-
I agree.
Originally Posted by Jonah
I liked to sing Mozart. I couldn't give a stuff about the other opera composers. But I am a bass-baritone, so there you go.Last edited by christianm77; 09-22-2016 at 08:23 PM.
-
09-22-2016 08:16 PM
-
It might be better to talk about using 'common practice musical language' rather than Mozart. Mozart is just a really obvious example of what we think of as the core of Western Art Music.
There were plenty of composers with the technique to write the music of the style of the era with the necessary fluency and accomplished grace, but who contributed nothing of the lasting value of Mozart, Haydn or even Boccherini, Clementi or Sallieri...
That's what I mean when I'm talking about Fontes etc. I think we are talking at cross purposes.
The genius of Mozart is manifest even in his teaching examples where he demonstrates how to write Minuets. Every example is filled with invention while remaining completely within the norms of his musical culture.Last edited by christianm77; 09-22-2016 at 08:40 PM.
-
Forget Parker. The legacy of Mozart's La Ci Darem La Mano surely lies elsewhere:
Seriously though, I feel that the connection between Parker goes beyond the musical materials and procedures each employed and even the common points in their biographies (mastery of improvisation, love of wordplay, joking and drinking, both dying at 34). It's the emotional complexity and rapid shifts of character that Jonah alludes to that lies below the often exquisitely balanced exterior. Without pushing the analogy too far, (and I'm hardly the first to point this out), it's equally tempting to regard Beethoven and Coltrane as another set of distant musical brothers.
-
Parker listened to classical music a lot. Bela Bartok and Igor Stravinsky was two of his favorites. He was quoted saying he was awestruck when he heard Bartok for the first time.
OT: For those who care to hear it, here's Bartok's 2. violin concert in an award winning version from 1953 with Ivry Gitlis on violin and Horenstein as conducter. BTW, Gitlis is one of my favorite violinists, very much of the old school, with that big vibrato, never afraid of patos and "big wet tears". He's still alive and active, high up in his 90s.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=RDD...&v=DOYS0uX3O00Last edited by oldane; 09-23-2016 at 04:24 AM.
-
Why would you analyse it that way at all? How is thinking of three separate scales easier than one? Originally Posted by Boston Joe
That's a genuine question. I'm not trying to win an argument or nothing. Just curious.
-
I agree that Mozart - Parker, Beethoven - Coltrane can make pairs...Seriously though, I feel that the connection between Parker goes beyond the musical materials and procedures each employed and even the common points in their biographies (mastery of improvisation, love of wordplay, joking and drinking, both dying at 34). It's the emotional complexity and rapid shifts of character that Jonah alludes to that lies below the often exquisitely balanced exterior. Without pushing the analogy too far, (and I'm hardly the first to point this out), it's equally tempting to regard Beethoven and Coltrane as another set of distant musical brothers.
For me it's not about language but mostly their general attitude to art, how they took it, what it was for them etc.
More of ideological concept of artist.
-
Not that it's easier.Why would you analyse it that way at all? How is thinking of three separate scales easier than one?
That's a genuine question. I'm not trying to win an argument or nothing. Just curious
But it's giving some new perspectives to linear improvizatin (if you need one of course)...
Actually when I hear someone play heavily under chord scales influence over songs that have basic functional harmony...
If the player is good and if really implies scales - it reminds me how modality sounded in late rennaissance...
it was both modal and yet already cadences sounded very funtional.
Definitely CST used properly weakens functional realtions.
-
I would say that's almost the point of it, right? Originally Posted by Jonah
In terms of functional changes playing - I've learned (under the influence of Barry Harris, Hal Galper and a few others) to break progressions down into simpler blocks. So Dm7 G7 C6 becomes - G dominant scale (for example) resolving into C. These blocks can then be re-complicatified :-) by use of other related things, such as tritones, backdoors, minor scales and so on.
That's really not the same thing as saying - just play in C major over the ii V I.
I suppose the Dminor thing comes in as a place that's somewhat resolved but standing apart from the tonic (subdominant in the jargon), so the use of the D dorian mode is related to that idea. But in practice the advice is usually to drop either the ii or the V. For minor ii-V's there's a little tweak that makes it sound good.
BTW Jonah - have you read the Gjerdingen book?
-
+10,000 on the Boorstin allusion. Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus
I love that guy's 3 main books. What an amazing knowledge. When the librarian at the Library of Congress actually reads and learns, and can write, you have an unbeatable combination.
You got me pulling The Creators down from the shelf again....
-
Yup. I think this is a confusion about the way jazzers, even chord/scale guys think about this stuff. I think it's mostly a shorthand/jumping off point from which to discuss substitutions to diatonic pitch collections. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
OK modes, scales in jazz. This is what I am trying to say:
The concept of modes as used in, for example, Gregorian chant is somewhat different to ours. In fact the use of maqams, raags and church modes are kind of similar in that there are strict conditions on how these notes are used melodically as well as what they are. Harmony is an alien concept. Hijaz is not really the same thing as a dominant b9b13 scale for example, because not everything a jazz musician would play in this scale would be recognisable as part of the tradition for a classical Arabic musician.
Scale are like this too. There are conventions about how scales should be used, and this extended right up until the 50s in jazz. The way Barry Harris, for example, formulates scale use is quite strict, and not unlike their common practice use. We hear the same patterns in M*z*rt's writing for example - scales in thirds, lower chromatic neighbour, upper diatonic neighbour etc - and so on. There are some patterns that would have been foreign to 18th century common practice, but not as many as you'd think. The b6 in the major key was not unusual back then for example, in the correct context.
Anyway, before I somehow manage to make Jonah incandescent with rage, that's by the by. The point is that there were conventions on how scales were used. When you used a scale pattern you used a scale pattern, when you played a chord sub, you did that.
So now we move to the present day, and scales are seen as extensions of chords. For example, the D7#9 chord is seen as a whole scale - usually D altered although there are other options. Furthermore, the scales are used not only as a source of patterns, but also a source of non-patterns - a palette of notes available for more or less free use (excepting avoid notes).
This I think of as the Gary Burton revolution, although I'm sure that there were others who blazed this particular trail.
That's rather a different approach - I do not believe that there is any precedent for this in other traditions of music, although I am happy to be corrected.
Construction of non functional chords from the church modes is common in 20th century music, but the chord scale over chord thing is very much a jazz concept, is it fair to say?
But this concept is subtly different from the use of scales in Charlie Parker's era, which was in some ways similar to the common practice era - but there's a lot of shades of grey in between.Last edited by christianm77; 09-23-2016 at 08:30 AM.
-
Agreed. If you're going to think 3 scales, think of 3 that have an actual musical effect as opposed to 3 scales that are all the same notes. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
In terms of functional changes playing - I've learned (under the influence of Barry Harris, Hal Galper and a few others) to break progressions down into simpler blocks. So Dm7 G7 C6 becomes - G dominant scale (for example) resolving into C. These blocks can then be re-complicatified :-) by use of other related things, such as tritones, backdoors, minor scales and so on.
i think i was lucky enough to have had quite solid understanding of functionality before i came to jazz
and also luckily I managed to come over the snobbishpoint in it and finally reveal the logics of scales jazz
todat it looks for me as if i see/hear everything as a few tranparent layers one over another.. I hear at the same time functions and scales - it's like one moment function becomes more important another moment it's mode again.. same thing with other tools ...
in real playing i think i follow mostly voice-leadibg - no matter if it is based on functions or CST...i kind of build horizontal development from vertical harmonic relations first
no i have notJonah - have you read the Gjerdingen book?
tbh my knowledge on classical comes from just great luck to play and listen a lot of music with great musicians and analysists. The best theory teacher I had could not eveb recomend a manual... because he like knew it all from his birth)))) So I kind of absorbed it.
And also I am much into general background of the period (I mean architecture, literature, paintigns) - I am sure this hepls too.
I would not mind reading it anyway if it were easily available.. I cant see it around here
-
Well, for starters, it's not really three separate scales. As I alluded to earlier (or possibly in another thread) it's just a lens. Mixo is just C major viewed through a "G colored" lens. Really, I think people make too much of a big deal about this. You can look at it all as C major if you find that more helpful, but looking at it modally gets you used to thinking that way, and then when you're ready to start altering things, you can sort of "plug in" a modal interchange. So when you hit the G7 You're not thinking "key of C" you're thinking "Fifth mode of C", Which makes it easier to think "Seventh mode of Ab Melodic Minor" (or as above, Ab minor viewed through a G colored lens). Originally Posted by christianm77
Personally, that's not the way I think of it. I mostly think chordally rather than modally, but once you've internalized it, you're not thinking about it much at all - you're just thinking sound, so it doesn't really matter how you get there. (Two routes to the same destination). And I'm sure that your bebop/Barry Harris way of looking at things provides you another route as well. (I didn't really delve into your "playing function rather than chord" stuff, so I'm mostly speculating about that.)
The main point, though, is that thinking about it this way is really only useful as an improvisational tool, so there's no reason to look at it that way if you're just analyzing for theoretical purposes, which is why, I surmise, that my classically oriented friends are not familiar with that way of analyzing something. They're just looking at it as voice leading through C Major.
(Note: I see that others above have made similar points. I replied to this post before I'd read them.)Last edited by Boston Joe; 09-23-2016 at 10:23 AM.
-
Yeah, interesting conversation. Spending a good bit of time with some applications of melodic minor over the past couple of years, as well as a kind of separate work on chromatic targeting/enclosures, I'm really fascinated with the history of this stuff. Would love to know more about how some of these philosophies evolved. Originally Posted by christianm77
First, the older-school methodology I've seen is more about basic melodic devices , often without respect to "harmony", especially over dominant chords. Lines like 2-b2-1, 2-b2-7-1 and their counterparts on the other chord tones (3, 5, or 7) were mostly used without thought of chord/scale. For example, chromatic leading tones are a solid approach to almost any chord-tone as well as double chromatic descending approaches.
Certain assumptions can be made about possible harmonic "references" for these pitchs, and honestly I don't know which came first, (kind of a chicken/egg thing) but you can justify most of these kind of melodic movements by relating to parallel minor or relative minor. So, then, harmonic minor , for example, actually becomes kind of an approach to playing and has implications for altering harmony as well? Just talking out my arse here - pure speculation. But Reg often talks about a period of the evolution of approaches where harmonic minor was the reference for a lot of melody and harmony.
Anyway, at the very least, at this point , your harmonic reference, harmonic minor, is still actually FUNCTIONAL. The V7, which you are "borrowing" from minor, is still functioning as V7 in its new context.
Anyway, when you finally get to modern applications of the use of melodic minor , you're arriving at a point where it's actually no longer helpful to simply use traditional terminology to talk about its application. If I had to guess, I would speculate that modern applications of MM are where things sort of "jumped the shark" and chord scale terminology began to be used more.
.... NOT because "mixolydian" is a better descriptor for ...."major scale stuff which you play over a dominant chord",..... but because it's a more straightforward shorthand for what you're NOT playing when you play "altered". Most jazzers use the term "mixolydian" in this regard, as a distinguishing descriptor for disambiguation, and nothing to do with actual modal playing. ( On reading in between edits, this is what Joe and Christian are talking about. )
So, ....first, MM can sub for minor chords . Ok that's still pretty functional - parallel minor.
Also, ....MM can sub for the relative minor of major chords - Ma7#5 (Lydian#5). Okay, now that one has one more degree of separation. You have to actually reference relative minor in some way, at least in talking about it etc.
.....MM can sub for dominant . Uh oh. Here, arriving at a name becomes more problematic, more theory-speak to simply arrive at technically correct "functional" description of borrowing which describes these. (ALSO, at some point the idea of theoretically justifying things beyond "does itsound good?" Kind of goes away as well -- modal interchange). The seventh scale degree of melodic minor doesn't really have any functional relationship , in how it's used, as a sub for DOMINANT. It's real relationship is in its relationship/similarity to the 5th scale degree of harmonic minor. Even more problematic, you also have [/B] other modes of melodic minor [/B] which relate to dominant (HM) as well, the least useful probably being the ACTUAL V7.
In the end, I would imagine it's just a simplification thing. Which is simpler to say: "the altered scale subs for mixolydian", or to say the "seventh scale degree of melodic minor can sub for 'major scale notes which work over the dominant' "?.
In the end, you have to know who you're talking to and what you're talking about , in whatever context you're in. If you're talking to jazzers about "melodic minor", you're expected to understand that they actually mean "ascending-only melodic minor".
If you're talking to jazzers about a viim7b5-III7-vi, you need to understand that they are fully aware of the fact that they're actually playing in a minor key. They don't require writing out secondary dominant relationship chord notation in that context . It's understood without saying , and they fully realize all the implications, probably much better than most classical theoreticians. It's simply a SHORTHAND.
In the same way, I think we all need to understand what is implied when an actual JAZZER talks about [/B] playing "mixolydian" over V7 [/B] . It means "major scale pitches/patterns which sound good over V7". More specifically it means "NOT altered, NOT Phrygian dominant, NOT Lydian dominant etc. etc. It's just much simpler to say or write, and in the end WE are the ones who are supposed to understand the differences.
I think most of beginners' misunderstanding of this terminology has to do with not understanding their actual use and context. Probably a disambiguation thread sticky would be good for some of these things.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 09-23-2016 at 11:39 AM.
-
Yeah this is a never ending discussion. to me, it comes down to:
dm, G7, C: D is do, G is do, C is do
or
dm, G7, C: C is do.
to me (and I think what Christian said about G mixo to C and then re-complifying(?) from there)
for dm and G7 G is do, for C C is do
-
There's also an assumption in many arguments against using terms for modes of melodic minor that the people "talking" about those things are actually using these mental descriptors and going through charts in their head, as they play. In the end, that doesn't work, but not for the reason usually talked about. All of this stuff has to be fully internalized, in your ears and fingers, before it's really useful in actual playing.
For example, you could transcribe solos, and write them down - somehow memorize them WITHOUT playing them, and they're going to be absolutely as useless (for real-time playing) as mentally flipping through charts of mode names.
The false assumption, in that case, could be that "transcribing sucks. How could you be thinking about your written down/memorized transcriptions while you're playing?". This is the same argument often made in asking "how can you think about modes while you're playing?". The answer is that you don't. Playing and practicing are two different things. In both applications, the material has to be internalized in the shed, until you're not thinking about words/terminology etc.
It's silly to make the false assumption that you should only use BANDSTAND thoughts/techniques/concepts....in the WOODSHED. Then, don't transcribe!
They are two different spaces and should have different purposes/approaches. There's a difference between practicing and "playing by yourself".Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 09-23-2016 at 10:53 AM.
-
All this technical stuff and $5 words is making me dizzy.
But if that's your pleasure, and if helps the OP, cool.
But this is where I came in...
-
Maybe that was nastier than it should have been, sorry.
What I mean, though, and please hear me out, is that this---and other discussions on these pages (which I often enjoy because the writing is good) too often are mired in discussions and analyses of skills. We all need skills, but music, especially performed music, to me at least is about giving the people that 'healin' feelin'. Do skills contribute to this? Sure they do, but beware of skills as an end in themselves. They are easier to talk about than flow, which to me is talking about being open to having something wash over us that is so big and beautiful that they make skill (and ego) unimportant also-rans.
This state only is achieved by those evolved enough in both their skill level and spiritual openness to just forget notes, etc. and just channel. The great Gene Bertoncini did it last night, and lifted me, Alessio Menconi and everyone in the room. Johnny O' Neal did it at Smoke Tuesday night. These are people with so much skill they don't bother to think about or get hung up in it. They channel and speak instead...
-
pretty sure there are very few here "evolved" enough for that, and I'd wager the OP's problem isn't that he can't figure out how to "just let go" Originally Posted by fasstrack
like you said, skills first-- that's what we're all here working on. Didn't see anybody say it's the end goal
-
This Idea of D dorian , G myxolydian , and C ionian over II V I is just utter bulllshit IMHO , indeed the intervals change on each chord but i i've read on comment here , if you are gonna use 3 scales , at least pick scales that don't have the exact same notes ! that's why i love the Jimmy bruno aproach of no nonesense . it's all in the C pitch collection and you have to play a line note a scale over a chord !
-
It's all good. I understand completely where you're coming from, and you are absolutely right. The problem comes in when people who don't know the context come through and don't know how to interpret seemingly conflicting viewpoints, which in actuality, are both true in a sense. Originally Posted by fasstrack
And then, some of it is simply for the sheer joy of nerding out on something which isn't as important as it may sound.
-
You can get it on Kindle, but maybe not where you are... Originally Posted by Jonah
-
It works for bebop. Originally Posted by Boston Joe
I actually use CST as well when necessary, but it doesn't tend to be over functional changes so much. More like when there's a stretch of 2 or more bars of one chord or something, or sometimes I flirt with it in functional changes playing.
CST works very well with the 'simplifying the changes' concept as well. So,
Over Dm7 G7 C we might play Ab melodic minor/G altered --> C (ignore Dm7). In fact that's not alien to the bebop at all. The thing that would make it bebop or contemporary jazz, say is how you improvise from that minor scale. Specifically, how you construct your lines and hear them, and, indeed whether you hear that scale as being built on G or Ab.
Obviously if you play an up Rhythm Changes or something, you have to do that to fit all that information in. A contemporary player might see the A section of rhythm changes as this:
F7alt | % | % | % |
% | % | % | % |
Or prolonged, unresolved harmonic tension.
I have a feeling that all this 'functions not chord', 'simplifying the changes' and 'tonal targets' stuff is just a bunch of different ways of talking about the same thing.
Well that's hip too. There's more than one way to understand the same stuff...The main point, though, is that thinking about it this way is really only useful as an improvisational tool, so there's no reason to look at it that way if you're just analyzing for theoretical purposes, which is why, I surmise, that my classically oriented friends are not familiar with that way of analyzing something. They're just looking at it as voice leading through C Major.
(Note: I see that others above have made similar points. I replied to this post before I'd read them.)Last edited by christianm77; 09-23-2016 at 01:05 PM.
-
It doesn't help the OP at all. Originally Posted by fasstrack
But it sounds to me like the OP is working out for themselves...
Reply With Quote
Sadowsky Ends Archtop Production
Today, 04:42 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos