Analysing jazz vocabulary

[Christian Miller]

To be a good sight reader is also a type of improvisation - if you’ve read a load of Sor or Giuliani or whatever you are more likely to know ‘how it goes’.

There’s stories of players intuitively correcting printing mistakes as they play, because they just don’t see the individual notes, but rather the shapes in the style.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

Reading recommendation: Don Byas on Art Tatum in Art Taylors "Notes and Tones"

I don't have that book and I'm certainly not going to buy it so I can reply to your post! If you have a link, post it. If you don't, and you have the book, take a photo of the requisite passage and show me. Delighted.

[pamosmusic]

I'd say they were an integral part of the music, classical included.

Not so much as we might like to think.

Thought experiment: You play C maj and I play the note D … is it colorful or do you barely notice it?

[ragman1]

Colorful, because it's pleasantly lydian, which is more than acceptable. Wrong notes aren't notes just 'not in the chord', they're basically mistakes that sound clashingly awful because they obviously are to any reasonable ear.

Does this really need explaining?

[pamosmusic]

Colorful, because it's pleasantly lydian, which is more than acceptable. Wrong notes aren't notes just 'not in the chord', they're basically mistakes that sound clashingly awful because they obviously are to any reasonable ear.

Does this really need explaining?

Apparently.

First off, nothing distinctly “Lydian” about that note. But also you didn’t ask an important question … what comes before and after, and how long did you hear it? Where does it occur, and for how long.

or: RHYTHM

Whenever I tell you that some weird sound can sound good if it’s part of convincing vocabulary, you tend to challenge me to play it and sometimes I do and you usually say something along the lines of “well I don’t know why you’re hiding it with all that flailing around.” By which you mean that you can’t hear the clashes because of the rhythm.

But I could play D over C in a way that sounds tense and colorful, in a way that sounds propulsive and resolved, and in a way that you wouldn’t even notice it (as a passing note, say).

It isn’t the note that makes it colorful … it’s placement, duration, articulation. Rhythm, baby.

When people say that anything can sound good over anything, it’s important to note what they *dont* say … they don’t say that anything WILL sound good over anything. They don’t say that anything can sound good over anything HOWEVER and WHENEVER you play it. It’s just that the relationship of the pitch to the root note really matter that much.

[pamosmusic]

It occurs to me that you might have read that as a “D chord,” but the same still applies.

[ragman1]

nothing distinctly “Lydian” about that note.

My fault, I thought you meant the chord D over C, not just the note. So, D on C. Then it's C add 9 or CM9 if the C was CM7. I'd still say colorful to a musical ear. But you didn't say whether it's just something popped in or just part of a line over more than one bar. As an end chord it's colorful and noticeable. As a passing note, barely noticeable.

(Just seen your next post. Yes, as a chord).

[ragman1]

Whenever I tell you that some weird sound can sound good if it’s part of convincing vocabulary, you tend to challenge me to play it

I may have done, I can't remember now :-)

It depends entirely on the context. I'd say that's the bottom line. Done skilfully it can sound terrific. But I wouldn't call that a wrong note, or notes. That's the point.

As I said earlier, it's not something reduced to 'a wrong note is a note not in the chord'. That's far too banal and not true anyway.

[pamosmusic]

My fault, I thought you meant the chord D over C, not just the note. So, D on C. Then it's C add 9 or CM9 if the C was CM7. I'd still say colorful to a musical ear. But you didn't say whether it's just something popped in or just part of a line over more than one bar. As an end chord it's colorful and noticeable. As a passing note, barely noticeable.

(Just seen your next post. Yes, as a chord).

right. So this it, right. Analyzing based on the color of the note against the chord isn’t terribly productive because its rhythm and articulation that make it colorful or not.

[pamosmusic]

I may have done, I can't remember now :-)

It depends entirely on the context. I'd say that's the bottom line. Done skilfully it can sound terrific. But I wouldn't call that a wrong note, or notes. That's the point.

As I said earlier, it's not something reduced to 'a wrong note is a note not in the chord'. That's far too banal and not true anyway.

Of course not. I would never call it a wrong note. A inside note played haltingingly is a wrong note. But I brought it up because ….

He ought to de-bunk the 'There are no wrong notes' theory as well because that is serious nonsense!

Which makes one think you’re a little more hard line on the topic.

[Christian Miller]

There's also a natural slide in the use of notes.

For example, using the major seventh as part of a melody was common in the 1920s, but you wouldn't hear it in a comping chord until much later.

OTOH when Bird sits on the major 9th on a I chord, I kind of feel he's being a little cheeky - refusing to resolve (I have no way of knowing if that's what was meant) but in later players it becomes such an obvious note to play on a major chord - or include in a voicing - that it doesn't really stand out in the same way.

Idiom is kind of everything, but obviously even with that we can't assume our responses map to those of the musician's contemporary audience (much less the musician themselves)

I feel a big part of that is quotations, cultural association and meanings. What would be an obvious quotation in the work of Bach would now require a high level of specialist knowledge to spot as the popular tunes of his era and community pass out of memory while his music remains. I think this is true of Bird. The High Society lick is part of the Nerdy Jazz Lore, but many players don't know that it is a quotation. In this case it might be analysed as a 'Ionian line that emphasises the chord tones of G major' or some such. Which isn't wrong, but it's not why Bird played it.


The cultural context is (perhaps inevitably) lost over time...

[James W]

This may be shifting. A friend of mine has the unenviable job of trying to teach classical students at a prestigious conservatoire who would rather be practicing their concertos or whatever (as if there’s a career in that for most of them lol) to improvise in a classical idiom. I’ll check in and see how it’s going lol.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to scoff at people practising something which they might not have a career in. It seems to me that in doing this, you're scoffing by extension at the many people here who are not professional musicians. It's almost as though music is something valuable in itself and doesn't need remuneration for it to be worth while.

I find it strange that Classical improvisation gets put on a pedestal. I mean, what about all the great Romantic instrumentalists who were great improvisers, people such as Liszt and Chopin? There have always been strains of improvisation in European art music (I use this term so as to avoid the ambiguous 'classical') but then its history has occurred mostly without the means of recording. I guess the baton got passed in the twentieth century onto jazz where it's assumed a much more central role, its raison d'etre, even. What is considered contemporary art music now is much more fragmented, but improvisation is definitely a thing, there is a list given here of recent or contemporary composers who use it: Musical improvisation - Wikipedia

Probably looking back to past eras with rose-coloured spectacles about the time when composers composed and improvised quickly in an agreed idiom is another facet of a kind of conservatism that wonders, simultaneously, why classical musicians now put the act of creating music on a pedestal.

[pamosmusic]

There's also a natural slide in the use of notes.

For example, using the major seventh as part of a melody was common in the 1920s, but you wouldn't hear it in a comping chord until much later.

OTOH when Bird sits on the major 9th on a I chord, I kind of feel he's being a little cheeky - refusing to resolve (I have no way of knowing if that's what was meant) but in later players it becomes such an obvious note to play on a major chord - or include in a voicing - that it doesn't really stand out in the same way.

Idiom is kind of everything, but obviously even with that we can't assume our responses map to those of the musician's contemporary audience (much less the musician themselves)

I feel a big part of that is quotations, cultural association and meanings. What would be an obvious quotation in the work of Bach would now require a high level of specialist knowledge to spot as the popular tunes of his era and community pass out of memory while his music remains. I think this is true of Bird. The High Society lick is part of the Nerdy Jazz Lore, but many players don't know that it is a quotation. In this case it might be analysed as a 'Ionian line that emphasises the chord tones of G major' or some such. Which isn't wrong, but it's not why Bird played it.


The cultural context is (perhaps inevitably) lost over time...

Agreed … also interesting note, there’s a killer G major lick in Cornet Chop Suey (from what … 1930?) that looks an awful lot like this one.

[pamosmusic]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to scoff at people practising something which they might not have a career in. It seems to me that in doing this, you're scoffing by extension at the many people here who are not professional musicians. It's almost as though music is something valuable in itself and doesn't need remuneration for it to be worth while.

I find it strange that Classical improvisation gets put on a pedestal. I mean, what about all the great Romantic instrumentalists who were great improvisers, people such as Liszt and Chopin? There have always been strains of improvisation in European art music (I use this term so as to avoid the ambiguous 'classical') but then its history has occurred mostly without the means of recording. I guess the baton got passed in the twentieth century onto jazz where it's assumed a much more central role, its raison d'etre, even. What is considered contemporary art music now is much more fragmented, but improvisation is definitely a thing, there is a list given here of recent or contemporary composers who use it: Musical improvisation - Wikipedia

Probably looking back to past eras with rose-coloured spectacles about the time when composers composed and improvised quickly in an agreed idiom is another facet of a kind of conservatism that wonders, simultaneously, why classical musicians now put the act of creating music on a pedestal.

Christian is incapable of withholding snark.

If it makes you feel better, I was a jazz guitar student thrust into a classical major because of budget cuts and basically only did it because the department chair suggested I drop the major and transfer to another school later

[ragman1]

Which makes one think you’re a little more hard line on the topic.

I don't know. It's simple to me, if it fits, then it's okay. If you hear something that makes you want to vomit then it's not

[ragman1]

This might interest you, or not. Three solos on Summertime. The first one's straight but the next two have subs (only the solo, not the chords):

Am/E7 - % - % - Am/A7
Dm - % - E7 - %
Am/E7 - % - % - %
CM7/Am - F7/E7 - Am - E7+

Am/E7 - % - % - Am/A7
Dm - % - E7 - %
Am/E7 - % - Bm - %
CM7/Am - F7/E7 - Am - E7+

Am/E7 - % - % - Am/A7
C#m - % - E7 - %
Am/E7 - % - % - %
F#7 - % - Am - E7+

I don't think they sound like wrong notes except one. That was the very last note of all, which was Bb over E7aug... which is technically not wrong, it just sounds wrongly placed.

[pamosmusic]

This might interest you, or not. Three solos on Summertime. The first one's straight but the next two have subs (only the solo, not the chords):

Am/E7 - % - % - Am/A7
Dm - % - E7 - %
Am/E7 - % - % - %
CM7/Am - F7/E7 - Am - E7+

Am/E7 - % - % - Am/A7
Dm - % - E7 - %
Am/E7 - % - Bm - %
CM7/Am - F7/E7 - Am - E7+

Am/E7 - % - % - Am/A7
C#m - % - E7 - %
Am/E7 - % - % - %
F#7 - % - Am - E7+

I don't think they sound like wrong notes except one. That was the very last note of all, which was Bb over E7aug... which is technically not wrong, it just sounds wrongly placed.

I don’t know man. I think again that our sense of what is rhythmically compelling is very different. Which is fine as a matter of taste, I suppose

[Christian Miller]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to scoff at people practising something which they might not have a career in. It seems to me that in doing this, you're scoffing by extension at the many people here who are not professional musicians. It's almost as though music is something valuable in itself and doesn't need remuneration for it to be worth while.

No that's not what I am saying.

I think you misunderstand the context, I'll try to explain.

Classical music undergrad students at elite conservatoires (as opposed to say, university music courses) are often very specifically focussed on a concert career. Needless to say the competition here is incredibly intense, and traditionally that's how these places are set up. Improvisation doesn't really fit into that unless they are maybe specialising in baroque music (in which case you'd probably be into it.) Would you want to teach improv to students who'd rather be in a practice room doing 'proper stuff'? (I mean I'd give it a go but I'm weird.)

The reality of it is not everyone gets to be the star. For those that aren't, improvisation could be really useful for branching out and finding other possibilities for a career other than the role of orchestral player or concert soloist etc which are out of the question for the majority of players in any case, even those at conservatoires. (Which is presumably why they are trying to teach this stuff to students,)

https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmu...lliard_effect/

I think eventually the needle will move on this. The busiest musicians I know are seemingly capable of playing pretty much anything, including classical. But they can also improvise, groove, read chord symbols, and so on and so forth, and many compose too, writing library music and so on.

Teachers should IMO be well rounded music makers as well.

I find it strange that Classical improvisation gets put on a pedestal. I mean, what about all the great Romantic instrumentalists who were great improvisers, people such as Liszt and Chopin? There have always been strains of improvisation in European art music (I use this term so as to avoid the ambiguous 'classical') but then its history has occurred mostly without the means of recording. I guess the baton got passed in the twentieth century onto jazz where it's assumed a much more central role, its raison d'etre, even. What is considered contemporary art music now is much more fragmented, but improvisation is definitely a thing, there is a list given here of recent or contemporary composers who use it: Musical improvisation - Wikipedia

Probably looking back to past eras with rose-coloured spectacles about the time when composers composed and improvised quickly in an agreed idiom is another facet of a kind of conservatism that wonders, simultaneously, why classical musicians now put the act of creating music on a pedestal.

Yes, indeed, I think it's a knock on effect.

I'm not saying I'll ever be up to the level of, say, a generic professional composer of the C18 (obviously these guys trained from an early age) but I can see that it is fundamentally teachable. You need to learn the patterns and sequences and internalise them, which of course is the same thing you need to do to become conversant with, say, bebop vocabulary. It's not hard to see how Vivaldi or Corelli for instance used the Moti de Bassi in his compositions - it's very much on the surface (harder with Bach.)

OTOH more knowledge of the way these musicians learned music actually makes me more impressed, not less, but the likes of Mozart and Beethoven and so on. And even the less revolutionary composers, supremely skilful. I'm not sure if it democratises the Canon exactly, but it certainly creates a healthier relationship with it IMHO.

Another aspect though is how the Italians were essentially written out of the mainstream histories of C18 music when in fact they were supremely influential during this period. C19 German nationalism casts a long shadow in music. The likes of Schenker were a refinement of that trend. Here's a good paper on these and related subjects:

Just a moment...

As far as contemporary improvisation goes, I've met and jammed with some classical music students who are way more confident and better at "non-idiomatic" improv than I am. I'm also quite impressed by how differently composers think about improvisation to me. It's a different language and approach.

[James W]

No that's not what I am saying.

I think you misunderstand the context, I'll try to explain.

Classical music undergrad students at elite conservatoires (as opposed to say, university music courses) are often very specifically focussed on a concert career. Needless to say the competition here is incredibly intense. Think piano competitions and so on... improvisation doesn't really fit into that unless they are maybe specialising in baroque music (in which case you'd probably be into it.) Would you want to teach improv to students who'd rather be in a practice room doing 'proper stuff'? (I mean I'd give it a go but I'm weird.)

I think eventually the needle will move on this. The busiest musicians I know are seemingly capable of playing pretty much anything, including classical. But they can also improvise, groove, read chord symbols, and so on and so forth.

Teachers should IMO be well rounded music makers as well.



Yes, indeed, I think it's a knock on effect.

I'm not saying I'll ever be up to the level of, say, a generic professional composer of the C18 (obviously these guys trained from an early age) but I can see that it is fundamentally teachable. You need to learn the patterns and sequences and internalise them, which of course is the same thing you need to do to become conversant with, say, bebop vocabulary. It's not hard to see how Vivaldi or Corelli for instance used the Moti de Bassi in his compositions - it's very much on the surface (harder with Bach.)

OTOH more knowledge of the way these musicians learned music actually makes me more impressed, not less, but the likes of Mozart and Beethoven and so on. And even the less revolutionary composers, supremely skilful. I'm not sure if it democratises the Canon exactly, but it certainly creates a healthier relationship with it IMHO.

Another aspect though is how the Italians were essentially written out of the mainstream histories of C18 music when in fact they were supremely influential during this period. C19 German nationalism casts a long shadow in music. The likes of Schenker were a refinement of that trend. Here's a good paper on these and related subjects:

Just a moment...

As far as contemporary improvisation goes, I've met and jammed with some classical music students who are way more confident and better at "non-idiomatic" improv than I am. I'm also quite impressed by how differently composers think about improvisation to me. It's a different language and approach.

Thanks for the reply and clarifications. I still think even if you're at an elite conservatoire it's still worth putting the effort in even if it's likely you won't turn professional. I agree that teachers should be well-rounded musicians. Yes, more knowledge deepens ones appreciation of music. One of the interesting things about free improv is that it seems to borrow freely from both classical and jazz, depending on who is doing it...

[Christian Miller]

Thanks for the reply and clarifications. I still think even if you're at an elite conservatoire it's still worth putting the effort in even if it's likely you won't turn professional. I agree that teachers should be well-rounded musicians.

Well I think so too, but you try telling them that haha. A lot of kids who've been in the system since a young age, too. And not everyone is like this obviously, and many grow out of it. But many also burn out and it's easy to see why.

I think Trinity Laban are being very smart by differentiating themselves from this traditionalist world. Mind you they don't have that many classical students these days (defunding of music edu in the state sector hasn't helped.)

[bediles]

Thanks for the reply and clarifications. I still think even if you're at an elite conservatoire it's still worth putting the effort in even if it's likely you won't turn professional. I agree that teachers should be well-rounded musicians. Yes, more knowledge deepens ones appreciation of music. One of the interesting things about free improv is that it seems to borrow freely from both classical and jazz, depending on who is doing it...

I think it's cool. In my experience, Classical musicians can usually do way more than they think they can.

[Christian Miller]

I think it's cool. In my experience, Classical musicians can usually do way more than they think they can.

The trick lies in talking them into it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

I don’t know man. I think again that our sense of what is rhythmically compelling is very different. Which is fine as a matter of taste, I suppose

I agree, not my best feature. Don't know how much I can radically alter it, though; I tend to play as I feel. Consciously trying to change it would probably sound contrived. Which might be worse than just boring :-)

[pamosmusic]

I agree, not my best feature. Don't know how much I can radically alter it, though; I tend to play as I feel. Consciously trying to change it would probably sound contrived. Which might be worse than just boring :-)

Not something I worry about much. Part of the purpose practice I think is the freedom to sound contrived so that I might sound less so when I play.

[Bobby Timmons]

Analyzing based on the color of the note against the chord isn’t terribly productive because its rhythm and articulation that make it colorful or not.

Breh. That isn't true. They're separate issues. You can put whatever rhythms you want on 1 root note, it's not going to sound terribly colorful compared to a full pallet of color tones. On the other side of the coin, it requires no rhythm at all to demonstrate the color of a note against a chord.