The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 57
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    There are lots of theories on any topic and music is no different. No one is better than another, and none is worse they are all just different observations and labeling systems. As Steve Coleman puts it there many paths to get to the same place. What matters is that if you find one of interest and explore making music with it. That is what is really all about creating music and then theoreticians after the fact hang labels on it.

    Negative, Symmetric, Mirror are all different names or could say paths to how musicians create music in an era. Today Progressive musicians like Muhal Richard Abrams and Henry Threadgill both have their own theory systems basic on chromatic scale I'm sure people will study in the future. John Coltrane studied many different paths more that most know about, because he tried to keep quiet the composers he studied and discussed music with.

    All I'm getting at is the there is no good or bad there are just different points of view. If you like a particular musician or type of musicians like the progressives then listen and find out what they studied and if possible what they may have written how they view(ed) music. Learn what do and they apply it and see if you like the result, if not their is a lot more viewpoints. Just don't limit yourself.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by eh6794-2.0
    I will explain it the way I understand it.

    - Each chord, allegedly, functions the same as its negative chord; it has the same gravity in reference to the tonic.
    But it doesn't, of course. I can't believe anyone seriously proposing negative harmony actually believes that the negative chord has the same gravity relative to the tonic. This has to be a misunderstanding. (Or a bizarre use of the concept of tonal gravity.)
    Quote Originally Posted by eh6794-2.0
    - So, if you are in a section of C major, for some reason you take the 5, then find the middle point between the 1 and 5. If you are smart, you realize there is no middle point. The middle is an imaginary point between Eb and E.
    Yup...
    Quote Originally Posted by eh6794-2.0
    - If, for example, you want to find the negative chord for G7 (G, B, D and F), you imagine a piano with your right index finger on the E, and left index finger on the Eb. To find the negative of the F you move your right finger right to the F. You then move your left finger the same tones to the left to find its negative, which is D. You do the same for the other notes.
    Yup. This is all clear from Kyle's well-explained video - posted earlier.
    Quote Originally Posted by eh6794-2.0
    - Although it can sound unique to re-negative-harmonize a tune, I believe its just another way for people to sound smarter than everyone else.
    Well, you can sound smart if you're talking about it. Not sure how smart the music sounds.

    I.e, Kyle's video explains the concept, but doesn't demonstrate how it works, or explain why it's such a useful idea (and neither does Collier).

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by docbop
    There are lots of theories on any topic and music is no different. No one is better than another, and none is worse they are all just different observations and labeling systems. As Steve Coleman puts it there many paths to get to the same place. What matters is that if you find one of interest and explore making music with it. That is what is really all about creating music and then theoreticians after the fact hang labels on it.
    Sure. But where is the music that requires this theory to help understand it?
    If Coleman's music makes sense musically (ie sounds good), then it's going to be explainable using standard conventions (even if his own perspective is different).
    Quote Originally Posted by eh6794-2.0
    Negative, Symmetric, Mirror are all different names or could say paths to how musicians create music in an era.
    Sure, and I understand the concept, and how it can offer a different path for composition. But what you end up with is going to fall into patterns accessible to the same old theoretical concepts. I.e., a different path, maybe, but ending up at the same place. (at least if we're still talking about tonality, 7-note scales, functional progressions, etc, which we seem to be.)
    Quote Originally Posted by eh6794-2.0
    Today Progressive musicians like Muhal Richard Abrams and Henry Threadgill both have their own theory systems basic on chromatic scale I'm sure people will study in the future.
    You mean different from Schoenberg and the other 12-tone thinkers?
    Quote Originally Posted by eh6794-2.0
    All I'm getting at is the there is no good or bad there are just different points of view. If you like a particular musician or type of musicians like the progressives then listen and find out what they studied and if possible what they may have written how they view(ed) music. Learn what do and they apply it and see if you like the result, if not their is a lot more viewpoints. Just don't limit yourself.
    All agreed.
    I'm just talking from a place where I can't see the point of this concept at the moment. I can't see what it offers, other than just reshuffling the same old deck. The ear will control the result in the end.

    Of course, it's definitely a good idea to try to shake one's ears out of their old habits - and I can see the value of an artificial system such as this in doing that.
    Looking in a mirror offers a similar alternative way of viewing the world. We still live in the non-mirror world in the end, but that doesn't mean some contemplation of the mirror image can't teach us something about vision.
    Last edited by JonR; 05-11-2017 at 10:30 AM.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    reshuffling the same old deck
    Interesting image in this context. So, what happens when we reshuffle the deck.
    The 52 card content is unchanged but is reordered. Negative harmony, reshuffles
    the same content in an organized way bringing forward a companion set of relationships
    to the positive ones. We are free to engage with what is revealed or ignore, the idea
    is to play sounds that speak to you and not to fulfill a given theory. Concepts exist in
    the service of our music. If an idea can help you get at it, that is a beautiful thing.
    If an idea doesn't resonate with you but does for someone else, that is a beautiful
    thing too. No bonus points for being judgmental, especially about things we don't
    fully understand.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR
    Sure. But where is the music that requires this theory to help understand it?
    If Coleman's music makes sense musically (ie sounds good), then it's going to be explainable using standard conventions (even if his own perspective is different).
    Just like there are multiple paths to a destination, there are multiple place to view people on the path. I don't view Negative quite the same as Steve Coleman his knowledge, composing, and playing are light years beyond me, but I like what he talked about and demonstrated so I decided I wanted to understand more about the negative world. Through my study and playing I have my viewpoint and approach, similar but not the same.

    Something that people new to this topic need to realize too if they don't already and that Negative is just one part of what people like Collier, Coleman, Parker, Gillespie, Bach, et, al. are using to approach and view music. From my observations listening to people talk music they tend to use the form of theory that fits the era of music being discussed or the theory tools people of an era used when creating that music.

    I learned Negative the old fashion way through people talking about it and using their instruments to play examples pretty much nothing written. This is how the old Jazz players learned and taught via talking and playing examples, then other would keep notes however they like. I would guess this is what went on with Bach and others of the time, because what we call traditional theory didn't exist yet. People forget be it music or other subjects the way we look at things didn't exist when others created it. I see that all the hearing people talk about history, they look at the past through current eyes, they forget to factor in what was the knowledge and world like when <fill in the blank> created something.

    Now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    damn!.....maybe will get some practical guitar solo's from those using this concept.....the more I read the less I know......these so called negative cords.....what quality are they assigned?......minor/major....or what?.....

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Gm7 Fm6 Cmaj7 is a nice sub for Dm7 G7 Cmaj7 though

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Gm7 Fm6 Cmaj7 is a nice sub for Dm7 G7 Cmaj7 though
    Well, it depends what you mean by "sub"
    My understanding is that a "substitute" performs a similar function to the chord it's replacing. Such as the tritone sub or dim7 sub. Or IV substituting for ii.
    Fm6 doesn't "substitute" for G7 in that sense. It's a different kind of cadence, a minor plagal cadence in place of a perfect cadence. (Likewise Gm7 is no sub for Dm7 - in any case I think the negative harmony principle puts Bbm6 in place of Dm7 in that sequence.)

    Of course it sounds good. But does it make sense - is it the best use of jargon - to say it's a "sub"?

    I realise that a G7 can be altered and extended in all kinds of ways, but many of those (especially if they lose the G) tend to produce a differently functioning chord. (Db7 omits the G, of course, but retains the essential guide tones, the B in particular.)
    E.g., you could have Fm6/G, as Gsusb9, but that's a combination of dominant and minor subdominant - very juicy, but essentially blurred in terms of function. Take away the G and you remove the "dominant" element.

    In short, my beef with negative harmony is the same as the one I often have with theoretical arguments. It's
    not about the effects produced, and their musical value, but about the language we use to describe those effects (and whether we need the term negative harmony in the first place).
    Last edited by JonR; 05-15-2017 at 12:17 PM.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    D#/E as axis

    F --- Ab --- C --- D --- D#/E --- F --- G --- B --- D

    Same intervallic distance in both directions

    m2 --- ma2 --- ma3 --- m3

    Fm6 is negative G7

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JonR
    Well, it depends what you mean by "sub"
    My understanding is that a "substitute" performs a similar function to the chord it's replacing. Such as the tritone sub or dim7 sub. Or IV substituting for ii.
    Fm6 doesn't "substitute" for G7 in that sense. It's a different kind of cadence, a minor plagal cadence in place of a perfect cadence. (Likewise Gm7 is no sub for Dm7 - in any case I think the negative harmony principle puts Bbm6 in place of Dm7 in that sequence.)

    Of course it sounds good. But does it make sense - is it the best use of jargon - to say it's a "sub"?

    I realise that a G7 can be altered and extended in all kinds of ways, but many of those (especially if they lose the G) tend to produce a differently functioning chord. (Db7 omits the G, of course, but retains the essential guide tones, the B in particular.)
    E.g., you could have Fm6/G, as Gsusb9, but that's a combination of dominant and minor subdominant - very juicy, but essentially blurred in terms of function. Take away the G and you remove the "dominant" element.

    In short, my beef with negative harmony is the same as the one I often have with theoretical arguments. It's
    not about the effects produced, and their musical value, but about the language we use to describe those effects (and whether we need the term negative harmony in the first place).
    I'd be less charitable. My beef with Negative Harmony is that it's ****ing nonsense :-) (Beyond a point.)

    You know, when I was 21, I too was a theory junkie. I traced the major and minor triads on a cycle of fifths when I was learning music and noticed they were mirrors. I had elaborate theories about pitch and so on. I was that kind of a dork.

    And then I learned that I'd have to actually knuckle down and just practice the boring stuff until it was all really good. (Indeed, I daresay Mr Collier won't be requiring to do this lol :-))

    You can't go into music with the mindset of a theorist unless you are already a MF.

    But! As with serial music and chord scale theory (sorry I just love to get that in there haha), talented musicians can make something of even the daftest and most contrived theory.

    And Jacob is certainly the musician that could make something out of well... anything.

    BTW the cellist in my group Balagan was Jacob's teacher at Junior Royal College when he was 14. Started off playing drums, but was just getting into piano and bass and basically learned them in the space of year. Also as there were already several pianists in the group, my friend gave Jacob a cello and said 'here have a go at this.'

    Needless to say he got the basics together in the space of a lesson.
    Last edited by christianm77; 05-15-2017 at 03:15 PM.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Ha.So you guys think my observation that it uses the Circle of Fifths like a 'Secret Decoder Ring' is more accurate ?

    Well I hear some interesting results anyway.

    But I don't think it is really based on the Overtone Series.

    I am always looking for voicings that are not dissonant with multiple resolutions and I think there are ways to use/ extend the Overtone Series to do that and create weaker but interesting useful Cadences - but for another Thread ...

    I am going to start a Modern Harmony Thread ..for these ideas and to get people's ideas.
    Last edited by Robertkoa; 05-16-2017 at 09:56 AM.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Well, the problem is we decided on 12 pitches in music. 12's a magic number, able to be subdivided a bunch of ways, you can draw cool little charts and shapes and such.

    If we had just decided on 11 or 13 pitches we wouldn't have to deal with any of this stuff.

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    True but the Overtone Series and harmonics and resonances/ consonance / dissonance and the way Sound waves interact through a Medium was here before Music or Man...

    Actually if you read the above in Rod Serling's voice
    it is more impressive...

    But we exploit this when we play...and voice chords etc.

    Now can learning more and exploiting the Overtone Series help create nice sounding chord sequences ?

    Not sure...but it would be more of a Composition thing than a way to reharmonize existing Songs at least what I am thinking of...

    Like resolving the Tritone in Dominant chords to the same expected " Notes" - leading tone to Tonic..but different Roots.

    So the E7 is going to resolve to A -
    3rd [G# ] as Leading Tone to A

    OR Invert Tritone and 7th [D]
    Resolves to Eb Tritone Substitution

    BUT' Root Substitution' might be still resolving to the same Notes but those notes are NOT the Root of the Destination Chord...

    So the Destination Chord goes higher in the Overtone Series and the instability or energy of the Tritone is 'released' differently from ' standard Practice ' Classical / Jazz / Pop but you still get Tension- Release etc.

    For those who think Vof V of V of V of V of V gets boring after awhile even though Jazz disguises this quite well or ornaments it ...

    So I want to learn more about how to exploit the Overtone Series to explore some Chord Sequences and Connections that I would not normally ' hear'.

    And I can tell there is something to explore but will transfer to a new thread.

    The idea is that the Tritone can Resolve not only to the Root of the Destination Chord but to the 5th 3rd 7th ...
    Last edited by Robertkoa; 07-25-2017 at 10:58 PM.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    I dunno. I think I'm just gonna do that cool thing I learned from Aimee Nolte about shaping your mouth and singing one note and two comes out. That'll make me feel like I have any dog in this hunt

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    The undertone system goes back to Pythagorus. Nowdays it's something I might fall back on as a composer when I run out of nice melodies and harmonies in the natural overtone series.The undertone series sounds so old and Greek modal, I find it to be a somewhat harsh environment in which to harvest tasty fruit from. Sure it appeals to some composers who like to be seen thinking outside the box (Coleman). They het a lot of attention when they do this, how about Vijay "musician of the year"/
    Personally, I like uplifting music, not weird underside "mirror" 3rd streamy stuff. Life is very short and I don't want to spend it on things far away from my true love: straight ahead jazz!

    "Further, proposed by Zarlino in Instituzione armoniche (1558), the undertone series was appealed to by theorists such as Riemann and D'Indy to explain phenomena such as the minor chord that the overtone series does not explain.[1] However, while the overtone series occurs naturally as a result of wave propagation and sound acoustics, musicologists such as Paul Hindemith considered the undertone series to be a purely theoretical 'intervallic reflection' of the overtone series. This assertion rests on the fact that undertones do not sound simultaneously with its fundamental tone as the overtone series does."
    Last edited by rintincop; 05-16-2017 at 01:52 PM.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Zarlino couldn't even decide what to call the church modes so don't make me larf.

    Seriously? There is something to this and I have quite an extensive theory about this, but negative harmony is too simple and incomplete and approach IMO. I could go into it in detail, but I won't.

    Suffice to say musical sounds are composite waveforms based on more than overtone relationships. The concept of an undertone sequence is I think unnecessary. Ordering intervals based on fractional denominators gives something that looks for like the rules tonality, at least to me.

    The importance of the overtone sequence to the basic elements of tonality are imo understated. And yes I have read Hindemith on the matter alongside other equal musical thinkers who directly contradict him.
    Last edited by christianm77; 05-16-2017 at 01:49 PM.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    But a simple and somewhat contrived theory + musical instinct can make for cool music. Use whatever sounds please you, you may well find some things you like out of this like Steve Coleman.

    But that doesn't make it a good theory per se if that makes any sense

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    I don't believe that this system has produced any thing that is not available or off limits in the upper tone system.
    Last edited by rintincop; 05-16-2017 at 02:42 PM.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Robertkoa
    True but the Overtone Series and harmonics and resonances/ consonance / dissonance and the way Sound waves interact through a Medium was here before Music or Man...
    If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

    IOW, the sensation of sound is something we create in our brains (an interpretation of rapid changes in air pressure), and music even more so.

    The harmonic series is a physical fact, and a major triad lines up (near enough) with significant overtones of the root note. But beyond there, the notes we choose to make chords with deviate more and more from the harmonic series - as does our 12-tone scale. We don't really "exploit" the harmonic series; we kind of take a hint from it, and then go our own way, ignoring it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robertkoa
    So I want to learn more about how to exploit the Overtone Series to explore some Chord Sequences and Connections that I would not normally ' hear'.
    The "overtone series" and "chord sequences" are two very different things.
    It's certainly worth exploring the overtone series to create music, but you'll be leaving "chords" (as we know them) behind, let alone concepts of "progression" or "function".

    Quote Originally Posted by Robertkoa
    And I can tell there is something to explore but will transfer to a new thread.
    Good idea.
    Last edited by JonR; 05-16-2017 at 02:46 PM.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    It's a little bit like using Tarot cards to create or turning paintings upside down and saying that is cool. But everything that can be conjured in the upside down mirror system already exist in the real world music system. Every chord and melody is already currently available. So what do we actually discover that is "new" in the upside down world. I might venture to say it's a bit like speaking backwards or some secret type of pig latin club.
    I respect Steve C. as a player but I know for a fact that he supports his family for many years by conducting various sorts intangible almost mysterious workshops and that attracts many seekers of a way or an alternative way. Perhaps it's like how religion can satisfy some people's superstitions. Steve reaches for the spiritual, for ancient other dimensions, of thinking "outside the box". It's proven to be quite lucrative. But the upside down system has not produced a thing that doesn't already exist in the upper tone system. I hear though that Yoko is a big fan the upside down sound. (Oops, I apologize if that's might be a bit too cheeky!)
    Last edited by rintincop; 05-16-2017 at 02:47 PM.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    The Overtone Series is why Classical Composers used the Neopolitan 6th Chord - basically a #I Major
    Flamenco sounding Chord ( lol) -
    used mostly in 1st Inversion so the Subdominant Note of the Key would be in the Bass- making the Chord more 'Inside ' sounding than it is when in Root Position-
    And there are other ways to change the resolution of the Tritone and create 'False Leading Tones' use extreme inversions like 9th in Bass..etc to get them to resolve elsewhere or be Tonicized differently..


    So on the other Thread it will be far more Inside than
    completely flipping the Overtone Series...

    Seems like most Theory is about Root Movement so you can target other chordal degrees like the 5th and the 3rd harmonically instead of merely the Root.
    We do this linearly but I mean harmonically...

    @JonR-* IF it's a Koa tree even if you are not there when it falls - you will hear it in your sleep- that's why People wake up suddenly for no reason.


    *not really.
    Last edited by Robertkoa; 05-16-2017 at 05:36 PM.

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    I'm playing around with this approach a little more and I have decided that the negative chords do NOT have the same "gravity" to the tonic as their reverse chord.

    I chose a very stable Fmaj7(9) X-8-5-5-5-X to test my theory.

    F - C
    G - Bb
    C - F
    E - Db

    How in the heck do those notes have the same "gravity" as the Fmaj7(9)?

    Also, I realized you can use the Circle of Fifths by dividing a line between the 1 and 5. Once you find your note, the negative note is opposite it on the circle

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    long ago when I was first getting into music I would read "Downbeat" magazine and try to understand what the musicians were talking about..such exotic terms..diminished augmented suspended and all..and then..there was a small ad "George Russells..Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization..it was then I was sure flying saucers were real..

    when I read some guitar sites and new players talk about using "modes" I wonder if they know what they are talking about..some of the guys I teach say they do..but cant demonstrate it to save their lives..but I must admit a "phrigian dominant mode" does sound like something darth vader might use to disrupt the force..he should use "negative harmony" and be sure..

    If negative harmony truly exists why are there players like bill evans or bob james for that matter that can dispel any doubt of the miraculous..and would not players like steve vai and johnny McLaughlin tell of its wonders..

    JonR hits the mark well on his take of it...for me I remember Ted Greene showing me an "overtone" scale chord..and silly me..I asked him.."whats the overtone scale?" and being Ted..he showed me and then explained its a bit like Pi...it goes on beyond the limits of any and all instruments..in essense its an overtone of an overtone of an overtone..and then showed me a dom13#11 chord as an example..so being the smart ass that I am..I said.."so..you don't have any idea either..?"

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by wolflen
    in essense its an overtone of an overtone of an overtone..and then showed me a dom13#11 chord as an example..so being the smart ass that I am..I said.."so..you don't have any idea either..?"
    My being the smartazz I am, I think the negative harmony fad, was just that, a fad. Maybe it wasn't a fad as much as a new concept for many that we wanted to discover. The other day I was thinking, "man, I haven't seen a negative harmony video or post in a couple months."

    I THINK when Jacob mentioned it, we all thought that it might produce a new sound in jazz that could be the next THING. However, once we figure it out, it really wasn't that great (although it was kind of cool). The claim that each negative chord pulled to the center exactly like its opposite wasn't really true since some negative chords had peculiar alterations.

    That is my 3 cents
    Last edited by eh6794-2.0; 07-25-2017 at 04:44 PM.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    When we shift perspective, different relationships emerge that were previously more hidden.
    If this perspective serves as a conduit to finding meaningful sounds and new pathways then this is a good thing.
    If you can accomplish all you hope to using more common domain descriptive concepts, that too is a good thing.
    I'm not sure what is to be gained by being outwardly critical of alternative viewpoints.
    Use what you find useful. Allow the space for others who choose to walk a different path.

    Jazz is a music that has been greatly enriched through divergent explorations.
    No method is a guarantee for musical genius to magically appear.
    We try different things throughout our musical evolution, some stay with us for a lifetime, others quickly fall away.
    No deaths or serious injuries have been reported to the best of my knowledge by engaging with "negative harmony",
    be it short term or for the long haul.