love Supreme" mostly sounds like a lot of pointless squawking to me, hehe... )

But if I did play it, I would be going from chord tones, and trying not to think about the changing key centres. The changes are too fast (IMO) to think about entire scales at any point, without it becomning a sheer scale exercise.

I guess my brain is just not that fast.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

You are now. I never said anything confrontational, I was asking questions because I still don't get what you folks call analysis. What I do I would not call analysis, just generically naming the chords relative to the tune's key, mainly so I can both memorize the tune and play it in different keys.

But that IS analysis.
I'm not sure how what you do differs from conventional analysis.

I see that with ATTYA, you seem to be referring everything to the home key, rather than acknowledging modulations (C major being "III of Ab" rather than "I of C") - is that what you mean?

(Hopefully you don't see this as confrontational.)

[4thstuning]

Originally Posted by JonR

Could you explain the difference between playing the "b5 7 3" as you see it, and the 2-5-1 of the III major key? What would be your different note choices on the G7 and Cmaj7 (assuming usual opening key of Ab)?

Both ways will get you there. Where it seems you acknowledge the modulation ("2 5 1 in III" or just "go to III"), I don't because it's explicit in the b5 7 3. To me it seems easier to eliminate as much extraneous information as possible - but I have an untutored, homemade approach.

Originally Posted by JonR

Personally I don't find it "boring beyond belief" to think in C major at that point, but I think about a whole lot more than just the harmony.

This is the part that intrigues me and where I was trying to go with my questioning because I think it's part of what you are calling analysis. So, what are you thinking of other than the harmony?

Originally Posted by JonR

(If those chords are boring beyond belief, how do you approach something like So What?) (Not being sarcastic here - I'm genuinely interested in your strategy.)

I start taking it out: slipping and sliding, using MM (I don't like HM for some reason...yet), maybe adding implied chords. But I really don't like to play on this tune for too long.

Originally Posted by JonR

I try not to play Giant Steps. I don't like it as a piece of music, it's more like a technical exercise to me. The tune is dull, and it's normally a vehicle for a player to show off his chops. (It may be heresy on a jazz site, but I don't like Coltrane in general. "A Love Supreme" mostly sounds like a lot of pointless squawking to me, hehe... )
But if I did play it, I would be going from chord tones, and trying not to think about the changing key centres. The changes are too fast (IMO) to think about entire scales at any point, without it becomning a sheer scale exercise.
I guess my brain is just not that fast.

I selected GS for the analysis question because it doesn't lend itself to an overarching tonality, at least in my opinion so I thought it might reveal how others analyze material.

As for myself, if I can't play the scales over the chords I'm very uncomfortable and feel that my options are limited.

But all this just leads back to the point that I don't view what I do as analysis, or at least very much analysis. Certainly one needn't go to school for this, I sure didn't.

[4thstuning]

Originally Posted by JonR

But that IS analysis.
I'm not sure how what you do differs from conventional analysis.

I see that with ATTYA, you seem to be referring everything to the home key, rather than acknowledging modulations (C major being "III of Ab" rather than "I of C") - is that what you mean?

Okay, I should have read this before I responded to your earlier post.

Your impression is correct, I reference everything to the home key...mostly. As I said in the previous post, I don't view my approach as very analytical - there's no secondary doms, looking for temporary modulations, etc. etc. that I read about on this forum.

At a basic level I'm very simple, chord and context -> scale and chord tones for that chord. Blues, ATTYA, GS are all treated the same. This is my foundation. From there, if tempo allows, I think about tricks that might make it sound more interesting but I wouldn't call any of that analysis.

Originally Posted by JonR

(Hopefully you don't see this as confrontational.)

Not at all. Note: I didn't start the "confrontational" accusations, someone else did.

[brwnhornet59]

Originally Posted by ScatterLogic

I went to Ralph Patt's website today and he's got a section he calls "The Vanilla Book".

All the songs (about 400) are really stripped down. Just very basic changes. Great for me, because it makes it a lot easier to begin learning how to analyze.

Yeah, something else you can do to dumb things down is just play the triads add 6. They are very stable and all of the important notes get covered if you are playing with a backing track. Just makes it easier to approach. You could also just play the 3rd and 7th. Great practice

[JonR]

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

Both ways will get you there. Where it seems you acknowledge the modulation ("2 5 1 in III" or just "go to III"), I don't because it's explicit in the b5 7 3. To me it seems easier to eliminate as much extraneous information as possible - but I have an untutored, )homemade approach.

me too.
(I have experienced some professional jazz teaching, but only in group classes, and generally confirming what I'd found out for myself already.)

I think we come to the same conclulsion here, it's just that I'd see "b5 7 3" as extraneous information. For me "2-5-1 in C" is just the plainest thing at that point. I see no point in tying it back to Ab.

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

This is the part that intrigues me and where I was trying to go with my questioning because I think it's part of what you are calling analysis. So, what are you thinking of other than the harmony?

Melody, rhythm, dynamics, tone, expression, etc.
Nothing unusual - just more interesting than harmony.

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

I start taking it out: slipping and sliding, using MM (I don't like HM for some reason...yet), maybe adding implied chords. But I really don't like to play on this tune for too long.

I see, thanks. You're not a fan of modal (one-chord impressionist) jazz then?

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

I selected GS for the analysis question because it doesn't lend itself to an overarching tonality, at least in my opinion so I thought it might reveal how others analyze material.

As for myself, if I can't play the scales over the chords I'm very uncomfortable and feel that my options are limited.

Well, I generally try not to play "scales over chords" anyway.
I don't really like scales, to be honest. I mean, I know them all, and I know they're in there, by implication at least. I just don't like to think about them. Chord tones and rhythms give me plenty to work on.

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

But all this just leads back to the point that I don't view what I do as analysis, or at least very much analysis. Certainly one needn't go to school for this, I sure didn't.

No, but you learned about scale degrees somewhere, and identifying chords in relation to a key centre.
I agree that's not very advanced stuff, but it is the basis (at least) of analysis.

In short, the amount of analysis I do, when looking at a tune I'm about to improvise on, is no deeper or more academic than what it seems like you do. It may even be less so.

(I saw your later post, btw. All cool )

[brwnhornet59]

There are always many ways to do and to look at things. That is the point of good analysis. I would rather have 5-6 ways of looking at something to practice as opposed to 2-3, much less the same old approach every time.

Knowledge is power. Smart practice habits and a well trained ear can balance out any overload of information. When it becomes second nature, a lot of the thinking goes away leaving you with polished lines and experience to tell you where you are going and what you want to say. Follow your own path. Don't listen to any one person. We all have our own strengths and weakness's. Even the least significant player's has something worthwhile to say. Or the most troublesome. We just need to cut through the B/s and listen.

[tonyknight]

Originally Posted by brwnhornet59

Wouldn't that secondary Dom be (V/iii) ?

The E7 doesn't exist in Cmajor (it would be an Em7), but it does exist as the V7 chord of Am, which is the vi chord of Cmajor. So it can be seen as the V/vi - that's my understanding but I'd be very happy to learn otherwise if I'm mistaken :-)

tony

[brwnhornet59]

Originally Posted by tonyknight

The E7 doesn't exist in Cmajor (it would be an Em7), but it does exist as the V7 chord of Am, which is the vi chord of Cmajor. So it can be seen as the V/vi - that's my understanding but I'd be very happy to learn otherwise if I'm mistaken :-)

tony

No Sir!! You are not mistaken. I erred and was not paying attention when I posted that! I was thinking along the lines of tonicizing the iii to a III7, which of course makes it the V/vi. But I did not state it correctly. My apologies. It was a Senior lapse!! LOL

[tonyknight]

No worries - I have them all the time - senior lapses that is! :-)