-
Interesting, thanks! Looks like the transcriber and I agree about the main lick and changes, though he uses Eb where I use D#.
Originally Posted by ragman1
We disagree about the triplet pickup. It's very fast, and I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I'm pretty sure he's wrong.
I definitely hear a C as the last note, where he hears an A.
Anyway, it was the figure over G7 that I was really curious about.
-
02-17-2017 01:05 PM
-
You could well be right. This is it slowed down so the last note of the triplet is A. The next note (of the rest of the solo) is then C. Originally Posted by dingusmingus
Interesting, thanks! Looks like the transcriber and I agree about the main lick and changes, though he uses Eb where I use D#.
We disagree about the triplet pickup. It's very fast, and I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I'm pretty sure he's wrong. I definitely hear a C as the last note, where he hears an A.
Anyway, it was the figure over G7 that I was really curious about.
-
I absolutely agree... if you have a song you actually hear it as a song...Body and Soul was recorded many, many times during the 30's....I sincerely doubt people tied themselves in knots trying to analyze a not really complicated tune....one you get these 3 modulations, its a great blowing tune.
I can refer to the U.S. President as onald-D rump-t, by use of "Pig Latin transpositional analysis", but is this really helpful or necessary?
Your sample with "Pig Latin...' actually reminded me the thing I often say about an actor who is trying to pronounce clearly the part in the language he does not know...
Both examples are about meaning... we forget often that music is the system of meanings as any art... so the form the piece the song the context is what makes us pronounce a single phrase this or that way...
On the other hand during practice we also have to work with small units separately... and in this case I - to be honest - just ignored where it came from originally, too it as just a lick
-
using ears is the same thing... he uses ears when he plays I use my ears when explain and analyze... the relations work even if we do not describe them or think of them.. it's enough that we can hear theme may of course have just used his ears. Usually that's a good idea, as theory easily can be a dictating/limiting box!
-
I don't find this sort of theory (it's a sub, for a sub) to be helpful. I honestly don't know if that's a weakness I should work on, or if I'm avoiding something that would prove to be a waste of time.
But here's my problem with the theory.
We have in this lick, something ear catching. I'd argue that the two notes that catch the ear are an F# (against G7) and, probably to a lesser degree, the D#.
It sounds great. So, now we're trying to explain why. I'm not even sure that "why" is a well-posed question in this context.
There are 12 notes in the chromatic scale. Against a G7, we aren't surprised by 1 b9 9 #9 3 11 #11 5 #5 13 b7. In fact, we use every one of those notes as part of various G dominant sounds, pretty regularly.
There is only one note of the chromatic scale missing, and that's F#. And, now we have a theory proposed to "explain" its use.
This theory (sub of a sub) may well be correct. I'm not arguing the point. What does bother me though is that we now have a theory which can comfortably (more or less) explain the use of any note in the chromatic scale against a G7. How is that more helpful than "any note will work".
If it's helpful, I'll admit, I can't see how. Maybe someone can explain how to apply it.
When I try to use that sort of theory, e.g. finding a way to play an F# against a G7, it usually sounds like a clam. The theory behind using that particular note (or triad, although Wes didn't actually play only a B triad -- and I think it was more Emaj9 fragment anyway) doesn't tell you how to make music with it.
Wes made that work, I think, because that Fmaj7 lick was beautifully consonant and melodic (he often played maj7 against other chords) and then he found a quick bit of melody that went outside the G7. I suspect he targeted that F# precisely because it is ear-catching more than any other note. And, his genius allowed him to place it within a logical melodic phrase.
I don't think you can get there, or reproduce it, from theory. What strikes me as better would be going over tunes a phrase at a time, trying to find lines that are ear catching - experimenting with every note of the chromatic scale, hoping to identify a keeper or two. I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly how Wes did it.
-
I think it can be helpful or clusterfuck confusing, depending on how your brain catalogs things.
But that's important to note, theory is all for explaining. It's after the music.
-
I'm obviously thinking of the process of improvising. Aiming for notes just because you hear them as good, even though they don't belong to any grid or theoretic justification available in your mind at the time. Originally Posted by Jonah
When I started learning jazz theory, after only using my ears for years, my playing sounded like sh$t for quite a while...before I realised why. The systems sort of dictated legal/illegal notes, which prevented me from going to places my ears really wanted to go.
-
Another consideration is that the sequence represented by the notes E-F#-D# as played in that solo is a little bit of jazz language which often gets used in various forms. You most often see it on a Dom7 chord as b9-#9-root (of Dom 7 chord), but it has its own sound that I'm sure Wes was familiar with. I might have just used that language to create tension on the D# before resolving it to D which continues the motif of 9ths. Originally Posted by dingusmingus
Would be a fun to listen to all his solos on that album for whether he uses the idea of "up a whole step, down a minor third" on other tunes, and if so what notes / chord tones those represent.
-
The theory is helpful in explaining how you can use those notes, when/why they work, as any note won't work in any context over that G7. How you explain things or what you call it is of course up to you. In this Wes example, the way he uses the maj7 over the V7 is one way I've already found myself to love. In my book that's the VII7. Wonderful place to slip into on a major I too - "The Sound Of Music" to me Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
So kinda, I hear or do something that I love the sound of, and use the theory as best I can to be able to describe the function of it so that I'll have that colour available to me.
-
I agree that the natural 7, against a dominant sounds a little unusual (as opposed to the diatonic flat 7), but I'm pretty sure it comes up in some Jimmy Van Heusen tunes, and some Jobim.
In my mind, the tri-tone of the dominant sets up "spice", and anything else in terms of "color" tones, is just more spice.
Need to double-check "Early Autumn" which has a bunch of very chromatic runs in it, as well as "Deep Purple". Both great tunes.Last edited by goldenwave77; 02-17-2017 at 07:14 PM.
-
not to be simplistic, but the question isn't really "why does that one pitch work?" but rather "why does that sequence of pitches, in that context, work?" Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
And the word I always come back to is "access"
For me, a system of organization is very helpful and creates intention in the playing.
It's hard to get into it without writing a 15 page post, but I think that the origins/access type of thinking helps quite a lot in voice leading and in allowing these notes to sound like they have purpose when used, as opposed to just being random BS, or things just copied from other players.
-
"Any of the 12 notes will work" doesn't provide anything. It isn't any kind of organization to anything. Wes didn't play a tone row in this case. He played a very FEW notes that people actually were interested in looking at. It's interesting, whether i agree, care, or whatever.
All of Shakespeare and Hemingway are the same 26 letters of the alphabet too. What's the point?
Most people who use "12 notes" as their sole "organizing structure" for improv are going to sound total crap. If it DOESN'T sound crap, they're ALREADY organizing it beyond that, and simply don't have the vocabulary to describe it.
I would say that whittling it down to FEWER than 12 is about 100% of the process.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 02-17-2017 at 08:21 PM.
-
Fmaj7 - D9 - Db9 - Cmaj9 or Dm7 - D7 - G7alt - Cmaj7
Wes was a back cycling guy. In that context the D dominant makes sense as a back cycle of the G7.Last edited by fep; 02-17-2017 at 08:38 PM.
-
I might just add that there are strong reasons based on the physics of pitch that mean that the notes of the Lydian mode blend with the major chord and the notes of the Dorian blend with the minor. (I could go in detail for those who are interested.)
The same thing doesn't really work for dominant or diminished chords. Any notes work on these chords because these chords are dissonant and non-blending to start off with. Well duh, they're moving chords. Don't need fancy thinking to prove that (but we can use it if we want.)
So I file that under 'stuff that's a bit a intellectually sketchy with mainstream CST.' Not that the altered scale and lydian dominant etc aren't cool sounds.
Anyway. I think the reason why the Wes example works well is
1) Wes played it
2) The rhythm
3) The resolution
4) The way the line is built around pitch collections of thirds - like a major seventh chord, triad etc. This sounds relatable to the human ear, and Wes like stacks of thirds an awful lot.
In fact, there's a good exercise in doing this kind of stuff, taking a triad on ii and a triad on I so
Dm C
F C
Dm Em
F Em
etc
And finding ways to lead one shape into the other, just joining up the dots.
Also known as 'voice leading'.
-
Very peculiar how thirds are almost their own organizational structure. Many things, which don't otherwise "work", sound great stacked in thirds. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Ok, so from now on I want to hear that nat7 over lots of dom7s in your clips. No excuses :-)
-
It isn't so obvious from the notation, but listening to that recording again the suggestion of B(7) is so strong. The sus and then downward major triad (E-F#-D#-B). So to anyone wanting to replicate this "colour" I'd suggest thinking VII7
So.... |Dm7 |Dm7 B7 |Cmaj7 |
-
Just to take this discussion a bit further (in the spirit of exploration, not argument), I'd add this. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
The theory in this case seem to be able to adroitly explain the use of any note. Unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible), that isn't helpful either. Theory is useful when it gives you something you can apply. So, for example, playing a tritone arp is a useful application of theory. It gives you an idea of what to play and it will probably sound good.
But, in this case, the theoretical explanations are, to my way of thinking, convoluted to the point of being useless (to me, at least) And, it is highly unlikely that Wes approached it that way. But, to be fair, I know good players who tell me that they have discovered sounds based on theory and have been able to incorporate them into their playing. That approach has not worked well for me.
The alternative to this is accepting that any note can be used, without making the assumption that they're all equal. Breaking down a ii V I and focusing on the V, you realize that 1, 3, 5, 7 are chord tones. 6 and 9 are going to be consonant. 11 is likely to work as well, although risks making it sound more like the iim (because part of the ii V movement is C to B). Then, you can alter the fifths and/or ninths. The only note left is the nat7 which you can use, but you'd better make sure it's done within a strong melodic line.
One more point. The theory explains the use of that F# as a sub of a sub (this was posted earlier). And you can learn to think about it that way and, at some point, play an F# against a G7 as part of, say, the sub-of-sub arp. But, that won't guarantee that it's going to sound good. In fact, it's nowhere near enough. To make it sound good, you have to do what Wes did -- embed it in a strong line that relates to what went before and what came after. To my way of thinking, you might as well start there. Get some ii Vs on a backing track and start experimenting with every note of the chromatic scale. Sooner or later, you'll find something you like. Write it down. Repeat.
-
Wow, great riff DM... Thanks for sharing it! And at 3 pages, looks like it's stirred up quite the conversation. I haven't had a chance to look through everyone else's analysis yet, but just wanted to quickly throw my 2 cents into the mix. Originally Posted by dingusmingus
So I tend to think and analyze and approach playing from the standpoint of the 'melodic progression'... which a series of triads that form the contour of the melody. Sometimes they're the same as the harmonic progression, often times they aren't.
In this case I, I see this at play
Melodic Progression: || A- | B | G ||
Harmonic Progression: || D-7 | G7 | CMaj7 ||
The A minor triad over D-7 and the G major triad over CMaj7 are both super straight forward and can be found in tons of tunes and solos. The B over G7 is a little funkier. Obviously.
So using a B major triad over a C note is definitely allowable, and creates a couple of beautiful tonalities worth exploring and using. Most obviously, the B/C chord... often referred to as the CdimMaj7. This is a beautiful chord itself, but also functions beautiful as a sort of dominant to itself. CdimMaj7 resolves great to CMaj7. So we could explain that triad by saying he's just using a idimMaj7 to IMaj7 cadence. But for me, this doesn't fully explain what's going on because of that E natural note... that throws things a bit.
Another tonality that we can derive from putting a B triad over a C note is a CMaj7#11#9. In this case, the B triad isn't simply sitting on top of a C root note, it's sitting on top of a CMaj7 chord. So we're getting into polytonality here.
C-E-G-B-D#-F#
guitar voicing option: 879877 (barre on the 7th)
This chord is very different from a CdimMaj7, but they do have some pretty big similarities, and are somewhat interchangeable... at least in the sense that they can both offer a resolution to CMaj7. My starting point for improvising and composing over this very beautiful chord is to use my B major triad notes as my resolution/anchor points and then to add specific notes around that to create some tension and momentum, to get some movement going within the melody. Ironically enough, my first go-to tension note to add to the B triad in this case would be the E note, the 4 against the B triad. I choose that one first as it's the major 3rd of the CMaj7 chord that the triad is sitting on top of. So my go-to melodic structure over that tonality is a B triad with the 4th added for tension.
And cool enough, not only is this part of the phrase just simply a B major triad with the 4th added, but a couple of other cool things are happening that I notice. The phrase starts on the 4, which shows the power of beginning a line on a tension spot, as it pushing things forward towards where we're headed. Also, he actually resolves that 4 down to the major 3rd of the triad, in the same way that we would all expect to see a 4th resolve... it's delayed, hitting the 5 before dropping down, but it does get resolved. And then, if we take away the F# for a second and look at that 4 resolving down to the 3rd of the B triad, then we can actually see a really nice chromatic guide line at work that the line is built on top of. The E (tension note from the CMaj7#11#9) resolving down to the D# (resolution note of the same chord) resolving down to D (resolution note of the G triad).
Was Wes actually intellectually thinking about this stuff while playing? I haven't the slightest clue. Probably not. But the cool thing about triads and all this stuff is that the math of it adds up in the same way that the ear tends to hear it. Studying the harmonic and melodic possibilities within the melodic progression is simply a way to approach the sounds that our ears already sound beautiful... and then a way to practice them and internalize and expand on them.
So my next step would be to sit with the melodic progression and the quadratonic scales they each imply just improvise my own phrases over this 2 5 1 based on an A minor triad plus 2, a B major triad plus 4, and a G major triad plus 6.
-
As I think more about this line, I see an Fmaj7 arp and then some cells in thirds. These are full parallel between the first and last bars. That much is standard and wouldn't be interesting except for the way he alters the cell in the middle bar.
He's still got the rhythm and the general melodic contour but now the cell goes up a second and down a third. (E F# D#). The pitches are unexpected, but the rhythm and melodic contours are exactly as expected.
I'm not convinced that he ever really thought specifically about the notes to play over the G7, at least not exactly. Rather, it looks like he might have thought about this being, generally, a V-I. He approached the V with the IVmaj7 -- which is a device he used. This crossed the first bar line. Then, it may be that he started thinking about a chromatic approach down to the Cmaj. When, I first looked at it, I thought he was sliding the Fmaj7 down a fret to an Emaj9. But, I'm persuaded that he may have been thinking Db7, and used the F# as an 11th. Or, more likely, he knew the sound and knew it would work.
The CST theory may "explain" what he did, and may give a context for constructing similar lines. But, it's essential to recognize that it was the rhythmic and melodic contour that allowed it to work.
-
It's a typical turnaround: II-V-I-VI-II-V-I
He might as well have replaced that turnaround with another known one: II-VII-III-VI-II-V-I
Fits very well with his phrasing.
-
When I played the lick, I immediately thought of Dmin9 arpp, or chord tones of it in the first 2 bars, just the shape of it( and the notes of course). Anyone else would think like that? I see very complex explanations, but I'm not sure it would work for me.
The F# on G7 sounds so cool in this lick, even though it shouldn't work in theory, but I think the placement of that note is crucial- off beat eight note, like a quick stab, makes you jump like hey, what just happened?? but it's gone already and safely moved on to an 'appropriate' note.
It may not be such a good idea to play that F# on a downbeat if we are to use it though.
-
My point is that stating that anything will work isn't an organizational framework. If you go about the process you're talking about at the end of your post , you are organizing things in several ways. You can organize rhythmically , melodically or harmonically etc. You can do all of that by ear, writing things down which "work " together. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Classifying and somehow naming your "things which work" would be just an additional step of vocabulary usage. That's all theory is. Great players who supposedly didn't "know theory" mostly had a very highly developed organization for what they played.
Again, I just think that "organizing" musically around the idea of "12 notes" is like "organizing" writing around the idea of 26 letters. You still work within limitation frameworks as a beginning writer. You learn to organize things in specific ways and use grammar within certain limits. In the end, there are of course no real "rules". But that's not the STARTING point, nor is it a framework for actually discussing what's happening in a written work among nerdy people who like to analyze such things.
To do so, you have to come up with some kind of vocabulary or theory for making associations between things. This kind of abstraction, being able to apply broad concepts and make associations between very specific works is an important aspect of what makes us HUMAN I think. I mean, what else are we going to do on a Saturday morning? :-)
-
Just a quick follow up to my last post. So for me, the theoretical analysis is helpful in terms of showing me the blueprints hiding behind the music... why it works and sounds good... and then offers me insight into how I can internalize that same movement into my own lines and find a sense of improvisational freedom within this new way of structuring the melody.
So I sat and messed with thinking of this ii V I in C major with the melodic progression I listed above:
|| (A-)/2 | (B)/4 | (G)/6 | % ||
^^^
That's A minor with the 2nd added, B major with the 4th added, and G major with the 6th added.
It only took a few minutes to really start to feel out this movement... beautiful way of navigating a simple ii V I. I went ahead and wrote out just a few of the phrases I came upon doing this. I could be adding chromatic passing notes between any of these notes, or added other tension notes to create a little more movement. But I stuck to sharing ONLY phrases that stick strictly to the 4 note melodic structures. And honestly, I think they get the point across just fine. I think if I played any of these at a gig, nobody would kick me off the bandstand for only working with 4 notes per chord... I don't think it's very obvious.
They're all very different from Wes' original riff, but still developing around the same melodic contour. Give them a try, I'd be curious what you guys think of them.
Last edited by jordanklemons; 02-18-2017 at 06:09 PM.
-
My point is that a theory is only useful if it makes some useful predictions. It should also be parsimonious - a word used as a technical term to suggest that a good theory is as simple as possible (and no simpler).
When we have a post-hoc explanation for every possible note, then, it seems to me the theory is like your alphabet soup. You can play any note of the chromatic scale and we have nifty explanation for it, if we like the way it sounds.
If you can "explain" any note, what is the advantage of the theory? In fact, of all the explanations that the forum has suggested, which one(s) actually tell you what you need to know to make as good a line as Wes', without it being the same line?
I'm pretty sure that none of chord/arp explanations can do that. And, that's because Wes' line doesn't work because it's sub-of-sub or whatever (although I thought the Dbsus explanation had considerable merit - more than mine, in fact). My way of explaining Wes' use of F# and D# is this. He constructed a line with a completely obvious rhythm and an equally obvious melodic contour. Then, he found a way of putting into that framework some notes that the ear will ordinarily struggle to accept.
How can you develop that on your own? Get a backing track of ii V's and play 4 bar phrases. Make bars 1 and 2 set up a rhythmic and melodic contour of some kind and the, in bar 3, find a way to incorporate all possible notes (a few at a time), with a focus on those that create tension. Continue the original motif in bar 4 using non-tensions.
I think understanding it this way is more likely to result in improved play than talking about CST.Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 02-18-2017 at 05:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
2 new & excellent Jazz Comping Truefire...
Today, 10:22 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions