-
Originally Posted by JCat
When looking at the history of Western Music, we see ever more specific notation. For instance in the baroque era in the urtext it's quite common to see this type of thing. This would be an accompanist's part, right? The harpsichordist, lutenist, harpist etc would expected to fill in the details.
(BTW, you should all be familiar with this type of progression haha)
Later composers would write specific accompaniments, dynamics and other nuances unrecorded in the music of this earlier era.
So - by the time you get to the 20th century you are seeing composers writing EXACTLY what they want on the score. But - here's an interesting thing that relates to what you say - classical musicians do not simply play the music as written... They interpret it from the score. That requires an understanding of the history and tradition that comes from environment. Even with something like Richard Strauss, the nature of the rubato and so on. (Which is why when Wynton Marsalis or someone writes for orchestra, it can be a bit of a struggle even though all the pitch and even the rhythmic info is there. Listen to the way classical musicians perform triplets, for instance.)
50 years on or so and composers are starting to look for ways to add composer freedom, so we get so called aleatory (chance) techniques and so on. There's a debate about whether these techniques have to do with improvisation or not, prob depends from composer to composer.
There's (to me) quite a funny example with Earle Brown's scores. The black oblongs indicate areas for improvisation.
Needless to say, you won't be getting bebop licks out of the performers:
So, they have 'New Music' licks, right? :-) Should the performers be credited with the composition? Ahahahahaha?
Seems like a good racket, if you will forgive the painful pun. That said, legally, we don't get credit for improvising on a standard, either.
So anyway, that relationship between notation and improvisation is an interesting one. I think it's part of the skill of the composer to communicate what they want specified in a score and absolutely nothing more.
So it's annoying if I write A7 and someone asks me what type of A7 for improvisation. If I wanted to specify I would have written it exactly either as a more complex chord symbol or in notation.
To what extent is the score a representation of the music, or simply a recipe for making it? In the latter case, I feel that's more what a lead sheet is.
-
07-08-2019 06:41 AM
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Originally Posted by christianm77
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Most old standards have straight forward progressions, but modulation and change of key also occur, like in Dizzy's "Con Alma" for example. Change of key in the middle of a song and use of key modulation is more common in modern Jazz as well as in classical music. The composer/arranger highlights key changes in notation, or may decide not to for some practical or musical reason.
When music is written by ear, maybe a first sketch scribbled on a paper napkin, then when finalizing including a score and a complementary lead sheet, theory comes knocking at the door. If I feel like I'm trying to bash a square peg into a round hole, I'm open to the possibility that's actually the case. Then I have to decide if I should adjust my writing or just trust my ears and ignore it (until my understanding of theory has improved). Two easy ways out, but with different outcome.
-
As far as I'm concerned, this quote by Rhythmisking (from the Theory section on chord naming convention) is in line with best practices also when it comes to some aspects of this thread:
Originally Posted by RhythmiskingOriginally Posted by Rhythmisking
-
Em7add9/G???
Don’t be a jerk, put it in staff notation (unless I have to improvise on it on which case Em9 will suffice for communicating the mode for the blowing.)
Why do I say that? Well otherwise there is going to be a conversation about the exact structure of the voicing and how a m7add9 differs from a m9. That wastes time. Notation will tell you right away.
That said ... Alternative tunings present a challenge for the guitarist and notator whether or not you use chord symbols. Are there guitarists who can read fluently in DADGAD, say? I’ve actually played in a few folk fusion bands where I’d have loved to use that tuning but end up playing in standard because I can’t read notation in alt tunings.
Just something to develop I suppose.Last edited by christianm77; 07-11-2019 at 04:53 AM.
-
I’m reminded of a story Wayne Krantz tells when he handed Anthony Jackson a chord chart for one of his tunes and asked him to work out a bass part. Very complex, idiosyncratic harmony in chord symbols.
Anthony said ‘I think you overestimate my abilities’ and Wayne dutifully wrote him a part in staff notation.
I think Anthony could have worked it out of course, but asking a busy professional musician to pore over your thought processes and interpret them is a little unrealistic.
Your job as a composer is to communicate your ideas as simply and effectively as possible, and minimise rehearsal time just trying to understand the notation. Asking a professional band to parse hieroglyphs gets expensive fast and will lose you some good will.
-
Originally Posted by JCat
It's quite difficult to phrase a response to this without sounding like an arrogant dick, but while there are many players who piss rings around me in other ways, I do have a good grasp of functional harmony, and this comes from knowing lots of standards and playing lots of swing and straight-ahead gigs. So in this I feel my skill set is more similar to the old guys (though they knew more tunes, and worked more by ear than me.)
I might be wrong, but you seem a bit confused about elements of functional tunes that are very much second nature to me due to experience. This is not unusual - because jazz is now very diverse, many jazz players just don't get the saturation in standards, bop tunes and so on to see the patterns and know what the norms are.
This is not meant to be a diss or anything. But I do think it illustrates how jazz education has changed and how it necessitates the more specific forms of chord notation to deal with a more diverse repertoire and musicians who are simply less familiar with changes jazz. The fact that you are so concerned with modality and deviations from it is rather telling, and a case in point.
That said, I don't actually know Con Alma, but glancing at it for 30 seconds told me all I need to know about the structure and harmony. For instance, the A section goes 'Turnaround in E, cadence in Eb, turnaround in Db, cadence in C’; that's it - that's what I need to know to improvise on it.
The B is more unusual - there's non functional II-V's based on a tritone relationship and a false cadence that sets up Eb but goes to the Neapolitan chord (the bII) on E, which is a bit trickier to navigate. If you put this chart in front of someone you might want to just draw attention to those bars.
It goes without saying that the C#7 chord is non-diatonic to E major, and what that note is (E#) and that I would probably put a b9 on it when improvising because that's a bop thing to do. The D# bass-line is a detail for the bass player, so I ignore that.
And on that turnaround I might be very chromatic indeed.... modality is only really relevant when one wishes to resolve....
The minor quality of the Cm7b5 F7b9 is worth noticing, but is not perhaps as relevant to bop blowing as you might think as we tend to mix'n'match minor and major ii V's when improvising.... And so on.
You have to learn that stuff on the bandstand IMO playing these types of tunes. You could explain the changes of Con Alma to an experienced jazz musician in a matter of seconds. This is the type of thing Mike Moreno talks about BTW - how fast the NYC guys learn tunes because they know tons of them (far more than me.)
Now, because I am being non judgemental and not everyone is, or even aspires to be a professional musician, let alone a professional jazz musician, you have to have ways of dealing with this as a teacher. And - how do you teach this stuff?
I try to get students to spot patterns in tunes as quickly as possible (I avoid modal repertoire etc) and start encouraging them to think this way. It seems to help.Last edited by christianm77; 07-11-2019 at 08:44 AM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
The Wayne Krantz story is a great example, because there is a moral of the story;
Present staff notation for the rhythm section to sight-read and some guys would cry "don't be a jerk". They are used to read chord symbols. So, damned if I do, damned if I don't. That's why we tend to "go round and round about this" like Rhythmisking and the reason I'm here and probably the reason for you to post a Youtube video about it.
At the end of the day, if my purpose is to write music for anyone to sight read with a minimum of rehearsal, the music will have to be very simple.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Here's what I do know; If my purpose is to maximize consumer response, if I want as many people as possible to like my cookies, then I have to use a lot of sugar. If I throw hot spices in the mix, some people won't like it. I can live with that.
-
Originally Posted by JCat
You can put horrendous charts in front of people and they will nail it first time.
This is not altogether a good thing. While for instance London players are world leaders in getting it together super fast, that’s as good as the music gets far too much time. In NYC for instance, the sight reading level isn’t as high in orchestras etc, but they get to a much higher level in the music because they work at it. Orchestras get properly funded, and the jazz musicians are all insanely driven.
The ‘read it on the day’ attitude can also lead to a complacency in our musical culture.
Anyway, I digress.
I just have no idea what Rhythmisking’s symbols actually mean without parsing a long winded explanation. It’s easier to read up to 6 notes on a staff. No explanation required.Last edited by christianm77; 07-12-2019 at 04:37 AM.
-
Originally Posted by JCat
In so much as I have a reputation as a teacher and player it’s more for the old school stuff, so I teach my understanding of that.
In terms of my music making, I write old school compositions through to modal and contemporary things. I try to use the notation appropriate to that situation.
-
I love my old standards, really do. Mostly from the '20s through the '40s. The harmonic language, progressions and turnarounds, is part of my expression. But I have many other influences as well. I grew up with Rock, Funk, R&B and fusion of the 70s and 80s, but I have also played Jazz and classical since childhood, music much older than me. I don't confine myself into the GASB box and this is reflected in my playing and my writing that tend to be a mix of influences. As my expression evolves, so does my understanding of theory. And yes, sometimes I challange myself.
"Con Alma" (1956, #301 on Jazzstandards.com) is a very nice composition. It's an example of a mid-song change of key and an interesting case for melodic improvisation. I find the concept very interesting.
Check this out, lot's of excellent melodic improvisation:
-
Originally Posted by mateo2006
I REALLY want that amp...
This reminds me of my favorite drummer saying (from Chet Baker).
"You have to be a great drummer to be better than no drummer".
-
"You have to be a great drummer to be better than no drummer".
And that's the truth.
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by geogio
Yeah, Phil Lesh was instrumental in introducing the rest of the band to studying Coltrane, Miles and other jazz of the time. Miles opened for the Dead at the Filmore West once, the Dead were very embarrassed to go on stage after him. Jerry was influenced by Trane to some extent and Weir ended up being influenced by McCoy Tyner. Jerry was also influenced by Oscar Aleman and learned a lot about jazz from keyboardist Merl Saunders. There's a few takes of "So What" with Garcia and Grisman, some with Tony Rice. The Dead sometimes used to use a chord sequence from somewhere on "Sketches of Spain" during the space segment.
-
Garcia spoke about trying to imitate big band style horn backgrounds, as he comped. This is the same approach many jazz players use.
The Dead played a lot of odd meter and freely improvised music. I wonder if some of their material if transcribed and played by a horn band (but with swing influenced rhythm) would be identified as jazz.
-
Seems to me it's mostly about experience. Which, as we know, can't be given to people.
As you say, leads sheets are the norm now and some are more complex than others. We're told repeatedly to use the melody as a guide rather than slavishly following the symbols above it. But that only works if I know how to do that.
I see nothing wrong with lead sheets personally. There's the melody and those are the chords you play, assuming they're accurate. If we don't go for Ralph's vanilla book versions then I'd say it helps to have symbols which are as comprehensive as possible. If it's supposed to have a b9 sound rather than a 9, then what's wrong with putting it in? The more the merrier probably.
Your point is right, of course, that, in a way, the reference for jazz tunes has become the reading of chords (apart from the melody) but what's wrong with that? Otherwise we're back to using piano or big band scores which are far too complex for most people who just want to get on with the tune.
There's the point that the more detailed the symbols are the more authoritative they become. If they're that precise and detailed then they must be right! So I risk going all wrong if I deviate.
It's easy to say to the beginner - who lacks experience - work it from the melody, listen to a dozen different versions, etc, etc. He wouldn't necessarily know what to do with them. Which one is right? And, if there is no absolute 'right', what do I do? Especially if I'm not skilled enough to make my own version?
So the only way round it is to have the experience and judgement to be able to sort it all out oneself, which a great many folks simply don't have. Even if we invented a whole new way of presenting melody and harmony the same problems would exist. How do I know which version is right when there is no absolute right?
Of course in real life it's not as bad as that because for most tunes there is a standard way of doing it and a beginner can usually find that out easily enough. But he still needs to be able to play it once he's sorted that out. And that probably matters more.
-
Absolutely, good post.
I think the topic was meant to draw attention to the excesses of reducing a song to its chord sequences.
-
I’ve worked out I can write actual 2,000 word essays about this stuff for marks instead of boring the bollocks off everyone online.
my latest wheeze is that CST is in direct tension with the values of critical pedagogy, just so you know :-)
Anyway I think we can cut to the heart of this thread in four words ‘big band chord charts’
-
I think of the charts I'd see high school "jazz band" kids bringing me, when I was teaching. Every chord was a combination of everything that was happening harmonically at the moment. Painful.
I like things as simple as possible. When I write charts for myself, I often don't even use maj7 and m7, just major and minor and 7th and half dim (or m6)
Keep it clean and trust the people you're playing with...and if you can't trust the people you're playing with, find new people.
-
You know I had a bit of a penny dropping moment. Take the common big band move of putting a lower neighbour type harmony on the beat which resolves.... like
F7 | Bbm6 Bb6
or
F7 | Bbmaj7#11 Bbmaj7
or
F7 | A/Bb Bbmaj7
so you see this type of thing on guitar pads. Now they are in fact just representation of blue notes in the horn parts. I mean this stuff isn’t weird, it’s Benny Goodman type stuff...
But isn’t it Reg’s methodology to take these and turn them into modal interchanges? So we have like Bb melodic minor going to Bbmaj based on that b3?
anyway a bit tangential, but it makes sense that a musician who plays so much from charts would view this type of harmonic movement that way....
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by pcjazz
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Complex ideas may perhaps be well known by definition, which is nothing but an enumeration of those parts or simple ideas that comprise them. But when we have pushed up definitions to the most simple ideas, and find still some ambiguity and obscurity, what resources are we then possessed of? David Hume, 1748
You've been a missed resource, nice to see you posting.
16" 1920s/30s L5
Yesterday, 08:44 PM in For Sale