Understanding Charlie Parker through triads

[Jonah]

I really think all this should come out of the conceptional and theoretical clouds and land back on earth where we can survey it in a rational and realistic manner.

really..? maybe you would make an effort and climb up to the clouds a bit?

Realistic manner? Who would care that your reality has notheing to do with real things.

[Jonah]

Yeah that might help.

I just feel that your terminology isn’t quite clear to me.

Ok, I'll make it tonight.

[Jonah]

There's NO requirement that anyone take this on. It's for those who WANT to and are interested. The imagined need for justification of this concept for those who aren't even INTERESTED isn't real. Move on to a thread you care about. Or maybe disrupt one of the gear threads you don't really care about. Somehow I don't think it will be accepted there. These things only seem to occur this way in playing threads or theory threads.

Secondary tonal centers etc are absolutely a jazz thing , and a distinction, at least to the degree used, from other styles. Can be independent if overall function " of the moment". Reg talks about this stuff all the time. When you start talking about music and how you choose to view it/approach it some of it can get personal/philosophical , and there's nothing wrong with that. Conversations meandering into "you don't have to look at it that way" are not all that helpful to those who are actually interested in looking at it , at least after certain point. At this point, honestly, I think that debate would be better as a separate thread .

This seemed to be a practical application thread. If you want to discuss philosophically the NEED for it etc., start a dedicated threat on that topic. It's not helpful here. Distracts from the real focus of the thread in my opinion.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

If I am sying something in a thread like I believe it is important for the topic, and I am always very specific even if crtitical.
And I believe this is all that is important.

[Jonah]

Yeah that might help.

I just feel that your terminology isn’t quite clear to me.

THere's also important note that I did not mention before in comments.
It's that the harmony itself can be so much extended that it goes beyond hearing functional tension...
Like using 3x2430 chord as final tonic chord in C major... it has G in the bass and no C in it... nevertherless it sounds stable...
I never explored it but this kind of stability sounds to me as more like intervalic balance in texture...
Mix of functional and modal means.
And this is 'off key stability' - in other words it sounds stable not because of key realations but because of intervalic quality and their disposition and so it can be applied in various contexts - keys - modes...
(this is often the case with inpressiontic harmony)
It still refers to 'old functional system' using consonant intervals as stable - the contes of particular piece of music should establish these realtions. But does not really go futher with functionality,

And Jordan's more complex examples go into that area imho and this is where it can be really applied -

But the way he brings to basics with C major scale and A-7 of F or even FMM, it does not really work

I'll try showing it to in the video..
this is why I find

[christianm77]

I like the melodic triads idea as a way of making improvisations more related to the tune as a composition, and preserving some of its unique content, beyond just running the usual stuff over the changes.

I have been using related triads and so on on changes for some time and sure most people on this thread have.

The main point as I understand is how these triads are heard - not as extensions of an underlying triad but in fact a harmonic triad with resolved chord tone and non chord tones in their own right.

And on the other hand the quadrad idea gives a way of relating this sound to the underlying harmony and/or adding a tension note to the basic triad sound.

In terms of a radical simplifying of available options I actually think it’s paradoxically really freeing and the results speak for themselves.

No ‘new’ harmonic information has necessarily been introduced here, although a few of Jordan’s options are interesting enough to me to be pursued as substitutes in their own right.

[Jonah]

The main point as I understand is how these triads are heard - not as extensions of an underlying triad but in fact a harmonic triad with resolved chord tone and non chord tones in their own right.

This is how I understand it too... and I find it an itresting practical tool to certain degree...
I used it actully and played through 2 seires of Jordan's lessons (Jordan if you read thius in this mess of posts: I respect what you doing, follow it and am thatnkful for this!)

But the key word here is 'harmonic triad')
Harmonic qualities cannot be percieved per se... but only in context (even if we do not play it of think of it we imply it unconciously - otherwise we would not hear it as harmony).

I do not mind until Jordan begins to call it 'melodic triad' and shows primacy of this triad over the backing chord...

He uses linear principles where there is actually vertical harmony working - only expressed horizonthally

Why I mentioned Gregorin Chant? Because it's monody... and the realtion there is really melodic... the feeling of stability-instability (if any) are built on rythm, repetition, accents and intervals between closest notes in the row...
And if we listen to it now we often find that the last note does not sounf for us as 'tonic'... though it is. It is just our ears that look for traditional harmonic contex behind - imply this context - and feel confused when the melody does not follow it.

But Jordan melodies are totally harmonic...
all the tensions and releases he shows as melodic are predetermined by the fact that he hears presumed harmonic context.

[ragman1]

The main point as I understand is how these triads are heard - not as extensions of an underlying triad but in fact a harmonic triad with resolved chord tone and non chord tones in their own right.

And on the other hand the quadrad idea gives a way of relating this sound to the underlying harmony and/or adding a tension note to the basic triad sound.

In terms of a radical simplifying of available options I actually think it’s paradoxically really freeing and the results speak for themselves.

I hear what you say. But let's say we have an F7 chord with, say, G, F, Eb, D and C in the melody. To me that implies a Cm triad. Probably most of us would outline a Cm, or play C dorian, or even C melodic minor.

What would this triad method say that's different? What would you actually play? In what way would it be better or sound more interesting? Bearing in mind that the dorian or mel min scales give you a lot more options than 4 notes? How would you play it differently?

(Apart from the myriad of other options over a dom7, of course. I mean, triad pairs Eb and F definitely sound different. Same notes, entirely different sound).

[Jonah]

I hear what you say. But let's say we have an F7 chord with, say, G, F, Eb, D and C in the melody. To me that implies a Cm triad. Probably most of us would outline a Cm, or play C dorian, or even C melodic minor.

What would this triad method say that's different? What would you actually play? In what way would it be better or sound more interesting? Bearing in mind that the dorian or mel min scales give you a lot more options than 4 notes? How would you play it differently?

(Apart from the myriad of other options over a dom7, of course. I mean, triad pairs Eb and F definitely sound different. Same notes, entirely different sound).

In Jordan's approach melodic triad implies very clear tension centers (with different intensity of tension by the way - that gives addition colour for expression) - tension centers imply thoughtful and logical phrasing, lead of motvic construction.... you almost authatically will have to think of rythm and accents.

Dorian or MM do not provide anything that much determined instead they imply new root and give plenty of notes with no clearly determined realtions between each other.

[Boston Joe]

But then it goes beyond it... this bitonality thing in this thread is a total mess.
As well as 'melodic tonic' in a melody c-e-g-e-c... there's no melodic tonic in this context.
It's great when someone tries to learn through his own experience... but there are tools that work already... not need to reinvent things and multiply enetities.

We always imply context even when we do not actually use it. (sorry for Even if you play only C-E-G-E-C without any chords of thinking, you inmply harmonic context - traditional for our culture and music - and this context is here a functional harmony, this is what makes you hear C as 'home' in this context.
And this is why Ab+maj7 over it does not sound strong- why would it sound strong?
I don't understand why do you expect to be strong - only because of Ab in the bass?

There is no 'bitonality', no 'melodic tonic' here.
It is just contextual C major and what one needs to learn basically and firstly for this kind of music is just to hear functions, not chords but functions. And hearing tensions is a part of it.

Okay, I think I see the disconnect here.

When one learns to improvise, the common approach is to say that the 1/3/5/7 of the chord are the stable notes, which in our example would be Ab/C/E/G, yes? But against the melody (CEGECEGEC), that Ab is, as you say, weak. Someone who came from a traditional approach to improv, though, is looking at that from the perspective of Ab. And a strict CST interpretation of that chord would be third mode of F Melodic Minor, right? (Or - sorry Christian - Ab Lydian Augmented.) That person would see Ab as "home" for the duration of that chord.

So it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong, Jordan), that all we're doing is recovering the true tonality, and then working within a particular cell of that. (Right, Jonah? I think this is consistent with what you're saying.)

The idea of Boston Joe spending ?days playing one thing over and over and over again is, frankly, ludicrous. Obviously, at the end of that process, the ear will adjust and hear anything it's told to hear. It's just a form of conditioning through incessant and brain-numbing repetition.

I think "ludicrous" is ill-chosen and, frankly, insulting. Have you never tried anything just for the hell of it?
But regardless, I am hearing things differently now than I was two weeks ago. Last night at rehearsal, I was hearing things I've never heard before in tunes I've played a hundred times. So it may have been mind-numbing at the time I did it, but the longer term effect is actually mind-stimulating (psychoacoustic homeopathy? ). In my experience. (FWIW, it wasn't ?days. It was one day for about 20 minutes. Time well spent if you ask me. Better than watching TV, anyway.)

If that's the way you've always been hearing things, then yeah, this stuff is going to be obvious to you. For me "layering" extensions or subs "works" but it always feels forced. The melodies I make that way don't feel right to me. This way feels more organic. Admittedly, that's a purely subjective thing. Maybe this is just a way of "forcing" my ear, but if it is, it's one I needed. I think this method fills a niche at the very least. And given the membership of Jordan's FB group, it would appear that I'm not the only one who finds this useful.

-------------------

But ignore all that for a minute. If the crux of your (in the general sense here, not specifically ragman1 or Jonah) issue with Jordan's method is the idea of a melodic tonic, then skip that. In place of "tonic", think "note we've chosen to emphasize". Then Jordan's method is about organizing quadrads using notes in the melody. If you don't need help hearing those quadrads, then what you might get out of this is just a neat way of seeing where to put them.

Maybe "melodic tonic" is just a useful mental construct, and not a real thing. To the extent that it helps me, I'm okay with that.

[Jonah]

Okay, I think I see the disconnect here.

When one learns to improvise, the common approach is to say that the 1/3/5/7 of the chord are the stable notes, which in our example would be Ab/C/E/G, yes? But against the melody (CEGECEGEC), that Ab is, as you say, weak. Someone who came from a traditional approach to improv, though, is looking at that from the perspective of Ab. And a strict CST interpretation of that chord would be third mode of F Melodic Minor, right? (Or - sorry Christian - Ab Lydian Augmented.) That person would see Ab as "home" for the duration of that chord.

So it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong, Jordan), that all we're doing is recovering the true tonality, and then working within a particular cell of that. (Right, Jonah? I think this is consistent with what you're saying.)

Yes.. in general so.
Probably my backgroung makes the difference here.

The other point is that I agree that melodic line and harmonic changes in jazz make different - though interconnected - levels - even the idea to solo over borrowed song implies this mentality... I believe the important point here is that solo (melody) - comping (harmony) were represented by different personalities (as composers or as performers).
This point should not be underestimated. THey begin to communicate as two more or less 'self-sufficient units.'
it was like that from the very beginning and I never denied it.
(I even wrote about it in this forum, but those days it was a different trend and it did not seem interesting)))


And this is not common for traditional classical music -
I rememner also here once we discussed that jazz player more probably play arpeggio as line going from note to not consequently.. like a melody... wehereas the classical musicia will play it rather like a few vertical voices with different starting moments.

It's abstract point of course - though for Bach arpeggio is always polyphic and harmonic, for Chopin it can be melodic and harmonic.
And for jazz - look at Parker's line that Jordan posted - there's this polyphony there too.

So this is also where I see another explanation for Jordan's approach for jazz music and this is where it could be really applied: practice or teaching to improvize solo melodically with good sense of harmony .

It would be great to have it all combined though (to call harmony a harmony when it really is = it's not that bad).
Separating melody too much can be misleading... it's a good introductional method but then..

Anyway I'll try to make a video...

I'm doing that not because I want to prove anything, I am just exploring it with all of you and curious where it leads.

[Lobomov]

But it's not even a jazz tune.

Yeah .. What a proposturous idea .. to use a tune from some old musical in a jazz context. Ludicrous I tell you!

[Boston Joe]

Separating melody too much can be misleading... it's a good introductional method but then..

I think when you're comfortable with the method, there's probably some re-integration that needs to happen.

[ragman1]

Yeah .. What a proposturous idea .. to use a tune from some old musical in a jazz context. Ludicrous I tell you!

Got the joke. But are you saying that this idea produces such weird sounds that it's only applicable to modern tunes like Blue In Green, Iris, Naima, etc?

[ragman1]

I am hearing things differently now than I was two weeks ago. Last night at rehearsal, I was hearing things I've never heard before in tunes I've played a hundred times. So it may have been mind-numbing at the time I did it, but the longer term effect is actually mind-stimulating (psychoacoustic homeopathy? ). In my experience. (FWIW, it wasn't ?days. It was one day for about 20 minutes.

No insult intended, Joe, I don't do that. But you did say:

I've been hammering that E/b2 over D-6 for a few days, and it sounds totally inside to me now.

It's possible that my ear is more sensitive and I think I'd hear it fairly immediately. But it's still quite a long time to spend on one effect. And, as you say, there's the rest of the tune. But naturally if you've spent that long on it you've changed your wiring, so to speak, and are going to hear different things.

Maybe this is just a way of "forcing" my ear, but if it is, it's one I needed. I think this method fills a niche at the very least. And given the membership of Jordan's FB group, it would appear that I'm not the only one who finds this useful.

Well, all good, as they say. If it's been beneficial then so be it.

If the crux of your (in the general sense here, not specifically ragman1 or Jonah) issue with Jordan's method is the idea of a melodic tonic, then skip that. In place of "tonic", think "note we've chosen to emphasize". Then Jordan's method is about organizing quadrads using notes in the melody.

I understand that. In fact, that's why I put that question to Christian in #282 (not answered yet).

[ragman1]

In Jordan's approach melodic triad implies very clear tension centers ...

Dorian or MM do not provide anything that much determined instead they imply new root and give plenty of notes with no clearly determined realtions between each other.

I'd say it depends how you place the notes. But using, say dorian or mm doesn't necessarily mean you have to have complex lines and a whole flurry of notes.

[Jonah]

I'd say it depends how you place the notes. But using, say dorian or mm doesn't necessarily mean you have to have complex lines and a whole flurry of notes.

And using everything does not mean you have to use evrything of everything

[Boston Joe]

It's possible that my ear is more sensitive and I think I'd hear it fairly immediately. But it's still quite a long time to spend on one effect. And, as you say, there's the rest of the tune. But naturally if you've spent that long on it you've changed your wiring, so to speak, and are going to hear different things.

Ah, well, what I meant by that is I've been using it in my practice a lot. The original epiphany took about 20 minutes, as I said. The rest of that has been getting it under my fingers, and working on connecting it in context. As with most things, I don't expect subsequent ones to take as long, now that I know what I'm listening for.

[christianm77]

No insult intended, Joe, I don't do that. But you did say:



It's possible that my ear is more sensitive and I think I'd hear it fairly immediately. But it's still quite a long time to spend on one effect. And, as you say, there's the rest of the tune. But naturally if you've spent that long on it you've changed your wiring, so to speak, and are going to hear different things.



Well, all good, as they say. If it's been beneficial then so be it.



I understand that. In fact, that's why I put that question to Christian in #282 (not answered yet).

Oh right.

I couldn’t really bothered to get into it tbh, seems a bit pointless. Give it a go and see if you like it.

Not really into getting into these types of intellectualised debates about music. When it comes down to it I prefer doing.

But what Jordan says about this conventional hierarchy of tone in CST - 1 3 5 7 9 etc up from the root - that’s seemed like BS, or more charitably a partial truth,
for a long time to me. And that’s what he’s talking about as I understand it.

It’s quite possible you hear that already. I can’t comment on what you hear in music. That really is getting into philosophy.

[Lobomov]

Got the joke. But are you saying that this idea produces such weird sounds that it's only applicable to modern tunes like Blue In Green, Iris, Naima, etc?

Yeah sure .... "Modern" ...


I prefer to stay out of musical discussions as I think of my self as one, who can talk the talk, but not necesarrily walk the walk. Not that I'm totally hopeless as a player, but this is no place for me to make statements .. only to ask questions

But I this is a thread that I really enjoyed. Excellent content from both Jordan but also many others .. and it is impressive how long it has stayed on track with surprisingly little in term of the usual disfunctional pissing contest stuff that is so common. I'm looking forward to Jonah's vid tonight .. hopefully he'll find time to record it.

[christianm77]

Another thing that attracts me to
Jordan’s is the potential not only for super legit sounding bop lines, but also the very contemporary sounding (to me) takes on harmony that he demonstrates on his own channel and website.

It’s a flexible approach and right now that’s a big box ticked for me.

In fact I think you could go back further with this to the 20s and 30s language. Take After You’ve Gone, for instance.

Anyway, looking forward to getting a chance to actually practice this as opposed to talk about it...

[Boston Joe]

And using everything does not mean you have to use evrything of everything

I want this on a T-shirt.

[powersurge]

I hear what you say. But let's say we have an F7 chord with, say, G, F, Eb, D and C in the melody. To me that implies a Cm triad. Probably most of us would outline a Cm, or play C dorian, or even C melodic minor.

What would this triad method say that's different? What would you actually play? In what way would it be better or sound more interesting? Bearing in mind that the dorian or mel min scales give you a lot more options than 4 notes? How would you play it differently?

(Apart from the myriad of other options over a dom7, of course. I mean, triad pairs Eb and F definitely sound different. Same notes, entirely different sound).

They give you more options unless you start using more triads... I mean, if you learn how every triad sounds over F7, well, you have all 12 notes. From what I understand, you start simply with one triad, and then explore other sounds from there. There's a video on youtube where Stefon hints at exploring non-triadic based harmony too, he demonstrates his method using a cluster. Also, have you tried applying the ideas? Theoretically it may seem limiting, but after applying his ideas, I'm hearing and playing better than ever. Rather than looking at it from a theoretical standpoint, I see it more as a graduated process that allows you to truly embed the sounds of various tensions on top of different chords/tonalities.

[ragman1]

have you tried applying the ideas?

Oh, yes :-)

[christianm77]

They give you more options unless you start using more triads... I mean, if you learn how every triad sounds over F7, well, you have all 12 notes. From what I understand, you start simply with one triad, and then explore other sounds from there. There's a video on youtube where Stefon hints at exploring non-triadic based harmony too, he demonstrates his method using a cluster. Also, have you tried applying the ideas? Theoretically it may seem limiting, but after applying his ideas, I'm hearing and playing better than ever. Rather than looking at it from a theoretical standpoint, I see it more as a graduated process that allows you to truly embed the sounds of various tensions on top of different chords/tonalities.

Link pls!

[Jonah]

I made it quickly... actually I had some more ideas but I did not have time and possibility to prepare and make it properly... and the phone ran out of memory...
But it seems like I managed to show the thing that I wanted to and actually while recording it struck me what I really wanted to say but could not find words in posting..

Sorry for quality and rush and low volume (it's late everybody's sleeping - hope my accent is understandable)