The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 25 of 166
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    The most ill-considered New Year's resolution, ever? Let's see.

    Try as I may, I can't reconcile Mark Levine's observations with any theory. What is the theory?


    1. Page 37: note 4 (4th scale degree, in C = F) is dissonant against Imaj7. How can a note be considered dissonant with a chord? A single note is a different interval from every note in a chord. Are all these intervals dissonant? Presumably not, but which one is? More than one? He doesn't say.

    2. Page 39: since note 4 is the problem ("avoid note"), the solution is to play C Lydian over Cmaj7. Now, it happens that C Lydian, which is in the key of G, begins and ends on C, so it is a C scale or mode or something. It also happens that it has F# as degree 4. So what? How does the theory lead to from key of C to key of G?

    Levine works backwards from the fact that C Lydian has F# as a 4th degree, because F# as the #4 of C is what he wanted. That's not a theory. That's deciding to sharp the 4 and then go hunting for a mode that has it. Is this the only mode that has F# as degree 4? How did he decide to look for the mode in the key of G? However that was, is it done according to a theory, such that it covers other situations, or just this one? If it only covers this situation, what's the point? Why not just observe that sharping the 4 solves the problem, whatever that may be, and leave it at that?

    An observation is not a theory. Fifty thousand observations that are one hundred per cent accurate are not a theory. A theory is a logical proposition that explains the observations.

    I'm resigned to the fact that this isn't "The" Jazz Theory Book. Now I'm grappling with, is it even "A" Jazz Theory Book at all.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    No offence, but perhaps you should start with some more basic book on general music theory? I though those were pretty basic concepts, that have been a part of jazz musician's vocabulary for decades, not something Levine conceived and put forth to be reviewed by peers.
    1. A not can very much be dissonant against a chord. Listen for yourself. If you need to take it apart, a half-step between the 3rd and the 11th, and the tritone between the 7th and 11th should be obvious.
    2. C lydian has the same notes as G major scale, but it's not in the key of G, it's in the key of C. Key of G has nothing to do with this. F# is simply a safer note choice over Cmaj7
    When you sharpen the 4th degree of a major scale, you end up with a lydian mode. 'Jazz theory' as an area of study, not a singular idea. Hope this helps.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Yeah man, put Levin away for a bit and bone up on some more basic theory, you will be much better off.
    Last edited by brwnhornet59; 01-05-2012 at 10:08 AM.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    I don't think it is particularly nice to make such assumptions about his theory knowledge just because he is critical towards Levine's theories.

    The way I understood his post, is that "borrowing" from G major creates confusion as another key is involved and instead, it would be more practical to look at the interval in its original context: related to the tonic: C. Sharp fourth means raise the fourth a half degree, in which it doesn't make sense to make a whole new scale for it.
    Why do we need all that information when we're only changing one interval?

    Besides, real life jazz musicians do play F on C major. Sometimes we even find F and F# in the same bar. What scale is that? To say that the player changed back and forth from C Ionian to C lydian would be cumbersome IMO.
    The whole "avoid" note thing is always formulated in a way that causes students to avoid playing it altogether.
    F can sound jarring on a C major chord because it clashes with the third(is a half step away and implies an unresolved sus sound) IF the tone is played on strong beats or the player lets it ring. It sounds perfectly fine as a passing tone. The ear decides.

    Personally, I take Levine's theory with a grain of salt. One problem with CST is that it can be approached in a way that makes it intimidating and it causes grief for many conservatory students who feel they have to learn hundreds of scales before they can improvise. And that often causes them to quit before they've even played music.

    Personally, I never think about modes from the major or minor scale unless I'm playing on modal tunes. For melodic minor, I find it makes sense to think of modes because it's more foreign to the tonal center.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    get rid of that book, it doesn't represent what jazz is in "real life". Get some Bert Ligon's instead, start transcribing and start playing with people. 2 cents.

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    I think you're reading it wrong, dude.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
    I don't think it is particularly nice to make such assumptions about his theory knowledge just because he is critical towards Levine's theories.
    It was not why I made such assumptions.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
    I don't think it is particularly nice to make such assumptions about his theory knowledge just because he is critical towards Levine's theories.
    I know my intentions were not aimed at belittling his knowledge of theory. It seemed the right thing to say to someone who was being confused by Levine. He is not the first, nor will he be the last. There are other strategies available that will serve him better in the long run. IMO

    Like you said, I take Levine with a grain of salt. No need for anyone to over complicate a situation that has an easy solution. Modes are cumbersome and something not to dwell on, unless you don't know them.
    Last edited by brwnhornet59; 01-05-2012 at 10:18 AM.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by brwnhornet59
    Modes are cumbersome and something not to dwell on, unless you don't know them.
    Yeah. People, be positive. I've been playing all arps of the major scale fully extended. All keys.
    R-3-5-7-9-11-13...13-11-9-7-5-3-R.
    Non stop for the past month or so. I figured this is a good way to really learn the sound of each mode and have it ingrained, thus good preparation for learning the more difficult harmony of the arps of the MM modes. Interesting to notice the b9 in Phrygian being the first sound that stands out. It's really helping me become a better player and listener. Can you guys dig this? All the back and forth about Levine and his take on MM has had a good effect on me. I figured the best way the solve the puzzle is by playing and listening hard...

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by whatswisdom
    I figured the best way the solve the puzzle is by playing and listening hard...
    Yes Sir! Apply it everywhere you can. There are some really cool idiomatic sequences, that are textbook turns around's using MM. They can be very helpful in finding MM's uses. Analyzing what and how each approach is and when they used them, can be very enlightening.

    One thing that helped me was in playing a, ii V I VI7. Hearing how playing Dom b6, (#5), the 5th mode of MM, over the Vi7 chord, gave such a natural sound leading back into the ii. The parent key of that mode is the same as the ii.

    ie: D-7 G7 CM7 A7. D MM is the parent key of A dom b6. This also opens you up to using Aug in your thinking, giving you the symmetrical inversions in major 3rds to work with as well. You also have tritone subs to mess with in lydian b7, another symmetrical scale, 3 whole steps apart. Lots of fun.
    Last edited by brwnhornet59; 01-05-2012 at 02:07 PM.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by brwnhornet59
    playing a, ii V I VI7. Hearing how playing Dom b6, (#5), the 5th mode of MM, over the Vi7 chord, gave such a natural sound leading back into the ii. The parent key of that mode is the same as the ii. ie: D-7 G7 CM7 A7. D MM is the parent key of A dom b6. This also opens you up to using Aug in your thinking...
    D MM: D E F G A B C#. A7b13: A C# E G F. (Is it okay [to call your A dom b6] A7b13 instead?) I'm trying to get my head around this & 13 makes more sense. I took your post apart a little to try this in smaller bites. Maybe you could break down the "Aug thinking" (simplify, spell out). Cool. Thanks.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    I was referring to the name of the MM mode when I said that. Yes, it is fine calling A7b13.

    The b6 is the equivalent of a #5. The #5 is what makes a chord aug. For example: If you do a drop 2 chord and spell it, R #5 b7 3, that is the gist of an aug chord. Now take that chord and slide it up or down a major 3rd, 2 whole steps, notice that the 2 inversions are a perfect fit for the original? Just like when playing a dim chord, you can go up or down in minor 3rds and get the perfect, same shape inversions. This is the nature of a symmetrical scale in a very basic usage.

    So now you can sub the inversions for the original, as well as play aug arps or wholetone scales etc..starting at any of those positions or roots. Also, look at the realtionship of the 3rd mode of MM. The lydian #5, ( M7#11#5), can be played against it as well and visa versa. Just like we do with the major scale and its inversions, MM has some very cool sounds and usages.

    Make sense?
    Last edited by brwnhornet59; 01-05-2012 at 12:28 PM.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    I've got to say I find a lot of the Mark Levine bashing on this forum just a little over the top - I've used his book for years, and find it a highly useful approach for me. Not the be-all and end-all certainly, and there are other useful ways of looking at things too, but still... He is a nice player too, there is quite a lot of his playing on YouTube - I don't think he could have reached this standard if his approach was without value.


  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Bashing? I know I don't feel that way. Levine is very enlightening, just a little to much for some people at first. I have had no issues with taking his ideas and running with them. Everything has value as long as it is put in context.

    BTW, I love his playing as well!


  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Stern
    The most ill-considered New Year's resolution, ever? Let's see.

    Try as I may, I can't reconcile Mark Levine's observations with any theory. What is the theory?


    1. Page 37: note 4 (4th scale degree, in C = F) is dissonant against Imaj7. How can a note be considered dissonant with a chord? A single note is a different interval from every note in a chord. Are all these intervals dissonant? Presumably not, but which one is? More than one? He doesn't say.

    2. Page 39: since note 4 is the problem ("avoid note"), the solution is to play C Lydian over Cmaj7. Now, it happens that C Lydian, which is in the key of G, begins and ends on C, so it is a C scale or mode or something. It also happens that it has F# as degree 4. So what? How does the theory lead to from key of C to key of G?

    Levine works backwards from the fact that C Lydian has F# as a 4th degree, because F# as the #4 of C is what he wanted. That's not a theory. That's deciding to sharp the 4 and then go hunting for a mode that has it. Is this the only mode that has F# as degree 4? How did he decide to look for the mode in the key of G? However that was, is it done according to a theory, such that it covers other situations, or just this one? If it only covers this situation, what's the point? Why not just observe that sharping the 4 solves the problem, whatever that may be, and leave it at that?

    An observation is not a theory. Fifty thousand observations that are one hundred per cent accurate are not a theory. A theory is a logical proposition that explains the observations.

    I'm resigned to the fact that this isn't "The" Jazz Theory Book. Now I'm grappling with, is it even "A" Jazz Theory Book at all.
    OK, apologies BH, I miss-read things somewhat, and I'm happy to back off on this. There do seem to have been a lot of negative posts with regard to Levine in the last few months or so though, I was getting a bit tired of it all. And the OP on this thread seemed to me to be going out of his way to find things to dislike about the book. Of course he's welcome not to like it, but why start a thread designed to encourage further criticism? Better surely to concentrate on things he can like?

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Hey Meggy, no worries. We all get frustrated. I know I have come out blasting once in a while. I think a lot of the issues with certain materials comes when someone is reaching out for something above their current level of understanding. I know I have much to learn, but I do try and help others understand certain realities that I have gone through when I feel they are floundering.

    Helping individuals of the collective understand, and having the collective help us, is what to me this is all about. Keep posting, PLEASE, we can use all of the voices we can get to spread the word of this beautiful Art!

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Thanks BH, I did come out a bit too strongly there (I seem to make that mistake occasionally) - reading through the thread more carefully, I can see that there are some interesting points made, and I note your own intelligent contributions. I just saw the thread title, read the first post, scanned down rather quickly, and was thinking "not another anti-Levine thread, surely?" as I did so. I guess the OP was at least partly just trying to explain some genuine difficulties he has with the Levine approach as well. Maybe I at least managed to put some balancing opinion in, apologies again to anyone if I caused any offence by the way I went about it!

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Hey Meggy, It is better to stand for something, even if misunderstood, than to stand for nothing, or worse on your hands! I know I can't bend over that far anymore!!


  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by brwnhornet59
    I was referring to the name of the MM mode when I said that. The b6 is the equivalent of a #5. The #5 is what makes a chord aug. For example: If you do a drop 2 chord and spell it, R #5 b7 3, that is the gist of an aug chord. Now take that chord and slide it up or down a major 3rd, 2 whole steps, notice that the 2 inversions are a perfect fit for the original?
    Okay. Mixo b6. I'm with you. I tried to illustrate your example to see if I have it right.

    [chord]

    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|-E-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|-Bb|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|---|-G#|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|-C-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

    [/chord]
    [chord]

    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-G#|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|-D-|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-C-|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|-E-|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

    [/chord]

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Yup, that's good. also try,

    XX3443 (G7#5),and XX5867.

    Notice how these two inversions also sound like C-11 M7? That is because they are rootless inversions of it. C MM is the parent key. Just place C in the root of either inversion, you will hear it better.
    Last edited by brwnhornet59; 01-05-2012 at 02:34 PM.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by brwnhornet59
    also try, XX3443 (G7#5),and XX5867... these two inversions also sound like C-11 M7? That is because they are rootless inversions of it. C MM is the parent key. Just place C in the root of either inversion, you will hear it better.
    BH: Thanks. I'll try all these out when I get to my guitar later.

    [chord]

    ||---|---|-G-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|-D#|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|-B-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|-F-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

    [/chord]
    [chord]

    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|-B-|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|---|-F-|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-D#|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|-G-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    ||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

    [/chord]

  23. #22

    User Info Menu



    Have fun!

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Sphere
    No offence, but perhaps you should start with some more basic book on general music theory? I though those were pretty basic concepts, that have been a part of jazz musician's vocabulary for decades, not something Levine conceived and put forth to be reviewed by peers.
    These statements are a complete mystery to me. What concepts are you referring to? What difference does it make who Levine wanted to be reviewed by? How do you know?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sphere
    1. A not can very much be dissonant against a chord.
    It would have been easy enough to say so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sphere
    Listen for yourself. If you need to take it apart, a half-step between the 3rd and the 11th, and the tritone between the 7th and 11th should be obvious.
    All I hear is a set of intervals. If there's more to it, theory must explain it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sphere
    C lydian has the same notes as G major scale, but it's not in the key of G, it's in the key of C. Key of G has nothing to do with this. F# is simply a safer note choice over Cmaj7
    I only know what they tell me:
    The new scale, or mode is the same as the G major scale, except that it starts on C . . . Even though the chord symbol reads Cmaj7#4, you're actually playing in the key of G.
    -- Mark Levine, The Jazz Theory Book p. 39.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
    The way I understood his post, is that "borrowing" from G major creates confusion as another key is involved and instead, it would be more practical to look at the interval in its original context: related to the tonic: C. Sharp fourth means raise the fourth a half degree, in which it doesn't make sense to make a whole new scale for it.
    Why do we need all that information when we're only changing one interval?
    Exactly. I get the part about the #4. Sounds good; don't overdo it; sometimes natural 4 sounds good, don't overdo that either. What is the rest of this stuff about?

    This isn't criticism of the theory. What is the theory? Is my question.

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by nion
    get rid of that book, it doesn't represent what jazz is in "real life". Get some Bert Ligon's instead, start transcribing and start playing with people. 2 cents.
    I'll add 2 more. You've now got 4 cents. Ligon all the way!

    READ THIS:
    MTO 6.1: Rawlins, Review of Levine

    And this if you want my "heated" rants and more:
    Jazz Theory Resources by Bert Ligon VS Jazzology by Robert Rawlins