-
So, I find that I can easily enough play through standards. That is, I have a lot of ideas and things that I can use to navigate through the changes and bring out the voice leading etc.
But I wonder if I have a true grip on how to understand a piece as a whole. To me, they just sort of always have a key that they like to start and end on, and they simply venture away from it through other keys and tonalities for a while etc.
But now I am wondering if some of those 2 5 progressions and other things are not actually key changes (even though the scales you use on them will change) but maybe just subs or other somehow still related to the tonic.
Take a tune like Darn That Dream. I am starting to wonder if maybe it is just a simple progression in G with some passing chords and subs throuwn in. How would it look maybe if it were not?
I guess my question is, how do you look at a jazz standard piece as a whole. When do you say it has changed keys or not.
I guess if I saw a turnaround that was G E7 A7 D7 that is easy enough for me to understand. Sure it is not diatonic but it is still clearly a I VI II V just making the monor chords dominant, or tonicizing or using secondary doms/etc. But what of tunes where you just cycle though a bunch of II Vs. Like say How High the Moon or Tune Up. In How High The Moon You go from the tonic, to a II V from what the tonic was to the key a wholestep lower. Key change here I am assuming, or is it just a piece or sub for something else? I would love someone to walk me through a standard if there are ways of understanding or analyzing them that I am not familiar with.
-
07-27-2011 01:24 AM
-
-
In classical analysis, when something goes out for only a measure or two, it's not a modulation per se. In jazz and in improvising on a piece like How High or Recordame, you do have to shift your key perspective each time a turnaround points you to a new key. Study your secondary dominants, the dominant chords that resolve to diatonic chords, they are not in the key itself but they don't indicate a change of key center.
Functional harmony. Dominant 7 chords will point you to another chord, they might have the same root note as a diatonic chord, but they're not in the key-they belong to the chord they resolve to and are looked at as companions to where they eventually lead. You shouldn't consider them in the key nor call them by that designation ( Look at All Of Me, it's I, V7of VI, V7of II, and then II- all those dominants are not in the key but the key has not changed from C that entire time.)
Yes, check out Randalljazz's links and I hope this clears things up a little bit.
David
-
I intend no disrespect, or to sound rude, because I truly appreciate the time anyone takes to respond. But one reason I don't always like asking questions here, is that I think I come off as someone who is a newbie or doesn't already know a good amount about theory or how to play. I do have a music degree where I focused on jazz from a four year liberal arts college. But sometimes I try to go back and look at old ideas in case maybe I missed some nuance to it.
But I thought I made it clear in the OP that I did have a good understanding of when chords are functioning as secondary dominants. I am more interested in a sequence like in How High the Moon and whether it could or should be analyzed as related to the tonic or as a song that goes through several tonics.
G -Gm C7- F -Fm C7 -Eb -Am D- Gm -Am D- G -Am D -Bm Bb7- Am D7
Would you analyze it as all in G somehow since, as you say, any key change is very brief? Would it be something like
I -ii V of bVII- b VII- ii V of bVI- bVI - ii V - i (mode mixture here between major and parallel minor perhaps with the flat VI flat VII and minor i? )
moving on... ii V - I - ii V - iii tritone sub of VI (which is secondary dom of ii) - ii V....
Personally, I think that maybe it is easier to not write or analyze them saying the terminology of secondary doms all the time, and just assuming that you know when they are functioning as thus, on any chord that is made dominant instead of 5. So C E A D is just I III VI II...just making the Roman numerals upper case sort of implies that there is a secondary dominant type thing going on.
So then reanalyzing those changes I might still go with secondary dom terminology at the front half of the tune and the three measures at the end I would just call ii V - iii -(tritone of) VI- ii V
And when something is a tritone is it easier just to say what it is the tritone of. So to call Bb7 a sub for VI than to call it a bIII.
Anyway am I on the right track here? Or for How High the Moon would you rather analyzie it as a song chanigng keys so for instance... I - ii V in F - ii V I in Eb - ii V I in Gm ii V I in G major ii V iii VI ii V in G.
-
Now take Darn That Dream and I am simplifying
G BbmEb7 - Am B7(b5) - Em A7Cm6 - Bm7b5 E7 - Am F7 - Bm Bbm -
Am D - G
so... I would guess
I , ii V tritone sub of ii - ii, V of vi - vi, (A7? Cm6?) - ii V of ii - ii, tritone for iii, iii, tritone for vi - ii V- I
Then the bridge appears to be more of an actual key change, or group of chords that should be analyzed in the new key, that eventually climb back to the original key.
Now David mentioned earlier that dom7s tend to point you in one direction or another. This I get. But what about when they do not go where expected. So say an A7 that does not resolve either to D or Ab?
I mean, lots of composers do tend to realize that harmony can shift anywhere if you want it to. But then do you simply not analyze it? I had a friend in college that loved to write tunes that resolved a step up to be deceptive. So say, Am D7 -Emaj7.
Or Stellas opening chords
Em7b5 A7b9 Cm....how can you analyze this as relating to the key? I just memorized it by saying it opens up with a ii V in Dm that just happens to resolve (or not) to a Cm and/or a ii V in BbLast edited by exarctly; 07-27-2011 at 02:26 PM.
-
To me, analyzing so that things make musical sense and analyzing so I can improvise on them are two different things...I can't always do the first, my music theory knowledge just isn't there...but I can always do #2.
So my analysis of most standards would get me a D in a theory course,
but I can still get through the tune...So for example, I see that beginning of stella as a non-resolving ii V in D minor, and for the purpose of playing the tune--and that works good enough...most of the time!
Something like HHTM i just break into chunks of major and minor...so correct or not, that song visits several keys to my ears.
-
1st re: your orginal post I wanted to mention why I like to do chord analysis. My first reason is to help me categorize and remember progressions and hopefully get them in my ear. This is all about being able to have and remember a large repetiore without having to refer to the sheet music.
Originally Posted by exarctly
I've taken the 4 semester college music theory course, but I sure don't mind departing from that if it helps me analyze. Being able to say 'Rhythm Changes' or 'Coltrane Matrix' or 'Confirmation changes' or a 'back door progression'... for my purposes these kind of terms are better for developing my ear and remembering progressions.
So I'm an advocate of 1st understanding traditional theory, which you already do, and then 2nd modify it to fit your own purposes.
In Darn that Dream I see a lot of what I call '1/2 step approach chords'. That's how I'm hearing them and therefore that's how I'd analyze them. I'm just following my ear, it's not technically correct, but ,1/2 step approach chords' are so common in jazz that I like to categorize them as such. You used the term 'passing chords', I thinks that's a good term too and to my ear is a better description than going down the tritone sub analysis path.
So I'm thinking G Bbm Am that becomes G Bbm7 Eb9 Am7 with the Eb9 being a sub of the Bbm7... I don't have my guitar with me but I'm wonderin if instead of G Bbm Eb9 Am could be played as Bm7 E9 Bbm7 Eb9 Am7.
The problem with my approach is that it might work for me but others won't understand my 'custom' terminology. So I have to have a handle on both approaches.
-
I'm with you Jeff. I basically look at tunes as how to play through them, because key change or not, you still have to play the right harmonies which does require leaving the original diatonic key. But if there is a better way to understand or memorize them, I am interested.
Interesting thoughts Fep on maybe just seeing tritone subs as passing or chromatic type chords. As a soloist I love playing little licks a half step up or down against the chord. Sometimes I think of this as implying neopolitan concept or maybe like a b5 #9 sound when a half step below. But I think it is easier to look at it as tension and release or similar to what a rhythm player does when the chord says D9 and you jut kind of do these funky slides to the chord approaching from half step below or above. Hey, what is the back door thing? Not familiar with the term, but I probably have played a million of them. But yeah, maybe that explains the Cm6 in that song. Just a chord to chromatically get to the Bm7b5
I guess one reason I was interested in breaking them down was to see if maybe it would be helpful to learn what the skeleton of a tune is. Then maybe you can reharm it from there or even just understand the purpose of all the movement to tell a larger story. So the question I meant to ask was, would it be helpful to take a tune like Darn That Dream and sort of look at it in a simpler light. And what would it look like. I am picturing something like G - Am - Em - Bm7b5 E7 - Am - Bm E7 - Am D7 - G.
Not sure if it does much good to look at it like this, excpet maybe it could help you take a simple tune without a lot of chords and show you places that you could add movement and harmony. So, any time a G goes to Am, you can maybe try throwing in Bbm Eb7 ?
Harmony. Gotta love it. And be a little frustrated by it too I guess. Especially at the end of the day when you realize that really you can end up playing anything if it sounds good to you, and that chords can also resolve in a lot of different ways. And all the matrix and chromatic mediant type sounds. So, there is a need for freedom and understanding.Last edited by exarctly; 07-27-2011 at 02:27 PM.
-
I took lessons many moons ago from someone who I thought of as the Guitar Guru. He used to say, "think simple, play fancy". I posted one of his analysis, go to post 29 of the following link. I think this is exarctly what you are talking about: Originally Posted by exarctly
Chords analysis for Wave
-
I forgot you asked about a 'backdoor progression'...
A backdoor to the tonic in G
G C Cm7 F7 G
The Cm7 to F7 is called a 'backdoor progression', I'm guessing because it approaches the G from the bVII chord. I wish I came up with that term, but it's not mine, it's a fairly commonly used term.
-
I believe your analysis should reflect how you hear the tune. Which may be different than composer. The analysis should not only cover what you hear but also what's implied... as in your back door II V, is the V chord functioning as a bVII with added II chord or is the II chord the function chord with relative V added, or is the target really Bb with deceptive resolution to sub of G with modal interchange to somewhat camouflage the obvious. The analysis need to express how and where the tune goes or could go. Classical analysis does not cover, it can look OK on paper, but you'll be missing quite a bit. It's not designed to function as jazz analysis. I'll give some simple examples... what is a re-harm as compared one of the many forms of substitutions... Whats the difference between Modal Interchange and modulation... I could go on, the answer is simple, it's not a trick question...ops I have to go, I'll check in later...Reg
-
Originally Posted by fep
think simple, play fancy".
I agree with this. While it is important to understand the presentation of music in terms of functional harmony or theory, when it comes to analysis, there is really only one objective ... to understand the music in terms of your own playing. The degree to which you simplify a form or progression really depends on how many concepts you can attach to a single chord so that you can flow easily from (or through) one sound to the next..
For the simplest example, a ii V progression can be heard as simply a V7 because the ii chord can be understood as just one of several options available to move into the V chord. Refining the V chord to as b9, #5b9 etc can imply the underlying harmony to guide your choices. As you gather concepts that allow you to create movement in and around each chord, the analysis can be reduced to simpler forms. Some musicians just hear tonic, subdominant and dominant within each tonal centers ... The rest is left to interpretation. (unfortunately, that is not me
)
When I analyze a tune, I always first look to the melody to understand where the phrases rest to define chord targets, transitions and turnarounds. The melody is key since it drives chord choices and often supplies information about extensions. After that, I simplify the progression to the minimum movements so i can remember it easily and keep the options open. The simplified chords become "hangers" for the concepts that I have gathered around them . I usually have three or four options surrounding each chord.
Darn That Dream To me is: G Eb7 | C6 F7(alt) | Em AmM7 | E7 // | etc..
This progress might not mean anything to anyone but me. Sometimes I will never actually sound the chord itself but only the movements it implies based on my own arsenal of concepts.
This process has really made me focus on harmony as movement instead of "chord steps", if you know what I mean.Last edited by Jazzaluk; 07-27-2011 at 08:23 PM.
-
Originally Posted by fep
Great line Fep. He is a wise man. I am really digging his breakdown and reduction of Wave. Thanx for posting that.
-
I agree with Fep. I find it is easier to learn and memorise the tune, then colour it in...
-
Maybe someone here can educate me. I read this thread and many others like it and have always left baffled. What does everyone here mean by analyzing the tune? ...and for what purpose do you analyze a tune?
For background, I never analyze a tune, I just look at the chords and play on top of them. I do look at the harmonic sequences to see where they're going so that I can understand the chords in a context, but if I don't it's no big deal. No analysis required in my simple world but maybe I'm missing a lot here.
Someone care to illuminate this for me please?
-
Well, just as simple as looking at harmonic sequences is analyzing a tune.
Some tunes you can go in, play on every chord, hit every change, and you're good to go.
Other tunes don't work that way...they either move to fast, or there's segments that sound better thinking "key" and not "chord."
When you analyze a tune, you can also look for things you can sub in your lines...I always ask myself questions..."Will a Ab9 arpeggio sound okay on that D7 chord?" "What am I going to do with that four bar stretch of C7#11?"
-
Would you mind giving me an example of this so I know what you're thinking about? Thanks. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Giant Steps is a great example of one that moves pretty fast through several key centers.
Take the A Train is a good example of a song with a long stretch of one chord that you have to do something with.
Wayne Shorter tunes are often an example of where simply playing over each chord isn't the best approach. Often a bop approach over a "post-bop" tune gives net results that sound a bit dated or forced, IMHO.
-
Well okay, but I contend that all the above work just fine when playing the changes or their subs. Admittedly some are harder due to tempo but still quite doable. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
I'm not yet seeing a need for all this "analysis" but that may be just my personal limitation.
-
I think one advantage of occasional analysis is to hep you realize what goes in to composition in case you are interested in writing. Also, I think it could give you an idea of a story that the song is trying to tell.
I also wondered if I could use it as a means of learning subs and passing chords. It could also help you memorize a tune and be ready to play it in different keys. Take autumn leaves which is often played in Gm and Em. Maybe rather than just memorizing the names of the chords you just say it goes ii V I IV in relative major key and then ii V i in relative minor key
or just analyze 'em being all in minor or major. But this way it might be easier to transpose it.
But basically I do what most people do. I play over the changes with what works well according to my knowledge at the time.
But some interesting sub topics have come up.
What are some things that you would do with the 4 bars of F in Take the A train. Do you throw in diatonic subs? Do you add movemtn and play 3 6 2 5 type thing. o you cycle in and out of key? All of the abovr? Or do you just play melodically in F. What would be some ways to take advantage of that.
As per thinknig key not chord. Lately when I see a lot of 2 5s I am realizing that you can just think the 5 chord the who;e time. But I still prefer to outline the 3s and/or 7s of one or both chord if I have time.
On Giant steps I like trying to hit all the changes. Though like I said, if they go by super quick I will just aim for he 5.
I wonder about rhythm changes. I think it is still good to outline the changes and play bop lines. But I know you can get away with maybe just playing some blues and letting some of the harmonies fly by you. For whatever reason I just don;t love playing on rhythm changes. Not just because it can be difficult. I just don't like the sound of it as much.
Now the Shorter tunes thing intrigues me. I would love to know an example of when you get away from playing the changes. I seem to be more under the impression that in post bop, bop, fusion whatever, you generally do try to outline the harmony...save for times when you are maybe following a melodic line and not wanting to outline the chord too much because you just need say the 9 or 13 to complete an idea that you started earlier in the progression. Or playing some altered ideas or inside outside etc. But I still am conscious of the harmony going by and what the 3s and 7s are and try to hit them enough. What other way is there to do it?
I could see the just playing melodies and less bop licks as one like I said earlier. But even then you still need to follow the changes to know what notes will work in what ways or what notes to avoid.
-
There are many levels of working just fine... Any time you play your referencing that playing on something... even if we simply want to call it playing by ear. Your ears don't come pre-loaded. What you play is from somewhere... that would be an analysis, an interpretation of what the chart or tune is implying for a starting point.
For most tunes I don't go through the process of making a quick playing analysis... I just play, but my ears are extremely trained... not good or bad but very aware of what's implied... thousands of analysis of tunes... years of composing, teaching and performing. And I can tell you from years of listening and watching players... I've hosted and still host many Jazz Jams, and still play on average 5 gigs a week... Most tunes appear to fall into that harder group. Most players have those limitations... and would have much more fun as well as sound much better with some basic analysis skills. This really isn't that subjective of a subject... The other approach... trial and error... takes way too much time, doesn't always work and can be very painful. You can approach from a memorize point of view... shows etc... or if your sight reading up to par... simply read and work from that... that's pretty weak... going through the motion of playing without really understanding what your doing... usually leads to pretty boring music... or worse. Where does that term noodling come from....
Years ago we would simply base our improvisations on the melody etc... add a few chromatic, approach or passing tone to the chord tones... and presto you have a solo... That time has pretty much come and gone... there is much more going on... there is nothing wrong with that approach... but there's to many more aspects and implications going on now... even with interpretations of the standards... The language has grown...
Back to the original question... Modulation in Jazz is when the reference has changed... by reference I mean the tonal center. The diatonic concept of modulation is pretty dated and just doesn't work. In jazz there are many methods and concepts of using chords or notes from outside the traditional use of diatonic, as I brought up before, in jazz diatonic is more of in relation to, reference to a tonal center, can be a concept in relation to. As was being discussed in Giant steps, there is a three tonic system, which functions as the tonic concept. Please ask me to explain more if I screwed something up... Thanks Reg
-
I don't mean anything deeper on the shorter tunes thing other than to suggest that sometimes with some basic analysis it becomes pretty clear when a chart of one of these tunes is trying to indicate a modal approach.
I also like to approach post bop stuff a little bit more in terms of thinking "key" and not chord...breaks me out of my bop licks, which can sound out of place over a tune who's harmony and rhythm tend to "float" more than "swing" (in the trad. Sense, at least)
-
Please elaborate because I don't understand that thinking. I view GS as a tune that has essentially three (ii-)V-I's that change mid-measure. What other perspective would one use to play this? Originally Posted by Reg
@ mr. beaumont: I don't understand what you mean by a modal tune. Would you elaborate please? What tunes do you think sound better playing the home key instead of the changes? ...or maybe I'm missing what you're saying.
Thanks.
-
I love playing the Shorter tune fee fi fo fum... but I can not see any way to play this just staying in one key... would this be a tune you would try that over...and if not, what would be a shorter tune that you would?
-
Guys I'm definitely not saying one key.
But I am saying one key for a series of changes.
Take a standard and record it two times...first time, hit every change you can in your line...second time, play off key centers as they shift.
That's all I'm saying...there's times when one approach works better than the other...I think on morre "open" sounding modern tunes the second approach works better...that's what I mean. By a modal approach.
Check out levine's jazz theory book...I'm not saying anything new.
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale