My video series on chord changes

[destinytot]

I watched the videos (after reading Groyniad's post, no.33), and I think they're really great. In all sincerity, I wish they were around years ago.

(As it is, I've had to glean little titbits from here and there - I remember an almost surreal moment in a lift with Peter Guidi, Hans Mantel and Sean Levitt, with me hanging on their every word - much in the manner of the second frog in the video below.)

To return to the topic, what I particularly like about Christian's exposition on video is the way he talks about harmony and changes - (necessarily) in very specific and measurable terms.

Regarding those terms, and obvious as this point may be, talking about music is exactly that. Those terms represent something far more poignant (sensibility aside), or perhaps - if, like me, the first thing that comes to mind when you see a handle such as C.E.S.H. is the villain in a '70s Bond movie - something far more sinister.

But having knowledge of harmony seems to me like having Rapturous Bliss on tap. Whether implied (bare bones) or elaborate (in textures laid on thick and lush), it's the harmony that really gets to me when a piece of music 'moves' me.

So while I can't add to the discussion of harmony (except, perhaps, to share examples of usage/application - others' or my own - that 'speaks to my condition'), and at the risk of over-egging the pudding (because this idea has been expressed more clearly and more succinctly), I'll add that just because 'harmony' and 'melody' are drawn together under the term 'music' doesn't mean they need to be treated as interchangeable.

I don't mean that as a dig at CST - or at anything (or anyone) else, for that matter. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Because - according to my (aesthetic) sensibilities - thinking less (which is not to say 'not thinking at all') produces better improvised melodic lines.

I think 'the T/D thing' allows for a lot less thinking - but thinking 'triads' gets into the fine grain of that 'T/D thing'. In The Universal Mind of Bill Evans, he talks about the improviser's tendency to 'approximate the product'.

'The Ladder of Thirds' brought to mind 'The Ladder of Abstraction'; sometimes it's necessary to go up that ladder - for perspective, if not for inspiration.

But I tend to think that, if one is to successfully convey musical ideas, one needs to find a way to come down the ladder. Even if the listener isn't prepared to meet the player half-way, the improviser - ideally - can exert control over the cohesion and coherence of their 'solo', their own part in improvising, in order to reach - and connect with - anyone in earshot.

I was going to close with 'triads' rule. Then it occurred to me that, actually, singers rule. Then I thought, "Actors definitely rule." Finally I thought, "Teachers rule." So I'll close with that thought - and compliment Christian on a great thread.

[Groyniad]

I wouldn't tend to use it for bop, just not really part of that sound world to my ears.

BTW I don't use your equivalences exactly on closer inspection. Is that from Jordan or something?

Emin = G maj = Bmin = C maj 7 # 11 = Db m7b5 = (!!) A7 (or A13)

I don't think that way, I would think:

F#m7b5 = Am7(6) = Cmaj7#11 = D7 = Ab7alt

From A dorian/melodic minor
A C E G (G#) B D F#

Then, the G zone is separate

C#m7b5 = Em7(6) = Gmaj7(#11) = A7 = Eb7alt

From E dorian/melodic minor
E G B D (D#) F# A C#

Notice that within this you can pick out triads. For example the A dorian example:

Am
C
Em
G
Bm

The thing that separates the two zones is the use of C as opposed to C#. This is a big deal for me, because 4-3 is what drives tonal cadences in the major key. C-B in the key of G major.

I'm at present much less interested in exploring superimposed triadic sounds as sounds in their own right than Jordan is. Which isn't to say I don't use some of the obvious triadic superpositions. I use them all the time. I just don't always care what they are called, or what kind of vertical harmony they create. I see that as a distraction from my current goals of developing better rhythmic and melodic freedom through the changes.

I would describe my playing as at present, harmonically quite boring. I'm looking for interest elsewhere.

In other words I see harmonic understanding as a means to an end ATM. The end is to play tunes with the same rhythmic freedom that I would play a modal vamp. These equivalences can go someway towards this. Here I am using them to create a path of least resistance if you like.

On the other hand you could take the same information and turn it around the other way, and come up with harmonic sounds by using the same material in different contexts over chords. This is what I think of as Monder or Lund doing when they take one harmonic structure and apply it in different contexts. Check out my tune Nibiru (:-)) which is very much an exercise in that type of thing.

It's kind of anti-harmony if that makes any sense. I want harmony to be completely background in my playing, or heavily horizontal. Ideally I want my voicings to be conceived melodically too.

It's quite possible I'll do a volte face in the near future. Triads work very well on the guitar, but even then there's different ways you can view it....

i can't talk through this very effectively - i have to play things and have things played to me (whilst/before/after difficult things get said). i don't do note names - everything is numbers and patterns for me (so i can't read on the guitar). it makes understanding streams of note-names very hard. (sorry)

i'm primarily interested in non-harmonic things too - phrase length and placement mainly. i did another vid. on the other thread with some chat about this and some playing. you can distinguish between an interest in shape (rhythm) and an interest in colour (harmony). of course they always come together (there are no non-coloured shapes and no unshaped colours) but still one can be concerned more with the one than with the other.

you can play a snappy phrase into 1 using a straight dominant - or pretty much the same snappy phrase using an altered dominant. what i'm most interested in is the way its snaps into 1 - or the length, position and internal structure of the phrase - not the sound it expresses.