-
Hey guys...
Couldn't decide where to post this thread. Could have gone into the tunes section, the chords, theory...but I chose here since technically the idea is to give more specific ideas for improvisation (and harmony too...we all know it's basically the same thing, right?)
Anyways...if you've read any number of my threads or responses here, you might know where I'm coming from. If not...my goal these days is to get super specific and super fundamental. There's often talk (here and in real life) of aaaaaaaaaall the options. It's all connected. All these chords are in a family together. When you see this chord, you can do 600 bagillion things. All true. No dispute. I'm just heading in the other direction for a while. I want to get really specific, really simple, and really deep. Less about stacking more things on top of more things...and more about removing all those stacked up things and trying to dig deeper into the stuff that's right there in the music.
So the starting point has been analyzing individual chords, specifically using upper structure triads, get a grasp of what's going on in the upper register of the chord to feed me melodic information, and then (more recently) to start analyzing tunes this way. This is the first tune I've written out with this system like this. Usually I just scratch the ideas into the real book where there's room. But I went ahead and tried to find a way to notate all of the information onto a chart. I'm still ironing out the kinks as far as the best way to do that. If you see anything that could be more clear, please let me know, as I'd love the feedback as far as the user interface goes.
The quick run down is as follows.
***Bass clef of the piano is showing the lower structure of the chord the way my left hand would be playing it if I were playing piano (not taking into consideration low interval limits).
***Above that clef is the changes from the real book. It doesn't make sense I know. Usually what's written in the bass clef lines up with the chord above it. But sometimes, I just disagree with what a chord is and spell it differently than it's written. Like I said, still ironing out the kinks. I just didn't know where else to put it. Maybe over the melody??
***The treble clef in the piano shows the melody. I wouldn't phrase it this way in real life. Just copied it straight out of the real book for the sake of analysis.
***Then I went through and analyzed the melody looking for tension and release MELODICALLY, not harmonically. Some notes sound very consonant to my ear within the tonality of the chord...though the chord is tense itself and wants to resolve. In those instances, I still classify that note as resolved. The t's and r's under each melody note show which notes my ear is hearing as tense and which as resolved. This is subjective. I don't expect ANYONE to agree 100% with every choice I made. And I may change my mind later. In fact, I went back and forth many times on a handful of these. Wrote one down, then went back to play it and second guessed it. You guys know how it goes.
***Then I analyzed what the chord should be given which notes sounded resolved. For instance. Over the first chord, the RB says it's an Eb-7, but in my ear the root note Eb sounds tense and seems to resolve up to the F natural. This tells me it's not an Eb-7 chord but an Eb-9 chord. The chords written above the top treble clef are my analysis based on what the melody is doing. Again, if you disagree about which notes are tense vs resolves, you would end up with different chords. I say go for it!
***From there, in same fashion that I talk about maybe too much for anyone's own good here! (hahaha) I picked out the upper structure triad for that chord based on the analysis. I wrote the name of the triad under the top clef.
***On the top treble clef, I notated the triad PLUS the extra note I would add to it to create the little mini scale to use for...IMPROVISATION! haha...which brings us back to the topic at hand. Improv.
From here, I would mess with improvising over these 8 bars on loop using these structures exclusively for a while. Once that feels natural, I can start to add leading tones, approach notes, chromaticism, encircling, or other chord/scale tones intentionally where and when I choose. And then I could also take these 4 note structures and turn them into chord voicings to comp through the changes for the soloist.
A few points. Yes...I am entirely aware that these are not the ONLY chords we can use. Again, I hear the notion of aaaaaall the options we can pick from for any one thing a lot. Presently, I'm less concerned with kind of sort of half knowing 100 ways to approach one thing, I'm more concerned with simply picking one approach, digging in really deep, mastering it, knowing exactly what it sounds like and how it behaves, and finding tons of situations to be able to use it. I'd rather have a small handful of things like THAT in my tool kit than 1000 things that I only sort of know. So that's where I'm coming from. So I'm not necessarily looking for a debate on the 1500 other ways to play the chords or to improvise. Though I would totally love it if anyone else analyzed the chords based on the actual melody notes present and chimed in with their own ideas and interpretations. For the sake of keeping the thread from spiraling out of control, maybe we can all agree to stick to the melody and not talk too much about all the options once the melody is over and we're into the free form vacuum that is improv JUST over changes? That might help keep the conversation cohesive and highly educational at the same time? I think. Also, please do feel free to offer feedback about notation or the overall concept..as this is still sort of new for me and I'm ironing out the kinks as I go. And perhaps, if anyone's interested, I'll try and find some time this week to film a short video of me improvising over the A section using these so you can hear what I'm getting at.
Anybody else notice the Bb7susb9 chord??? So happy I tried this. I've always thought of this as a straight dominant. And I think most people do, so I probably will comp a dominant for others when they're blowing. But there's a big ol' fat sus4 note in the melody over that chord. So I'm going to experiment with treating this as a sus for a while and see how I like it.
Thoughts?
-
05-12-2015 12:42 AM
-
I'm baffled why you would want to analyze the melody this way. Even if you were planning on playing the melody unaccompanied, I really don't hear any of the notes you marked as a tension, or any of the notes you marked as a resolution, as such. Maybe you could turn me on to the weed your smoking so I can hear it like you ;o) The standard way to analyze a melody that has been harmonized, is in relation to the chord. I'm not sure why you feel the way you did it here is beneficial? In fact, at least for the first couple bars that I looked at, you have it completely backwards. The F is the tension over the Ebm7 chord, the Eb the tension over the Bb7, the Bb is the tension over the Dbmaj7. Yes I know you said you are not analyzing the notes in relation to the chords, but why would you want to do that? One note by itself is completely devoid of tension or resolution (consonance). But one note over a chord all of a sudden has an identity of one or the other. If your going to reinvent the wheel, there should be a pretty darn good reason. It has to work better than the original. I can't imagine how your melodic analysis is better then the standard approach. But I'm willing to listen to your ideas...
Originally Posted by jordanklemons
So if I'm understanding you right, the idea with the triads is to use those in your improvisation, but over the standard changes. That seems kind of interesting...Let's hear it. I guess it's just one more approach to a solo. Though I have a slight tinge of the feeling that you may be over thinking it a bit. I mean I'm not so sure it's all that important to use specific melody notes in your soloing in the way your doing it with your triads. I'm also becoming more interested in the idea of using triads more in my soloing, but I think I'd rather just come up with some triads in relation to the basic chord underneath, and not worry about a passing or neighbor tone in the melody etc...
-
Yea... it's interesting, so are you creating relationships with the existing reference, the tune .... the basic root motion and harmony along with the melody... or are you creating a new reference from which to create relationships and develop.
Voicings and resolutions are not harmonic concepts, they're a method of playing, composing arranging etc... the organization which creates the guidelines from which we can create our choice of voicings and resolutions is generally what analysis is created from.
I always dig new or different sets of guidelines for creating the organization which one would use for creating an analysis of... in your example, Body and Soul.
What is the organization behind, say your choice of calling Eb-7 a Eb-9/F, are you really hearing "F" as the reference. Are you somewhat trying to create more of a modal harmonic organizational system... different organization of which notes have the power... an auditory method of getting rid of standard maj/min functional organization.
Maybe creating an organization for access to harmonies you like.
-
@Guitarzen. Man, thank you for the well thought out response. Honestly, I'm not even 100% sure where to begin. These are the types of conversations that I could sit over beers (or coffee) and talk about with people for hours. I love this stuff!
So let's see. First off, I wouldn't consider this re-inventing the wheel. I see this as a simple and natural next step in the progression of listening to, understanding, and playing music. Almost every person on this forum knows that if a tune calls for a C chord, and the melody hits a big fat B note...chances are good we're going to go for a CMaj7 voicing. That one little B note changes the chord we play, changes how we name it, changes how it sounds, and changes how it behaves. But what happens when there are 3 or 4 or 5 melody notes over that chord? Which notes are the chord tones? Which are tensions or passing tones? In the first phrase of the melody on Confirmation, Bird uses an A and a Bb against the F root. Is it an FMaj chord? An Fsus chord? Well...that depends on how you want to phrase and hear the melody. To my ear, the A note is obviously 'in' and the Bb just a little neighboring tone...just a little moment of tension.
That's all I'm doing here..just going through the melody and deciding which notes am I really hearing as melodically resolving. Yes, it's somewhat of an exercise in listening harmonically as well, as the chord help define this in my ear...but it's as much about the phrasing of the melody and the rhythm as it is the chords. The reason I specified that is that it's easy to hear a chord tone over a dominant chord and assume it's tense, when really it's the dominant chord that's tense. It's very possible for the melody note within that chord to be perfectly stable while the chord itself wants to move. That's why I pointed out the distinction.
So the idea is to treat the tune like an etude, to study the melody (and harmony) and to analyze the real tonality that the tune itself is creating. It actually reminds me of something my classical guitar teacher used to force me to do waaaaay back in the day. He'd give me a sheet of music to learn. I was a terrible reader then. It just looked like a mess of notes. He made me take a pencil and visually mark where I thought the melodic phrases were...an arch to show where each starts and ends. He would always tell me, "A bad idea is better than no idea." Then once the lines were written, I would have to express the music based on those phrases...like singing. If I just started playing everything the way a midi computer would, he would jump on me about it. In a sense, this is sort of a jazz version of that.
As far as why my analysis is better than the standard approach?? I'd need to know what you mean by the standard approach. In general, I'm not a fan of doing anything the 'standard' way. Certainly not in the arts. I like to find my own way.
What I think you're talking about with your own desires for using triads in your soloing sounds eerily similar to what I'm talking about. The main difference seems to be that I have no desire (at the present moment) to just randomly pick them. All of my triads are entirely related to the chord underneath. The analysis I'm presenting is simply the way I found which triad harmonically matches the closest to the tonality that the itself is offering us. My goals are to get to the point where I can hear the difference between an Eb-9 and an Eb-7 as obviously and simply as I can between a Major and a minor triad. And really that's already started happening. During my first session with my teacher, prior to knowing where any of this would head, the goal was simply to open our ears. I was presented with 6 different dominant chords. Each with different extensions, but all still within the dominant 7 family. We listened to each, talked about the energy and emotion of it, and came up with physical body movements, facial expressions, and/or little sentences that sort of went with each chord. By the end of the two hour session, I could identify each of them near perfectly and near instantaneously. No singing intervals or trying to pick out individual altered extensions. Just hearing a chord and recognizing its energy. His left hand was always playing the same thing at the piano...the 1-3-7. But his right hand was using different triads to produce vastly different types of dominant chords. This is sort of what showed me how different all of these tonalities can sound and behave simply by picking a specific triad. Seven, 2-hour sessions later...and I know have 27 chords in my ears. Not 100% perfect...but pretty good...and getting better the more time I spend with each.
So that inspired this exploration. Rather than just me picking chord types and practicing ii V Is all day using different triad applications...why not start checking out tunes and seeing what harmony is really going on based on the root movement and the melody? I mean...we pretty much all know that the chords in the real book are terrible, right? So I'm just referencing them as a starting point, and then using the melody and my ear to make choices about what the harmony is really doing.
I don't know if that answers your questions or not. I will try and film and post a video later of me playing a bit so I can show you why/how I'm hearing the notes creating tension and resolution within the melody and then using the 4 note structures to improvise over the changes. Explaining how or why I organized it with typed word is silly and near impossible. I totally get why you're hear it as backwards...and I'm not saying it's wrong at all. Everyone phrases melodies different, so it makes sense that everyone is hearing and feeling them differently. What's written in the chart is just how I'm feeling it. At the moment. It may change. I'll show you in the video. That'll be 1000 times easier. And you'll have the added bonus of seeing me make a fool of myself - body movements and facial expressions to show melodic and harmonic movement posted on the internet?? just begging to make myself look like an idiot...ah well...all in service to the music, right??
-
@Reg...honestly man, I'm having a hard time following what you're asking. Seems like maybe we have slightly different vocabularies when it comes to talking about this stuff, and I'm not sure what you're getting at in the first 3 paragraphs.
As far as the Eb-9/F you were asking about??? Just to be clear...I'm not hearing the F note in the bass underneath the Eb-9 chord. To my ear, I feel like the melody is pushing into the F note against an Eb- chord. Which creates the tonality of Eb-9. There's a couple of different upper structure triads that can give us this tonality, but I'm choosing to see that chord as a Bb minor triad sitting on top of an Eb-7 chord. So I'm hearing the F as functioning like So against the Eb- chord. The melody being Eb - F - Eb - F I'm feeling as Fa - So - Fa - So. I'll try and make sure to take a minute or two to point this out in the video. I think it will make more sense to play it then to type about it.
We've chatted a couple times around this idea, and you generally ask me if I'm trying to develop a more modal thing. I've thought about that a lot. I don't see it as modal. In a way, I can see how they're sort of related ideas...but I don't think of this as modal. And I'm not sure what to 'categorize' it as. It's just listening and respecting the different tonalities that all exist under the umbrella of Minor 7 chord, or Major 7 chord, etc. I'm not trying to get rid of standard man/min functional organization. Not at all! I love functional harmony! If anything, I see this, like I said earlier, as a logical next step in my exploration of functional harmony. My first jazz teacher showed me that all chords can be split up into 3 categories...Maj7, Dom7, min7. Everything can be seen as a variation of one of those three. I played with that way of thinking for a looooooong time. It helped me a lot with where I was. And it's taken me far. I just no longer feel that lumping all options into one of those categories is such a great idea. It has its place. But I think it's also important to respect the differences. Like what I said in my response to Guitarzen about the ear training I did with my teacher during our first session. I was able to (borderline) immediately hear the difference between 6 dominant 7 chords. C7 - C13,#11,9 - C7#9 - C7b9b5 - C7b13,#9 - C13b9. Are they all Dom7? Sure. But they each sound entirely different. I just want to explore the specifics in more depth these days using triadic structures. And at the moment, I'm using standards to do that. Which requires an analysis of what's really happening in the melody first so I can make my own decisions about which triads to utilize to accentuate what I think the melody is pushing towards.
-
Is it fair to say you're relistening to the melody and trying to assign as harmonically specific chords as your ear can hear, compared to "just" accepting the changes as written?
And isn't that a lot of what playing jazz is about anyway?
-
You just hit the nail on the head my man. And then adding one extra step after that. Which is to take the harmonically specific chord that you mentioned I'm looking for and asking, how can I compose and improvise melodies that are in harmony with its tonality? And that's where the triad + 1 structures come into play. Originally Posted by boatheelmusic
That's it man.
-
Hey Jordan I appreciate your sharing your thoughts and ideas on music, and I'm glad you didn't take my critical comments in the wrong way. I never mean my comments in a truly negative way, but sometimes they can be interpreted that way. I'm just a super critical thinking theory nerd, so it's my job to challenge any idea that I think has holes in it ;o) All in the interest of the common good of course. With that in mind...
I disagree. Well first off, we're not talking about triads, this is jazz after all. My disagreement is in that I don't think we should consider every note in the melody as part of the chord. This is part of the whole idea of tension and release. We hear the non-harmonics as tensions and the chord tones generally as the consonances. If you just clump every note in the melody including the non-harmonics as part of the underlying chord your ruining the beautiful relationship between harmonics and non-harmonics by completely negating the existence of non-harmonics. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Secondly, as the accompanist, it's your job to outline the basic harmony, and get out of the way of the soloist so that they can create that consonance / dissonance as they see fit. Individual notes in melodies create interesting sounds in contrast to something else, in this case the harmony. Just look at it this way --- if you decide to play all 7 notes in the diatonic scale in one chord (can you say pandiatonicism?), or for that matter every chord, it doesn't leave any interesting contrast for the soloist to create over it. Another nice comment on this topic by Jimmy Bruno "If your just playing notes in the chord (or another way to look at this, if the chord player puts every note in the scale in the chord), it's like painting white on a white canvas."
This is part of where your leaving me confused, I only hear "stable" or "unstable" notes in relation to the harmony or at least another note. And as in your example, if an Eb goes up to an F, I don't hear either note as being more stable than the other. If I hear Eb going to an F over an Ebm7 chord (which is what we are really hearing), I do hear one as stable and one as unstable. I could see the point if you had a C go to a F# or something, obviously that creates a dissonant interval. I'm just not hearing the "Eb wants to resolve to the F". But in either case,I think it's much more useful to analyze dissonances and consonances in relation to the harmony, unless you are literally not using harmony, which I don't think that's part of your plan. But in the case of the absence of harmony you would be analyzing notes in relation to the tonic note. If you don't have a tonic note, then what's the point in calling anything tension or resolution, since those things really seem to only exist in the context of tonality? Originally Posted by jordanklemons
(note without a quote, I'm not sure how the paragraph about melodic phrasing relates to any of the points)
Well you are a grad student in music right? I don't think I need to explain to you what the standard approach to musical analysis is, I'm pretty sure you spent many hours doing this in your undergraduate work like I did. Or did you? My life experience and experience in music have taught me that there is a deep important truth in the old saying "learn the rules first, then throw them away." It's a cliche, and I don't think you really can even understand it until you have already learned the rules and thrown them away. But if you do understand it you would realize there is great value in learning the classical theory, even if you choose not to use it in your own composition. Actually, and ironically, by avoiding the use of it completely you are using it, by avoidance. A good example of the "learn it and forget it" is Schoenberg. He of course if famous for his twelve tone row and atonal music in general. But he was a master in classical music theory and composition. It was this mastery that propelled his atonal music to the high peaks of perfection that he reached. Fast forward to today's typical self labeled "avant-garde" musician. I've heard so many people composing atonal music that sounds like shit. It's clear to me that they don't even know how to compose tonal music. When I hear Schoenberg I hear a truly sublime music. When I hear some of the young atonal composers of today I hear people who didn't study music seriously and think that by playing a bunch of random crap they are some how elevated to the stature of Schoenberg. My own personal experience is I can easily play atonal music (and enjoy it!) because I know all the tonal rules. So when I play atonal music I'm really just playing around with those tonal rules in generally an intelligent sense. And I can still apply other standard musical practice to my atonal music like phrasing, rhythm, arranging, timbre, texture, form, etc...This is what I mean by how you can't compare many of today's avant-garde composers to someone like Schoenberg, because he was a master at all this, and many of the posers today are clearly not. And I don't mean to generalize, there are many fantastic atonal composers today. I'm just saying there is this trend for people to try to mask their ineptitude by only composing weird avant-garde or atonal music. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
You've already left that option far behind by listening and studying music...Let's not pretend you got to where you are on your own in a musical vacuum. I think what you really mean is now that you've learned the rules, you're ready to explore leaving them behind, and of course I'm fully in support of that. But be careful, you need to also balance your musical decisions on whether or not you are writing music for yourself only, others, or both you & others, because there is a big difference between each. And I'm assuming since you've invested so much of your life and education into music you actually want to make a living at it. And with that goal comes certain restrictions on your freedom. This is a basic philosophical question that some artists forget to ask or think is not important, but it is. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Yeah, neither do I, as I stated in my first response. Although, I would argue that if your basing your triads on non-harmonics in the melody...you are somewhat randomly picking them. Not all notes in the melody are equal, some are important, some are not, some only matter in relation to the previous note or next note or both. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Sounds like what I was just doing a few days ago when I was trying out different triads over dominant chords. But dominant chords are entirely unique creatures, you can literally play any note over a dominant, so any triad can work. But this is not true of non-dominant chords, unless of course your goal is purely to get completely outside, which of course is completely valid, but not really what we are talking about I think. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Sure, but I think it's possible you may be giving too much weight to some notes in the melody. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Sounds a little new-agey to me. You would have to do some type of control test to see if another person, preferably a clone of you, would have the same results in chord recognition without the funny faces and dance moves / yoga positions, before you could say anything to the effectiveness of those methods. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Yes that might help to hear the ideas in action. But I'm sure you can use any number of rationale for note choices...from your ideas to the i-ching or geometry (like Pat Martino haha, love the guys playing but hes whack). Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Anyways, I hate to be mr. negative, but if your trying to rewrite the theory book or claim that you have a superior system, or a system that is important, I think you have a lot of proving and explaining to do, don't you? And yes I'd rather use my ears to judge the merits of your ideas, as that is the final judge anyways. So let's hear it!Last edited by Guitarzen; 05-12-2015 at 03:18 PM.
-
What's really at stake here!
-
Hahaha...so I'm actually not really going to write much of a response to your last post. First, it would require an equally long message, and I don't want to try and steal your trophy. Also, because I just recorded a little video and I think it might clear some things up. Much of what you say is actually exactly what I'm getting at...though you seem to be saying it in contrast to me as though you think we're on different pages. I think we're on a closer page than maybe it seems.
And while I don't feel I'm trying to re-invent the wheel, nor that I have anything to prove to anyone else, I'm certainly happy to share my thoughts with anyone interested. The only person any of us have to prove anything to is ourself...and all we have to prove is that we've listened to things, made choices about what we like, and put the work in to accomplish those goals. If I don't live up to that for myself, I have something to prove to myself to step up my game. If others dig the byproducts of that, that's fantastic...but I would never want to prove others wrong that they're doing something the wrong way and I'm doing something the right way. That's up to everyone to decide for themselves.
The only other thing I'll say in response (as my video is currently uploading on youtube and I think much of what you're asking about will make more sense once you watch it) is the new agey thing. I've taught ear training to a good number of people using movements and facial expressions and it works. In fact, to see if it was teachable...I tested it out on my father who's not a musician. Within 20 minutes, I had him able to identify 3 of the 7 notes of the major scale purely by ear. And he'd never heard of a major scale or played one prior. Once I saw that he could do it, I started requiring all of my students to do it. I don't require perfection, since I'm not perfect at it either...but they all pick it up. Usually by the end of the 1st semester, each of my students can hear any single note from the chromatic scale in any octave and identify what note it is within singing (I play a I IV V I cadence in C Major to give them a reference point...then I just play random notes, and they can generally get them right). And the same thing is applicable to chords. To a surprising degree. It takes time and effort on the student's part. But I think of it like a student chef learning to identify spices. A good friend of mine went to culinary arts school and had to learn to identify tons of different seasonings, spices, and herbs just by taste. And now she can eat a meal and know what the chef used to prepare it. It's sort of the same deal...just using listening instead of tasting.
Anyways...much of what you're saying (seemingly in contrast to me) I actually completely agree with. So this is all I will type for now. Once the video is processed on youtube I'll post it. Check it out. If for not other reason than to watch me acting like a complete idiot singing and making faces. Maybe once you hear where I'm headed, if you have other thoughts, questions, or devil's advocate ideas to share we can go from there?
-
Alright, here's some videos. They may still be processing, so if they don't play, give them a bit and try again...but I think they're working now.
First one is me explaining my reasoning for why I chose what I chose, showing specifically how my ear is hearing the notes and the chords, answering some of the questions you were asking, etc. It ends with a couple minutes of me improvising with the 4 note structures melodically through the form with no tempo or backing track. Just one chord at a time. Hopefully you'll notice that you can really hear and delineate the chords as they're moving. This has to do not only with the notes I'm choosing to play, but just as much, the notes I'm intentionally leaving out. Often times we give away cadences and harmonic movement by accident by playing notes that are in the scale, but that are really pointing towards where are current chord is headed. This way of playing is a little more restrictive, but it sort of keeps the harmonic movement in check and tends to have a little more forward momentum in the lines. Anyways, check it out for yourself. Again, the playing is about as bare bones as you can make it thinking this way. Nothing spectacular. Just looking to apply the 4 note groupings in the simplest way possible here to show you the starting point and what they sound and behave like.
Here's a 2nd video I shot. I just looped the first 8 bars in iRealB so I could have something in tempo and with form to play over so you can hear a slightly more realistic application. I did go in and edit the chords in the app to make them as close to what I'm hearing as possible. So the rhodes is actually playing an Eb-9 on the first 2 beats. Though it wasn't smart enough to recognize the Bb7susb9, so I had to just settle with a Bb7sus4 chord. Gets the idea across. In this video I'm actually starting to bring in some more chromatic lines and approach notes. But I'm always heading towards my 4 note structure. I assume that if anyone heard me play this stuff at a gig they would never in a million years guess that I was restricting myself to only 4 notes. The melodic integrity here is quite strong...at least to my ear. Not that it's the greatest $#!t I've ever played...but it has some nice lyrical melodies, some intriguing chromaticism that even I wasn't entirely sure I'd find my way out of with a train wreck, and some decent harmonic and melodic momentum. This way of playing the tune is new for me, so I am cheating and looking at my notes as I play some stuff. Eventually I want these ideas, shapes, and sounds to be as engrained and obvious to my ears and fingers as a basic major scale is. So they can just come out naturally.
Last edited by jordanklemons; 05-12-2015 at 06:19 PM.
-
By the way...I'm sure none of you really know my playing, so I just want to point something out after having listened back to this 2nd video. With all that chromaticism getting used, I'm not employing a single bebop scale. Nor am I relying on any riffs. We all have our little riff tool chest. Playing this way sort of forces me away from my go to patterns, because I'm actually not using a single 'scale' the entire time...in the conventional sense. I'm literally just using the 4 note patterns from that chart I shared, and then sometimes jumping off the cliff into the chromatic world aiming for the next 4 note structure. I sort of feel like a trapeze artist in mid air having to let go of the bar I'm holding onto so I can fly through the air and try to grab the next bar. None of the chromaticism is pre-worked out, bebop scale patterns. Just straight up jumping and seeing where I land...and praying SOMETHING lands. The more I do it, the more my ear can really just hear when I'm getting close to the next gravity point and just naturally starts to work towards it. But it is a work in progress right now still.
-
Jordan, leaving the technical analysis to the theoriticians, I found the second video very pleasing- musically testing limits.
Bill
-
Thank you Bill. I really appreciate you taking the time to listen and the kind words. I love the theory stuff and could literally talk all night with people over drinks about analysis stuff...but ultimately, it's got to sound good. All this mumbo jumbo I've been talking about and writing up and sharing...all of it started in my ear. It started with me listening a little bit closer than I realized was possible. Then discovering the emotions and energies of the different sounds that were there. THEN came analyzing them and trying to wrap my intellect around what was going on there. But the purpose was just to help me internalize them so they can then get used musically. My ultimate goal is to have this stuff so internalized that I'm not thinking about it at all when playing. Just playing. Just like most of us on this forum are like when we get going with a major scale, or a blues scale over the blues. You just listen, play, react, etc. Right now I'm sort of using my intellect and the theory as a tool to help me bridge the gap so that I can get to that point. But the fact that it comes across musically to others is about the biggest compliment anyone can give me. At least I know it's heading in a healthy direction! Much appreciated! Originally Posted by boatheelmusic
-
Hey Jordon...
All I'm trying to say is your using some type of organization for what your hearing.
Even if the organization is simple based on what your hearing at the moment, or this year, and is based on what you like or feel is the natural organization, it's not generally by chance.
If your using melodic resolutions for organizing the movement of notes or chords, what's the reason or organization behind your choice.
Resolutions, any movement of notes or chords are relationships... There is usually either a general reference, the tune or an analysis of etc... or there is a target tonal relationship, the moment, in which you create a momentary tonal reference.
Generally references are based on some type of organization of notes.
When I bring up modal, I'm suggesting that your using non common practice organization of movement, your using different movement organization of notes. (your using different notes to create movement).
I did notice that your choices of triads in your example, Body.... did use somewhat standard modal interchange relationships, the choice of triad with relationship to the original change has common practice, jazz common practice, And the possible new analysis of your choice of triads with relationship to the melody would create different guidelines which might help organize your choices of melodic movement or resolutions.
Sorry if I'm missing what your saying.... and visa versa.
-
Reg, haha come on man. We might be misunderstanding each other. But this isn't the first time we've chatted on here regarding where my head is these days. I've never once tried to pretend like I'm not actively working on the way I organize my note choices. I talk about it to an unhealthy degree on here (A) because it's a fairly new way of thinking for me and (B) because the simplicity of it makes it hard to play ANYTHING that doesn't sound good and connect in a deep way with the harmony AND the simplicity of the note selection leaves a lot of room for more complexity if we choose it...and since there are many people on this forum still struggling to play lines that really work with the music, I thought it might help inspire some ideas for others that this simpler approach jives with. No scales. No modes. No riffs. Just going right for the sweet spot notes. Getting them into the fingers. Getting them into the ears. And then once they're there, we can do anything. We can go back to the regular 7 note scales if we want to. But we'll be able to see the notes that are really carrying the weight of each tonality within those 7 note scales then. Originally Posted by Reg
Again, I'm not making the claim for any of those things. I've tried to explain the process in several other threads to you and others. I don't know if you downloaded and checked out the chart I uploaded in the OP on this thread, or watched either of the two videos. But I don't see how anyone could see what I wrote in the chart and how much I had to say in that first video and believe that any of this is by chance. As far as whether or not I'm organizing it based on what I'm hearing. That's getting closer to the answer, since it very much based on my ear. But it's not the entire picture. As I've said, there's much theoretical analysis going on as well. It's a combination of the two. Originally Posted by Reg
I'm not sure if you're asking what my system of organization is, or what my reason for doing this is. I know we've already talked about both...but to quickly sum up. Why I'm doing it...as I've said in the past, my ear has just been getting yanked open by my teacher to the point that I can hear the difference in tonalities super clearly these days, even within a given chordal family...like a minor7 chord. I haven't working my way through all of the min7 chord types...but I can basically hear min7, min9, min11/9, min13/11, and min13/#11/9 as clearly as I hear the different between major and minor. So my goals these days are to be very respectful of those difference, explore them, get to know each as a unique individual, be able to comp on any of them exclusively, be able to blow on any of them exclusively, and be able to compose on any of them exclusively. Then once they're deeply engrained, I can mix and match them at will if I want to. As for the actual organizational system itself. It all has to do with analyzing the chord and finding out what's going on in the upper structure. Essentially breaking everything down to the triad that defines the upper structure of the chord, as this triad is what sets apart the min7 from the min9 from the min11/9 etc etc. Originally Posted by Reg
-
Again, the notes are organized by the triad that creates the upper structure of the chord. Those are my resolution points and my 'sweet spots' as I refer to them. For the purpose of studying harmony, it's as simple as that. I'll pick a chord type, analyze it to find out what's going on inside it, and then put it on the fretboard and practice it in different ways. As far as this thread goes...the whole idea was to actually apply it to a tune. So here, I was using the melody of the tune to dictate what's really going on harmonically in it. For example, the 1st chord shown in bar 6 is a C-7b5...but the melody note is an F. To me, if I want to harmonize that note properly, than it means it's not JUST a -7b5 chord...because the melody note is the 11. So there's something more going on. Guitarzen quoted Jimmy Bruno as saying that we don't need to, and shouldn't, have EVERY melody note in the chord. That's debatable and different people in different scenarios and circumstances would take different stances. To me, the term harmony comes from the notion that we are literally try to create balance and harmony among notes. The lead note being in the melody should be a part of that balance. Whether or not I choose to put the melody note in the highest voice of my chord (when I'm accompanying) should be a conscious decision on my part. Meaning, I should know what the real chord is and where the melody note fits into it. Plus, I often play solo, duo, or guitar trio where I'm in charge of the harmony and melody...and then I NEED to voice the chord properly with the melody notes as part of their structure. You've been at this game longer than most of the guys on this forum Reg, and have extensive organization to your ideas already...clearly. But the problem most people would have if they were playing this tune out of the book and just using the basic chords listed is that there are two commonly used voicings for C-7b5. There are tons, of course. But if you ask beginner, or even intermediate, jazz guitarists to show you two ways to play C-7b5, I'd be willing to bet the vast majority would show these two. Originally Posted by Reg
x3434x and 8x887x
If we use the first voicing...we're playing an Eb note a step below the melody note. Anyone who's done any type of horn arrangements knows that as a general rule of thumb, you usually want at least a minor 3rd between the melody and the next highest note. You can get away with steps and half steps sometimes, but they do obscure the clarity of the melody. Which is exactly what would happen if we played that chord. If we play the 2nd voicing, then we're actually playing a note a half step higher then the melody. Which again...can be done...but as a general rule of thumb in jazz, we tend to stack harmony vertically with the melody on top. There are countless exceptions to this...but there's a reason that we treat them as exceptions and the rule as the rule...because it usually works better.
So my way of organizing this is to recognize that it's not JUST a C-7b5, to see that there's a relationship between that melody note and the chord, and to construct the chord to accommodate and accentuate the note...the 11. The two options would be a Chalfdim11 or a Chalfdim11,9. I went with the latter and filled in the other missing notes to find the upper structure triad. Bb. Where I select my 4th note is a little too complicated to explain via typing. But basically there is a hierarchy of weight amongst the 1-3-5-7-9-11-13 notes. I generally try to pick the most harmonically weighted note from those 7 UNLESS it causes some type of clash with the triad I currently have.
This is possible. I suppose we just think of modes a little differently. You've asked about modes a couple of times and until you started asking, I'd never considered that. At one point, I considered that in a way, it was sort of similar to modes. Then I backed off that a bit after some thinking about things. It's similar in the sense that I'm looking for my resolution notes. The difference is that modes are only looking for those notes harmonically and vertically. I'm trying to do that AND melodically and horizontally. So to use the C-7b5 vs Chalfdim11,9 as an example again. A modal/vertical/harmonic analysis would tell us that the Chalfdim11,9 chord is Originally Posted by Reg
1-b3-b5-b7-9-11
A beginner or intermediate player would probably have a hard time going for the 9 and 11 when improvising, so they're likely to resolve all their lines to the 1-b3-b5-b7 notes. Someone more advanced might realize they can land on the 9 and 11 also...because they sound great. But if we see all of them as chord tones and allow all of them to be resolution points, then the only non-chromatic note we can use to create tension would be the 13. That's it. We only get one tension note? I'm just saying to myself, look the 1 3 and 5 are basically taken care of here. I can play them if I want, but the 7 9 and 11 sound so much more beautiful and melodic in my ear. So why not just use the Bb triad that's sitting right there as my melodic tonic...to treat those 3 notes melodically as Do-Mi-So and let the other notes (1-3-5 and chromatics) actually act as the tension notes against them. A mode won't offer that. It will show you where the strong resolution notes are. But they're generally going to still be stuck in the lower structure of the chord...the 1-3-5. This way frees us up melodically to tonicize the upper structure to create different sounding tonalities against a basic chord type. Which again, if we look at tunes...great composers are doing this stuff. It really isn't re-inventing the wheel. The melody resolves beautifully to that F note over the "C-7b5". Stuff like that is all over the place in these tunes. It's pretty rare you only see 1 3 and 5 in the melody over chords. Sometimes...sure...but not every tune. And usually, the most beautiful melodies in my ear, and the most beautiful tunes have melodies that leave the lower structure of the chords and sing the upper structures. That's just my ears preference.
I know you've told me in the past you don't like the sound of playing where everything is 'in' and getting resolved and would need to get paid to play on gigs with guys like that. To me, this is ALL about learning to play in (and out really)...but it's learning to play in in a much more melodic and lyrical way...to my ear. I don't know if you watched the 2nd video or not. I wouldn't expect you to dig it since you've told me your stance on playing with guys that are always looking for those resolutions and playing in. But it will give you an idea what I'm talking about with all this mess. I don't mind theory and discourse. I love talking about this stuff. But ultimately, it's just about the sounds. Either we dig them or we don't.
Again, this is very possible. All I can really say though is that I wasn't thinking about modes, interchange, what's common, what's uncommon or anything else. I was simply looking at the notes in the melody of the tune, making a choice about which notes felt like they had the melodic gravity, and then analyzing the harmony that's happening there to account for both the pre-fab Real Book chord AND the note(s) that I feel have the gravity in the melody. From there, it's as simple as breaking down that big chord structure to find the upper structure and what the triad is, adding the 4th note...and then playing. That's it. We're all working with the same 12 notes. And, especially on these more traditional tunes, you're really not going to see the melody steer THAT far away from the 'modality' of the chord. I'm sure in more modern tunes that may happen some. But my approach over those tunes would be the same. Analyze, break down, find my resolution notes...play. I've used modes plenty and have nothing innately against them. In certain situations, they're great. I just am enjoying not thinking about them for now and letting the chords and the melody tell a story without cluttering it all up with too much else. Originally Posted by Reg
Not sure if that helps clear anything up. If you haven't already watched the 2 videos and still have questions about what I'm talking about, a lot of this stuff is probably easier to communicate in person than via typing. The videos are about as close to doing it in person as is possible for most of us.
-
I am quite surprised myself... but I really hear Eb-9 as more stable here...
I believe it depends on phrasing - if we play F as passing note - loke from Eb - to F - and back then it will sound one way.. but if we really lead it to F - to my ear it's ok to call it resolution to F
And at least now I hear Eb-9 with F as more stable... very convincing
I think method is modal in its essence...
it's like vice versa - you approach the melody as if it is gregorian chant and you begin to 'sing' it rythmically - trying for feel of stability based more on rythm and timing, on linear motion - and then you like shifting chords under it
I like it
I will try to go through it all and come back maybe
What I also like is that it's leading good reasonable musical basis for complex chords not as a set of simple chords, and not as extended 7th chord but as independent self-sufficient chord...
-
I should probably read the entire thread before posting but let me just say before anything else - the real book is bunk, throw it out the window. Get 3-4 takes of the tune and work out your own changes.
-
I think I have reached my limit on wordy and abstruse internet forums. Frankly I'm shocked I had one.
However My Klemons, you are very good at playing the jazzular guitar and clearly a fine musician, so carry on doing what your doing, and I'll set my chair straight so a drool out both sides of my mouth...
Hey! They have this thing called the Melodic Minor that's apparently all the rage!!!!
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
Hey Jonah...please do come back and share your thoughts if you give this a try! It seems like you were able to sum up the whole idea of what I'm talking about way simpler than I was able to explain it...so it would be great to hear your thoughts once you've messed around on your own with this a bit. I just think the stuff sounds great.
It's interesting how different that Eb-9 sounds right? Vs the basic Eb-7. The -9 makes me feel like some film noir detective smoking a cigarette, walking down a dark alley at night...and it's really stable and doesn't need to go anywhere. Whereas the Eb-7 at the beginning of the 2nd measure sounds brighter to me, less emotionally drenched...and really is behaving like a ii chord wanting to move to the V7 chord. It might be worth toying with an Eb-6,9 for the first chord since generally 6 chords are more stable than 7 chords and are usually used for tonic chords...which in the first measure, the Eb is the tonic chord...i V7 i. Not until measure 2 does it become a ii chord itself. Functionally speaking.
But you're right about it taking some complex chords (and simple chords too) and offering us very simple solutions to playing super melodically and lyrically over them. And ultimately, that's really a huge part of what's driving me here. That and continuing to open my ears up wider and wider. To my ear, when I listen back to my playing in the 2nd video, it doesn't sound like I'm just playing scales nor does it sound like I'm just running arpeggios. It sort of just sounds like a nice lyrical, melodic approach. With some bebop-esq chromaticism. Other people might hear it differently. But I know what I sound like when I start getting stuck the different ruts and relying on scales or on arpeggios. This makes me play quite a bit differently than in those situations.
-
Hahaha...thank you Christian. Really too kind. It's all a work in progress. I'm glad you enjoy where I'm currently at musically. Even if the verbose explanations go past your limits. I kind of with you there. But it's super tricky to explain this stuff with typed word. I show some aspects of this stuff to many of my students who are not music majors or even interested in jazz...and many of them are still muscling through the intermediate stages of guitar...and they generally latch on really quickly and start playing beautiful stuff within just a couple of weeks. But the difference is that we can talk in person, I can play them things and help their ears pick up on stuff. Trying to explain the difference with written word is proving EXCEPTIONALLY challenging. Originally Posted by christianm77
Anyways...I've been hearing a lot about this melodic minor scale thing. I might have to check it out! Hahaha
Hope you'll come back to the thread and share your thoughts on this stuff if you decide to give it a try. It's no melodic minor scale...but there's some great sounds in here! haha
-
As far as I can make out, what you did was
1) using the melody as a primary reference, derive a plausible alternative set of changes.
2) take the upper structure triads.
This allowed you to come up with a set of options to use while improvising.
Well I think that's a seriously awesome exercise - works the ear, the (musical, not theoretical) mind and maybe we can find stuff we didn't know about before.
My one criticism is that you used the realbook changes to compare the melody against to derive your new set of changes. Apart from the fact that the real book is bunk, I think it would be more beneficial to try and hear it straight from some reference recording. Works the ear more.
I wholeheartedly agree with christian in that you are indeed very good at playing the jazzular guitar, and carry on doing what you are doing!Last edited by pushkar000; 05-14-2015 at 09:26 AM.
-
@pushkar. Man, again....thank you guys. I've been working hard at this whole jazzular guitar thing. Glad you guys dig it!
You're pretty much getting where I'm coming from. I'm using the RB just as a reference point for now. When analyzing things, I tend to work better when I can look at a piece of paper with the information in front of me. Something where I can write everything down. The RB offers me that. It's by no means the end all. I'm still trying to decide about that 7susb9 chord, and there's a few chords in the bridge where the melody and harmonic movement offer multiple options for what chord/tonality can be used. I will definitely be going back and listening to some classic recordings to hear how others do it.
The only thing I'd say is that I'm really not looking for 'alternative' changes right now. Like you said...the RB is bunk. So I don't think it has the right changes and mine are alternative. If anything, I'm just looking at the melody and using my ear and intellect to decide how I would have built the harmonic structure if I were the composer. And usually when I think this way and then go back and listen, I'm pretty close to what I'm hearing. Sometimes different. But there's really only so many harmonic options for any given note/chord grouping.
Where the alternative changes can come in will be later once all this stuff is really internalized for me. I mean, just in the A section of the tune I found 4 different chords labelled minor7 that, to my ear, are behaving differently, and therefore I'm treating differently. Right now I'm sticking to the 4 options very strictly over each different chord. But eventually, as the tonalities get internalized for me (in my ears, eyes, and fingers) then I can mix and match them and start to play outside the box. But right now I'm really looking to dig deeper into the box...not to run away from it. It's kind of amazing how cool so many of these sounds are and they're completely 'IN'. But they sure can start to sound quite 'out'. Other options for alternate changes are also starting to bubble under the surface.... but again, it's all a little premature for that for me right now. My goals are to get this stuff really engrained as it is first. Then I can grow with it. That's kind of the beauty of its simplicity. There's tons of room to play around with it and allow expansion within the system.
-
I'd say calling the Real Book "bunk" is a bit strong. There are errors. And some of the changes I feel the need to edit. But it's a good reference overall and many of us use it with success. It's certainly not a bad idea to try and find the first or most influential jazz recording of a tune and use as a reference. But I wouldn't be surprised if even in the first recording of something the artist was taking liberties with the written chart, even if the composer was there observing the recording session. That's a funny thing about music and jazz in particular, we are not slaves to the written notes or changes. And so I feel that fakebooks are just there to give me the basic melody and workable changes, and in that sense I think the RB succeeds with a passing grade. I'm probably going to change the chords and not play the melody exactly as written anyways so I'm not sure the small amount of errors matter that much. Originally Posted by pushkar000
Hey Jordan, thanks for taking the time to explain and demonstrate your ideas. I'll be back later to respond or add more comments. But the short of it is, I don't see there being anything wrong with using some idea to help you generate ideas. You can use different flavors of sausage as the basis for your solo if you want. But even after watching your videos I still don't agree with your analysis of tension & release. It seems to me your really talking more about rhythmic accent, especially when you talk about the Eb to F deal. And that is another important factor in a melody but doesn't, imo, deserve to be equated with melodic tension. Anyways, I'll be back to yell at you some more later. I want to spend some time playing guitar tonight. BTW, have you ever heard Coltranes version of B&S? I had never noticed it before, and The New RealBook 3 has a chart for it...very interesting take, it might be further inspiring to you as your working on this tune.
Reply With Quote
Autumn Leaves (Fingerstyle Chord Melody)
Yesterday, 11:56 PM in Improvisation