-
Hey Reg, great stuff in your videos. I'm digging all your videos. Such practical and inspiring lessons. You're a great teacher, I'm hoping for more.
-
01-24-2011 12:32 AM
-
OK... so what else could be going on... How do the two sections tie together... what did Jobin use as the thread, harmonically. You figured out the constant structure movement of a standard chord pattern.. most composers try and not make their music so mechanical and try and have structure on more than one or two levels... It's like a counterpoint thing... the more balanced each line is with the other lines the more balances the overall composition becomes....These things tend to become apparent...especially when your simply making analysis. What goes bye in 30 seconds can take days of analysis. As I said most composers would take mechanical harmonic patterns and look for structural methods to deceptively camouflage the obviousness of those common harmonic patterns, something to give them a personal character with coherent levels of interaction to more than simply the progression there a part of. Why do some versions of GFI use Eb- and some use Gbmaj. You don't hear the line cliches. Do you think the intervalic leaps of melody have any connections with the choice of constant structure movement. Does any of this make the tune better or worse. Keep digging there's more... Have fun... Reg
-
Thanks Frank... Reg
-
Diatonic substitution. It's pretty standard practice. I don't know which was original, but they are such vanilla and quotidian subs that it may be a moot point.
Originally Posted by Reg
You mean the chromatic lines you stick on the dominant chords? Sure, I "hear" them but they are not part of the original tune so how can we call them structural? I actually play those too, but I don't see how we can call the revelatory as to the structure of the tune. Originally Posted by Reg
Perhaps we can say that they sound so solid to our ear because they end up on the root of the previous chord - the only chord (in my chromatic sequence analysis) to which that chord has anything resembling a functional relationship. I kind of hinted at something similar when I was talking about the relation of Aug6 chords to the tonic - the third of one is the root of the other. The line progression just brings that out a little. But that doesn't really make it structural.
I think that it add a lot. And I think that that is enough. If you can find a "deeper" layer, please reveal it. Yes, "what goes bye in 30 seconds can take days of analysis" - if we are talking about the development section of a Beethoven sonata. But this is just a melody and a chord progression - the nature of a lead sheet. I think that he accomplishes a lot in 12 bars with a rather sophisticated harmonic technique. Originally Posted by Reg
You're embellishments of the chords are by definition surface elements and are not structural. Even if you could show them as original, they would be one of the first things to go in Schenkerian reduction. I'm not saying that I don't like it, just that it's not structural - nothing that we add on top of the chords can be, by definition.
I think that we've gone about as far as we can with the harmonic analysis. I really can't see us getting any deeper than the revelation of the chromatic sequencing. True, there are other ways to analyze other than harmonic structure - thematic, rhythmic, etc. - but harmonically, this is pretty deep in. And the piece isn't really long enough to connect it meaningfully to anything on a larger scale.
I'm not sure I understand your question, "Do you think the intervalic leaps of melody have any connections with the choice of constant structure movement." They are exact chromatic sequences - they are by definition related - exactly.
Perhaps you're asking if there is "meaning" to his choice of intervals transposition in the sequence - the m3 and m2. But since the melody is short and repetitive, it is clear that it doesn't have a relationship to it. Really, with only two intervals to go on, it would be pure speculation and would be more DaVinci code than analysis. That is, unless you can find some quote from Jobim, enlightening us on that choice. But again, since he's trying to build tension here (before the 4 bar release at the end of the bridge, I don't think that he wants it to be perfectly logical.) One could say that his choice of a large leap followed by a small leap is consistent with Medieval CP practice, but that would just be chauvinistic speculation and would be illusory.
You seem to be hinting that you know of some deeper meaning - please share. But I'm putting even myself to sleep now, so time for bed.
Peace,
Kevin
-
"You're embellishments of the chords are by definition surface elements and are not structural. Even if you could show them as original, they would be one of the first things to go in Schenkerian reduction. I'm not saying that I don't like it, just that it's not structural - nothing that we add on top of the chords can be, by definition."
Kevin are you really saying the root, triad or even 7th chord is the only method of implying structure harmonically...
I can see you very happy with the term chromatic sequences... but IMO better suited would be transposition, modulating, modified... anything but chromatic, which has such a specific meaning, and clearly the transposition of the chord pattern is not chromatic, your beginning to sound like what you called my si-fi collection. Chromatic sequencing is a common term used with composition practice, with many examples in all music. But if it works for you great, I'll bring the analysis up next time I play tune... so we'll get it correct. Best Reg
-
Typically not. Unless they can be shown to be structural. It is not the paint that holds a building up, but it's framework. The paint and drywall has to be peeled away before you can see the underlying structure. Similarly, embellishments are (by definition) not structural. I take it they never taught Schenker at Berklee? Originally Posted by Reg
Because it is a "chromatic sequence"!!!! It is a harmonic and melodic pattern that is repeated 3 times in exact chromatic transposition. Play through the tab example that I give and tell me that it's not. This isn't even theory any more, it's simple math. It is an exact chromatic transposition.Sorry, there are elements here that are debatable, but this is not one of them. You can debate it's relevance, but the fact that if you change the first chord to Ebm7, then the first two bars are repeated twice more in an exact chromatic transposition. If you can't see that then you just aren't playing through the example. Bars 5-8 are exactly the same as bars 1-4 but everything is moved up exactly a m3. And bars 9-12 are again, exactly up a m2. This is a perfect example of a chromatic sequence. It could be an example in a textbook. Sorry, but 2+2=4 is not debatable. Originally Posted by Reg
If you can say that that is not a chromatic sequence, then you either aren't looking or don't understand the term.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Hey Kevin...all kids are aware of Schenker and layer analysis... but as for your use of chromatic sequence... what would you in your great wisdom call a sequence of harmonic and melodic material that modulates or transposes up in 1/2 steps or chromatically? Please no explanation of your answer... just an answer... I understand you can't help yourself... go ahead let it out... Your analogy for defining harmonic structure ...explains a lot, I have a greater understanding of why your playing/hearing and understanding of music are so.... I'm not sure how to put it... I don't know, how would you explain your self to people in the jazz music world... not students, professionals... you know people that already have their degrees, spent years doing what your trying to do... then again what are you trying to... I've known Mark for years... would like to meet him and explain in person how his books suck and... I don't quite remember how you ripped his perspective... Best Reg
-
First, everything in the universe is "related" to everything else in the universe. When I suggest the absence of a relationship, that means the absence of a significant, meaningful, or useful relationship; something that would make simply taking the obvious Gb ionian and Lydian) scales that have been mentioned here an oversight. Which of the three notes he uses over the chord, shows Jobim is channeling the Neopolitan magic? Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Second, since you like these moot tangents, that it is an N6 is very deniable. You said it yourself, it doesn't resolve; and it has an extra note, (and it's not in the first inversion - a lesser defect).
Third, the good thing about jazz theory-slang is that Neopolitan Sixth, Italian Sixth, German Sixth, French Sixth are meaningless distinctions. In jazz, they aren't even 6ths. In the key of C, we just chalk them up as some type of D with a b5. And use them interchangeably to suit our mood.
It's hard to believe you missed that. It's easy to hear the same four-note line repeated; and unless you play six-string voicings, guitar chord-melody uses the same finger pattern.I have tried for years to figure out what he was thinking and with that seed crystal of the "Ebm7" I finally do! This is amazing.
I am going to put these two things togther. Is it possible that getting lost in the weeds of GbD as N6, caused to you miss the harmonic equivalence (GbD and Eb-9) and melodic paralellism? It's rhetorical.
You don't have to answer.
Last edited by Aristotle; 01-24-2011 at 06:21 PM.
-
Sorry, I misunderstood because of you seemed to be confused about the difference between structural elements and added embellishment. I'm not saying that your chromatic line progression is not nice, just that it is not original and is not structural - it's not an insult. If it is such and "important" part of the song, why didn't Jobim think of it? Originally Posted by Reg
Too bad he didn't figure out your little line progression, his career might have gone somewhere.
The bridges are at 1:30 and 3:15, to save some time. He does several times play the Maj7 chromatic passing note over those chords (8->7->b7) but not your "structural" line progression. Again, I like it - I play it. It's just not part of the structure of the tune. It's just something that coincidentally you and I both like to do to those chords as an embellishment.
Chromatic sequence. You didn't understand when I said before? Apparently I didn't say it enough times. Originally Posted by Reg
Thanks, I will. But it is not my definition. It is the definition of musicians. We learn it in the first year of music theory. I had said that I was talking about a 20th century classical concept so I thought that it was clear that I was talking about the narrower jazz definition of sequence. Since you're too lazy to look it up, here is how Groves (as close as we get to the bible in music theory/history.) Originally Posted by Reg
The melodic/harmonic sequence is less common in jazz. I diatonic example would be the first six bars of "Autumn Leaves." The first two bars (chords and melody, including the melodic pick-up) are transposed diatonically down the interval of a second. Then, it happens again, down a diatonic second. The first six bars are just a two bar sequence that is iterated three times, the interval of transposition being a diatonic second down. These types of transposition are extremely common in classical music and they are commonly used to modulate. Just listen to just about any Bach fugue and you'll often hear him sequence to move from key to key. The melody, chords, all the notes, everything is transposed diatonically, just like in "Autumn Leaves."A melodic or polyphonic idea consisting of a short figure or motif stated successively at different pitch levels, so that it moves up or down a scale by equidistant intervals. It may be true to the diatonicism [diatonic sequence] of the passage or may involve a literal transposition [chromatic sequence].
The chromatic sequence is less common. But basically it is the same thing as the diatonic, except that now the transposition is "literal," it is an exact chromatic transposition. It shows up sometimes in 20th century music (maybe before, but I can't think of any examples - I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few 19th century examples.) A good jazz example of a chromatic sequence? Well ... the first 12 bars of the bridge of "Ipanena."
These terms are well understood in the classical world. Sometimes they use the terms "tonal" and "real" (depending on what textbook you use) but everyone understands. I guess I get frustrated. Most of the jazz players that I meet that consider themselves knowledgeable are well versed in music history. Most of the best musicians I've been played with - we're just as likely to discuss Mahler as Monk. Most of them have a voracious appetite for this stuff. I'm a little stunned to have stepped into the middle of so many people that think that theory and history began in 1920. I'm sure that there plenty of people here who do know this stuff but for some reason (perhaps wisely) just let the inmates run the asylum.
If we were smarter, we'd be fighting to get jazz considered an branch of classical music. What, you think that classical police are going to come and tell you not to swing? Their going to tell you you can't improvise? Do they tell harpsichordists not to improvise or play notes inegales (swinging, sort of)? No, they encourage it. No, aligning ourselves with our true heritage, we'd get the respect we deserve. But then all these kids would all be expected to learn to read.
Schenkerian analysis is not some fringe theory - it is the basis of most music analysis (at least structural) in the US and much of Europe. I don't think that it is the "greatest thing ever" - but it is hard to find a general theory book that isn't based on it - at least not in this country. Many now are blatantly so. You can choose to mock it if you wish, but you are not mocking me, but most of the musical establishment. One friend described his experience at a major university music program as "constantly trying to avoid being swallowed up by the 'cult of Schenker'" - and he likes Schenker! Even people who don't like it at least respect it and see that it has some value. But that's what you do isn't it? When you get backed into a corner, rather than admit that you didn't understand something, you just take a cheap, thinly veiled shot at my playing. Is that how every discussion with you must end? Originally Posted by Reg
If you don't like structural analysis, that's fine. But then don't challenge someone else's comments on structure, inserting your own structural interpretation. Again, I'm not aware of any structural analysis that would consider embellishments as structural - quite the opposite. Structural analysis is an X-ray, it shows you the bones of the piece. You want to talk about the clothes on the patient, and I'm talking about the bones. But you got offended when I said that your comment about the clothes (the line progression, a surface embellishment) were irrelevant when talking about the skeleton. I'm not saying that talking about the bones is more important or better than talking about the clothes, it just wasn't what I wanted to talk about. I didn't criticize you for talking about the the surface elements, I just said that I wanted to avoid that so I could focus on something else: structural elements. Both are valuable discussions. But your specialty is "play this scale and here's a cool lick." Mine is more theoretical and structural. Why do you have to throw a hissy fit just because I wanted to look at the tune from a different perspective than you?
But if you forgot what a sequence is (in all its meanings), that's cool. I just don't know why you have to argue about it. Wouldn't have been easier just to look it up? So many people make things so difficult here. If they encounter something they don't know, they just make up an answer or piece one together from scraps of misunderstood factoids and then try to defend it to the death. That is so much more work than reading a basic freshman/sophomore theory book and reading a little history. Jazz theory didn't begin with Jelly Roll Morton - it began with Pythagoras. So many of you guys seem to think that jazz is this mystical thing that sprang from the ground from magic beans. No, it was an extension of European music that was adapted by Americans (predominantly African-Americans, especially initially) and was heavily influenced by certain key elements of African tradition. But to ignore the heritage of jazz that led up to it would be like a painter who thinks that Picasso had nothing to do with what came before him. It's just myopic. I've just never encountered such a vocal group of jazz musicians that were so proud of their myopia. (Again, I'm sure there are others that do know this stuff, but they seem to remain silent.)
You complain that my posts are too long, then you challenge a simple definition that any graduating community college music student would understand (that's where I learned it anyway.) Wouldn't have saved us both some time if you'd just opened a music dictionary?
Originally Posted by Reg
When did I "rip" anyone named Mark? And I'm the one taking things OT? But I guess creating a distraction is easier than admitting you didn't know something or made a mistake.
So, you're going to tell some guy named Mark that I said something bad about him so he'll beat me up. When, after school? Behind the gym building? Boy, I hope Suzie Krenshaw doesn't see me get a wedgie, I wanted to ask her to the Harvest Dance.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 01-25-2011 at 05:30 AM.
-
You didn't "suggest the absence of a relationship." You said, "Don't tell me, I am not the one trying to explain the Gb as an N6." pejoratively. If you'd said, "It could be explained as an N6, but I don't think that that is the best explanation because I hear them as harmonically unrelated," then I would have understood. But instead, you were mocking me for daring to apply the N6 to jazz. You're trying to back-pedal by changing the tone of what you'd said. Originally Posted by Aristotle
Jazz uses extended harmony. It is not a surprise that the melody is not restrained to the base triad. N6 melodies do not have to stress the scale's b6. As it is, the root and major 7th are good notes. The 13ths could be explained as a lower neighbor and passing tone. The melody of the first chord of the tune is even more extended, does that mean that the first chord is not really an FMaj7? Originally Posted by Aristotle
Look, all I said was that is sounds like an N6 and that it's a reasonable interpretation. And it doesn't need to resolve - that is the point of back-relation. It is common in classical music, a language with which Jobim as familiar. I'm not saying that this is Mozart's N6, but it is a valid application of an N6 in the modern harmonic language. And that's how I hear it, along with the #11. My ear, perhaps because it so soon follows two bars of FMaj7, hears it in relation to that, instead of as a direct modulation. If you don't, that's cool. Why do you have to get offended because I hear it differently? You guys work way too hard to find things to be insulted about.
First of all, if you guys want jazz theory to be respected you're going to have to get over this "slang" thing. Secondly, I would agree with you that the Augmented 6th chords are essentially meaningless in jazz, simply because they rarely (if ever) function as such - they don't resolve the correct way - they don't sound like Aug6 chords. To me the tritone sub of a secondary dominant is an explanation that works better for jazz. Note that when I mentioned it in this thread, I said, "To my ear it is a bVI7. Note that it's 3rd is the root of the F#m7, just like an Aug6 chord would be. [emphasis added]" Note that I am not saying that it is an Aug6 chord, just that it has the same intervallic relationship with the tonic; the 3rd of the Aug6 is the root of the tonic. Please read more closely next time. Originally Posted by Aristotle
But the N6 does often function the same in jazz as it does in classical. (As you mentioned, the fact that jazz doesn't put it in first inversion is no big deal - neither do some classical guys.) If it's the geographical names that bother you, then don't use them - many classical guys have stopped too. Aldwell and Schachter call it a "Phrygian II" and label it "bII." But the label is just a label - the function is still the same. And I've heard plenty of jazz people use the term "Neapolitan." But the label is just a label. If we called it a "Peanut Lawnmower Chord" - would that change the function? I like the geographical terms - they're quaint and colorful.
For the record, it appears that Tom is playing the GbMaj7 there so I would say that he is being impishly ambiguous here, disguising the 12 bars of harmonic parallelism. As I've said before, he is a master of disguising standard harmonic devices and making them seem "difficult to explain."
I'd always heard it as a melodic sequence. But with the realization the the GbMaj7 could be thought of as a sub for Ebm7, then it a perfect chromatic sequence. The melodic sequence is obvious, and I'd seen that bars 9-12 were also a harmonic transposition transposition of 5-8. But until I could see that first chord as Ebm7, it was not apparent to me that it was a full three iteration melodic and harmonic sequence. And the fact that in 25 years of studying jazz, I'd never seen it taught that way in its entirety, (that it was a full three iteration melodic and harmonic sequence) - I think I shouldn't too bad. I didn't hear anyone else mentioning it. I'm sure I'm not the first person on the planet to come up with this, but I feel a certain amount of pride in seeing it for myself. Maybe everyone in the world already sees that as a 12-bar melodic/harmonic chromatic sequence = if they are, they are keeping very quiet about it. Originally Posted by Aristotle
No, there are no weeds. N6s are not confusing for me. I labeled it as such - you seem to be confusing labeling and function. If I'd called it a tonic or a bII, it wouldn't have changed anything. Again, you seem to be missing the point that I was making - any first year jazz student can see the melodic parallelism (not quite the same thing as a sequence, but OK, I'll play.) The revelation to me, was the melodic and harmonic parallelism that included all 12 bars - not just melodic parallelism for 12 bars and harmonic parallelism for the last eight - but a classic chromatic modulatory sequence for a full 12 bars. Again, if that was so obvious, why didn't anyone mention it? Can you show me where you pointed it out? Or anyone? True, you all like to about practical aspects like scale choice, etc., that is all pretty self-evident to me (or easy to figure out by listening) and I usually avoid those discussion. But the OP was asking about analyzing and that to me also involves structural analysis, something that some of us enjoy. If you don't like talking about structural analysis and trying to get into the head of the composer. Some of us like theory beyond "What scale do I play?" If you don't like to do it, then don't, but why kill my buzz? Originally Posted by Aristotle
That's a cop-out. That's what people on this forum say when they want to get in the last shot. They hope is that it will make the responder look like the bad guy. You misrepresented what I'd said, and what you'd said, and then apparently completely missed the point that I was trying to make. You knew I was going to respond. Originally Posted by Aristotle
It's rhetorical. You don't have to answer.
Really, if people want me to stop with the long posts, the stop misquoting me, misrepresenting my words, fighting that your subjective interpretation is the only one, and fighting over misinterpretations of elementary terms than can be found in any music dictionary. (I'm not necessarily addressing that list entirely at you, Aristotle.) You guys start an argument and then blame me because I argue back. You guys give me a laundry list of misquotes, misinterpretation, and misinformation and expect me to respond in twenty words. Sorry, but not every question can be answered with, "Just play the altered scale."
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 01-25-2011 at 05:24 AM.
-
You are very argumentative. I believe that is a good thing, but IMO you need to work on following the sequence of a conversation. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
1. I said there has been some over-analysis.
2. Mark was wondering how I could make such a comment, since I used the Do-Re-Mi's. Egads! Not the Do-Re-Mi's.
3. I said to Mark, I thought the syllables were kiddie stuff; especially compared to such obscura as Neopolitan, German,etc., Sixths - which in jazz aren't either:
- a VI-chord (built on the 6th degree of a scale), or
- a 6th-chord (a triad with an added 6th).
That's why I keep typing out "Sixth." In classical, these "sixths" are part of a "figured bass," and indicates the 6 indicates the first inversion of a chord (as there is an interval of a 6th between the bass and another note in the chord). Most classical Sixths on this forum would be an altered II-V. And thank God for the simplcity of that slang.
To the extent I had a "challenge" for you, it was for an explanation why everyone's simple treatment of the Gb as a new tonic or tonality (either Lydian or Ionian) is insufficient - because of vaunted Neopolitan Sixth. I am still waiting, but not holding my breath.
[The other guys can speak for themselves. I don't give a hoot, or even have a clue what you think "respected" means.if you guys want jazz theory to be respected
Part of jazz theory is for us to communicate with each other. It's lingo: partially slang, and part jargon. That's all. I post words like "Lydian" in here, not because I really believe there is a mode at work, but because it communicates a collection of seven pitches in one word. And it works. "Respect" for jazz theory? I'll leave conquering that hill for you.
I don't care how your posts are. If you can connect "Neopolitan Sixth" with why Gb Ionian and Gb Lydian are not adequate ways to explain the inside pitch collections for the bridge of GFI, go ahead. Blow man, blow. If not, it's fair to call it unecessary, over-analysis.Really, if people want me to stop with the long posts, the stop misquoting me, misrepresenting my words,Last edited by Aristotle; 01-25-2011 at 11:02 AM.
-
lol
Frank Zappa said
Frank Zappa saidWriting about Music is like Dancing about Architecture
Shut up and play your guitarLast edited by fep; 01-25-2011 at 12:11 PM.
-
Kevin...have you ever heard of sequences described as;
"Tonal and Real"
Modulatory or chromatic
You might still be stuck in your 1st year music understanding... check out compositional usage and explanations... which is what were talking about...right...The rest... I don't really care .... we disagree on just about everything... you seem to loose concepts and get lost in examples...you have this my way or the highway mentality... Have you ever studied with real composers, not academically, been commisioned to compose, score for film, big bands charts. Do you have a collection of traditional compositions in the standard forms... Most of the composers I know personally are very easy people to dialect or debate with. With working musicians... it's a little different, but the few who are somewhat arrogant... well they can back it up. Anyway lets move on... your right on all issues... I'm wrong.. OK Best Reg
-
That is of course subjective. I don't think that there is such a thing, not when you are trying to understand something. I'm not saying that you must to think of these when you are playing, but when sitting back and analyzing, this is great stuff. Originally Posted by Aristotle
By what authority do you unilaterally declare them as "not jazz"? By what measure are they "obscura"? (These are not "obscure" terms but are quite common in theory.) Are we going to abandon jazz theory that comes from classical? Does that include "ii-V-I"? How about the mode names"? Tertian harmony - that is a unique feature of Western music invented for classical music? "Secondary dominants"? "Modal mixture"? It's hard to find anything that didn't come from classical - they exist, but it's a short list. Originally Posted by Aristotle
No, you seem to draw an arbitrary line. And whether I talk about ii-V-I or or N6, they are just labels referring to functions. If you have a better label for a bII chord, please make your case.
And for the record, the "6" only refers to inversion on the N6 (not that is must be inverted, but it used to be commonly.) The "German 6" you refer to should be "German Augmented 6th," since it refers the enharmonically spelled 7th, not the inversion. (You keep leaving out the word "augmented" as if they "6th" there is the same as the "6th" in N6 - no, they're different.)
But again they're just labels. I like the N6 label, it comes in handy. I can't think of a better way to describe that EbMaj7 in "Little Sunflower." The penultimate chord (the BMaj7) in "Up Jumped Spring" is another classic example. Whether you label that as N6 or Neapolitan or Phrygian II or bII doesn't matter - it's a label. What's important is the function. And that GbMaj7 on the bridge of GFI, it sounds to me like N6 function and looks like it on the page, so I label it as such. If you have a better label, then make your case.
And ultimately, you seem to dislike figured bass notation for inversion in jazz chords. I agree 100%, I was not doing a FB analysis. I called it "N6" because that is what it is commonly called regardless of inversion. And I would go even further - if you could see my posts on a classical guitar newsgroup you'd see my argument that FB notation is outmoded for classical notation too - because it's based on the pre-Ramauian idea that chords are built off the bass note (not the "root".) But that's a rant for another time. But they're just labels.
Geez, you need to reread what I said. I didn't say N6 was the only way to analyze it. I didn't say it was the best. I just said that it was the way that I hear it so I label it as such. I went out of my way to reiterate that you guys can label it how you want. I was just expressing how hear it. (Not a theory argument, but a practical one.) Do I have to bend over backwards and do sommersaults to avoid offending you guys? I just disagree with some of you guys and you freak out. Get over it. Originally Posted by Aristotle
You guys need to stop asking me to define words that are in the dictionary. Originally Posted by Aristotle
Didn't I just define them? Please pay attention. Originally Posted by Reg
What are you talking about? Here's how our discussions usually go: Originally Posted by Reg
- I try to make a theoretical case (either in parallel or in contrast to you.)
- You get confused about some term and then start trying to argue against it, usually inserting some bizarre terminology of your own that no one else has ever heard of. I suspect it is a way of pretending to be more knowledgeable than you are. It is like pulling teeth to get you to define your terms. (I readily define any of mine, the ones that aren't easy to find anyway.)
- When you get challenged on that, you start asking ridiculous questions asking me to define things that can be found in a music dictionary in an attempt to distract from your own misunderstandings.
- You attack my playing. As if playing and analysis are the same thing.
- You make a video playing a bunch of licks, claiming that it is analysis.
- You attack my education. You belittle what I'm saying and hint at other higher stuff that you never actually define. You say that I am "stuck in [my] 1st year music" (despite the fact that I'm finishing up a masters and am applying to doctoral programs.) And yet you never define in what way. It's always so vague with you - there's always something that you like to pretend that you're holding back - but it's just a mirage because you are too cowardly to share it. Why is your "play this scale" approach "deeper" than a structural analysis? It's not. It is more practical, yes - I never said otherwise. But that is not the only important thing for some of us.
- You diminish my education, and imply that you are seeing something that I am not. But you never actually define something. It's like a 5-year old that says, "I have a purple dragon under my bed but you can't see it. You don't have one so I'm better than you." I lay all my cards on the table (hence the long posts) and you keep everything hidden and expect us to believe you. What can you possibly mean by "check out compositional usage and explanations" - isn't that exactly what I was doing? You never really say what it is that I'm not seeing, it's Reg's secret purple dragon.
As I've said, if your pathological hatred of anything hypothetical bothers you so much, then keep it to yourself. In this thread, I wasn't even disagreeing with you - I just wanted to look at something else. But it seems that if I don't bow down and kiss the feet of Reg, he's going to go on his anti-theory rant. You are just so easy to set off. I wasn't even disagreeing with you on this thread until you started trying to attack my structural analysis. You and I were looking at two completely separate aspects of the piece.
Can you show me one place that I got lost? Just one? The examples are for people who argue with me about the terms because they're to lazy to pick up a music dictionary. Maybe I should try the "You have no idea what you are talking about, go do your homework" approach - it certainly would save typing. Originally Posted by Reg
On definitions, yes. "Yellow" is a color. That is true by definition. If you try to say that it is a fish, I will tell you you are wrong. You can have your own opinion on what color is best or how to use them, but the fact that it is a color is not debatable. The fact that those 12 bars are a chromatic sequence is not debatable. You can decide that it is useless information. You can decide that it is a 1 in a billion coincidence. But it's definition is not debatable. Ignore it if you want - I never said, "Reg must admit that my analysis was best." I just dared to do a separate analysis from yours and you went into a hissy fit. Originally Posted by Reg
I think that you have a very twisted idea of what we do at a university. Almost all of my teachers are active composers and/or performers (jazz and classical.) Do you think that we sit around staring at our desks pretending to study "hypothetical" music? You've lost me here. Originally Posted by Reg
As am I. Except when people who don't seem to know what they are talking about start attacking fundamental definitions and start making something up to hide their inadequate education. Originally Posted by Reg
Again, I was fine doing my one thing, doing the structural analysis, when you started in with the attacks on basic analysis and misusing terminology in order to pretend to diminish my analysis, then I started in with the mega-posts. I had said absolutely nothing negative about what you'd said before you started launching in on me. Disagree with me it you want but do it with correct definitions and information and not with these childish distractions.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 01-25-2011 at 03:00 PM.
-
Actually, that quote has been attributed to many people, a clear sign that it's apocryphal. Originally Posted by fep
Alan P. Scott - Talking about Music...
It's cute, but just because it's cute, doesn't make it true. I could easily say, "Writing about Food is like Dancing about Football." It's just a little pseudo-platitude to diminish discourse, whoever said it. And if you really believe that, then why are you on a guitar forum?
And ironically, I did once see a ballet inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright - it wasn't bad. I wonder if the critics say, "Dancing about architecture is like writing about music."
Peace,
Kevin
-
Until you can connect your never-ending Neopolitan nonsense to some note selection that wasn't already offered by people treating the Gb as a new tonic (in 100,000 words or less), then it is not subjective. It is fact. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
For a guy who just claimed to have been misquoted, I notice you put something in quotes I didn't say. If you could read and interpret betterr, you would be worth refuting.By what authority do you unilaterally declare them as "not jazz"?
You really don't know?By what measure are they "obscura"?
ZZZ...It's hard to find anything that didn't come from classical - they exist, but it's a short list.
-
[quote=Aristotle;119505]Until you can connect your never-ending Neopolitan nonsense to some note selection that wasn't already offered by people treating the Gb as a new tonic (in 100,000 words or less), then it is not subjective. It is fact.
It is not non-sense. And I wasn't offering the N6 label of a tool for note selection. It is functional analysis. You are confusing it with the "just tell me what scale to play" approach. There is more to theory than "note-choice." If you don't care about it, fine. But I don't see the need to mock people who want to look for deeper ideas.
Hmm, where would I have gotten the idea that you said something like that? Hmm, maybe it was here: Originally Posted by Aristotle
For a guy who just claimed to have been misquoted, I notice you put something in quotes I didn't say. If you could read and interpret betterr, you would be worth refuting. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying here. Perhaps it's a typo, it seems to fit your point (as best as I can understand it) better if you were to say "are." Am I correct in remembering that English is not your first language? That's cool. Maybe there is something being confused in translation, but if I understood your mean, I apologize. But some of your sentences take a couple of readings to get your meaning. Originally Posted by Aristotle
No. "Obscure" means difficult to see. They are not difficult to see. I'm sorry if your musical training hasn't prepared you to be able to see a bII chord. But for most of us, it's pretty simple. It's easy to see - the opposite of "obscure." I don't mean to be petty, but the fact that you think that the "6" in N6 and Ger.6 mean the same thing and the fact that you think that an N6 is difficult to see tells me that you haven't had much formal musical training, at least not in classical theory. That's cool, we all come from different places. But why the need to mock people who have that background and find value in applying it? Originally Posted by Aristotle
You really don't know? Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
The fact that a GbMaj7 can be labeled an N6 in the key of F is not obscure. For anyone with even basic theory training it would be the first guess. You see it as a direct modulation and therefore has no relation to the F - that's fine. How many times do I have to say that you can interpret it that way if you wish? I just hear it differently. I hear it in relation to the F (as many do) and you started having a freak-out fest about my labeling (which is standard labeling for such chords.) Again, I'll say it for the 50th time - I'm not saying that you must call it an N6 (or bII pivot, or whatever), just that it is a possible interpretation.
So, you either don't know the meaning of the word "obscure" or your having difficult with basic functional analysis. I don't care which, but please get your facts straight before going into attack mode.
What a cogent and well thought out response. Originally Posted by Aristotle
ZZZ... Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
When you guys resort to childish mockery, that's when I know that my points are unassailable.
But why would the origins of jazz be a boring topic? My point is that jazzers like to assume that little of jazz comes from the European tradition, when in fact most of it does - jazz far more resembles classical music than it does anything that came out of Africa. True, we stress the African and African-American contributions because they are what are different, but it is inescapable that most core elements of jazz comes from the European tradition. We just tend to ignore them because Westerners tend to assume that all music has chord progression - again, that was mainly a European thing.
True, it should be new thread, but why the need to mock it? Maybe I'll start a thread on it. It would be nice to have some more discussions on here that don't boil down to "What scale do I use?"
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 01-25-2011 at 05:51 PM.
-
Well, guys, at least this thread has made me look up "Neapolitan Sixth". I used to think it was the deluxe version of this:
-
Look at more definitions... There's more in groves, check out Harvards, Read how Persichetti , Dallin, Piston, or how any composer explains the use of transposition, modulation and sequence with or with out systematic modification... see the difference between "TONAL and REAL"... then read more about chromatic ... If any type of sequence or any other type of repetition device is used it is either Tonal or Real... there are different intervals of repetition, modulation, transposition, embellishment and transformation... chromatic is one of them... and means by the interval of a simitone.
The sequence( your explanation of melodic and harmonic pattern) from GFI is not chromatic movement Eb to F#(Gb) to G is not chromatic movement... Reg
-
[quote=ksjazzguitar;119519]
Yup. Originally Posted by Aristotle
Even with you misreading my post, I don't see the problem.No. "Obscure" means difficult to see.
From Merriam Webster, on line - obscure
relatively unknown (remote, secluded, not prominent or famous)
Example: Neopolitan Sixth in a jazz forum is an obscure reference. I searched the forum. The 5-6 times it appears, people are indicating it is some obscure term, because they don't remember exactly what it is.
So, the word works. But the real joke is, I didn't write "obscure."
Isn't there a saying? Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean anyone is out to get you.When you guys resort to childish mockery, that's when I know that my points are unassailable.
FTR, you haven't made a relevant Neopolitan point, yet. You still haven't connected Neopolitan Sixth to note selction for the Gb.Last edited by Aristotle; 01-25-2011 at 07:32 PM.
-
Or a type of pizza. Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
What did you think it was when all he was posting was N6? Or was that too obscure?
-
Once again, Reg, you throw out a bunch of names and terms, just throwing them together at random. Specifically what am I wrong about? Specifically what did I misexplain? Originally Posted by Reg
OMG. Really?!?!?! Are you this misinformed? So, you think that "chromatic transposition" means that it's transposed by a semitone? The meaning of "chromatic sequence" is not that it is transposed a semitone, but that all the notes are transposed by the same chromatic interval (as opposed to a diatonic interval.) This is something that you could probably find in Music Theory for Dummies. Originally Posted by Reg
Really man, if you can't understand this, then you really have no right to pretend to have a solid theory background. That's just pathetic. This isn't just a some classical thing, even jazz players know what chromatic transposition is. Heck, it's what Finale calls it.
Thanks. I was feeling guilty for thinking that you were just some old blowhard who wanted to pretend that he knew more than he did by using big words to distract people from the fact that he isn't saying much. Reg, you're a good player and are good at theory to the point of "What scale do I play?", but really, if you think that "chromatic sequence" moves in semitones, then you obviously didn't read (or pay attention) to any of the names that you listed. I defy you to show me where Piston (or anyone) says that a chromatic sequence move in semitones. Man, is this a joke? Please tell me that was a joke. Let's all just assume it was a joke. Thanks, I'll be laughing myself to sleep tonight.
Man, there really are no limits the the somersaults you will do to avoid admitting that you didn't know something - from throwing around random terms that you don't understand, to misdirection, to whatever. You didn't understand something 7 posts ago (or whatever) and ever since you have just been desperately throwing out random terms that you don't understand trying to hide the fact. Just get over it man - there are things about analysis that you don't understand. Why? Because you don't care about analysis beyond practical questions like "What scale do I play?" I'm sure you're capable of learning. But it's going to take admitting that you don't know something and opening up a book. But I'm through pretending that you know what you're talking about. You play great, I'll give you that. You seem to have some theory knowledge. But you surround it with so much crap and misinformation and deception that no one can tell the difference. You may have these other guys fooled, but know I know that my instincts were right - you're just a poser when the question gets beyond scale choice. I through trying to understand your rambling, incoherent, incomplete sentences connected with ellipsis after ellipsis after ellipsis, using terminology that you just invent to keep everyone else fooled that you know something that they don't. You throw in a few real terms and throw some names around to fool people, but I got your number now - you're the Cliff Clavin of analysis. I may be the Frasier Crane (pompous and sometimes condescending) but at least I'm not making it up as I go along trying to fool everyone.
It may be "obscure" among many of the amateur musicians here, but I hardly think that that is the measure. There are people here asking how to build chords. And plus, I've used it several times (usually just as "N6") and people seem to understand it all the time. I use it all the time with jazz musicians and they seem to understand just fine. It's not obscure. I'm not saying that "people are fools if they don't know what an N6 is" but it is common chordal terminology among most classical and jazz people that I know. Some of the jazz people call it bII but they understand. If people don't understand, that's fine. But there is a lot of terminology that we use here that is not apparent to the beginner (don't get me started on "blue note control system" again!) If they don't know, they ask. That's what I do when I don't understand what people mean. Like when I asked Reg what "blue note control system" means to him, or I started a post to understand exactly what people meant by "linear harmony" (I had pretty good idea but wanted to get it straight.) This is how people learn. Originally Posted by Aristotle
No, you used the word "obscura" which doesn't exist in the English language. (I know because I checked the online edition of the OED, the dictionary of record for the English language.) Rather than point that out and risk you thinking that I was mocking your vocabulary, it seemed more polite to assume that you were using some cognate of "obscure." I took it as noun, and the "a" often terminates plurals in Latin, so I assumed it to mean "things that are obscure." If you have a better definition, please let us know, but it's not English, whatever it is. Originally Posted by Aristotle
Because I wasn't talking about note selection. You're like a broken record. (Customer: Hey, how come you guys don't have any pizza here? Counter Person: Dude, this is an auto repair shop. Customer: [angrily] Yeah, but where's the pizza!?! Counter Person: We fix cars here. Customer: [increasingly hostile] Yeah, but you still haven't told me where you keep the pizza!!!!!!! ... [and it goes on forever]) I was talking about functional harmony and underlying structure. You guys can't seem to get it through your head that there is more to theory than "What scale do I play?" There are more ways to analyze something than just note selection. Originally Posted by Reg
But for the record, I did speak many timed of the #11. Since we are talking about a Maj7 chord and we'd all agreed that it was Major scale or Lydian scale, I thought that it was pretty obvious what scale I was thinking. It is the same scale that N6s (or bIIs or Phrygian IIs or whatever you want to call it - they're just labels) usually take. Since scale choice seems to be all you care about, I use Lydian on N6 (or bII or Phrygian II or whatever you want to call it) chords. But that question had been answered by others and I was moving beyond that. Again, I find the "What scale do I play?" stuff kind of boring - I don't even really think in terms of scale much anyway and I find their discussion somewhat odious.
But if all you care about is note choice, then you'll probably want to skip many of my posts because I usually avoid those topics. I'm not saying that they aren't important. I'm not saying that they're less important. But I had those discussions for years and they bore me now. But things like structure and function - those get me going. If you don't like those topics, FINE - but I don't see why the anti-theory terrorists have to start pestering us whenever we want to talk about something beyond what scale to use. I didn't attack you guys, you came after me because I dared to talk about something besides scale choice.
I'm not saying that my structural/functional analysis was more important than, for example, Reg's practical analysis - I just wanted to look at something else. But you guys are sooooo insecure that you can't stand the though of anyone not looking at things with the same objective that you do. So you throw a hissy fit and start trying to pick apart anything you can find.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 01-26-2011 at 03:52 AM. Reason: typo
-
Hey Kevin the words I was, as you put "throwing out there" are standard compositional practice of embellishment and transformation of melodic and harmonic material. Repetition is one of those devices... which can be used as sequences, imitation, variation, ostinato etc... Sequence, when used with out accidentals, (change of key) is referred to as "tonal or diatonic". If on the other hand, the intervals of the model( the melodic material being sequenced ), are preserved exactly, the sequence is referred to as "real".
In a fugue , an answer is "real" if it is an exact transposition of the subject and "tonal" if certain steps are modified.
The terms "tonal and real" are also used in connection with imitation at intervals... This is called "real" if the intervals are imitated exactly, thus involving modulation, and tonal if it stays within the key.
Successive perfect fifths moving in parallel harmony up in maj. seconds , show an example of one sequential pattern moving in maj. 2nds.
Successive perfect fifths moving in parallel harmony up by half steps,(simitones) show an example of one sequential pattern moving chromatically...chromatic sequence.
Sequence with systematic modifications are a method of taking a melodic model and using sequence for movement at some interval and making the model a little harder to see with one of four standard forms of modification... original, inversion, retrograde and R.I.,(refered to as systematic modificatin), still termed "Tonal or Real".
If your referring to the a model,(melodic idea), and using sequence as a method of movement... it is "Tonal or Real". If your referring to the model as a "sequence", pretty old terminology use... but understandable, the transposition would be"Tonal or Real".
You quoted me with reference to something about Neopolitian... obviously a mistake. I don't really care... just so you know... best Reg
-
Obscura is more English than Jobim's Gbmaj7 is a Neapolitan Sixth.No, you used the word "obscura" which doesn't exist in the English I found it in several English dictionaries. Maybe you could find Neapolitan Sixth in Joe Pass's jazz books, or Abersold's, or perhaps some interview with Charlie Parker. Is any institution, like Berklee, teaching flat-five subs as Neapolitan Sixths? When you can name a few, then you will have proved that in a jazz context, Sixths are not obscure, trivia, minutia, excessive pedantry - to name a few.
That's why I am down to reading only two sentences out of every page you write.Because I wasn't talking about note selection.Last edited by Aristotle; 01-26-2011 at 07:33 AM.
-
Reg,
I'm done playing the game of pretending that you know what you're talking about. You clearly were trying explain to me that a "chromatic sequence" must transpose by a semitone - something that would drop a first year theory student on the floor laughing. (Wikipedia gets it right! - even if it wasn't obvious from context.) It's just been too many times Reg - not thus this thread but so many others. To many made up words, to many misunderstood basic concepts, to many evasions when ever I tried to pin you down on something. To be honest, I'm even started to doubt the academic credentials you boast. Or maybe it's been so long ago that your analysis "muscles" have atrophied from disuse. Which would be fine, but you insist on pretending that there is nothing that anyone could know that you don't know better. It's just pathetic.
Again, Reg, your a good player, but that is not the same thing as analysis. Making up words and throwing around random terms and names and making videos of licks may fool the kids, but I see that scared little man behind the curtain. I'm sure you know some theory, but your pathological need to inject your informed babble into every theory discussion is sad. Some of us like to discuss things besides scale choice.
Your bizarre reply - just listing a bunch of well know definitions - does not take back what you said. You cannot unring that bell. Reg, if you can find a single valid source that says that a chromatic sequence means that it transposes in semitones, then I will owe you a big apology. But until then, I will continue to see you for what you are, a childish person who needs to make things up to fool people into think that he knows more than he does.
Sigh, this is like talking to a wall. Generally in English, if it isn't in the OED, it doesn't exist (This is a dictionary that is the size of an encyclopedia and contains every word ever used in English.) Just to be be safe, I checked the three dictionaries that I have here, American Heritage, Random House, and Merriam Webster. (My wife is a linguist, that's why we have three.) No luck. A google search failed to turn up anything, except as a band name or part of "camera obscura." So what are the names of these "several" dictionaries of yours? Can you name a few? Or are they just made up in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting a mistake. Why do I think that you're not going to give me the names of your dictionaries? Originally Posted by Aristotle
Obscura is more English than Jobim's Gbmaj7 is a Neapolitan Sixth. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I found it in several English dictionaries.
As to the N6, it is common usage in music. It can be found on Wikipedia for Pete's sake. If anyone doesn't know they can ask. Really, this is all just a dodge. You're just one of the anti-theory terrorists that tries to sabotage any discussion that goes beyond scale choice by wining about labels and trying to nitpick things to pieces so real discussion is impossible.
Wow. You don't seem to realize that a TT sub and and N6 are two different animals. One is a dominant 7th, the other is a Maj7. Yes, you could call a GbM7 in F a color change of a TT sub, but I'm not aware that that's easier than calling it an N6, which has a completely different sound and feel. I'll spare everyone the lengthy explanation. Originally Posted by Aristotle
As to who teaches it? Well, of the three schools where I've studied, MHCC, PSU, and CSU, each one has had at least one jazz professor who used the term.
Look, if you don't like it, don't use it. Anyone who didn't know what it meant could look it up or ask. This isn't complicated.
Again, if you think that the only reason to use theory is to figure out what scale to use, then you probably should skip over my threads - scale choice is a boring subject to me and I tend to avoid it. Originally Posted by Aristotle
That's why I am down to reading only two sentences out of every page you write. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
But, after I'd told you that I wasn't talking about scale choice, why did you keep hounding me, complaining that I wasn't talking about scale choice? Oh yeah, that's what the anti-theory terrorists do.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 01-26-2011 at 12:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale