Song Analysis

[ScatterLogic]

..

[fep]

That question is way too broad to answer in a thread. You need to study music theory.

If you have access to a community college you could take the 4 semesters of music theory and ear training. That's what I did and I thought it was worthwhile.

Or, search out books. The one I used was this one (though I wouldn't recommend it outside of the context of a classroom, it's expensive and perhaps you could find one that is more specific to jazz and self-study):

Amazon.com: Theory for Today's Musician: With CD-ROM and Workbook (9780073215204): Ralph Turek: Books

[JonR]

A good book for jazz theory is Jazzology:
Jazzology: The Encyclopedia of Jazz Theory for All Musicians: Amazon.co.uk: Robert Rawlins, Nor Eddine Bahha: Books
It covers a lot of ground, so doesn't spend long on harmonic analysis itself, but the basics are good - as is the price! (it's a substantial 266pp book).
The other disadvantage is it has no real world examples - all the sample pieces are written by the authors.

You could try the allaboutjazz site, which has quite frequent threads on analysis:
Music Theory and Analysis - Jazz Bulletin Board

Also this, for discussions on specific tunes:
FreeJazzInstitute - Music Theory & Analysis

BTW, I don't recommend Mark Levine's "Jazz Theory Book" (in this instance): it's good in many ways, but has practically nothing of any use to someone wanting to know how to analyze functional harmony.

here's a couple of good sites with basics:
http://tamingthesaxophone.com/jazz-theory.html - jazz!
http://www.musictheoryblog.blogspot.com/ - not jazz! (but still good)

[whatswisdom]

Originally Posted by ScatterLogic

Oh yeah, music theory. I've heard of that.

No. It's string theory.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I dunno, my Pappy alus told us at school to insist on facts, not theories.

[brwnhornet59]

Originally Posted by whatswisdom

No. It's string theory.

That is a quarky subject! Ya know I saw Stephen Hawkings talk about that once... No wait it was Bill Evans in the mid 60's. They looked so much alike, no wonder i get confused. It sux getting old.

[brwnhornet59]

Originally Posted by ScatterLogic

Okay, but if I study string theory won't that just lead to a massive black hole?

Thanks for the links JonR

Welcome to Jazz Theory my friend!!!! We all get sucked in and are lost to the rest of the universe. We are all drawn to the singularity.

[4thstuning]

Originally Posted by ScatterLogic

Are there any threads here that discuss general guidelines for analysis? I looked and the word analysis is hit on in a ton of threads, but I didn't see anything like a "how to" sort of thing, like a method. Sorry if I overlooked one that might be there.

Why analyze, why not just play the chords? Find the right scale for the chord and make sure to hit the chord tones (1,3,5 and extensions). There, a degree in jazz studies in under one minute...for free too!

[FatJeff]

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

Why analyze, why not just play the chords? Find the right scale for the chord and make sure to hit the chord tones (1,3,5 and extensions). There, a degree in jazz studies in under one minute...for free too!

Riiiiight.

[4thstuning]

Originally Posted by ScatterLogic

Ha ha, I can always depend on you for a straightforward answer, 4ths. Glad you chimed in. Thanks for the "under one minute jazz studies degree" And thanks for not charging!!

You're welcome.

FattJeff on the other hand was a tad sarcastic so he's being charged double.

[brwnhornet59]

Originally Posted by ScatterLogic

Ha ha, I can always depend on you for a straightforward answer, 4ths. Glad you chimed in. Thanks for the "under one minute jazz studies degree" And thanks for not charging!!

Call the Jazz Police!!!

[JonR]

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

Why analyze, why not just play the chords? Find the right scale for the chord and make sure to hit the chord tones (1,3,5 and extensions). There, a degree in jazz studies in under one minute...for free too!

Hey. that's MY jazz course - you just undercut me!

[4thstuning]

While I posted in a humorous vein, I actually question the relevance of analysis for jazz...at least until someone convinces me otherwise

I've never used analysis and preferred to keep it simple, scales and chord tones. This approach seems to work for all the tunes.

Can someone explain and better yet, demonstrate, why analysis is of value? I'd really like to know.

[fep]

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

While I posted in a humorous vein, I actually question the relevance of analysis for jazz...at least until someone convinces me otherwise

I've never used analysis and preferred to keep it simple, scales and chord tones. This approach seems to work for all the tunes.

Can someone explain and better yet, demonstrate, why analysis is of value? I'd really like to know.

I think it's not necessarily so much a short term benefit as it is a longer term benefit.

For me, I'm hoping it will improve my ear and therefore help me remember tunes and possible be able to play tunes by ear on the fly that I hadn't heard before (although I kind of doubt I'll ever get to this second level).

Em7 A7 Dmaj7, if I try to remember that by chord names I haven't categorized it in my brain the way I want to.

Latter in some other song the chords are Gm7 C7 Fmaj7, and again it's just three random chords to remember.

But if I think of the Em7 A7 Dmaj7 as a ii V I - then I can categorize it in my brain and ear as such. It's one unit instead of three.

Later when I hear the Gm7 C7 Fmaj7 in some other song I recognize it as a ii V I... and by categorizing it that way it eventually just becomes familiar vocabulary regardless of key and it's immediately recognizable.

And this also applies to soloing, all my ii V I vocabulary works for this situation in all keys.. Actually without analyzing I wouldn't even have or realize I have ii V I lines/vocabulary.

Also, the categorization and ear training that happens by making these analysis benefits your composition and arranging skills.

[4thstuning]

Originally Posted by fep

But if I think of the Em7 A7 Dmaj7 as a ii V I - then I can categorize it in my brain and ear as such. It's one unit instead of three.

Okay, I didn't know that constitutes analysis. To me that's just generically identifying the chords.

In another thread I described my home brewed system which would simplify that even further into 2,5,1. That's how I define every tune so I don't have to memorize specific chords. I trust my ear to define the quality of the chord real time.

I guess I'm an analysis freak then...and I never took a theory class

[brwnhornet59]

Any time you scrutinize or inspect chord changes, you are doing an analysis at some level or other. I like to inspect the melody, bar for bar, looking for any further implications about the harmony. This is how we make choices about how, where and what we want to imply, layer, construct, deconstruct, etc... This is an integral practice for any serious musician and a must for playing good Jazz. IMHO

[4thstuning]

Originally Posted by brwnhornet59

Any time you scrutinize or inspect chord changes, you are doing an analysis at some level or other. I like to inspect the melody, bar for bar, looking for any further implications about the harmony. This is how we make choices about how, where and what we want to imply, layer, construct, deconstruct, etc... This is an integral practice for any serious musician and a must for playing good Jazz. IMHO

I differ slightly. I just look at the changes and just play according to my simple rules. I don't see any point in going any further.

It seems to work and this kind of analysis can be taught in minutes. Of course the implementation takes years but that's another matter

[brwnhornet59]

Hey 4th, if it works for you, that is all that matters. It is all about what you want to get out of it. I personally feel handcuffed when I only have a choice or two to make. The way you look at it is the way I did it for years. But what it does to me is allow's "Old Faithful", that is what i call my pet licks that I use when on autopilot, to take over. Since I am working extremely hard to move to the next level, I never visit my old comfort zone willingly. So I tend to choose set paths that vary before hand, through analysis. In the practice room I tirelessly go over these approaches so that I do not stumble in real time. I am nowhere near what I want to be yet, but i see and hear a marked difference in my playing. The guys who have mastered this are the madmen that can invoke whatever they want at will on the fly. So the same thing that can laden us to the ground and constrain us, becomes the very thing that lets us fly and soar through the heavens!!

YouTube Video

Bill Evans did a beautiful interview about this, in the mid 60's. Very very cool stuff!!

[keith]

Play with a singer who wants to change the key to what you have in front of you and you'll see that song analysis suddenly becomes helpful in transposing on the spot.

I agree that just knowing what the song is doing in structural terms is helpful in soloing. For example, knowing a major to minor turnaround is coming up in the progression can allow one to consider early melodic resolution or delayed harmonic resolution or other turnaround options. In my mind it really simplifies the tune and also allows other options for soloing just based on function as opposed to exact harmony. Anyway that's how it makes sense to me.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

While I posted in a humorous vein, I actually question the relevance of analysis for jazz...at least until someone convinces me otherwise

I've never used analysis and preferred to keep it simple, scales and chord tones. This approach seems to work for all the tunes.

Can someone explain and better yet, demonstrate, why analysis is of value? I'd really like to know.

Good question...

Its all about trying to understand what's going on in the music, in order to play it better - or perhaps just for curiosity. There are many ways you can get to a satisfactory level of understanding. Well, two anyway: ear and finger memory (which counts as one route, IMO), and theoretical analysis. Best if both combine, of course, but you can do without the latter, at least to any academic depth.
I'm in two minds about whether deep theoretical understanding helps your playing at all. Some level of theory knowledge is important of course, but that might stop at chord names, or identifying key centres, if you need no more than that to help you play as well as you can.
Personally I like theory simply for curiosity's sake. I don't believe it's ever helped my playing (that improves through technical practice and ear training), although I do like the overview it gives me.

Analysing chord function (eg calling chords ii-V-I, instead of just Dm7-G7-Cmaj7 or whatever), is part of identifying key centres for me. So if I see Dm7-G7-Cmaj7, I know its all C major; I also know it's ii-V-I. No big deal. This is a lot simpler than (say) thinking modally on each chord, which is crazy.
If I see an E7 in C major, I know it's a secondary dominant (V/vi), but that only means it's likely to resolve to Am. What I play on it is dictated by context and experience. Ie, the "analysis" is only a series of labels for the sounds.

The main issue is to keep the big picture in mind. You need to be able to see the forest, even while you are scrutinizing the bark on the trees...
It's about how the music moves, where it's been and where it's going. (Theory gives you signposts through the forest.)

Plus, of course, functional analysis is only of use with key-based harmony. A lot of jazz harmony is non-functional, whether you want to call it "modal" or "impressionist".
IOW, functional analysis can be a useful descriptive tool, for some kinds of jazz harmony. It only describes, it doesn't really explain anything. It definitely has its uses, but it's no magical solution.
I would even say it's of little use in understanding jazz (because of the fact that it doesn't explain things). When you start getting really complicated names or symbols for what are pretty straightforward sounds (such as various chromatic transitions) - that's when you know you need to leave the theory behind.

How much grammar do you need to know in order to speak eloquently? I guess that all depends how familiar you are with the language...

[brwnhornet59]

If I see an E7 in C major, I know it's a secondary dominant (V/vi), but that only means it's likely to resolve to Am. What I play on it is dictated by context and experience. Ie, the "analysis" is only a series of labels for the sounds.

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

[4thstuning]

Originally Posted by brwnhornet59

Hey 4th, if it works for you, that is all that matters. It is all about what you want to get out of it. I personally feel handcuffed when I only have a choice or two to make. The way you look at it is the way I did it for years. But what it does to me is allow's "Old Faithful", that is what i call my pet licks that I use when on autopilot, to take over. Since I am working extremely hard to move to the next level, I never visit my old comfort zone willingly. So I tend to choose set paths that vary before hand, through analysis. In the practice room I tirelessly go over these approaches so that I do not stumble in real time. I am nowhere near what I want to be yet, but i see and hear a marked difference in my playing. The guys who have mastered this are the madmen that can invoke whatever they want at will on the fly. So the same thing that can laden us to the ground and constrain us, becomes the very thing that lets us fly and soar through the heavens!!




Bill Evans did a beautiful interview about this, in the mid 60's. Very very cool stuff!!

Re: vid. It's 44 minutes long so I don't have time now. Perhaps it answers all my questions so I'll definitely watch it later.

Re: your comment. The description above leads me to think I'm not communicating the approach I use.

My "analysis" is simply generic chord identification, 2,5,1 stuff.

My technique is to employ vertical and horizontal playing over that sequence as whim, taste, and technique allow. For example one could play blues, 1 major scale, 2 min/5 mix/1 maj, 2 min/b6 MM, b7pent to 1 maj, and on and on further out into the tonal ether.

There's nothing new in the above. It is a technique though to do this in real time, but it's not an analysis rather it's "see chords, play something according to previously established guidelines".

I'm still left hanging as to what exactly is this analysis people here do and what benefit does it bring.

[4thstuning]

Originally Posted by keith

Play with a singer who wants to change the key to what you have in front of you and you'll see that song analysis suddenly becomes helpful in transposing on the spot.

I agree that just knowing what the song is doing in structural terms is helpful in soloing. For example, knowing a major to minor turnaround is coming up in the progression can allow one to consider early melodic resolution or delayed harmonic resolution or other turnaround options. In my mind it really simplifies the tune and also allows other options for soloing just based on function as opposed to exact harmony. Anyway that's how it makes sense to me.

How is this different from my pedestrian 2,5,1 "analysis"? Using plain Jane numbers I can change key at will. The numbers tell me what's coming up, typically something already seen before in a 1000 tunes.

I quoted 'analysis' above because it doesn't seem that generically identifying the chord relative to the songs key is much of an analysis.

Again, I'm not arguing, just asking for a more concrete definition of what you guys think analysis is and some statement as to how it benefits you.

[brwnhornet59]

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

Re: vid. It's 44 minutes long so I don't have time now. Perhaps it answers all my questions so I'll definitely watch it later.

Re: your comment. The description above leads me to think I'm not communicating the approach I use.

My "analysis" is simply generic chord identification, 2,5,1 stuff.

My technique is to employ vertical and horizontal playing over that sequence as whim, taste, and technique allow. For example one could play blues, 1 major scale, 2 min/5 mix/1 maj, 2 min/b6 MM, b7pent to 1 maj, and on and on further out into the tonal ether.

There's nothing new in the above. It is a technique though to do this in real time, but it's not an analysis rather it's "see chords, play something according to previously established guidelines".

I'm still left hanging as to what exactly is this analysis people here do and what benefit does it bring.

Hmm, i won't argue terminology with you, but your approach is still based on a basic, on the spot analysis. I do understand full well the implications of your system. As I stated, I had used a similar form for many years. Like I said, if it works for you, great, then it is the right choice. But for me, it is not good enough anymore. Just my two cent's brother.

Yeah, the video is a must see.

[4thstuning]

Originally Posted by JonR

Analysing chord function (eg calling chords ii-V-I, instead of just Dm7-G7-Cmaj7 or whatever), is part of identifying key centres for me. So if I see Dm7-G7-Cmaj7, I know its all C major; I also know it's ii-V-I. No big deal.

Agreed as it's not much analysis. Identify key of tune, label chords according to where they fit in the key.

Originally Posted by JonR

This is a lot simpler than (say) thinking modally on each chord, which is crazy.

I taught myself by thinking modally for each chord and then stringing the modes together for a given tune. I think this is a wonderful technique to develop and it's given me a lot of freedom, probably because the technique required to do it allows more choices. Playing individual chords, their substitutions, vertical modes, and even alternate chord sequences are made possible and even more doable because of this "crazy" technique

Originally Posted by JonR

If I see an E7 in C major, I know it's a secondary dominant (V/vi), but that only means it's likely to resolve to Am. What I play on it is dictated by context and experience. Ie, the "analysis" is only a series of labels for the sounds.

I've never found that kind of labeling useful. It is self-evident from the context IMO.

Originally Posted by JonR

How much grammar do you need to know in order to speak eloquently? I guess that all depends how familiar you are with the language...

If you define grammar as the labeling, I would say almost no grammar needed. If you define grammar as 'what' to play, then infinite grammar is preferable.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

Agreed as it's not much analysis. Identify key of tune, label chords according to where they fit in the key.

Well, that sounds like a defnition of "analysis" to me.

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

I taught myself by thinking modally for each chord and then stringing the modes together for a given tune. I think this is a wonderful technique to develop and it's given me a lot of freedom, probably because the technique required to do it allows more choices. Playing individual chords, their substitutions, vertical modes, and even alternate chord sequences are made possible and even more doable because of this "crazy" technique

Interesting. Sounds very complicated to me, but if it works for you...

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

I've never found that kind of labeling useful. It is self-evident from the context IMO.

Yes, but what do you call what you see? If you give the chords names, that's labelling. If you give them numbers, that's analysis (another kind of labelling, according to function in key rather than individual identity). None of it is self-evident unless you've learned how to do it.
IOW, you're analyzing all the time whether you're aware of it or not. Maybe you've found your own way of doing it, but it's still analysis. (If it's subconscious, so much the better.)

Originally Posted by 4thstuning

If you define grammar as the labeling, I would say almost no grammar needed. If you define grammar as 'what' to play, then infinite grammar is preferable.

Grammar is the rules of how it's all put together. The common practices of chord progression, functional changes. Stuff you end up taking for granted with a little experience (just as you take word order in English for granted). As I say, you learn it all until it becomes subconscious so you don't have to think about it. How we each get to that point may vary; some of us may use our own conceptual framework to make sense of things, but most of us will use the conventional language and systems to some degree.

[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.

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

I'm not arguing, I genuinely want to know.

[brwnhornet59]

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.

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

I'm not arguing, I genuinely want to know.

4th, now you are sounding like a young kid. No one has been confrontational with you. You take umbrage because someone says they do it different? I saw no one challenge you or say you were wrong. But you insist you don't analyse chords, when in essence you DO.

And all of your arp playing is just as much in one key as anything you just described in ATTYA. I personally use MM and HM in that tune as well as w/t and h/w here and there and arps like you would. Diatonic Major gets old.

Giant steps is three key centers cycling in 3rds period. But there are many ways to approach it via reharms of the chords, or just by implying the reharms, usually involving triad pairing, over the straight chords. The point is it still takes somewhat of an analysis to determine what, where, when and how you do what you do. Is this rocket science? No. But the High School attitude just got really old for me. You say that you are not arguing, but I feel a passive aggressive vibe going on.

I wish you luck. There is nothing wrong with your approach if it works for you. Peace

[4thstuning]

Originally Posted by brwnhornet59

4th, now you are sounding like a young kid. No one has been confrontational with you.

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.

Originally Posted by brwnhornet59

You take umbrage because someone says they do it different? I saw no one challenge you or say you were wrong. But you insist you don't analyse chords, when in essence you DO.

I don't take umbrage, you do.

Originally Posted by brwnhornet59

And all of your arp playing is just as much in one key as anything you just described in ATTYA. I personally use MM and HM in that tune as well as w/t and h/w here and there and arps like you would. Diatonic Major gets old.

My arp playing?

Originally Posted by brwnhornet59

Giant steps is three key centers cycling in 3rds period. But there are many ways to approach it via reharms of the chords, or just by implying the reharms, usually involving triad pairing, over the straight chords. The point is it still takes somewhat of an analysis to determine what, where, when and how you do what you do.

Man, I just play the chords, that's it.

Originally Posted by brwnhornet59

Is this rocket science? No. But the High School attitude just got really old for me. You say that you are not arguing, but I feel a passive aggressive vibe going on.

I'm not responsible for your feelings but I am responsible for mine which are irritated at the moment so I'll bow out.

Originally Posted by brwnhornet59

I wish you luck. There is nothing wrong with your approach if it works for you. Peace

Yeah, peace.

[brwnhornet59]

Wow.

I know you are but what am I? Holly crap dude, you sound like one of my grandsons.

I guess you don't see what we have been seeing, in your statements. But that is not surprising. What does someone that is insecure do when confronted? They blame the other party or make personal attacks. So be it. I am wrong you are right.

Thank you for taking the time to enlighten us.