The Girl From Ipanema - Analyzing the bridge

**Stackabones** · 01-26-2011, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

you're the Cliff Clavin of analysis. I may be the Frasier Crane

And the rest us of must be Norm!

**ksjazzguitar** · 01-26-2011, 12:57 PM

My wife would say that I'm Norm.

Peace,
Kevin

**Reg** · 01-26-2011, 03:21 PM

Thanks Kevin... all the statements from my last post were from;
Persichetti's... Twentieth Century Harmony
Piston's... Harmony
Harvard's dictionary of music
Dallin's...Tecnniques of Twentieth Century Composition
If you give me some page #'s all read your bible definition's, I have all 20 volumes.
Or we can simple be done, that is fine with me also... Best Reg

**BigDaddyLoveHandles** · 01-26-2011, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Aristotle

That's why I am down to reading only two sentences out of every page you write.

An economical biblical verse comes to mind: Jesus wept.

**Drumbler** · 01-26-2011, 05:06 PM

Jazz is too complicated.

I quit.

**pingu** · 01-26-2011, 06:02 PM

When she passes , I smile .... but she doesn't see

I wish we could all get on better
we're only arguing about the definitions and
use of musical terms which although important .....
are not anything substantive to understanding the tune

So the Gbmaj7 chord at the begining of the B section is either
one ....... a new I (key Gb)
two ...........the IV chord in a new key of Db
or three .....a relative maj sub of the new key Ebmin

I think the relationship of the Gbmaj7 to the preceeding Fmaj7
is probably a distraction tho Reg
(N6 or bii or whatever we agree/dissagree to call it !)

**Reg** · 01-26-2011, 07:15 PM

Fair enough... yes I think I went through possible analysis of tune in the late 60's, I enjoy how the Fmaj7 is deceptive, even have duel function or some type of relationship with both sections... Thanks Reg

**Aristotle** · 01-26-2011, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by pingu

I think the relationship of the Gbmaj7 to the preceeding Fmaj7 is probably a distraction tho Reg
(N6 or bii or whatever we agree/dissagree to call it !)

It also depends on what you mean by relationship. Is this physics or music? Yes, Gb is the bII of F. But the phrasing of the melody "relates" (connects) the Gb to the B, the F#min to the D, and the Gmin to the Eb. And those three pairs of chords don't resolve according to "bop logic."

**ksjazzguitar** · 01-26-2011, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Reg

Thanks Kevin... all the statements from my last post were from; ...

But you never really made a "statement." You listed of some topics (many of which you'd already shown in the thread to not understand) from the table of contents of a few books and threw around some names. Like usual when we get to this point in a discussion, you don't say anything. You hint that there is some great secret out there that you know but I don't but fail to say what it is. You also fail to address any of the ridiculous statements that you made before. This is just your way of avoiding accountability - you just start naming a bunch of topics and names but don't saying anything of substance. Then you started rambling about melodic sequences, which I'd already made clear was not what I was talking about. But you like to change the subject so it is not clear how shallow your knowledge is on the subject.

You just talk up a bunch of BS, challenge the knowledge of anyone that wants to look at things in a deeper way than you, then when you get caught in a term that you misused, you start throwing out terms, in some kind of terminological Tourette's, but you still failed to defend two of the most ridiculous statements (two out of many):

1. "clearly the transposition of the chord pattern is not chromatic" - this means one of two things - either you don't know what "chromatic transposition" means, you cannot see that this is a chromatic transposition, which means that you aren't paying attention.

2. "here 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... " - this sounds like a joke in a first year theory class. What is a chromatic sequence? Seguencing by half-step! Man, Reg, that is the most uninformed statement I've heard here. You think "chromatic transposition" is transposition of a semi-tone? That is pathetic. You've made a lot of ridiculous statements since I've been on this forum, but this is the first one that clearly shows that you're just making this up as you go along. What a clown.

You can't hide behind your new found love of the terms "tonal" and "real" - I'd already said that some people use them in place of "diatonic" and "chromatic." Grove's gives both so you can't make some pathetic play to say that your term is better. Even if you had been taught "tonal" and "real" - the terms "diatonic transposition" and "chromatic transposition" are self-evident to anyone who knows the basics of theory and are in common usage anyway.

Will you defend you moronic statements? No, you'll probably just throw out some more rambling, barely coherent (my wife read your post and asked "Is he drunk?") statement of sentence fragments that string together some terms that had already been defined long ago - but that is not a defense - it is misdirection. And I can barely understand you amorphous writing style anyway. Please use complete sentences and don't connect everything with ellipsis - I can't tell what incoherent sentence fragment goes with what other incoherent sentence fragments. It's funny, I was tutoring a 4th grader the other day and he has better writing than you. I'm not saying we have to be perfect here, but comprehensible would be nice.

But I'm not surprised - by your own words you don't really care about theory beyond what scale to play. So you snipe away at anyone who tries to discuss anything beyond that like some kind of an anti-theory guerrilla-terrorist. You're just trying to cock block anyone from discussing anything you don't understand and trying to throw out a bunch of terms (some invented) trying to make people think that you're deep into this stuff. And you make ridiculous statements like "OK... so what else could be going on... How do the two sections tie together... Keep digging there's more... Have fun... " trying to imply that there is something that you see that we aren't but you never actually say what it is. When confronted, you just list a bunch of already defined terms and non-sequitors. It's all just smoke and mirrors. You are a big phony (in terms of theory and analysis at least.) You may have the others fooled (you do a very skillful act, but I've caught you in one too many lies.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong about not knowing what a chromatic sequence is - probably many of the people here don't know. But you are the only one trying to tell me I'm wrong while using ridiculously uninformed definitions and misdirection. That is pathetic. Just shut the eff up about things you don't understand. That's what I do.

Aristotle. Hmmm, I see that you've wisely chosen not to defend your lie about "obscura" - probably the best choice. Cowardly, but probably wise. That's the problem with anti-theory guerrilla-terrorists - you try to pin them down on something and they just move on to something else and pretend the other thing never happened.

Originally Posted by Aristotle

It also depends on what you mean by relationship. Is this physics or music? Yes, Gb is the bII of F. But the phrasing of the melody "relates" (connects) the Gb to the B, the F#min to the D, and the Gmin to the Eb.

First of all, the physics analogy is patently ridiculous. You fail to show how that relates to the topic. We use mathematical language to describe music. True, it hasn't been going on for very long, it only started with Pythagoras.

The relationship of the FMaj7 to the GbMaj7 has nothing to do with the melody. Melodies play over the harmony and interweave with it, but they do not define it. The harmonic relationships are self-evident without the melody. If we played this chord progression with no melody, many people would still hear that as a bII (since you freak out at N6

) in F. The fact that the bII never resolves is irrelevant - it doesn't have to. The fact that the melody doesn't thread them together is irrelevant - show me where it says that it has to. The fact that it is being used to modulate is irrelevant - Romantic composers used the bII to modulate all the time (Jobim listened to classical.)

You're objection to thinking of that GbMaj7 as unrelated to the FMaj7 is purely subjective. And that's fine! The problem is that you are being an anti-theory guerrilla-terrorist and trying to stop any other interpretation. I'm not saying that your interpretation as a direct modulation is wrong, I'm just saying (and others) that it is not the only interpretation. But you just can't stand that anyone has another explanation. So you make up these pseudo-rules to explain why our explanation is impossible. Which is ironic considering that you are an anti-theory guerrilla-terrorist - you seem to like rules when they suit your needs. I guess the ones that you make up are less odious than the ones that have been around for hundreds of years.

So, what pseudo-rules are you going to make up now to "prove" that we don't hear that Gb as a bII? What pseudo-rules are our ears breaking now?

Peace,
Kevin

**JohnW400** · 01-26-2011, 11:12 PM

I'll give you a new term not in any book.... a deceptive transposition. I hear the Gb as a blatant key change by that old time honored 'trick' of just move it up a 1/2. But... Jobim fools you and takes it somewhere else

The only Neoplitans that used that device all the time were Frank and Dean. But I'm not sure if they were Neopolitans or Sicilians being tha Frank Was born in hoboken

**ksjazzguitar** · 01-27-2011, 01:02 AM

Yeah, Jobim is the master of being sneaky.

But to my ear I still hear it as relating to the F. I could even hear it resolving back down to the tonic (like the bridge of "Little Sunflower" try it, see if it works to your ear.) But he does take it somewhere else. But that is the nature of a pivot chord - it means one thing to what came before and something different to what comes after.

But again, if someone hears the Gb as a tonic - that's OK. It's just not how it sounds to me. And because I hear it as a bII (I will avoid the N-word to keep certain people from having seizures) - I hear it as having a C and Cb hears wrong to my ear. If you hear it as a tonic, then the Cb is inside and the C is still cool. Just play it how you hear it.

Peace,
Kevin

**Aristotle** · 01-27-2011, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by JohnW400

The only Neoplitans that used that device all the time were Frank and Dean. But I'm not sure if they were Neopolitans or Sicilians being tha Frank Was born in hoboken

Badda bing! (That's a Neapolitan rim shot).

**Aristotle** · 01-29-2011, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by M-ster

And then you continue with your own theoretical discussion that includes solfège, of all things.

Remeber this? I said "over analysis," and locked onto the do, re, mi's as excess?

A funny thing happened on the way to the movies last night. My son (7th grade) from his little private school (400 students, 2 years of pre-K through 12), no school band, no school choir - was trying to tap out that song "Doe a dear, a female dear" on his piano. I asked him why he was noodling with that. And he said, they are using that in music class to begin a study of sight singing. I asked, "With the do, re, mi syllables?" He said, yes.

Wow. I wonder if the music teacher remembers off the top of her head what Neapolitan Sixth is?

**JohnW400** · 01-29-2011, 01:30 PM

Theres all kind of 6ths. They usually had something to do with a tritone substitute in first inversion that resolved a particular way. But as that music evolved I think that kind of thing got dropped

Not too long ago I saw something on a classical guitar forum about augmented 6ths. I had forgotten all about them. I went back to my theory textbook from college and there they were. I must have known about them back them (1980 or so) and never saw them metioned again until 2010.

Also noteworthy is that the freshman sight singing classes had to use strict solfege when singing. That meant that regardless of key C is Do, D is Re ect.

That class was my least favorite

**ksjazzguitar** · 01-29-2011, 01:43 PM

Aristotle, there's nothing wrong with solfege. In some many countries that is how they name the notes. But you have to remember that Americans don't so it sounds odd to us when applied like that. I agree, it was wrong for someone to call you out for using solfege, but you have overreacted to that.

In English (pretty much everywhere, but I'm not sure about India) we use "C" instead of "do" unless we are in sight-singing class. Since many people here do no have a formal music education, they will not understand solfege, unless you are doing selections from The Sound of Music.

Peace,
Kevin

**Stackabones** · 01-29-2011, 04:59 PM

For what it's worth -- we use solfege in my Gregorian chant group, and it's a common-enough practice to use it to work up chants.

**Aristotle** · 01-29-2011, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by JohnW400

augmented 6ths. I had forgotten all about them. I went back to my theory textbook from college and there they were. I must have known about them back them (1980 or so) and never saw them metioned again until 2010.

Similar experience. FWIW, I play classical, so I get a few reminders, like the N6 in Moonlight Sonata. I just don't how it produces anything helpful in a jazz analysis.

Also noteworthy is that the freshman sight singing classes had to use strict solfege when singing. That meant that regardless of key C is Do, D is Re ect.

That's the Latin America way also. I don't know about Eurpose. In Puerto Rico, they refer to the key of D min as Key of Re Menor, and so forth. I have also run into people from South America who did it that way. They also use Si instead of Ti.

**matt.guitarteacher** · 01-29-2011, 09:25 PM

One of my college buddies learned music in a non-english-speeking country. When we were in college, his american organ instructor was ready to pull her hair out because every time she said something about playing C, he'd play C# or "Si".

**ksjazzguitar** · 01-29-2011, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by Aristotle

Similar experience. FWIW, I play classical, so I get a few reminders, like the N6 in Moonlight Sonata. I just don't how it produces anything helpful in a jazz analysis.

The same thing it does in classical - it produces a useful label. If it adds nothing to jazz analysis then it adds nothing to classical analysis since they are describing the same harmonic function. A label is a label. It would be like saying, "I don't know why you call that first chord in 'Satin Doll' a 'ii' chord - I know that that's what they call it in classical, but I just don't know that it produces anything useful in a jazz analysis." It does, it's a label that describes function. Whether I call something an N6 or bII is irrelevant - it's just a label. Personally, I prefer the N6 label because it makes it clear that it is functioning as an N6. In some labeling systems, a bII might not be acting that way - like Mehegan where everything is labeled relative to the parent key including in most modulations. But if I see N6, I know exactly what is going on - the same chromatically altered subdominant function that is happening in an N6 in classical. To create two different terminologies for the same function is ridiculous.

(For those of you also following my thread on European tradition influence on jazz - this is an example of the desperate attempt that jazz musicians make to distance themselves from classical. They seem to really want to believe that jazz harmony has nothing to do with classical. In reality, it almost entirely comes from classical - it's hard to find something in jazz harmony that doesn't have a precedent in classical harmony.)

But if you really hate the word "Neapolitan," then you don't have to use it. But many of us will because it is very useful.

Peace,
Kevin

**paynow** · 01-29-2011, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

Well, guys, at least this thread has made me look up "Neapolitan Sixth". I used to think it was the deluxe version of this:

Big Daddy,

I'm Sicilian but my cousin is Neapolitan and he confirmed you're correct; this is also a "Neapolitan Sixth". After reading all this s--t, however, the two of us sat down and drank a "Neapolitan Fifth":

**Aristotle** · 01-29-2011, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher

One of my college buddies learned music in a non-english-speeking country. When we were in college, his american organ instructor was ready to pull her hair out because every time she said something about playing C, he'd play C# or "Si".

Yo comprendo.

Is this where we pull out chestnuts about Beethoven decomposing? Page nine and Al Capo?