-
Hi, I have analised Kurt and Gilad solos recently and found some interesting ideas that I couldn't fully understand. It would be great if you can correct me.
1. In Dewey Square in bar 32,33 on Ebmaj7 Kurt plays E major triad and then G major triad. The question is why does he play Emajor against Ebmaj7 chord?
In my opinion when bass plays Eb and he puts E against it then he gets a slash chord E/Eb (Eb phrygian)? The second question then - why he puts Eb phrygian? Is this a kind of deceptive cadence?
2. Similar situation in Gilad Hekselman solo on "Understanding" bar 23-24. Chords Am 11 then Abmaj7#11 in 25. In 23 he plays A melodic minor and then B major arpeggio over A in bass. Is it similar idea like in Kurt? Does he make B/A where A is a 7b to B? But B7 doesn't lead to Abmaj7#11, rather to E or Bb. The second possible explanation is that by playing B chord over A he gets A69#11 that could be use as dominant to Abmaj. What do you think about this explanation?
3. Gilad again. "This just in". Solo over F open vamp. He use to play F# major harmonic scale (bar 31 and 34). What's the purpose to use that sound? The phrygian flavour? He also plays F# triad in bar 12. Another interesting place is bar 16 when he plays C#maj79 arpeggio. Does he play F phrygian mode at this moment? It look like he does (F phrygian is a 3 mode of C#major).
4. Kurt - I'll be seeing you - 1-3 bar. (Ebmaj7 | G7 | Fm7 ). Kurt starts solo over G7 chord playing notes from Emaj9 then moves to Fminor. I can't explain why he plays Emaj in this place.
Summarizing. What do you think about these explanations and ideas to use chords in improvisation in such way that you canget a slash chord that makes deceptive cadences ( E/Eb - (phrygian) that resolves to Eb, B/A - that resolves do Ab or maybe G/A - that resolves to A).
Thanks
-
11-12-2016 05:41 AM
-
Tbh it may be just that they went with the vibe of the moment rather than with a theory, but a lot of 'wrong' stuff can be made to sound right. Theory has little to do with it IMO - hearing it does.
You could also say it's modal interchange, but whatever you call it you have to hear it to play it...
-
Good questions! I'm not sure anyone but the players themselves could know the thinking behind it. If a bunch of us tried to force an explanation, it might do more harm than good. Just take from it that the very best players can seem to get away with "anything against anything". Not just a modern thing, Benson was doing it in his younger years....
-
Two basic rules of music theory according to Bert Ligon:
1. Does it sound good?
2. Does it sound good?
The purpose of theory is not to explain why something "works" or why something is "allowable" or "okay to play". The purpose is to - in some ways - quantify what "sounds good" so that you can abstract it and use it in other contexts.
If it sounds good in one solo , the job is to find ways to use it in others. Theoretical explanations are kind of "extra credit" in one sense, there's certainly nothing wrong with asking. But I wouldn't stress over it too much necessarily. Much of the time the theoretical explanations are going to be a lot more convoluted than "it sounds good". You may hear the theoretical explanation one confusing time and then , from that point forward , just "know that it works".
To start, often "unexplainable" notes against these chords are going to have some kind of dominant or targeting function in relationship to the actual chord.
For example, in...
1. E7 or Bb7 always work to target Eb, depending on how they are handled rhythmically etc. Once you start assuming dominant of the target chord or chord of the moment, you basically can play anything in the chromatic scale, right? That's just one approach using dominant.
Gotta go....Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 11-12-2016 at 11:45 AM.
-
For analysis, it would be helpful if you posted music (your transcription) to at least the relevant 8 bars containing the passages in question (if it's possible for you to do so).
-
What M-ster said, because often times you can't analyze something just based on the chord of the moment, putting it in context of the complete chord progression sometimes reveals what's going on better than just the one chord.
Another idea is that because an arpeggio is a melodic grouping of notes, you can get both an inside & outside sound at the same time by playing for example E major over Eb major. The notes against the chord sound outside, but the melodic line itself can sound inside. Get it? So while our ears will hear dissonance at the same time we are hearing something that makes melodic sense. This allows for a lot of freedom with creating lines. Often times when I find something that is inexplicable with traditional theory, I just chalk it up to this concept. It's also the reason why a simple technique like side-stepping can work.
Lastly, while it's all good to learn the standard theory, and what scales & arpeggios go with what chords etc...Eventually I think you need to let go of that and start using your ear more and simply seeing notes as either more or less dissonant or consonant, rather than "right" or "wrong" notes. Then you can craft your lines based on tension and resolution instead of some mathematical formula. The truth is there really is no such thing as right or wrong notes. But you have to build up your foundation first though, and first be able to play the "right" notes! Schoenberg was a master of tonal music before he started composing atonal music. And at least to my ears, most modern people who compose "atonal" music, sound like shit. Why? Because they don't take the time to master tonal music before delving into atonal music. They think atonal music is just randomly choosing notes. Not necessarily so (although randomness is certainly one valid approach). Listen to some Schoenberg, he is an absolute master of creating phrases, melody, form, & rhythm with his 12-tone creations.
-
Read this thread and watch the videos in the thread (I think the harmony starts on the second vid). It may open your ears to some different harmonic techniques.
Relearning to Play
-
Tension and release.
-
I've been out for a while. Thanks for your replies. There is always balance between that what you can hear and that what you know. I think that sometimes knowledge can take us to some new areas where we can't get just like that. That's why I try to find some explanations.
Just as matt.guitarteacher said the purpose of explanation is to find it useable in other tunes.
For example if there is a Cmaj for couple bars we can make some tension by playing triad a whole step down (sus chord) or a half step up (phrygian).
As M-ster said I'm sending a longer fragment from Gilad's "Understanding" and This Just In with all places that I've mentioned.
-
Yeah to be honest I think that's the thing. You are doing the right stuff, and labelling the sounds for future reference is the way to go.
Originally Posted by starek
I've been out for a while. Thanks for your replies. There is always balance between that what you can hear and that what you know. I think that sometimes knowledge can take us to some new areas where we can't get just like that. That's why I try to find some explanations.
Just as matt.guitarteacher said the purpose of explanation is to find it useable in other tunes.
For example if there is a Cmaj for couple bars we can make some tension by playing triad a whole step down (sus chord) or a half step up (phrygian).
As M-ster said I'm sending a longer fragment from Gilad's "Understanding" and This Just In with all places that I've mentioned.
If you analyse the why, you could go really deep but not actually do any music! (My younger self made this mistake a lot.)
As a thought, why don't you write a piece that uses these ideas of a standard set of changes?
-
Exactly. As I say, theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
-
Originally Posted by rictroll
Bingo. One can slam almost anything against anything if it resolves properly.
-
Man... there is a LOT packed into this. And without hearing the exact passages you're talking about, it's probably not possible to give a completely accurate and exact description of what's happening. And, there's a lot of truth to the idea that sometimes anything goes and players just play 'non-sense' because it just feels right and they aim towards a resolution point at a specific moment... Originally Posted by starek
Hi, I have analised Kurt and Gilad solos recently and found some interesting ideas that I couldn't fully understand. It would be great if you can correct me.
1. In Dewey Square in bar 32,33 on Ebmaj7 Kurt plays E major triad and then G major triad. The question is why does he play Emajor against Ebmaj7 chord?
In my opinion when bass plays Eb and he puts E against it then he gets a slash chord E/Eb (Eb phrygian)? The second question then - why he puts Eb phrygian? Is this a kind of deceptive cadence?
2. Similar situation in Gilad Hekselman solo on "Understanding" bar 23-24. Chords Am 11 then Abmaj7#11 in 25. In 23 he plays A melodic minor and then B major arpeggio over A in bass. Is it similar idea like in Kurt? Does he make B/A where A is a 7b to B? But B7 doesn't lead to Abmaj7#11, rather to E or Bb. The second possible explanation is that by playing B chord over A he gets A69#11 that could be use as dominant to Abmaj. What do you think about this explanation?
3. Gilad again. "This just in". Solo over F open vamp. He use to play F# major harmonic scale (bar 31 and 34). What's the purpose to use that sound? The phrygian flavour? He also plays F# triad in bar 12. Another interesting place is bar 16 when he plays C#maj79 arpeggio. Does he play F phrygian mode at this moment? It look like he does (F phrygian is a 3 mode of C#major).
4. Kurt - I'll be seeing you - 1-3 bar. (Ebmaj7 | G7 | Fm7 ). Kurt starts solo over G7 chord playing notes from Emaj9 then moves to Fminor. I can't explain why he plays Emaj in this place.
Summarizing. What do you think about these explanations and ideas to use chords in improvisation in such way that you canget a slash chord that makes deceptive cadences ( E/Eb - (phrygian) that resolves to Eb, B/A - that resolves do Ab or maybe G/A - that resolves to A).
Thanks
But all that said... here's my personal assessment.
1.) These are both really basic, common uses of upper structure triads. Putting the G major triad over an EbMaj7 chord simply gives us the EbMaj7#5 sound. Or the maj7b13... depending on use. Especially in modern jazz, fairly common. The E major triad over the EbMaj7 is a little trickier. I wouldn't think of it as Phrygian. For a couple of reasons. One is that I basically never think about anything in terms of modes unless I'm playing in a situation where the chord is stagnant for a long period of time (funk tunes, rock, modal jazz, etc). When chords are moving, the notion of modes feels peripheral at best to me. The other reason is that even if we want to talk about it from the standpoint of modes... it wouldn't be Phrygian as the Eb chord isn't minor... so I suppose it would be Eb Phrygian Major?
Anyways my best read on that E triad, without hearing the passage, is that Kurt was probably implying some type of dominant sound superimposed over the tonic. So it's possible he was thinking Bb7 over the EbMaj chord... which is totally common and normal. The E triad could have come about in two different ways assuming this Bb7 superimposition is what's happening. One way is that he was just outlining the basic tritone sub (Bb -> E). The other way is that if you put an E triad in the upper structure of a Bb7 chord, you end up with a Bb7b9b5. Again, another very common chord. It's possible that he was thinking about this upper structure. Almost the same thing. I can only speak for myself that even though it's the same triad, I use it a little differently depending on which chord I'm playing with. I can't speak to how Kurt uses them. But they're very similar.
2.) B/A is an inversion of a B7 chord. And that's probably the most common way to think about it if we're only looking at the lower structure of harmonies... as it literally spells out the 1-3-5-b7 with the b7 being in the lowest voice. But like you said, it could be creating a dominant tonality. Putting a B triad over an A7 chord is very common. It gives us an A13#11(9) chord. Without listening to the passage, that would be my first guess.
3.) Open vamps, anything is fair game. You can literally play anything that's related to the low pedal note.
4.) This one's probably the toughest to find a harmonic/theory based answer to... it's really the only one that's not super common or jumping off the screen obvious to me. I'd have to hear it or at least check out a transcription to see how he was using it. There's lots of possible 'answers'. One might be that he just likes the sound of resolving a Maj9 chord up a half step to a min7 chord... and decided to use it that way in this passage. I've heard him talk about how he enjoys sometimes changing the order or length of chords within a tune while playing. So perhaps he was utilizing a harmony or melodic idea from a different part of the tune and just putting it here... almost like a Picasso painting.
The best thing, I think, would be to use your ear to find one passage you f'n LOOOOOOVE. Practice playing it. Practice singing it while you play the chords. Take everything slow. Really listen to every note and hear where the resolution points within the lines and chords are. Then maybe try putting it into another key (or 7), or try and alter the order of the notes... or add notes... or take notes out...
-
Somebody above made the point really well. It can sound inside melodically and outside harmonically.
The way this strikes me is that the exact same notes, if played in a weaker melodic/rhythmic line will not work. That's a hard concept to capture with chord/scale theory.
And, as usual, the theory is the after-the-fact explanation of "why" it worked.
If somebody plays E major against Eb, the chances are good, I think, that all they're thinking is sideslipping. Play some stuff a half step up to create tension. The good players come back inside at the right time. Weaker players (like me) struggle to bring it back before it just sounds bad.
Now, of course, you can label it. If that helps you learn the sound or find it in another situation, then the labeling has paid off.
My thought is that theory has some important uses. One is to find sounds that you can practice and internalize. Another is to be able to avoid clams in a situation where you have to solo over some oddball changes you're reading for the first time. Another is to be able to find the sounds to practice them.
What theory is not so good for, not that anybody needed my view, is when you're on a gig taking a solo. By then, it has to be in your ears so that it comes out the speaker while your mind is focused on music, not math.
-
People should develop their own theoretical understanding based on the music they are turned on by on in combination with information they find useful.
Which is what's going on here. Splendid, carry on :-)
Regarding clams - I don't actually think theory is useful for avoiding those. You have to base your learning IMO on playing the right things (ie the things you can hear), not avoiding playing bad things.
Most improvisers end up with a theoretical structure that works in conjunction with your ear. Which is probably what you meant, but just wanted to explicate.
In any case there are no clams at the highest level, as these examples show IMO - why? Because they are being played by advanced musicians. It's largely *the way* they are played. Rhythm, tone, intention.
If a beginner plays them they will sound like clams.
Which is pretty much what rpjazzguitar said as I understand it in different words....Last edited by christianm77; 11-17-2016 at 12:16 AM.
-
Btw when I play a brand new tune not based on modules (ii v's, turnarounds, modal vamps and so on) that I can hear, pretty much everything sounds like a clam haha.
Otoh Brecker was able to do this purely by ear. Which maybe why he never sounded tentative or 'thin'
The more stuff you learn to hear over time, the less this will happen too.
-
Oh sorry - one more thing :-) it's not necessary to discern every pitch IMO. Rhythmic shape is more important
-
I appreciate the discussion.
In my comment on clam-avoidance, here's what I was thinking.
I play in some situations in which it often happens that somebody puts a song I've never seen before on my stand and counts it off.
Sometimes, I have to take the first solo -- having barely ever heard the tune.
Now, if it happens to be some ii Vs or otherwise simple changes, that's one thing.
But, often enough, the harmony is something that is beyond me. I can't read the chord symbols and have the sound of the harmony come through in my mind.
That is, not tin pan alley tunes, but more like Wayne Shorter harmony or Toninho Horta or somebody I don't listen to because I can't understand it.
So, I know, before my solo starts, that I'm not going to be making art. My thought is, well, it may not be beautiful, but at least I'll try to avoid obvious clams.
At that point, knowing the chord tones and having some kind of idea of the associated scale is helpful. I can fumble my way through without playing anything grossly horrible. In that situation, it's better than I can do by ear, although I might have a shot by playing very sparsely and never hitting the first beat of a new chord (to give myself a moment to hear it).
So, that's how I find theory helpful for clam avoidance.
I understand and agree with the idea that a great player can use any note against any chord and make it sound good. In fact, some of my favorite passages often contain dissonant tones, but played with such strong melodic and rhythmic feel that the harmony may become bi-tonal, if that's the right term. You hear the underlying chord and a superimposed chord, both at the same time, even if they might clash in a different context.
-
This is pretty much how I feel, and play.
But on the other hand I think this is true of most players.
To be frank, even when playing rehearsed material most jazz improvisers still sound strongest to me on conventional changes and modes.
The road less travelled here is the Brecker approach. Mick Goodrick talks about a way of cultivating this type of ear based improvising through changes, and I started working on it - you record a number of randomised chord loops (I used a spreadsheet to generate changes, no really) and then play them randomly on your iTunes or whatever. Should really get back into that!
Another way of working on this is obviously to develop your hearing of chord progressions formally to the point where you can recognise them straight off, but in a way the other way sounds more fun.
-
Incidentally, the actual pitch choices over chords maybe far less important than we think, especially over convoluted fast moving changes...
In fact the important thing is to have what Reg would call a Tonal Target in mind and play phrases that work towards that target with the resolution clearly heard. Tbh, I think this is really the way jazz improvisation on any type of changes functions.Last edited by christianm77; 11-17-2016 at 03:33 AM.
-
It's a word, In Jazz, you can precede any chord with a V of it. Once you insert V you can pretty much play on it all the way over the relative I, one before you've inserted V. Each dominant you can sub with tritone. Over dominant you can play altered, or melodic minor, or pretty much anything. That is the word, as I've head it.
V of Eb is Bb and tritone of Bb is E. G is ,#9, or b3 of E, making it altered and giving it melodic minor flavour, or whatever.
As you can see, it's true to the word.
VladanMovies BlogSpot
-
But the fun here is really the fact that once you have the standard resolutions V, tritone etc, you can really do anything. Originally Posted by Vladan
Absolutely any chord can precede any other, but in general the more different notes it has to the target chord, the more powerful the resolution.
So, take resolutions into C, some simple ideas with major triads
G C = (G B D) (C E G) diatonic example
Db C = (Db F Eb) (C E G)
Bb C = (Bb D F) "
B C = (B D# F#) " one of my favourites
F# C = F# A# C#
And so on
When you think about it, this is how diatonic tonal harmony works, but it's also one reason the altered scale works:
G7alt = G Ab Bb B Db Eb F
C6/9 = C D E G A
Only one note common to both - G
Not to mention enclosures, other neighbour tone patterns etc... Tension and release... Couple with rhythm and a sense of resolution, there are no intrinsic clams. But you need to know when and how you are going to resolve.
-
Also - tonal twelve tone playing anyone?
-
Jerry Bergonzi says 'Melody trumps harmony' and demonstrates this by playing a completely unrelated line over the changes, but it still sounds good. In this case, the trick is to learn how to play strong, logical phrases that can achieve this. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
That makes me want to check out more Bergonzi. It's taken me a long way to see this (thanks Bird) but I still let considerations of vertical harmony muck up my flow sometimes. Originally Posted by grahambop
Getting there though.
Reply With Quote
Gibson Thin line Guitar Models
Yesterday, 11:07 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos