Analysing jazz vocabulary

[pamosmusic]

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.

Ahhhhhh to be young again. This would be news to David Baker, I think.

The dose makes the poison.

The rhythm makes the tension.

Sure the root might not sound dissonant (though there are ways), but it will sound more or less stable and more or less alive depending on how you play it and where you place it. As will a more outside note.

[Bobby Timmons]

Ur mad at notes bro. Color comes from the notes. Rhythm is a main element of what makes melodies function, but it doesn't factor into how the melody notes sound harmonically. They're 2 separate things.

So what is the mad at list up to now?

Mad at theory, mad at tonewood, mad at JC, mad at the bot, mad at notes. ragman was mad at me for my use of BH the other day. The complex harmony scared him. :P

[pamosmusic]

Ur mad at notes bro. Color comes from the notes. Rhythm is a main element of what makes melodies function, but it doesn't factor into how the melody notes sound harmonically. They're 2 separate things.

So what is the mad at list up to now?

Mad at theory, mad at tonewood, mad at JC, mad at the bot, mad at notes. ragman was mad at me for my use of BH the other day. The complex harmony scared him. :P

Bobby, just for whatever it's worth, this is basic jazz pedagogy. And basic counterpoint. Stuff that's been out there for several centuries.

The rhythm doesn't change the literal pitch of the note, but rhythmic placement, duration, timbre, articulation, are unbelievably impactful on the way we perceive those sounds against an accompaniment. This goes back to writing on counterpoint in from the 1700s (probably earlier, but Christian can school me on that) and is relevant and explicit in teaching as current as the bebop scale.

For example, you've been super into Barry lately and it's interesting that his added note scales are decidedly not passing note scales––that any note can be placed between the b7 and root (or 5 and 6 or 2 and 3 or whatever, depending). The purpose is the rhythmic displacement of the line and the note itself doesn't matter.

And you've been really into the Open Studio stuff lately. I've heard Adam talk a few times in their recent videos about how he's been transcribing a bunch of Duke Ellington and been surprised by how often he's just using root structure triads in his arrangements and how they're so impactful anyway. I believe he said "the ear fills in more blanks than you think" (or something along those lines). How? Why?

I transcribed Clifford's solo on September Song recently and there are a couple spots in there that are just unbelievably impactful and tense and rich, and I was surprised when I transcribed them to find that all he's doing is hammering the root or a little blue note or something––but the growl in his sound, the little half-valve stuff he does, the line before and and where it lands make it sound like something different.

It's a thing.

[Bobby Timmons]

I agree. Rhythm and various forms of inflection change or enhance the impact of whatever (rudimentary) notes are played, and sort of lend a 'color' of their own. But you originally said it's only rhythm and articulation that create the color, which is false. If you take away a selection of notes related to the harmony like with drums, you have no note/harmonic color, just rhythm and its inflections.

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

[pamosmusic]

I agree. Rhythm and various forms of inflection change or enhance the impact of whatever (rudimentary) notes are played, and sort of lend a 'color' of their own. But you originally said it's only rhythm and articulation that create the color, which is false. If you take away a selection of notes related to the harmony like with drums, you have no note/harmonic color, just rhythm and its inflections.

Come on man, that's not what I said.

You literally have me quoted there, so I'm going to assume you've actually read the discussion that came before it and know that I didn't say "it's only rhythm and articulation that create color."

Even just in the post you quoted directly, I said "it's rhythm and articulation that make it colorful or not." If I told you that "you need flour for bread, but it's yeast that makes it rise or not." Would you make thing and call me "mad at flour" and claim I said that you can make bread out of only yeast?

Maybe if you thought I said "you can't create color without rhythm and articulation" then I would go with it.

[Bobby Timmons]

Okie dokie, I'm not trying to strawman anyone.

[pamosmusic]

Okie dokie, I'm not trying to strawman anyone.

u r mad at reading for context

[Bobby Timmons]

I try.

[pamosmusic]

I try.

Well that’s good. Because sometimes you go straight to “wtf yall are mad at ___” when the context would probably be helpful first.

[Bobby Timmons]

Lol

[acidskiffle]

This thread took a turn!

[ragman1]

I suspect that's because ur question has been answered, bro.

Or something

[ragman1]

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.

I understand that. I'm not sure that 'less contrived' isn't still contrived but I hear what you say :-)

By the way, I think you said when you got back from wherever it was that you'd give Autumn In New York a shot. I've had my difficulties with it so I'd be genuinely interested to see what you do. If you want.

[pamosmusic]

I understand that. I'm not sure that 'less contrived' isn't still contrived but I hear what you say :-)

By the way, I think you said when you got back from wherever it was that you'd give Autumn In New York a shot. I've had my difficulties with it so I'd be genuinely interested to see what you do. If you want.

Most certainly did not. I think it was Alone Together with the whole godforsaken diminished thing.

Or shall it be Summertime Thrice?

[ragman1]

Most certainly did not. I think it was Alone Together with the whole godforsaken diminished thing.

Sorry, I've got AINY on the brain. It was Alone Together with the godforsaken diminished thing. This is the post:

Analyzing

So, yes, I'd be interested.

[wolflen]

Lol. He ought to debunk the whole “notes are wrong because they don’t fit over the chord” theory.

You gotta get hip, ragman.

Hip..you say??.. here is the epitomy of it..Blossom Dearie (a very underrated pianist ..but very HIP!

[ragman1]

Panasonic's right, I am definitely not hip :-)

[Bobby Timmons]

Sorry, I've got AINY on the brain.

I'll be sucking the walls of her AINY!!

0:45

[Vidange]

If you were to try and communicate to a non-jazz audience why an improvised line or lick works/sounds good, how would you go about it?

You may try to explain this in terms of spoken communications. When I speak I mostly improvise. But I speak regarding the context. If it doesn't fit the context, everybody will notice. If I tell the usual thing for a given context, they will notice too. If I talk stupidly or wisely it will be also noticeable. I can be minimalistic or extended. I can be a little weird, or mysterious and go back too safe and sound, this produces a climax. This is the art of speaking. Not so different from the art of improvising. As long as I remain close to context I make sense. Jazz is a language. Everybody can speak. And reading a lot will make you a more interresting speaker, right? Once you master you instrument, you start speaking fluently.

Shut up'n play yer guitar (Zappa solo compilation album) is a good example of this. His guitar clearly speaks.

[Reg]

I'm doing a research project for a university and a component of my studies involves breaking down and analysing the playing of some players.

I learned jazz improv through transcription etc. My college also used those Barry Nettles books.

It got me thinking, is there an accepted framework for analysing the language? Barry Harris' approach seems to have become increasingly popular in recent years, with discussions on strong beats and passing tone rules etc. Some advocate for chord-scale theory, others hate it.

If you were to try and communicate to a non-jazz audience why an improvised line or lick works/sounds good, how would you go about it?

There are many accepted methods for making analysis of different players.

Personally you need to start making analysis of what or whom you want to analyze the musical language of. It's not just melodic ...obviously. Do you know how to arrange... or voice single lines. Where I'm going is most players generally know and understand musical relationships... notes using different harmonic references have different relationship etc... most musicians use standard musical references and relationships. Both with harmonic relationships and melodic relationships. There are just not that many. From analysis of the same performer, you'll pick up his or hers use of those relationships... rhythm generally helps imply a players use etc...

Anyway after enough analysis of whatever performers you choose to work with... you'll see the similarities and differences ...

Most of the analytical approaches mentioned above are just tools to use etc... I new Barry N. back in the early 70's he was well aware of Functional and modal approaches as well as different symmetric, synthetic and contemporary approaches.
If you worked out of any of his book... I'm sure you understand CST is just another tool to help understand possible relationships with Keys and Tonal centers with use of interrelationships using scales. Still using standard Functional and modal functional organization.

We all learned jazz through transcription... the only difference with us old dudes... we use records or tape.

So really you just need to start collecting the data and start working with it LOL.

Breaking it down to non jazz audiences might be interesting. I play non jazz events... last weekend I played a local festival.... and audiences seem to love energetic bluesy licks. I used an electric Acoustic Guitar... I can kind of shred... I stayed vanilla. I'm not sure non jazz audiences would be able to understand much more than that.

[Groyniad]

'understand' is such an odd word in this musical context - though we're pushed into using it....

we can't just say 'hear' - because a rabbit can hear just what you do if awake and placed next to you in front of parker's horn. But what more is needed than 'hear' is obscure.

for the first six months of being in love with jazz I could 'understand' bud Powell but not Charlie Parker. (I'd probably heard only very raw live recordings or something). after about six months of listening to fats Navarro and bud Powell and sonny Rollins I heard Bird playing some ballad and found that I did indeed 'understand' it, and immediately it made no sense at all to me that I could have failed to 'understand' it before.

it's like when you can see the duck but not the rabbit - and then, suddenly, you find that you can see the rabbit. you could see all the same lines before the 'rabbit' aspect dawned - but you could see them only as duck-lines and not as rabbit-lines. now you can see those same lines as rabbit-lines. in both cases you're just seeing - not seeing and doing something else, like thinking (or understanding) - but the seeing somehow has 'understanding' built into it.



I can hear the notes before their musicality dawns on me - but after that has happened, I can't hear them anymore just as a jumble of notes (or whatever).

[Reg]

'understand' is such an odd word in this musical context - though we're pushed into using it....

we can't just say 'hear' - because a rabbit can hear just what you do if awake and placed next to you in front of parker's horn. But what more is needed than 'hear' is obscure.

for the first six months of being in love with jazz I could 'understand' bud Powell but not Charlie Parker. (I'd probably heard only very raw live recordings or something). after about six months of listening to fats Navarro and bud Powell and sonny Rollins I heard Bird playing some ballad and found that I did indeed 'understand' it, and immediately it made no sense at all to me that I could have failed to 'understand' it before.

it's like when you can see the duck but not the rabbit - and then, suddenly, you find that you can see the rabbit. you could see all the same lines before the 'rabbit' aspect dawned - but you could see them only as duck-lines and not as rabbit-lines. now you can see those same lines as rabbit-lines. in both cases you're just seeing - not seeing and doing something else, like thinking (or understanding) - but the seeing somehow has 'understanding' built into it.



I can hear the notes before their musicality dawns on me - but after that has happened, I can't hear them anymore just as a jumble of notes (or whatever).

I love the philosphical reference... I like to remember... anyway. Personally... it's about that old.... Reference, Relationships and Developments of. Playing jazz or in a jazz style.... Different.