Help understanding a Donald Byrd riff please

[Babaluma]

I love the Donald Byrd album Kofi and the tune Fufu. It is a great track to jam on and practice altered chords as it is so open. One thing I have problems with is understanding how the opening trumpet riff relates to the rest of the tune. I have the tune as a single C7 chord and play C Mixolydian as a starting point. The riff comes in at 0.46 but I have this as an A Mixolydian based melody with a flat 13. My question is does this sound right to you guys and if so how does A Mixolydian relate to C7? I could of course be completely wrong as the riff is very fast and I found it tricky to pick out.

The second refrain at 1.21 outline a 9th, 3rd and 5th of C.

Any thought?

Cheers

[TH]

I hear a melodic figure, what you call a riff I guess. It's in C. It's a nice figure that announces a tonality centre. I hear a C pedal throughout the whole piece and not even one tied to a particular chord scale throughout.
I studied with a theory teacher who knew Donald Byrd, I don't know whether he taught or just played with him. The interpretation of harmonic analysis was not chord scale based but followed what I hear here, the chromatic and interpretative use of pedal tones, or modal vamps. In that universe, there were maybe 5 chordal structures at the basis for harmonic structure but within them there was a huge chromatic set of options.
It's a way of thinking that led to players like Coltrane (who consulted with my teacher Roland Wiggins), Archie Shepp, Stanley Cowell, and players in a different tradition from the chord scale based one you find your context in.

Pedal tone, exploration, interpretation, tension and variation.

Just a two cent observation.
David

[ragman1]

Babaluma -

I've got it. It's a C chord. During the long intro the Bb is played but doesn't last. The bass is also playing an F#. So it's roughly C7#11.

By the time the riff comes in it's more just C rather than C7. The lead is just C maj with the #4 (C lydian, natural B and F#). If you wait, I'll notate the riff for you.

Or you can get it yourself from a very slowed-down soundclip. Which would you prefer?

[christianm77]

I hear a melodic figure, what you call a riff I guess. It's in C. It's a nice figure that announces a tonality centre. I hear a C pedal throughout the whole piece and not even one tied to a particular chord scale throughout.
I studied with a theory teacher who knew Donald Byrd, I don't know whether he taught or just played with him. The interpretation of harmonic analysis was not chord scale based but followed what I hear here, the chromatic and interpretative use of pedal tones, or modal vamps. In that universe, there were maybe 5 chordal structures at the basis for harmonic structure but within them there was a huge chromatic set of options.
It's a way of thinking that led to players like Coltrane (who consulted with my teacher Roland Wiggins), Archie Shepp, Stanley Cowell, and players in a different tradition from the chord scale based one you find your context in.

Pedal tone, exploration, interpretation, tension and variation.

Just a two cent observation.
David

Could I find out more info about this approach?

[Babaluma]

Babaluma -

I've got it. It's a C chord. During the long intro the Bb is played but doesn't last. The bass is also playing an F#. So it's roughly C7#11.

By the time the riff comes in it's more just C rather than C7. The lead is just C maj with the #4 (C lydian, natural B and F#). If you wait, I'll notate the riff for you.

Or you can get it yourself from a very slowed-down soundclip. Which would you prefer?

Thanks again ragman1, you are always so helpful! The slowed down helps!

[Babaluma]

I hear a melodic figure, what you call a riff I guess. It's in C. It's a nice figure that announces a tonality centre. I hear a C pedal throughout the whole piece and not even one tied to a particular chord scale throughout.
I studied with a theory teacher who knew Donald Byrd, I don't know whether he taught or just played with him. The interpretation of harmonic analysis was not chord scale based but followed what I hear here, the chromatic and interpretative use of pedal tones, or modal vamps. In that universe, there were maybe 5 chordal structures at the basis for harmonic structure but within them there was a huge chromatic set of options.
It's a way of thinking that led to players like Coltrane (who consulted with my teacher Roland Wiggins), Archie Shepp, Stanley Cowell, and players in a different tradition from the chord scale based one you find your context in.

Pedal tone, exploration, interpretation, tension and variation.

Just a two cent observation.
David

Thanks, yes this is the approach I have been using, I like that I can try out a bunch of modes over it and learn to hear certain sounds in context. I was interested in how Donald came up with this sound so this is very interesting to read.

[ragman1]

Thanks again ragman1, you are always so helpful! The slowed down helps! I heard the bass as F, F# bass line so a tritone sub? I need to listen harder

Yes, they're playing a C chord and the bass on beat 3 plays an E to F# twiddle. Which is more a #11 sound. A full tritone would be an F# chord, which it's not.

Can you get riff from that clip? Remember natural B and all F's are sharp. It's a lydian thing :-)

[ragman1]

I don't know! Here's the riff notation anyhow. It's not syncopated because it would be too awkward to write.

[Babaluma]

I don't know! Here's the riff notation anyhow. It's not syncopated because it would be too awkward to write.

Yeah I think you are right, it makes more sense as far as the tune goes as well! I actually like my variation though so I may use it for something

Thanks for your help!

[TH]

Could I find out more info about this approach?

I don't want to derail the thread of this post so I'll try to address this concisely.
The improvisational approach I alluded to diverges from much of the bebop approaches in scope and breadth of the phrase, the parameters of development and the adherence to harmonic structure. Where bebop will most often use "changes" or melody based on the diatonic harmony of a piece measure by measure, or within a tonal area to determine a choice of notes (scale) that fits within a phrase, the improvisation here has a broader "target" or in the language I was taught, the pitch/time maximum.
In the post Shorter era, improvisational vehicles changed; they were inclusive of pieces that had larger vamp expanses to work with, or even a simple figure whose harmony could be interpretive (ornette). By these approaches, guiding and shaping of a solo relied on tension, developing a language of ornaments and approach mechanisms (various scales, symmetrical scales, synthetic scales, I've written about Schillinger scales on this forum...) and in many cases employment of 16th note phrasing, and an awareness of shapes line/arc and line density in forming phrases.

The idea is when the piece gets more minimal (even down to one pedal tone as the gravity of an improvisation), the shaping forces of a good solo become necessarily more intricate and intentional.

So I was taught harmonic structure could hinge on triads and 7th chords (Major 7th, Minor 7th, Major Minor 7th, Diminished, Augmented) and the notes in between weren't determined by functional harmony but by the texture of consonance (and personal choice).
This approach puts a lot of responsibility on the improvisor to know and create their own language of note choice. Any non functional harmony does, to keep it from descending into chaos.

What this means is that given a structure, whether it be one chord, several chordal areas, a vamp where you work with one pedal (like this piece might be seen) or a form like the blues or the tune in the Josh Redmond solo below, your approach is not about chord scale, or even identifying the functional origins of a scale employed, but rather the chromatic or diatonic approach to an essential 7th chord structure and the phrased lines that articulate that solo.

It's a different way of looking at constructing a solo and it allows for very long developed lines (sheets of sound, open and linear momentum in development).

It's an approach that has been embraced in many modern horn players, and among guitarists defending the bebop traditions, meh, it's not as big with that mindset.

Does this make any sense?

David

[TH]

Thanks, yes this is the approach I have been using, I like that I can try out a bunch of modes over it and learn to hear certain sounds in context. I was interested in how Donald came up with this sound so this is very interesting to read.

Have you checked out Sonny Fortune? Another Philly horn player who studied within the same "school" under Roland, who I'd mentioned in the previous post response. It's Invitation broken down into an almost modal form that lends itself to this kind of interpretation.

I won't get too much further into this, but I'll say it's a way of playing, conceptualizing, listening and soloing that has a huge potential for exploration. Develop your ears!

David

[christianm77]

I don't want to derail the thread of this post so I'll try to address this concisely.
The improvisational approach I alluded to diverges from much of the bebop approaches in scope and breadth of the phrase, the parameters of development and the adherence to harmonic structure. Where bebop will most often use "changes" or melody based on the diatonic harmony of a piece measure by measure, or within a tonal area to determine a choice of notes (scale) that fits within a phrase, the improvisation here has a broader "target" or in the language I was taught, the pitch/time maximum.
In the post Shorter era, improvisational vehicles changed; they were inclusive of pieces that had larger vamp expanses to work with, or even a simple figure whose harmony could be interpretive (ornette). By these approaches, guiding and shaping of a solo relied on tension, developing a language of ornaments and approach mechanisms (various scales, symmetrical scales, synthetic scales, I've written about Schillinger scales on this forum...) and in many cases employment of 16th note phrasing, and an awareness of shapes line/arc and line density in forming phrases.

The idea is when the piece gets more minimal (even down to one pedal tone as the gravity of an improvisation), the shaping forces of a good solo become necessarily more intricate and intentional.

So I was taught harmonic structure could hinge on triads and 7th chords (Major 7th, Minor 7th, Major Minor 7th, Diminished, Augmented) and the notes in between weren't determined by functional harmony but by the texture of consonance (and personal choice).
This approach puts a lot of responsibility on the improvisor to know and create their own language of note choice. Any non functional harmony does, to keep it from descending into chaos.

What this means is that given a structure, whether it be one chord, several chordal areas, a vamp where you work with one pedal (like this piece might be seen) or a form like the blues or the tune in the Josh Redmond solo below, your approach is not about chord scale, or even identifying the functional origins of a scale employed, but rather the chromatic or diatonic approach to an essential 7th chord structure and the phrased lines that articulate that solo.

It's a different way of looking at constructing a solo and it allows for very long developed lines (sheets of sound, open and linear momentum in development).

It's an approach that has been embraced in many modern horn players, and among guitarists defending the bebop traditions, meh, it's not as big with that mindset.

Does this make any sense?

David

I’m not 100% on everything, but I get the general gist. Is there any information on this approach out there that might go into some specifics or is there nothing out there and you have to study with someone?

But this sounds interesting in so much as I can understand what you are describing.

Who are these guitarists you are talking about? I suppose there are some hardcore bop fundamentalists out there. The ones that have mastered the art I have a lot of respect for obv. I love to be able to hang at least a little with them, but I think it’s a bit sad if that’s the be all and end all.

I think there’s a lot to be said for the values of swinging and playing a strong melodic line, but the musicians you link to embody that to my mind.

[Babaluma]

Have you checked out Sonny Fortune? Another Philly horn player who studied within the same "school" under Roland, who I'd mentioned in the previous post response. It's Invitation broken down into an almost modal form that lends itself to this kind of interpretation.

I won't get too much further into this, but I'll say it's a way of playing, conceptualizing, listening and soloing that has a huge potential for exploration. Develop your ears!

David

Thanks vey much for this David and the other interesting info you have shared. I do like Fortune, mainly through his work with Miles but will check this out.

[M-ster]

I love the Donald Byrd album Kofi and the tune Fufu. ... The riff comes in at 0.46 but I have this as an A Mixolydian based melody with a flat 13. My question is does this sound right to you guys ... ?

Here's what I think is happening on that line. Note that I think Donald fluffs the first iteration - because I think when it returns (at about 7:30 in the track?), they play what I have as the last 4 bars twice.

YMMV.

[Babaluma]

Here's what I think is happening on that line. Note that I think Donald fluffs the first iteration - because I think when it returns (at about 7:30 in the track?), they play what I have as the last 4 bars twice.

YMMV.

Thanks, I will try this out! The harmony on the horns, the speed of the phrase and the slurring makes it hard for me to identify so this will help a lot.

[don_oz]

I love the Donald Byrd album Kofi and the tune Fufu. It is a great track to jam on and practice altered chords as it is so open. One thing I have problems with is understanding how the opening trumpet riff relates to the rest of the tune. I have the tune as a single C7 chord and play C Mixolydian as a starting point. The riff comes in at 0.46 but I have this as an A Mixolydian based melody with a flat 13. My question is does this sound right to you guys and if so how does A Mixolydian relate to C7? I could of course be completely wrong as the riff is very fast and I found it tricky to pick out.

The second refrain at 1.21 outline a 9th, 3rd and 5th of C.

Any thought?

Cheers

How does A mixolydian relate to C7? They are family. They both come from the same diminished chord. Db diminished. It's basically creating what is known as the 13b9 sound.

[Babaluma]

How does A mixolydian relate to C7? They are family. They both come from the same diminished chord. Db diminished. It's basically creating what is known as the 13b9 sound.

Sorry could you please elaborate on the Db diminished chord relationship to A7 and C7

[don_oz]

Sorry could you please elaborate on the Db diminished chord relationship to A7 and C7

Sure.

Dbo7 = Db, E, G, Bb.

If you go to your guitar and play Dbo7 - Db, G, Bb, E (X 4 5 3 5 X) and you begin to lower the notes one by one.

So taking the voicing I just mentioned, if you lower the Db (root) by a half tone to C, you will now have C, G, Bb, E (X 3 5 3 5 X) which is a C7 chord.

If you go back to the Dbo7 voicing, and now lower the G to a Gb, you will have Db, Gb, Bb, E (X 4 4 3 5 X) which is Gb7.

If you go back to the Dbo7 voicing, and now lower the Bb to an A, you will have C#(Db), G, A, E (X 4 5 2 5 X) which is an A7

If you go back to the Dbo7 voicing, and now lower the E to an Eb, you will have Db, G, Bb, Eb (X 4 5 3 4 X) which is an Eb7.

So you see, C7 and A7 come from the same diminished chord. Now, if you play on the guitar 8 X 8 9 10 9 which will be C, Bb, E, A, Db(C#) you're playing an A triad over a C7. C7 = C & Bb and A triad is E, A, C#(Db). It's more commonly known as C713b9. So technically you could even play Eb and Gb too over C. Gb being the tritone.

[rNeil]

Maybe there's some semantics involved here. Definition of terms or something.

And I analyzed chord structures and harmonization patterns for everything from Mozart through Berlioz and Bruckner in college years ago, so I'm not without experience and CD training in determining and supporting chord/harmony progressions.

Where my brain pauses is the comment that both C7 and A7 come *from* a D flat diminished.

The implication seems that they originate in a D flat diminished.

Can you make either by altering a note of the D dim? Yea.

But I don't understand the idea that both come "from" a D dim.

It's like correlation versus causation.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[don_oz]

Maybe there's some semantics involved here. Definition of terms or something.

And I analyzed chord structures and harmonization patterns for everything from Mozart through Berlioz and Bruckner in college years ago, so I'm not without experience and CD training in determining and supporting chord/harmony progressions.

Where my brain pauses is the comment that both C7 and A7 come *from* a D flat diminished.

The implication seems that they originate in a D flat diminished.

Can you make either by altering a note of the D dim? Yea.

But I don't understand the idea that both come "from" a D dim.

It's like correlation versus causation.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

You have the chromatic scale, 12 notes: c, c#, d, d#, e, f, f#, g, g#, a, a#, b

Now this can be divided into 2 scales.
The 2 scales we get are the 2 whole tone scales.

C whole tone 6 notes :
C, D, E, F#, G#, A#

C# whole tone 6 notes:
C#, D#, F, G, A, B

The whole chromatic scale is there in those two scales.

We can also divide the chromatic scale into 3 chords.
3 goes into 12, 4 times. The three 4's. What are they?

The three diminished chords.
Co7 - C, Eb, F#, A
C#o7 - C#, E, G, Bb
Do7 - D, F, Ab, B

How do the three diminished chords link to the two whole tone scales?
Well, if we take Co7. We can see that the C and F# come from C whole tone, and the Eb (D#) and A come from C# whole tone.

Now C#o7, C# and G come from C# whole tone and E and Bb come from C whole.

So now we found out where the first two Diminished chords come from, the notes that are missing from that are D, F, Ab, B which form the last diminished chord, Do7.

Schoenberg said that if you lower one note at a time from a diminished chord you get a dominant 7 chord. So like i said with the Dbo7, inside is 4 dominant chords C, Eb, Gb, A. These notes also happen to be a minor third apart. So if you take the notes from the Dbo7: Db, E, G, Bb, and the root notes from the 4 dominant chords: C, Eb, Gb, Bb and put them together, you get the diminished scales. C, Db, Eb, E, Gb, G, A, Bb. There's only one diminished scale, no whole step-half step, half step-whole step.

I guess it depends on how you look at theory. Everyone always says this is what a major scale is, this is what a minor scale is, this is what a diminished chord is, this is what a diminished scale is but no one every really explains where it actually derives from.

[rNeil]

Schoenberg. Shoulda known. Lol.

Had a music theory prof who loved Schoenberg's theoretical concepts.

They're quite pretty in their own way. Elegant, really. I just questioned 1) the math involved and 2) how many cultures have ever "heard" the whole tone scale concept as the basis of musical sound.

He insisted I was missing The Point.

I asked pointed questions of my science profs, they had elegant proofs.

I guess the difference is none of us can "hear" science proofs ...

... but my conclusion was Schoenberg's theories were elegant discussions but not necessarily anything I could hear demonstrated and "see".

Bear in mind, it is well established that my brain is a rather unique device and I never claim others should necessarily "see" anything as I do.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[don_oz]

Schoenberg. Shoulda known. Lol.

Had a music theory prof who loved Schoenberg's theoretical concepts.

They're quite pretty in their own way. Elegant, really. I just questioned 1) the math involved and 2) how many cultures have ever "heard" the whole tone scale concept as the basis of musical sound.

He insisted I was missing The Point.

I asked pointed questions of my science profs, they had elegant proofs.

I guess the difference is none of us can "hear" science proofs ...

... but my conclusion was Schoenberg's theories were elegant discussions but not necessarily anything I could hear demonstrated and "see".

Bear in mind, it is well established that my brain is a rather unique device and I never claim others should necessarily "see" anything as I do.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Here is the guy you want to go for all the things I just spoke about.

[grahambop]

This guy shows it on the guitar:

[Babaluma]

Sure.

Dbo7 = Db, E, G, Bb.

If you go to your guitar and play Dbo7 - Db, G, Bb, E (X 4 5 3 5 X) and you begin to lower the notes one by one.

So taking the voicing I just mentioned, if you lower the Db (root) by a half tone to C, you will now have C, G, Bb, E (X 3 5 3 5 X) which is a C7 chord.

If you go back to the Dbo7 voicing, and now lower the G to a Gb, you will have Db, Gb, Bb, E (X 4 4 3 5 X) which is Gb7.

If you go back to the Dbo7 voicing, and now lower the Bb to an A, you will have C#(Db), G, A, E (X 4 5 2 5 X) which is an A7

If you go back to the Dbo7 voicing, and now lower the E to an Eb, you will have Db, G, Bb, Eb (X 4 5 3 4 X) which is an Eb7.

So you see, C7 and A7 come from the same diminished chord. Now, if you play on the guitar 8 X 8 9 10 9 which will be C, Bb, E, A, Db(C#) you're playing an A triad over a C7. C7 = C & Bb and A triad is E, A, C#(Db). It's more commonly known as C713b9. So technically you could even play Eb and Gb too over C. Gb being the tritone.

Thank you so much for taking the time to rely with this detailed info, I appreciate it!

[Babaluma]

This guy shows it on the guitar:

This is a great video thanks but at about 4.49 does he say "the three dominant" or the "B dominant", my hearing is not that great. I understand it is a B dominant and why he is using it in this context (fascinating!) but if he says three dominant I am confused by the terminology?