-
I recently got mad trying to understand from both the teoretical and practical points of view the role of the 'accented' (ex)tensions in Jazz improvisation. Please notice I emphasize the context - soloing, that is in lines. Please also note - the 'accented' (ex)tensions, that is those falling on the strong beats.
I hope you can give me enough commentary in order to return me to my normal state of mind so I can sleep well again.
I'd like to focus in this post on melodic aspect of tensions, while I surely understand the melody and harmony are strongly interrelated.
First of all let's define the tensions in the Jazz context (and we can't avoid harmony to define them):
Let's assume we consider the 7th chord of any quality the basic harmonic unit of (contemporary?) Jazz.
- The tensions then are the notes added above the 7th degree of the current 7th chord that are stacked up in thirds.
There are traditionally accepted tensions in Jazz that are considered 'available' for a certain chord quality but let's simplify the rules of 'availability' of the tensions for the purpose of this discussion and equalize the chord qualities in their abilty to accept all upper tensions.
So for the 4 most important chord qualities (Maj7, Dom7, min7, min7b5) in Jazz (except fully diminished) we'll assume that all 4 of them can accept the following (ex)tensions: 9, 11, 13.
I don't consider possible (and common) alterations such as #11 for Maj7 for the purpose of simplification.
In Classical music there is no such thing defined as '(ex)tension'. There are of course 7th chords that need to be resolved properly but all other occurencies of what we would call tensions in Jazz are classified as 'non-chord tones'. Or, yes, the 7th is an obvious tension itself that wants to resolve, especially in Maj7 but let's leave it alone for the moment.
There are various kinds of non chord-tones that were first defined in Classical music theory, including passing tones, neighborough tones, suspessions and appoggiaturas to name a few. In Jazz these terms are also often used but Jazz expanded the terminology to include 'tensions' due to the expanded interpretaion of the non-chord tones that comes from their stylistic usage.
Now, let's get to the real question.
Let's assume we are interested only in tensions that fall on the strong beats, that is 'accented tensions', because otherwise we deal with the passing tones that are no different from the Classical interpretation in the Mainstream Jazz.
For instance, we play over a Dmin7 = D-F-A-C and in our line we have a measure of 8-th notes where beats 1, 2 and 3 are filled with tensions 9=E, 11=G and 13=B and all 'ands' are some other notes most of which happen to be chord tones of Dmin7.
The easiest example I can think of is this ascending scalar line of 8-th notes:
|1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8|
_________________
|E-F-G-A-B-C-D-E|
or this descending scalar line:
|1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8|
_________________
|B-A-G-F-E-D-C-B|
Please note - the above two "lines" are in no way an example of what you would play in a real solo but only a useful simplification for the purpose of this discussion.
You can see from the above two examples that the strongest beats of both measures are taken by these (ex)tensions: E=9 and B=13.
As well as calling these notes 'tensions 9 and 13' we could call them 'non-chord tones of the 2-nd and 6-th degrees of the Dorian mode' with the same success.
I also know another definition that doesn't consider the notion of the strong and weak beats and which says that the difference between the note designation being '2-nd' vs '9th' ('6-th' vs '13-th') comes from the following context:
- if a non-chord tone is used in a scalar passage it's considered a passing tone, that is 2-nd or 6-th;
- if a non-chord tone is used in an arpeggiated passage - it's an extension, that is 9-th or 13-th;
(Sorry for my neglection of the 11-th, they are in the same boat.)
If you noticed that - good catch! I can re-write my examples (with 8-th rests = R) to suite the above definitions better:
|1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8|
_________________
|E-R-G-R-B-R-D-E|
or this descending arpeggiated line:
|1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8|
_________________
|B-R-G-R-E-R-C-B|
From this point on we can apply various kinds of descriptions to explain what's going on in these two lines.
1. From the commonly accepted sense: 'This is complete crap - never play anything like that!'. 'You need to place 'chord tones' on the strong beats.'
2. From the Classical theory point of view: 'The above two measures are a good example of excessively used appoggiaturas that are not properly resolved within the context of each measure.' - Never compose anything like this!
Yes, as far as I understand, the two notes, E and B placed on the strong beats 1 and 3 are nothing more than appoggiaturas, provided we've totaly isolated these measures - let's assume it's a first measure of a piece.
3. From a general approach to contemporary Jazz improvisation in Tonal music context: 'This is a very tense line, man! It's so tense that you need to hold the 3rd or 5th of the next chords to follow for the next two measures in order to resolve tension'. 'If you like - you can play like this but most likely you will play alone'.
4. etc. ...
What I'd really like to understand is how the 'accented tensions' (those that fall on the strong beats) are treated in contemporary Jazz solos and what is the commonly accepted practice in the Mainstream Jazz and what is considered 'over-the-top'.
As far as I understand before the Bebop explorations (read C.Parker and friends) most of the time accented tensions or maybe excessive use of accented tensions was accepted in Jazz not much different from the Classical music approach of the Common Practice Period.
And in our time in Contemporary Tonal Jazz - is the use of 'accented tensions' or maybe even 'excessive use of accented tensions' accepted as normal?
What are the restriction, terms of use and common sense when using the 'accented tensions' in Jazz soloing?
Please note that I perfectly understand, that in the end 'our ear is the best guide' but if someone has not developed his ear to the point when he can be a good judge, he needs to start somewhere.
And that 'somewhere' is this case is the commonly accepted practice.
P.S. Technically speaking, the difference between 2nd and 9th, 4th and 11th, 6th and 13th regardless of any context is in their relation to the Root of the chord (scale), that is in their relative position in respect to the Root: either being located in the same octave as the Root or in the next octave up from the Root but this has little importance in the context of my question because it's hard to define a reference point in a line.
If we add the harmonic context (i.e. low Roots played by the bass) the whole thing can become too complicated for interpretation.Last edited by VKat; 04-13-2015 at 12:06 PM. Reason: Double-spaces are reduced
-
04-13-2015 11:41 AM
-
Sorry for the lengthy post...
Last edited by VKat; 04-13-2015 at 11:46 AM.
-
Matt Warnock, a nice guy, a knowledgeable jazz guitarist and a frequent poster on this forum once posted an article closely related to my first post in this thread in the Guitar World online:
Jazz Guitar Corner: Beyond the Octave ? Upper Structure Triads for Jazz Guitar | Guitar World
However, if you read that (great!) article you'll still have those questions that I asked above left unanswered.
Can you see my point?
-
Yeah I didn't really read it, I did skim some of the topics, but it's too long. And without even reading it I can tell you with 100% certainty you are over thinking it. You can play any note over any chord you want. Some are simply more consonant and some are less. Ok, that is a simplistic way of putting it, but simplicity is what you need in order to improvise at a high level (in my opinion of course). The moment you begin to approach improvisation from a purely intellectual place is the moment you cease to make enjoyable music. Don't do it. You've been warned! The last thing in the world I (or most people, from what I can tell) want to listen to is what I call "mathematical" music. Music is mathematical no matter what we do, but some music sounds like math, and some doesn't. Go for the music that doesn't. Or at the very least use the right balance of both. Then I guess you can get both props from other jazz musicians for being so smart, and props from non-musicians for playing nice sounding music. I'm not really just saying "screw theory, just use your ear!" I know all my theory, and you should learn it too, I just try my hardest not to let my knowledge of theory override my good taste in music. In other words, I rely on my ear as the final judge, and I don't see music theory as an instruction manual as to what I can or cannot do. In my opinion, this is what the best musicians (that I've heard) do too. Don't feel bad, you are making the most common mistake that jazz "students" make: over intellectualizing the process of creative inspiration. Seriously do some deep contemplation of what I am saying. It's really more of a philosophical question than a music theory question. And I'm not kidding when I say you can use any note you want over any chord. It's just a matter of how you use them.
-
Forget all that. Just find a jazz solo you like (contemporary, ancient, whatever) and copy it. Then do another one. Ideally, from a different player, different instrument. And so on. That'll teach you what you need to know.
Only "what sounds good in practice" will teach you what sounds good in practice.
-
I would approach this by having one chord playing in the background and then playing your extensions against it. Pick a tension that you like, and start trying to incorporate just that one tension into your lines. I find the ninth relatively easy to work with in that way so you might try just playing a lick that emphasizes D over a CMaj7. Just get the sound in your ears. When the ninth starts to sound like a "normal" note to you, move on to something else. (probably the 6/13 would be the easiest.) There's nothing especially mysterious about it. You just need to listen.
-
I quite often start a phrase on the 9th or 13th. I didn't get it from theory, just by listening to the recordings.
-
Your definitely over thinking the whole thing. 9's 11's 13's all have a sound, when you want that sound, use it. Now it's definitely worth learning how to access these extensions through various approaches, which it looks like your doing, but don't forget the most important part, the sounds.
Here is a little tip to access extensions over Dom7 chords. Play a major 7th (and various others) arp off the b7 of the Dom7 chord. That will give you your 7 9 11 13. That is just one of 1000 ways to access these notes, but you need to make music with it to get it into your ear. If its not in your ear, you certainly wont be making music with it.
Where did you get the idea that classical music didn't use extensions? They most certainly did and there is good reason to believe thats where the bebop players got it from.
If you really want to wrap your ears around the extensions, check out jazzeveryone.com
Uncle Willy will take you where you want to go!!!
-
The late 19th and early 20th century composers used them as extensions (Debussy is a good example), but earlier composers would't have looked at those notes as part of the underlying harmony. Jazzers look at these tones as extensions because it provides a functional mechanism for improvisation, which is not something classical composers were overly concerned with. They were simply "non-chord tones".
Originally Posted by vintagelove
From a modern perspective, we can go back and analyze classical compositions from an extended chord / modal point of view, but that's not how they were thinking when they wrote them.
The beboppers were listening to people like Debussy and Stravinsky, and working out of the Slonimsky book (1947), so their perspective was definitely more modern than classical.
-
Good. The concensus is then - "use your ears".
Of course no one would play in real life my purely illustrational examples or even examples of Matt Warnock presented in the Guitar World magazine, consisting of only extensions and none of chord tones.
But why? Is that because your ear would tell playing all tensions in turn and no chord tones is "too tense"?
You could easily call this process "superimposition" also to complicate the whole thing even more.
I know many Jazz masters/educators still call the diatonic non-chord tones on strong beats (unaltered 'accented' extensions) the appoggiaturas. Sid Jacobs is one of them.
Tonal music is a universal language unless we move into the Free Jazz territory (or any "free" music for that matter). There are chord tones and non-chord tones and you can't change that without ruining the tonal music concept.
So in the Matt Warnock's more realistic examples he suggests to construct a line consisting of only appoggiaturas. How good/bad is that from the educational point of view?
Is that a perfectly valid or maybe on the contrary - an exaggerated example?
By the way, I read about Bach (sorry guys, too often you see statements sort of "I know that Bach..." - did he tell you that?
), so it was said that one of the merits of Bach was that he proved that music could be constructed by fomulas, a set of the well defined and verified rules as opposed to 'finger composers' who relied solely on their ears.
The whole point of my original post is to hear your opinion on the commonly accepted density of accented extensions in lines.
If you don't use them - good! No dissonance surprises and no one will point that out to you.
But as I suggested above there must some safe, commonly accepted amount of extensions in a line which is once exceeded becomes "over-the-top".Last edited by VKat; 04-14-2015 at 05:30 AM.
-
I think it depends entirely on where you're going with it. I could see a line of all extensions, as long as it resolved somewhere. It might sound very tense, but that just makes the resolution all the more satisfying. Obviously this sort of approach would have to be used sparingly. Originally Posted by VKat
I'm not wild about this use of the term. To me, an appoggiatura has a very specific sound. It's not just a "tense" note. (See below.)I know many Jazz masters/educators still call the diatonic non-chord tones on strong beats (unaltered 'accented' extensions) the appoggiaturas. Sid Jacobs is one of them.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The way I see it, you can't have a line of "only appoggiaturas" because one of the fundamental qualities of an appoggiatura is that it resolves on the next note. (Maybe I'm wrong here, but this is how I learned it in classical theory.)So in the Matt Warnock's more realistic examples he suggests to construct a line consisting of only appoggiaturas. How good/bad is that from the educational point of view?
-
I think he means arpeggios?
-
'Extended arpeggios' if you like to put it that way.
Why 'extended'?
Because:
In the Classical music sense you have the arpeggios for all but Dom7th chords defined as 'R-3-5-R'.
In Jazz for the basic unit you have the arpeggios defined as 'R-3-5-7'.
In Jazz for the 'extended arpeggios' you have them defined as 'R-3-5-7-9-11-13-R'.
If you like to extend the range further you have the arpeggios defined as: 'R-3-5-7-9-11-13-15-17-19-17-19-21-23...etc.etc.'.
Originally Posted by Jehu
-
Vkat, just because someone does a lesson on using the 9,11, & 13, doesn't mean they are saying "these are the best ones to use". Use them if you want. You can also use the 1, 3, & 5 if you want. You just need to realize every single note, whether chord tone, non-chord tone, chromatic tone, or whatever, will have a different effect, a different sound. Try them all. Mix them freely. There are certainly certain notes jazz players are more fond of like the 3rds and 7ths..but that doesn't mean only play 3rds and 7ths. You can look at any transcription of a master improviser and find every other note in there too. A good example of this is I remember reading theory nerds talking on a forum similar to this one and they would always say "the 4th is an 'avoid' note over major triads". And then I went did some transcriptions of master improvisors and kept finding the 4th over major triads...My point is, anytime someone tells you "Don't use these notes" or "Use only these", you'll find some amazing jazz artist doing the exact opposite. Truly every note can be used. Stop worrying about what some theory nerds say about which notes are the best and which ones are the worst. Use your ear to tell you how it sounds, and if it has a use. I think it's better to think of notes in terms of levels of dissonance or consonance, rather than "correct" or "incorrect". Using dissonance or consonance as your guide you can find a use for any note. And I think that is what an advanced improvisor wants, right? I'm sure you can make any note work at any time if you do it right. I remember analyzing some Pat Metheny lines off his "Q & A" album and thinking "WTF is he doing??" And then it occurred to me: He's not worried about playing by the book (i.e. what all the theory nerds are saying is the right way to play). Pat Metheny plays freely whatever the #$#$ he wants, and makes it sound amazing. Sure much of it will be your standard arpeggios and jazz theory 101. Sure some of it can be explained by tritone subs or sidestepping or enclosures or whatever, but seriously some of it didn't fit into any music theory that I know, it was just completely atonal. But that gave me another important realization: I don't need to be so attached to tonality, atonality can be used to great effect. Don't make me spend hour trying to find the exact spots to quote you lol, just go look yourself. Anyways, my point is a big mistake jazzers make (I see it all the time on this forum) is they think everything they play needs theoretical justification, and I am here to tell you, it doesn't! If you don't believe me go analyze multiple transcriptions of some of the masters and I'm sure you will, as I did, run into some examples that don't fit into any of the standard theory or jazz theory you learn. And really that is what separates the greats from the mediocre (which I freely admit I belong to, but I'm working on it!).
-
No problem, let's call them the 'unresolved appogiaturas' for the lack of a better definition in the common tonal music terms. Or is there a better way to call them? They are definitely 'non-chord tones'. However they are 'extended chord tones' in Jazz. So, all 12 tones can easily be considered 'chord tones' in Jazz if we add the notion of alterations. Originally Posted by Boston Joe
Anyway, I see what you mean - thank you for your opinion.
-
I think all you say in your post (I quoted only a small part) is the best answer in order to at least win an argument with me. Oh, I don't want to say that's your goal - sure not!
Why?
Imagine I tell myself: "I want to play Jazz". If I want to play it it most likely is because I like to listen to it. Isn't it? If I like to listen to it it means that those who play it put the notes in such a way I like to hear. Then the only thing I need to do is to dissect their solos and find out what those notes are and how they are put together.
Simple...
Originally Posted by Guitarzen
-
One last thing I want to add here (I really see there is no point to continue this discussion) is that once again the most important Jazz improvisation rule is revealed: "You can't improvise Jazz whithout a well developed ear. You can use "numbers" to help you navigate the changes (or the fretboard, keyboard, etc.) but if you play by numbers it won't make any good neither to you nor to your listeners."
Right?
-
Finally, I want to ask everyone, who reads this far - please add below your favourite links to interesting online articles, pdf's etc. that deal with (ex)tensions and tension/resolution principles in Jazz soloing.
I start by giving you a link to Ed Saindon's article 'Tension and Resolution' at Berklee online:
https://www.berklee.edu/berklee-toda...and-resolution
Your turn, please!
-
What is commonly accepted practice regarding accented tensions...well you don't hear them much I think. Probably lines resolving on 9 would be quite common. Specific chords can imply specific accented tensions - if the chord is specifically G7#11, its more likely people will play #11 on a strong beat and "get away with it".
But there are largely no rules and any note works over any chord in any situation if you do it well. Second thing, what is "well" differs from person to person.
I don't think accented tensions is a "thing", it just kind of happens sometimes as part of a larger thing like a delayed resolution or something. I would say it is uncommon but not unusual.
First to admit though, I'm not very knowledgeable in this.
Once I heard a flute player play one note over an entire chorus of blues. Not just any note - he played E natural on a chorus of F blues(WTF???) - it sounded great but I have no idea how he got there or made it work...that's about as accented a tension as anybody can get I'd say.Last edited by pushkar000; 04-14-2015 at 08:17 AM.
-
Yes, I agree that it's risky to generalize the use of 'tensions' over any kind of harmony. Af far as I understand most of the time tensions and altered tensions are used over V7 chords because of their natural tendency to resolve into (I)... well, they often don't resolve!
Sort of you can't 'worsen' a naturally tense chord such as V7 by making it even "worse" with anything your mind comes up with to play over it.
That's what I think Bill Evans (the saxophonist) suggests in his TrueFire course "The Language of Improvisation". At least that's what I remember from his advice on playing over V7.
Originally Posted by pushkar000
-
I don't think the article was talking about playing only extensions for the entire solo or anything. And I think that, instead of complicating things, "superimposition", (apart from the big word itself), rather simplifies things. (Playing a Dm triad over Cmaj7 isn't more complex than thinking of the extensions IMO.) Originally Posted by VKat
More generally, playing chord tones, 1-3-5-7, on the beat, with passing tones in between is common practice for beginners learning to play jazz. It's important to be able to learn to hear strong and weak beats on simple swung 8th notes etc and learn a sense of tension and release with melody and harmony.
Later, your idea of what is "tense" evolves and a lot of extensions and even altered notes may sound more consonant than tense, and thus played on "strong beats/parts of the beat". Also, concepts of where "the beat" is, in relationship to the harmonic rhythm or accents of the tune, aren't static in jazz. The "strong beat" isn't always "on the beat". It may be somewhere else in some syncopated pattern of accents.
In the end, they say that there are no "rules". You can play any note over any chord, but there are also common practices for learning to hear such things in the beginning. If you're still learning Jazz (like myself), it may not be super helpful to have as your target "any note you want". There's a context and a tradition. You learn by what others have done. Otherwise you could just play just anything, but "anything" could be garbage.
When people tell you that you're overcomplicating it, they're not just writing you off or don't want to give you an answer. It's just that some things are best "explained" outside of a text format. Time with a good teacher and a lot of listening to the music answers questions much more simply than talking about it in written communication like our format here.
Good luck with everything.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 04-14-2015 at 01:53 PM.
-
That's a very good point you make. I just watched couple "lectures" on YT on Charlier Parker's improvisation style and the uploader clearly emphasized how CP cleverly displaced the accents. It wasn't an example of a typical 'polyrythmic' device in the video I think, maybe just some kind of 'wandering rhythm' but it clearly demonstrated that more important notes can be placed on the off-beats. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
By the way Matt - are you Matt Warnock? I remember MW had a different nickname on this board if my memory serves me well.
-
Warnock posts here occasionally under mw78.
-
In my other life I was him, but no. He is a real jazz player and teacher. Me, not so much. Originally Posted by VKat
This. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
That's a weird transformation
Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Reply With Quote
Can someone help me identify this song?
Yesterday, 11:21 PM in The Songs