The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Posts 201 to 225 of 298
  1. #201

    User Info Menu

    I'm in the same camp as Reg. The whole non-functional thing disappears once you can hear the expansion of traditional tonal/modal relationships. I ultimately hear Iris centered around C with little soirees into the iv, bVI, and bII tonal areas. Personally, I'm not a fan of calling anything with a non-traditional progression"non-functional".Tonality has expanded since its conception... we're beyond the straight ahead ii-V-I's/IV-V-Is etc. You can have micro-tonalities nested within the overarching form/tonal structure.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #202

    User Info Menu

    That makes sense to me.

    As I say, there are common moves in Wayne tunes, and other post-bop and modern composers. The more music you learn the more accustomed to the sounds you become and the better you are at negotiating them.

    Im not convinced you need to know much more about it than that. However you classify them is just names really. Like ‘2 5 1’ is a label.

    Other than the melodies of Wayne’s tunes sometimes provide elegant and helpful routes through the changes.

  4. #203

    User Info Menu

    'I'm not saying human beings can't be creative, of course they can. But for the most part they're not, as evidenced by the state of the world.

    Creation means something new brought into being. A mind steeped in its own particular culture producing works of art isn't necessarily creative; it's a form of re-invention. One isn't necessarily creative because one paints or plays an instrument.

    It depends on the state of mind. Out of an empty mind - that is, an unoccupied mind, not a vacant one - can come the most extraordinary things. But they have come out of it, they haven't been invented by it, and there's a great difference.'


    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    interesting. examples?
    Of what? Non-creativity? Good lord, just look around.
    If you mean the empty mind thing, I haven't the slightest idea. Who knows?

    Creativity and the expressions of creativity are two different things. It's the state of mind that's important. A creative mind needn't necessarily express itself in art, literature, music, etc. And not everything which is expressed is necessarily born of creativity. Creativity essentially involves lack of self.

    The musician who plays with one eye on the music and the other on fame, money or adulation isn't a creative person. He may play very well but it's not done for the love of the thing itself.

  5. #204

    User Info Menu

    I think Wayne probably did it for the love of the thing itself but who's to judge?

  6. #205

    User Info Menu

    What might be behind this strange sequence?

    A7#11/G
    Bb (b13) SUS/G
    C9#9
    A7#11/D
    E7#9#11/G

  7. #206

    User Info Menu

    A7 - Bb7 - C7 - A7 - E7?

    Not a lot. Depends on the tune.

  8. #207

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Yes, Jonah, it's called playing rubbish. It's not good music and it's not jazz. Jazz - in fact, any type of music - only works when you know exactly what you're doing and why. You can fool some of the people some of the time...
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    No. It only begins when you stop knowing
    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    That may apply to mysticism but not to music :-)
    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    The 'mystical' view is that for truth, or the unknown, to appear the mind must be free of the past, which is knowledge; it has to be in a state of unknowing.

    Musically, if we were in a state of unknowing when trying to negotiate Stella By Starlight, we'd soon be out of a job
    I think I agree with ragman1, if I understood him correctly.
    Jazz musicians, as represented at this forum, my only connection with jazz, really, would to play whatever, without knowledge and at the same time they expect audience to be so educated to appreciate the result, understand how hard it is to be done, even to like the result and, even more so, pay for it. Then they wonder, what went wrong?
    Last edited by Vladan; 05-16-2020 at 09:59 AM.

  9. #208

    User Info Menu

    We need knowledge, if not skill, to do anything in life but the thing is the drive behind it.

    It's quite possible to forget oneself when playing and that may be the essence of creativity, then there's no motive to impress, etc etc. Where there's any self-centred motive then one's attention is divided. It's only when there's no division in attention that something new can happen.

    The trouble is one can't make those moments occur, that's the rub.

  10. #209

    User Info Menu

    As for artists imitating God, it implies that they know what God is - in which case they don't at all because God is the unknowable. Which means that God is their own creation, their own concept. Which means they're imitating themselves all the time :-)

    We always think we need a perfect vision to aspire to but that again is a complete division in attention. There's a vast gap between me and the perfection I desire and in that gap there's struggle, and we call that creative! As I said, it's only when there's no such gap at all that there's no division in energy, which means everything flows. In those moments of self-absence, which is the love of what one's doing, there's a creative state. There's no other creative state.
    Last edited by ragman1; 05-16-2020 at 01:05 PM.

  11. #210

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    We need knowledge, if not skill, to do anything in life but the thing is the drive behind it.

    It's quite possible to forget oneself when playing and that may be the essence of creativity, then there's no motive to impress, etc etc. Where there's any self-centred motive then one's attention is divided. It's only when there's no division in attention that something new can happen.

    The trouble is one can't make those moments occur, that's the rub.
    Which is all fine, with one important caution: musician can not really expect that any dose of attitude, or forgetting him self, will make rubbish he plays sound good to anybody (but himself).

  12. #211
    joelf Guest
    Have folks been posting their own music that's germane to the discussion? I'm gonna be cheeky and do it, only b/c this old tune really doesn't 'land' til the very end.

    This is a 1991 tune, Reverend Al (yeah, that Reverend Al---I was trying, I think, to capture his swagger and way of scoping things out to see what/who he can use to his advantage entering a room, with the beginning hits).

    Harmonically, it seems to move in alternating 2nds, minor thirds, one fourth (Bb-Eb7) and ends up a half-step up from the 'root' in the final measures. You'd have a hell of a time with Roman numerals on this one. (Looking back, it sounds a bit like Wayne's earlier pieces, especially bars 16-20---also a Freddie Hubbard tune, Prophet Jennings, also 'musical portaiture' and I probably 'liberated' its 15 bar form).

    Disclosure: the 2 out choruses were taken directly from pianists John DiMartino's solo on the long-ago demo. Just too good to resist...
    Attached Images Attached Images

  13. #212

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladan
    Which is all fine, with one important caution: musician can not really expect that any dose of attitude, or forgetting him self, will make rubbish he plays sound good to anybody (but himself).
    I was going to say that. Loving what you do and forgetting yourself while you do it, doesn't mean it's any good. But, of course, to that person it won't matter. I think that's the difference.

  14. #213
    joelf Guest
    Gotta say: after spending the last 2 days with the score and a (fine) companion book of analysis and synopsis of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra the jazz usage of non-tradition harmony and form looks a lot simpler---and that's not to denigrate it in any way. You need manageable forms to improvise over, or lose the flow or, worse, get plowed by the 'tyranny of the pen'.

    But I'm finding I'm getting very useful insights into breaking down jazz usage by studying classical, b/c they're always way out ahead in harmony and form (just as African-derived rhythm forms are way ahead). These sound like over-simplifications, I know. Of course there's always cross-referencing and 'borrowing' in advanced thinkers---as there should be.

    Let's face one thing, though: Jazz of the last 60 years has been greatly influenced in content by innovations in 20th Century classical music. We'd have to be deaf not to acknowledge that. So it makes sense to me to study those materials---again, breaking them down to understandable/teachable building blocks---to get insight into modern jazz harmony.

    Especially since jazz in this period has metamorphosed so much into a harmony-first music (a trend I don't always love).

    OK, slam away!

  15. #214

    User Info Menu

    Well it’s because I went through a massive 20th century classical obsession in my early 20s that I find most harmony centric jazz a bit pointless most of the time... why not just listen to the real deal?

    on the other hand, improvisation is good for more than one thing, but tbh a lot of music has been in a stylistic retreat towards simpler tonality since Derek Bailey brought Webern into jazz....

    But jazz is often reactive to innovations in classical harmony. This is as true now as it was with Bix in the 20s. Or Red Norvo for that matter:



    so anyway we get our harmony second hand, but structurally our music is much more repetitious... the way I see it is jazz is a music of layers. The tonality is layered like the rhythm. So we layer new harmonic sounds on standards and so on.

    That’s another reason why CST bugs the hell out of me; that way it’s normally taught doesn’t acknowledge the layeredness of jazz harmony, a layeredness which really isn’t quite like polytonality OR standard tonality, but something that is both independent and connected... a bit like how a polyrhythmic cycle goes in and out of phase but has a relationship to the basic grid. Like what Reg talks about with references, tonal targets or blue notes or whatever (I think!)

    its also one reason why it is (at least for me) quite hard to be creative with non functional tunes. What’s structural and what’s not? Where are the supporting walls, and what can I knock through?

  16. #215

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    its also one reason why it is (at least for me) quite hard to be creative with non functional tunes. What’s structural and what’s not? Where are the supporting walls, and what can I knock through?
    I had some great older players tell me that after a certain point, you have to hash it out and formulate and use your own personal codex, it's your duty to yourself and your contribution to the music.

  17. #216
    joelf Guest
    Christian: What's CST?

  18. #217

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by joelf
    Christian: What's CST?
    CST = chord scale theory. Basically the idea of determining what scale is appropriate over a particular chord in a tune. It’s discussed and referenced in many forum posts, so if it’s unfamiliar, the Search function is your friend.

  19. #218

    User Info Menu

    Joelf... It's not really a Theory...... It's a collection of common jazz practice... Chord and possible Scale relationships. With reference to... common jazz chord progressions.

    So it helps describes, possible Chord Functions to a "Key" as well as possible Relationships and Function to other chords. It helps organize and expand Vertical and Horizontal possible relationships.

    Which leads to Direct interrelationships between Chords and Scales which do not have independent Functions. Helps expand Function to Key relationships.... with use of Function to Tonal center relationships.

    Helps with use of Modal organization yada yada. It's simple really ... well at least to Schoenberg.

  20. #219
    joelf Guest
    Thanks. Really.

    I really try to think in melody and voice-leading. One note or chord to the next, with the 'big picture' (long line) always in view. To me it doesn't matter if a thing falls into Roman numeral analysis or other systems. I try to let intuition lead and analyze later, but I can be quite analytical when pressed.

    I have a student, a real gem. He's a multi-reed player and I think he'll be known as a composer one day. (Some of you may know composition/songwriting is my passion. I work hardest at that). So today, we went over what I discern to be his strongest piece, with the goal of him understanding and building on his own vocabulary---which is original and logical. Because I'm studying Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra (with plenty of cheat sheets, trust me) I now have learned fancy-pants terms like 'pitch sets' (c'mon: everybody say...!). But he really did have a 7-note group that he transposed, altered, and put chords to. I assigned him: make a simple graph of what happens with that pitch set. Only the piano RH. Then find a system for the harmonization. Yeah, I'm old-school---harmony ought to be attractive and supportive, not dominating. Shoot me.

    I guarantee, after this, he be able will build on the seeds of a compositional style that began intuitively, and go in any direction he chooses. Now it's bolstered by understanding.

    'Intuition should lead knowledge, but if it's out there on it's own you'll flounder at some point'---Bill Evans

    People think of and categorize things in different ways---the way it should be. For me, whatever kind of harmony is used it's getting from note to note in lines and melodies, then understanding it in a basic, build-able way...

  21. #220

    User Info Menu

    Hey Joelf,

    Sounds great... yea Bartok, Note to note, inversional symmetry. I spent a year with his string Qts... The serious contemporary art of composing non-commercial music... I remember. But I loved jazz also.... anyway I always try and use the organizational methods of the type of music I'm working with at least have a understanding of, before I start imposing my personal choices. Bartok, from the Liszt pn school.... could get into Christians praxis aesthetics relationships... always enjoy your posts... thanks

  22. #221

    User Info Menu


  23. #222

    User Info Menu

    Ahh Lendvai, read his Bartok book about 20 years ago. I always felt his ideas were somewhere on the penumbra between interesting useful and total trapezoids.

    Not Bartok’s system btw... it’s controversial whether Lendvais ideas represent some unconscious process Bartok was using or ... well, a bunch of trapezoids.

    But he did use the octatonic scale (as the classicals like to call it) so ... maybe?

    certainly when this cycle is applied to dom7 chords it relates to some pretty familiar stuff within jazz - I remember reharmonising a 12 bar blues this way so each chord root formed a tone in a 12 tone note row.

    i suppose I thought I was being terribly clever. The melodic lines over the changes were also tone rows.

    it sounded like crap.

    Anyway, the turnaround of Isotope by Joe Henderson is understandable from this standpoint for example.

    Obviosuly some well known jazz progressions that sub for 2 5 1s can be found within the axis... but it does miss some of the lovely subs that are not based on this logic...

    Barry would call it ‘brothers and sisters’

    In terms of an all encompassing music theory, no... it’s too simple. But I do think it’s quite interesting for certain applications and I often have this idea in the back of my head. Can stimulate interesting ideas in conjunction with the lugholes.

  24. #223

    User Info Menu

    Has anyone here tried interpreting Wayne’s changes through this framework? How would you go about it with the more complex chords Wayne uses? Did you find it useful?

  25. #224
    joelf Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Ahh Lendvai, read his Bartok book about 20 years ago. I always felt his ideas were somewhere on the penumbra between interesting useful and total trapezoids.

    Not Bartok’s system btw... it’s controversial whether Lendvais ideas represent some unconscious process Bartok was using or ... well, a bunch of trapezoids.

    But he did use the octatonic scale (as the classicals like to call it) so ... maybe?

    certainly when this cycle is applied to dom7 chords it relates to some pretty familiar stuff within jazz - I remember reharmonising a 12 bar blues this way so each chord root formed a tone in a 12 tone note row.

    i suppose I thought I was being terribly clever. The melodic lines over the changes were also tone rows.

    it sounded like crap.

    Anyway, the turnaround of Isotope by Joe Henderson is understandable from this standpoint for example.

    Obviosuly some well known jazz progressions that sub for 2 5 1s can be found within the axis... but it does miss some of the lovely subs that are not based on this logic...

    Barry would call it ‘brothers and sisters’

    In terms of an all encompassing music theory, no... it’s too simple. But I do think it’s quite interesting for certain applications and I often have this idea in the back of my head. Can stimulate interesting ideas in conjunction with the lugholes.
    Dueling theorist! What fun!

    There's a Leibowitz, too, (mentioned in David Cooper's excellent book on the Concerto for Orchestra). Dude practically wanted to boil Bartok in oil (or at least not invite him to Schoenberg's birthday party---only 12 seats) b/c Bartok had the gall to 'retreat' from the atonality of his 4th String Quartet to the 'safety' of the more tonal Concerto.

    This will raise some hackles, and mod: delete it if you must, but

    Some people seriously need to get laid...

  26. #225

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by joelf
    Dueling theorist! What fun!

    There's a Leibowitz, too, (mentioned in David Cooper's excellent book on the Concerto for Orchestra). Dude practically wanted to boil Bartok in oil (or at least not invite him to Schoenberg's birthday party---only 12 seats) b/c Bartok had the gall to 'retreat' from the atonality of his 4th String Quartet to the 'safety' of the more tonal Concerto.

    This will raise some hackles, and mod: delete it if you must, but

    Some people seriously need to get laid...
    Haha, too true.

    Schoenberg himself was regarded as a bit old fashioned by the time the hardcore modernists (Boulez et al) turned up.. He was still writing Sonatas FFS.

    i honestly don’t think the early modernists - Schoenberg, Bartok of course Stravinsky were anything like as dogmatic as the hangers on and followers.... mind you Boulez has his moments. Holy shit: