Rhythm Changes with Melodic Triads

[jordanklemons]

Hey all,

Just a quick heads up that the new free study guide for our Melodic Triads group is now available to access for the month of May. It's going over the use of triads to improvise over rhythm changes as well as a look at the fully-extended 7#9#5 tonality.

Here's a quick run through the etude over RC using just basic triads (all but one of which are major triads), quadratonics, and a few chromatic passing tones.

If you want to register for free to work through the materials, you can CLICK HERE.

Just remember that if you're new to the group and aren't familiar yet with melodic triads, quadratonics, and how we notate things... you're probably going to want to start with checking out our study guide that goes over all the basics of how we think, practice, and notate - 'The Essentials'... you can find that one HERE.

[Boston Joe]

Watching vids now!

Thanks, Jordan.

[christianm77]

Ok so this stuff was more familiar to me

so your simple breakdown of the changes is identical to the Barry Harris one, so that’s interesting.

In terms of the quadrads you choose - well this is again the sort of thing that could be applicable to any era of jazz.

I would be interested in seeing a melodic triads analysis of an actual RC head - maybe I’ll do one.

[jordanklemons]

Watching vids now!

Thanks, Jordan.

Word, thanks Joe. Hope you're enjoying it... this month's guide has a ton of info in it! I'm hoping it's not too much. I know people have jobs and lives and other things they're working on. I try to find the balance between giving a lot of good info, but not giving an overwhelming amount.

[jordanklemons]

Ok so this stuff was more familiar to me

so your simple breakdown of the changes is identical to the Barry Harris one, so that’s interesting.

In terms of the quadrads you choose - well this is again the sort of thing that could be applicable to any era of jazz.

I would be interested in seeing a melodic triads analysis of an actual RC head - maybe I’ll do one.

Oh that's awesome to know about the overlap with Barry's ideas. Dude's brilliant, so it feels good to know there's not a huge gap between his stuff and what I talk about... I feel like they're both very different and almost the exact same in different regards.

Normally I feel like the melodic triad stuff is best to begin with by either studying specific standards and their melodies (because it keeps things in a melodic context) and by doing in-depth studying and exploring and applying within specific fully-extended tonalities (like the 7#9#5 this month). But I do recognize that using these ideas so analyze the underlying harmony without worrying about the melody can also be really helpful and has its place. It was just never something that Stefon and I talked about, so I spent about 2 years working on this stuff with standards and tonalities AND THEN figured out on my own that I could use it for the harmonic simplification also. I just feel like if it's used as the starting point when workin with students that it's too easy to let them get confused about the purpose and potential of the approach. But who knows, everyone learns differently and maybe some will find this easier to grasp.

But yeah, I think looking at specific rhythm changes tunes is a great idea. It will surely open up other avenues just like looking at the individual riff from Bird opened up a new pathway through the changes that I hadn't prior considered.

Now that you're in 'The Underground' you can actually request specific standards for me to analyze to put into future study guides... but (A) I think I know you well enough to know that you'd prefer to dig in with your own ears and intellect and work through it yourself (which is probably going to teach you more than reading my analysis off the page... though that can be helpful too) and (B) we JUST are doing a rhythm changes, so I'll likely try and hold off and look at some other tunes for a while before revisiting this form to keep things varied.

I'd love to hear what you come up with if you try one out!

[Boston Joe]

Oh that's awesome to know about the overlap with Barry's ideas. Dude's brilliant, so it feels good to know there's not a huge gap between his stuff and what I talk about... I feel like they're both very different and almost the exact same in different regards.

It's really interesting studying them both at the same time. Now when I look at "borrowing" in the BH system, I'm looking specifically for stuff that intersects with your method.

[christianm77]

OK I took look at Anthropology A section

To my ears, most of it's the same as your basic shell outline... The main difference is the line over

Fm Bb7 | Eb Ebm

Here I hear outlined - Gm quite clearly on Fm Bb7 (so maybe just a Gm on Bb?)

Then the interesting note, which is of course E on Eb resolving to Eb... Hmmm... How would you hear that?

I mean an obvious thing would be to think E/#4 --> Eb perhaps, but this is rhythmically carried over. Could it be Eb/b9?

Then we have Ebm... Possibly Ebm/2

Bird then outlines very clearly to my ear Bb/2 and perhaps G/b2 going to Eb/2... Anyway... I think there are multiple approaches.

[Boston Joe]

I mean an obvious thing would be to think E/#4 --> Eb perhaps, but this is rhythmically carried over. Could it be Eb/b9?

Possibly, but I'm pretty sure Jordan would notate it as Eb/b2.

[christianm77]

I decided I don’t like that one

[jordanklemons]

Yeah that's not how I would conceptualize that phrase to create from it. There's kind of a couple ways I'd look at it... but neither would be that, Joe.

I already mentioned to Christian in a private message, Joe, but I'm going to record a quick video breaking down how I'd analyze that tune and throw it up in The Underground at some point in the near future for you guys. It's pretty close to be exactly like the analysis I offered in the study guide, with just a few minor differences. I'll try and get that up sometime soonish.

[jordanklemons]

It's really interesting studying them both at the same time. Now when I look at "borrowing" in the BH system, I'm looking specifically for stuff that intersects with your method.

Yeah, it's a very similar idea. Really, the only main "differences" I can think of are that we use 1 less stable, tonicized note for the "in" sound... and that I prefer to choose ONE tension note at a time as opposed to 4. The purpose, as you already know, is primarily to put that note under the microscope so that we can learn to understand and hear it better. This basically all works around solfeggi. If you know what 'Re' sounds like, then you can choose to use it intentionally. Whether you're playing off the root structure triad or an upper structure triad... the 2 against that triad will always feel like 'Re'. So isolating that syllable and getting to know its emotion, how it functions, where it is, and how you can phrase with it and create melody...

The same concept of isolation can be applied to the BH stuff as well. Instead of trying to learn all 4 notes of the diminished, you could just pick 1 of them and see what you can do with it. Then try another 1. As you get better with that, you'll naturally be able to put them all together in your use, but likely with a deeper and wider scope of what you're able to control and be intentional with.

[Boston Joe]

Yeah that's not how I would conceptualize that phrase to create from it. There's kind of a couple ways I'd look at it... but neither would be that, Joe.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. I wasn't saying yea or nay on the sound. Just that your notation uses "2" rather than "9" to denote, say a D on a C triad. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

[Boston Joe]

Yeah, it's a very similar idea. Really, the only main "differences" I can think of are that we use 1 less stable, tonicized note for the "in" sound... and that I prefer to choose ONE tension note at a time as opposed to 4. The purpose, as you already know, is primarily to put that note under the microscope so that we can learn to understand and hear it better. This basically all works around solfeggi. If you know what 'Re' sounds like, then you can choose to use it intentionally. Whether you're playing off the root structure triad or an upper structure triad... the 2 against that triad will always feel like 'Re'. So isolating that syllable and getting to know its emotion, how it functions, where it is, and how you can phrase with it and create melody...

The same concept of isolation can be applied to the BH stuff as well. Instead of trying to learn all 4 notes of the diminished, you could just pick 1 of them and see what you can do with it. Then try another 1. As you get better with that, you'll naturally be able to put them all together in your use, but likely with a deeper and wider scope of what you're able to control and be intentional with.

There's not going to be total overlap, I don't think, but there's no limitation on what you can borrow. If you want to borrow three notes from the diminished chord and one chord tone you can do that (although they'd probably say you're actually playing the diminished and borrowing one note from the chord).

I think the differences arise primarily because you're not necessarily sticking within any given scale. Although Barry's system does provide for using "family of four" dominants.

I'm trying to concentrate on just learning to play with your system, so I'm really just looking at the stuff I'm playing and noting when it touches on BH stuff, and to some extent looking at BH stuff and seeing where your stuff comes in, but I really haven't had time to delve. At some point maybe I'll have the bandwidth to do a real study of it, but that's a ways off, probably.

[christianm77]

Most of Jordan’s triad/quadrad choices fall within the standard scale choices available on Barry Harris line construction.

It depends on style. The Lydian dominant (ie C/2 on Bb7) gets used rather more in most of Jordan’s examples than in straight bebop but you don’t have to use these sounds of course.

I’m not entirely sure there is an analogous concept for LD in Barry’s teaching. Important m6-dim perhaps.

I think you can see how the approach can be varied between the original changes Stella and the real book, for instance (you need to subscribe to see the work sheets.)

Jordan’s approach to chords is essentially modern in that it builds extended harmonies from the same material as the melodies. Barry Harris doesn’t do this so much, or not in this way.

The big difference that I was bang on about and absolutely nobody seems interested in (apart from Jonah) is this:

Modern jazz (post bop) musicians write the melody into chords and use as the basis of a unified approach. This might seem like an obvious conceptual leap, but earlier jazz musicians do not appear to have done this.

In BH, we completely ignore the US when we solo (if we want.) We also heavily block the harmony down. We don it separately consider ii and v and I think you need to do this in the melodic triad approach. It sounds empty otherwise. (But these choices can be understood from Barry’s perspective)

Jordan/Stephon’s approach is essentially post CST in these details.... But for line construction it can be as old school as you like, and as ‘melody triad’ over shell voicings is pretty old school.

[christianm77]

So for anyone can be arsed to read this

- I always discounted the significance ii minor11 chord you commonly find in standards as a product of the practice of turning a V7 into a ii V7

If your melody note is G and you write G7, well it’s obvious. If you then add in a Dm the Dm11 that is produced is kind of a passing dissonance than a harmony per se.

Older players often view the Dm7/Dm11 chord as a suspension of G7, G7sus4/D basically. But a suspension in the classical sense rather than a chord in its own right. Barry sees it that way for instance, but others too.

So the Jordan (Stephon Harris?) quadrad C/4 that I’ve seen most commonly used on Dm11, say, is a bit counterintuitive.... theoretically I’d have thought G/4 maybe.

But you do see it in standards and bop and so on. I think the C/4 creates convincing idiomatic straightahead jazz lines on this chord too.

[christianm77]

Pedantic point #3

E/b9 on G7 belongs to Cmaj-6 dim

[Boston Joe]

The big difference that I was bang on about and absolutely nobody seems interested in (apart from Jonah) is this:

Modern jazz (post bop) musicians write the melody into chords and use as the basis of a unified approach. This might seem like an obvious conceptual leap, but earlier jazz musicians do not appear to have done this.

You were right about that, and it's an interesting point. The historical/musicological discussions in these threads are something that I find interesting, but not something I enough time to read up on. I certainly don't know enough about it to contribute in any meaningful way. So don't take the fact that I haven't commented on it as a lack of interest.

I believe you when you say Jordan's stuff mostly fits into BH's system. As I said, I haven't delved. I'm still working through the fundamentals on both schools of thought. (I'm working on Blue in Green, which, I think is one of the first tunes Jordan put up.) When I look at a quadratonic, I do try to see where it might fit into Barry's system, but the primary consideration is just getting it into my playing right now.

[Boston Joe]

I decided I don’t like that one

I'd be interested to know the reason. Or is it just an "ick" thing?

[christianm77]

I didn’t think it sounded very good when I tried to use it for improvisation

[Boston Joe]

I didn’t think it sounded very good when I tried to use it for improvisation

Oh, I thought you meant the notation.

Yeah, I hadn't tried the sound. Was just commenting on b9 vs. b2. I kind of like Jordan's approach in naming everything for scale degrees rather than chord degrees.

[christianm77]

You were right about that, and it's an interesting point. The historical/musicological discussions in these threads are something that I find interesting, but not something I enough time to read up on. I certainly don't know enough about it to contribute in any meaningful way. So don't take the fact that I haven't commented on it as a lack of interest.

I believe you when you say Jordan's stuff mostly fits into BH's system. As I said, I haven't delved. I'm still working through the fundamentals on both schools of thought. (I'm working on Blue in Green, which, I think is one of the first tunes Jordan put up.) When I look at a quadratonic, I do try to see where it might fit into Barry's system, but the primary consideration is just getting it into my playing right now.

It’s possible to overstate the significance of this overlap too imo

Tbh I think the harmonic choices in improvisation on jazz standards are actually pretty prescribed. There aren’t that many good sounding options. Or perhaps less judgementally put, we all make intuitive aesthetic judgments based on what we have heard our heroes do.

To much divergence from this can sound sort of contrived and basically not really jazz language.

So you get a lot of convergence between different schools of jazz teaching. As much as I talk about the CST accent (heavy use of #11 on dominant chords for instance) these are more shades of grey and dialects.

(I can point to plenty of cases of Bird using #11s on dom7s for instance.)

To me harmony in terms of note choices
on chords etc is kind of *meh* - I know that shit backwards tbh and one would hope so after 25 years - but what is interesting are different ways of organising and hearing familiar structures.

That’s not to say you don’t develop a style by using certain elements more than others. If you drawn to certain colours you will use them more and other less creating a certain tint to your music.

OTOH most of artistry in ‘classic jazz’ (ie pre Coltrane) is found in the lines themselves and they way they use melody and rhythm. Once you understand the harmonic language, it’s actually quite clear.

[Boston Joe]

It’s possible to overstate the significance of this overlap too imo

No doubt. It just happens to be front and center in my attention at the moment.