Understanding Charlie Parker through triads

[ragman1]

you can analyze Mozart sonata with quadrads, melodic triads, modes or whatever if you want.. but it will be just absolutely wrong for understanding this music...

Correct, it's not traditional music so it needs quite a different approach.

[ragman1]

What you said was correct:

you can analyze Mozart sonata with quadrads, melodic triads, modes or whatever if you want.. but it will be just absolutely wrong for understanding this music...

Analysing Mozart with triads etc wouldn't be right for it. The melodies of classical music are essentially traditional and composed in a traditional way. These modern tunes aren't, therefore they need a different approach.

In any case, Mozart isn't jazz. Classical music does not play improvised solos over strangely unconnected chords. I know a lot of classical music is improvisation from a theme (and can also be analysed with triads) but that's not the point.

Jazz standards, show tunes and songs, are nearly always traditionally composed. The melodies blend with the chords. There's no need to analyse them with triads. There's no point, because the melodies comply with the background harmony. These modern tunes like Iris, Naima, Blue In Green, and many others, aren't the same. If you simply play solos based on the chords it doesn't sound right.

Jordan's loop is a very good example of that. The ear hears C major but the chords aren't in C major. If you solo as though the tune is in C it will work. If you solo according to the exact chords as written it doesn't work properly. Try it and see.

As I think you suggested, classical musicians trained in the classical way will generally find this hard to understand.

[christianm77]

Here I take it as just a vamp - I already forgot about Joy to the World.



My comments on analysis meant that you can analyze Mozart sonata with quadrads, melodic triads, modes or whatever if you want.. amd may be even behifite from it - but it will be just absolutely wrong for understanding this music...
(that's why when I gave an example from Nutcracker with descending C major scale - I called it the opposite to Jordan's melodic triads)


And in jazz there is nothing wrong if you can make it convincing... most standards originally as pieces of music have notheing to do with impovizational theoretic tools jazz players apply to them.
That's why jazz players often play terribly Bach's violine sonatas and still benefit from them.

OTOH an early music specialist might talk about the way the music of the Baroque era has been misunderstood by later generations.

For instance why should using Shenkerian analysis to understand Mozart have any more validity than using quadrads say?

[Lobomov]

For instance why should using Shenkerian analysis to understand Mozart have any more validity than using quadrads say?

People like being anal and compete with regards to putting things in boxes .. often with regards to knowing names of said boxes more than what is inside them

[Jonah]

OTOH an early music specialist might talk about the way the music of the Baroque era has been misunderstood by later generations.

For instance why should using Shenkerian analysis to understand Mozart have any more validity than using quadrads say?

I don't know what Shenkerian analysis is (don't forget I am Russian, we have our own school (hockey, rockets, ballet and our own musical school (best of the best in the world - that's it)))

For me it's an artistic language... not the tool per se or terminology.

I know music of Mozart quite close... I can explain what's going on their.
Functional tonality theory gives the best terminology for this even this terminology was invented later.

What they heard is not always what they understood or thight of in terms of theory.

OTOH an early music specialist might talk about the way the music of the Baroque era has been misunderstood by later generations.

It was not 'misunderstood' in a broad sense... high baroque is the same river as Schumann, Schubert or Mahler...

Or the leaves and branches of the tree belong to the same root and trunk even if they seem to behave as they are independednt... I can hear and see it.


Today people who are involve in historical performance (or any kind of cultural hustorical practice) are often obsessed on opposition to romaticism and modern art... they are often very narrow minded... something like they do literature and know something of Shakespeare and have no idea about Faulkner.. but to me there is direct connection between these two.
In music it's even worse .. the lack of words makes it just open space for everyone.

THey come, they do not hear anything, and they begin to declare that now we have to overview.. and I hear it all and need not overview and can explaine.. but they do not want explanations.

Blessed are those who have no harmonic pitch for theirs is the kingdom of western music today

[Jonah]

You know how feel?

Imagine you approach this painting, and there's another guy too.

And you say: Well you see that man in the picture...
And he: What man?
You: this..
He: there's no man actually. It's castus... where do you see a man? It's all romantic vulgar perception that they misinter[reted that as men and we adopted that
You: but it's man...
He: you should overview your opinion and try to understand how people in times of Rimnbrandt saw cactuses.. I read the source in the most ancient Dutch.
etc.

I do not speak about the content that it is Aman and it's about Bible and many other details which really can be discussed, forgotten brought back to light...

No I speak about essence... this did not see anything, he began to seek the sources and found wht he was looking for.


What is interesting... I am making this mistake that that guy does too all the time - but at least I know I make it
(have you read 'Averroes' mistake' byt Borges? Was it really a mistake?)))

[ragman1]

For me it's an artistic language... not the tool per se or terminology.

Exactly, and the same may be said for all the arts, not just music, and language evolves like everything else. Also, of course, language is not what it describes. A description, however beautiful, of a country is not that country.

[Jonah]

Exactly, and the same may be said for all the arts, not just music, and language evolves like everything else. Also, of course, language is not what it describes. A description, however beautiful, of a country is not that country.

Eh...

The conventional language that we use for communication describes, I agree.

But the artistic language does not describe, it creates.
Even literature though it uses conventional language. That's why the literature is the toughest art, the true writers have to discover creative power of our daily language, to overcome and bring to life it's worn-out meanigs.
And then writer creates the real world (not a real world).

'We doubt the speaker, not the toung he speaks' (Auden)

[bako]

Most analysis taught is filtered through systematic thought processes that didn't exist in the same
timeframe that the content was originally created. There are others, through closer examination of secondary sources
make good educated guesses. Our ideas bear the influence of the era within which we have lived.

What then is the function of musical analysis? For an academic theorist, the findings can be an end unto themselves.
Data compiled providing grist for further discussions, lectures, a thesis, a book, etc.
For the composer/improviser, we are looking for an actionable knowledge.

[ragman1]

But the artistic language does not describe, it creates.

It creates of what it is itself, a symbolic picture.

I'm reading 'We' by Zamyatin at the moment. With normal words he creates a dystopian world. But, of course, it's not entirely new. His vision had a lot to do with the state of the USSR at the time. And, naturally, he was exiled.

But nobody could create symbolic metaphors for their unfortunate system like the people of that time :-)

[mr. beaumont]

Boy, we've travelled a bit from Parker and triads, eh?

I'd still like to discuss that, particularly the reharmonization options like in Jordan's crazy loop...I really enjoyed playing on that, I'd like to know more about writing stuff like that, but I think it's a bit over my head

[ragman1]

Boy, we've travelled a bit from Parker and triads, eh?

I think that was probably the idea :-)

I'd still like to discuss that, particularly the reharmonization options like in Jordan's crazy loop...I really enjoyed playing on that, I'd like to know more about writing stuff like that, but I think it's a bit over my head

Me too, although I'm wondering how it would differ from any other kind of reharm. Ode To Joy seems quite popular online and there are quite a few other vids on reharmonization. It's not that tricky once you've got the basic ideas.

[Jonah]

Boy, we've travelled a bit from Parker and triads, eh?

I'd still like to discuss that, particularly the reharmonization options like in Jordan's crazy loop...I really enjoyed playing on that, I'd like to know more about writing stuff like that, but I think it's a bit over my head

Jeff, if we speak about writing.. I think it should be more about audible relations. Fair writing)))

But what Jordan did was 'trying to imply relations' -
but the changes were to certain degree occasional.
I mean the result..

It's like first you get it and then you try to connect (very jazzy approach too)))

It's interesting because even making a backing track with particular groove, rythm and parts is an attempt to connect chords together.. it expresse how Jordan hears it.
(I am not sure if the backing track was generated authomatically or he did it himself)

Looks like I am getting deeper than necessary again?

[christianm77]

I demand lute bop. Or maybe theorbop?

Anyway further thoughts on Jordan’s 4rads.

1) many many bop lines use major/2 on I chords. It’s actually one of the most common tropes, but I hadn’t really paid it much thought.

2) tritone sub triads are something I’ve used for a while. Actually Django was a big fan. Check out the first chorus of Minor swing for instance.

3) the minor/2 is also really common in Gypsy jazz. In fact, it’s a lick.

4) Jordan’s typical ii v I type choices belong to the maj6 dim scale E/b9 on G7 for example.

5) playing C/4 on Dm7 - not really a sound id considered but I see why Jordan likes it so much, I really like it. It has the by product of making a m7 sound even more detached from ‘true Minor’ - otoh using this colour on an isolated min tonic opens up a very post modal sound world.

6) sus maj/min ambiguity in general opens up a very clean, but modern aesthetic.
For instance Ebsus2 instead of Eb. I hear this a lot in Lage Lund

7) ive always thought of Ebm6/Ab7#11 as essentially the same sound. But even though they might belong to the same melodic minor scale there is a tremendous difference between Ebm/6 and Bb/2

[mr. beaumont]

I have to go back and read. I was lost at what a maj/2 is.

[jordanklemons]

Boy, we've travelled a bit from Parker and triads, eh?

I think that was probably the idea :-)

Perhaps it's worth letting this thread continue on the topic of the Charlie Parker riff with the tangent of melodic triads in the way they were first presented and then splitting off and starting a different thread focusing on more common tonal theory, CST, and general approaches to reharmonization... it seems like some people want to bring the thread in that direction while others are more interested in talking about what the topic at hand was.

So two separate threads seems like an easy fix.

I have to go back and read. I was lost at what a maj/2 is.

Christian is referring to the use a major triad as a means for creating stable points within a melodic idea, and then adding the 2 against it to insert melodic tension and movement against the triad. It's basically the same grouping of notes as the famous pattern that many people credit to Coltrane (1-2-3-5) but melodic triads is not so much about the study of digital patterns as it is the organization of tension and resolution points. So in this case, the 3 notes of the major triad are organized as stable resolution points in a given situation, and the 2 is being taken advantage of for the tension and emotion it brings to the table.

So maj/4 would be a major triad with the 4 added for tension... or maj/b6 would add the b6 for tension. There are 9 possible groupings like this against a major triad (12 chromatic notes - 3 notes from the triad = 9)... and then as we gain the ability to hear what each of these sounds like and behaves like, and as we gain the physical ability to take advantage of each, then we can add together multiple grouping of tension notes against the triad.

[jordanklemons]

I demand lute bop. Or maybe theorbop?

Anyway further thoughts on Jordan’s 4rads.

1) many many bop lines use major/2 on I chords. It’s actually one of the most common tropes, but I hadn’t really paid it much thought.

2) tritone sub triads are something I’ve used for a while. Actually Django was a big fan. Check out the first chorus of Minor swing for instance.

3) the minor/2 is also really common in Gypsy jazz. In fact, it’s a lick.

4) Jordan’s typical ii v I type choices belong to the maj6 dim scale E/b9 on G7 for example.

5) playing C/4 on Dm7 - not really a sound id considered but I see why Jordan likes it so much, I really like it. It has the by product of making a m7 sound even more detached from ‘true Minor’ - otoh using this colour on an isolated min tonic opens up a very post modal sound world.

6) sus maj/min ambiguity in general opens up a very clean, but modern aesthetic.
For instance Ebsus2 instead of Eb. I hear this a lot in Lage Lund

7) ive always thought of Ebm6/Ab7#11 as essentially the same sound. But even though they might belong to the same melodic minor scale there is a tremendous difference between Ebm/6 and Bb/2

Great breakdown Christian. Yes to basically all. Only thing I'd amend is in #5... the (C)/4 over a D-7 chord...

It does prevent that chord from sounding like a full on minor chord (which I think is why my ear accepts it as a minor tonic chord even though it has the b7 in it... it's kind of got a modern jazz minor tonic vibe... though it also works in other situations.

But I wouldn't say that it lends itself primarily to post-modal. If we took a look at Miles' solo over So What, you'll see him dancing between two basic tonalities. One is the minor chord where he's relying on the root triad to create his melodies over a chord, and the other is the -11(9) tonality you're talking about. Sometimes he just plays straight through the major triad, and other times when using it, he takes advantage of the passing tones between the triad notes to create more melodic movement as opposed to just painting a tonal color.

[christianm77]

Barry uses the 1-2-3-5 pattern for outlining rapid changes as well actually, now I think of it.

I doubt he’d credit Coltrane with that invention I suspect ;-)

[christianm77]

Great breakdown Christian. Yes to basically all. Only thing I'd amend is in #5... the (C)/4 over a D-7 chord...

It does prevent that chord from sounding like a full on minor chord (which I think is why my ear accepts it as a minor tonic chord even though it has the b7 in it... it's kind of got a modern jazz minor tonic vibe... though it also works in other situations.

But I wouldn't say that it lends itself primarily to post-modal. If we took a look at Miles' solo over So What, you'll see him dancing between two basic tonalities. One is the minor chord where he's relying on the root triad to create his melodies over a chord, and the other is the -11(9) tonality you're talking about. Sometimes he just plays straight through the major triad, and other times when using it, he takes advantage of the passing tones between the triad notes to create more melodic movement as opposed to just painting a tonal color.

I’m really referring to the fact that b7 was not AFAIK a common choice of emphasised note on I minor chords before Kind of Blue. Not unknown - I can think of several examples right away - but not such an emphasised tonality.

I wouldn’t use that choice for pure bebop.... but maybe for more of a soul jazz vibe it could work.

But just using the major a tone below with the 4 as a tension note without more reference to the basic minor triad kind of sounds very modern, like 2000s post Kurt modern, to me. Perhaps I have old fart ears.

However on a iim7, would be happy to use that in any style of music.

But TBh I think you make those distinctions consciously or unconsciously anyway. It’s all about the ears.

[christianm77]

Here is a little bit of fun I had on Minor Swing. Pretty stylistic I think. Sorry about the terrible sound balance. Not sorry :-)

Am - Am/2 (or Am/6)
Dm - Dm/2 (or Dm/6)
E7 - E/b2
Am - Am/2
A7b9 - A/b2
Dm - Dm/2 (or Dm/6)
Am - Am/2 (or Am/6)
E7 - E/b2 or Bb/#4
Am - Am/2 (or Am/6)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4fqqpoxhejmiibg/Gypsy%20Swing%20Quadrads.m4a?dl=0

[mr. beaumont]

Ok, I think I'm processing this correctly.

I think I was in a chicken/egg situation-- I wasn't sure if the triads/# were the means for the wacky reharm, or rather the way of navigating the reharm...I'm seeing it could be both, I suppose.

[ragman1]

Ok, I think I'm processing this correctly.

I think I was in a chicken/egg situation-- I wasn't sure if the triads/# were the means for the wacky reharm, or rather the way of navigating the reharm...I'm seeing it could be both, I suppose.

Way of navigating. Presumably the reharm is already established and, were it reharmed differently, the triads/# would change. As far as I know, they're based on the melody in conjunction with the given harmony. Must be, otherwise... :-)

[jordanklemons]

Ok, I think I'm processing this correctly.

I think I was in a chicken/egg situation-- I wasn't sure if the triads/# were the means for the wacky reharm, or rather the way of navigating the reharm...I'm seeing it could be both, I suppose.

Yeah, they serve a couple of purposes... navigating changes is a big one. I actually DO use pure quadratonics sometimes when improvising. They can be powerful. You can find plenty of videos just in this thread where that's 90-100% of what I'm using to improvise. It's a way to cut through the "excess" notes of a scale and get right into the deeper more intentional notes. The whole "it's about the notes you don't play" thing.

That said, the ultimate purpose of quadratonics (in my personal opinion) is really a practice tool. It's like if you want to play basketball, it's essential to run scrimmages and play in practice and real games... but if you want to get REALLY good... it's equally important to pick ONE element of the game and just hit it over the head. Just shoot free throws for half an hour. Or just practice doing layups with your left hand for 2 hours. Or fadeaway jump shots... or no look passes... etc.

This are microcosms of the game. Yes, they only work in reality when placed into the context of a real game... but the more perfected the microcosms are, the more fluidly the player will be able to hang in the real game.

Quadratonics are a way of taking a full-extended tonality... like let's say a D-11(9) [Christian was talking about this one]... understanding the theory and harmony of it first... that we can create this at the piano by playing a D-7 shell voicing in our left hand and a C major triad in our right hand... and that the combination of those two elements creates this fully-extended tonal landscape that's drastically different from JUST a D-7 chord. As Christian pointed it.. it almost doesn't even sound like a minor chord at this point. We'll hear this tonality being used in all the greats, at least since Bill Evans and on. Possibly earlier.

But then we're stuck in just theory land. Yeah we get the construction... but how does that affect anything? How does that connect with making music? How do we practice this and internalize the sound into our ears and the harmonic and melodic ideas that flow from it to come out of our instrument?

There's a few practice methods that I personally use... quadratonics (or as Stefon called them 'quadrads') is a huge part of that process. It helps reinforce the power of the triad that's built into the harmony and turns ITS root note into the melodic 'Do' in place of the harmony's root note. Adding a single tension note against the triad is enough to create melodic tension and reinforce the solfeggi syllables and their energies and emotions within the phrase.

There are other practices I use to help with this, and there are other practices that quadratonics can help with also... but that's a big element for them. It helps our ears and fingers break away from what they're already familiar with and develop new ways of organizing tension and resolution within our phrases to give us new ways of voice leading through changes.

The best way to learn more about this stuff is just to spend some time in the study group if you want. It's free... there's a facebook group with people who are all working on it and sharing videos, there's free monthly study guides, and there two free open office hours every month as well. So you're going to get way more out of all of that material than you would by reading me type about things.

[John A.]

Yeah you know what, what you said reminds me of what Sco said about improvising on Protocol.... How many jazz guitar students struggle with soloing on that because they are thinking of harmonic relationships, meanwhile Sco plays G minor with some out notes.

Anyway, sometimes I think with analysing solos on very chromatic changes we might be in effect staring at a Rorschach ink blot.... when players like Mike Brecker said their process in very difficult changes was to play by ear....

Or perhaps some relationships are intuitive but come into focus through analysis.

That suggests the question, is an analytical harmonic approach the right way to develop that facility? There are some other ways - George Garzone springs to mind.

See the Mick Goodrick exercise above - record a random unknown chord sequence to solo on by ear. Perhaps we could start a thread to source these things...

Thought provoking.... there’s a few sets of changes I’ve been really struggling with. I might post some and see what people come up with.

I don't really follow this fully ... But if the question is whether to analyze or just play by ear, I think there's inevitably a back and forth, but which mode predominates is a matter of your training and habit and basic cast of mind. I'm not much of an analyst. I learned mainly by ear, and picked up the bulk of my theory after I'd already been playing quite a while. Analysis helps me find a path through changes that I don't hear right off the bat, but it doesn't particularly interest me. Other people I know are really into analysis, and that's their jumping off point.

Once I find a path through some changes, I stay on it, and if there's a fork in the road I take it. In this particular instance, it became obvious to me pretty quickly (from playing Joy to the World) that C major worked over the whole form and all by itself created tension and resolution at every chord change, so once I got there I stopped analyzing and just played. I didn't even practice playing the chords themselves. That, and pretty much my entire palette boils down to playing blues licks over major harmony, and throwing in some some very basic "outside" techniques. Works well here, especially because the changes were designed to effect that.

John

[ragman1]

In this particular instance, it became obvious to me pretty quickly (from playing Joy to the World) that C major worked over the whole form and all by itself created tension and resolution at every chord change, so once I got there I stopped analyzing and just played. I didn't even practice playing the chords themselves. That, and pretty much my entire palette boils down to playing blues licks over major harmony, and throwing in some some very basic "outside" techniques. Works well here, especially because the changes were designed to effect that.

Et voila. Players play, analysts analyse.