Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 50 of 298
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    Much later i edited as i am realised this is or can be daunting, ie Non Functional harmony, this is really more less experienced musicians.
    When i look around at take Wayne Shorter as an example i see the interpretation of the Harmony ie whats this chord doing here. to be very variable not only the playing but analysing. Think about Standards for a moment most can be whittled down conventional 2 5s or turn around etc..

    one way of hearing Non-Functional harmony ala W. Shorter + others


    consider this progression EbMaj7#5 to Amin9 one may think there is no apparent key relationship, but scratch below the surface
    you may see/hear a normal function. give a specific mode to each chord.


    1. EbMaj7#5 has the same notes as B altered scale the Eb is Lydian Augmented Eb f G A B C D Eb
    which is C melodic minor scale = B7#5#9 for EbMaj7#5


    2. Amin9 is Dorian A B C D E F# G A which is E Aeolian (Pure minor) E F# G A B C D E
    so Am9 is E min7


    recapping Ebmaj7#5 to Amin9 (kind of unrelated, so it seems) now can be treated with the same language/vocab of B7#5#9 E min7


    So can be boiled down to a V i in Emin ....................... simplified B7 to Em7


    wondering what can i do with this, good point, music like W Shorter and others is full of relationships like this. so you can take yours or anyone else (if you can hear it) vocab lines phrase whatever and play over the new chords.



    Non Function as the name suggests can and is a different game entirely, as all those conventional pillars structure whatever you want to call it are not there, or perhaps not so obvious

    So this is really just a approach/way to take what seems unconnected or unrelated and .make some kind of sense.

    back to the point. think about the most simple guitarist thing you know it's probably that Pentatonic A min and Cmajor C D E G A C C Major
    rename it A min Pentatonic A C D E G A ok same notes just another name simple.

    perhaps i should not have even attempted this. Who know's? nothing ventured nothing gained. reflecting on this post, i dont hold out much hope, because even my dealings in the Wayne Shorter and beyond land of harmony have mostly surprised me in as much as that it is VERY wide open to different interpretation, one can hear that in the different soloing over tunes, not many cliches and lines in common between players ( im generalising here). Is that old devil poking his head over the hedge again. The above can be partly derived from dare i say it melodic Minor. I guess i should have quit last time i mentioned Lydian augmented. however Wolflen enjoyed it.

    I leave it there. should anyone have a question do ask.
    Last edited by Durban; 04-26-2020 at 05:07 AM. Reason: purely to clarify what can be complicated to describe or convey.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    Are you going to flip out and start talking about sausages?

  4. #3
    no i promise to be good.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    Fwiw, Shorter has said that playing his tunes is “not about playing the changes” but about just coming up with melodies that work/sound good. Yeah, look at the chords and figure out the common tones.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by whiskey02 View Post
    Fwiw, Shorter has said that playing his tunes is “not about playing the changes” but about just coming up with melodies that work/sound good. Yeah, look at the chords and figure out the common tones.
    thank you. That’s how his tunes sound to me.

    He bases a lot of his soloing on the melody. I’m sure there’s others that can be invented, but often that melody tells you a lot about how to play the changes.

  7. #6

    User Info Menu


  8. #7

    User Info Menu


  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    Not wanting to be critical or contentious, that opening piece didn't sound right to me at all. Didn't seem to fit.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Which one? Deluge?

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    The first thing you played. Don't know what it's called. But it probably is Deluge because that's the name on the video :-)

    Except I've listened to it and it's not the same rhythm. Well, sort of, at a stretch.


  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Works just fine to me.

    Shorter tunes are all about the melody, and finding a reduced melody or reduced countermelody that flows through the changes, and playing off those.

    Actually...that works great on any tune

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Poo

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Yea... I don't agree at all... while Shorters tunes and his playing have beautiful melodic life. Many of his tune are about blocks of harmony and how their connected. Some of his melodies... sound like random notes with out harmonic references.

    I also tend to believe if one just expands organizational aspects of harmony... which expands Harmonic Function or the movement aspects of harmony... the non functional thing is gone.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    It still functions...plenty of tension and release.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Isn’t non functional jazz code for ‘it’s not a ii v i’?

    I often feel Reg interprets what I’m saying as either/or, when actually one thing informs the other.... the way the melody of Speak No Evil suggests an elegant way to move through the tricky changes in the A section... The melody is the US voice leading.

    Miles remarked that Wayne would compose the bass too, so it seems evident the outer voices were of the greatest importance to him, at least in this era.

    (I actually think this is true of any composers using non functional or modal harmony whose music has integrity and coherence. That and the motivic thing. Take the Kenny Wheeler example on the other thread... and Kenny was writing things like imitative counterpoint and stuff as well ... he liked his early music.)

    You can drive a truck through it as well but seems a waste. There’s stuff going on in the composition itself.

    Anyway, the main interest for me is listening carefully to the music itself. These are above all, brilliant sounding records.

    On that record the highly (proto?) chord scalic approach of Herbie contrasts with the more melody oriented approach of Freddie and Wayne himself.

    I’ve not heard a Wayne tune that I feel is random notes in the melody. Ana Maria was an example we had before, but that has very clear motivic thing going on.
    Last edited by christianm77; 04-30-2020 at 05:09 AM.

  17. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Isn’t non functional jazz code for ‘it’s not a ii v i’?


    Not at all, lots of music does not has 2 5 1 and is functional, Christian there are areas where this becomes woolly, Thinking about Indian music which does not have 2 5 per se. Thats largely functional. from an Indian Classical point .

    Take Modal yes a lot has 2 5s but you dont have to have it is not a requirement,

    with Shorter in many cases he does have (to coin Reg's term) camouflaged 2 5 as you mentioned in your Speak no Evil vid going to the bridge is 2 5 in Gmin at that point. using that logic, WS is full of that whilst on this Your c min pentatonic vibe was interesting to a point, (not a Christian bash here) hey i enjoyed your video ( i do know what is going on re a lot of those tunes, i made it my business no big deal)

    It did a recent post which did not gain much traction .MAJOR pentonics, .............i have gone off topic here i know, it was( 2 5s etc )

    back to your Speak no evil, you mentioned F Hubbard playing C min. .yes Cmin can also be Eb maj pentatonics used over both Eb Dominant or Eb major. add some chromatics yes can be construed as Cmin but additionally just adds extra Targets references that is all. In fact could be Lydian getting back to your lose the b9 etc on Cmin.

    i have departed from your Isn’t non functional jazz code for ‘it’s not a ii v i’ ........ it saves the to connected to your video, you get my drift. i like your videos, wish i could make one, just cant seemed to get close, dont take what i said as dissing , its not,

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    I still realte 'functional tonality' to classical notions.

    So that means T, S, D are big areas which are fundumental in the form. Starting from high baroque and till very late romantics.
    These areas form the basis for expression of very complex plots, ideas, images - they allow to build cathedrals and create wrolds landscapes with forrests, mountains, spritis, humans - interacting. They are complex as complex is the life and reality. They are cultivated to the subtlest detail.

    The conception of functional tonality represents the universal conception that came to life in late renaissance: In general circular system, a system of mutual forces and tensions, sort of planetary system where the center of force can switch from one planet to another while one moves through it... it brings in unparralleled ambiguity which made it such a powerful and creative tool for art.

    And also it represents philosophic coceptions of the day: Tonic is total rest (that is why in traditional classical there is only one chord of Tonic function - total peace is absolute cathegory), Dominant is the utmost tension (at the edge of becomieng a new point of total rest), and Subdominant is in the middle (not really stable, but not so much tension - in my opinion to modulate to subdominant is more difficult than in dominant because - paradoxally - it 'idoes not want; to become a new tonic wheras Dominant is just crazy about becoming it))).


    Turnaround ii - V - I (or IV-V-I, or just V-I) is not necessarily functional tonality.

    It can be easily interpreted as modal... and mostly it is about linear voice-leading (intervalic tension maybe rather then harmonic)... they began to notice it more and more in late Renaissance.

    Yes this turnaround is the basis for development of functional tonality in European music but it is not it yet.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Thinking about Indian music which does not have 2 5 per se. Thats largely functional. from an Indian Classical point .
    I think any system can be viewd as functional in that sense (modal music too has some functions).
    I just believe when we say functional we often drop out that we speak about functions in terms of European fucntional tonality.

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Durban View Post
    Not at all, lots of music does not has 2 5 1 and is functional, Christian there are areas where this becomes woolly, Thinking about Indian music which does not have 2 5 per se. Thats largely functional. from an Indian Classical point .

    Take Modal yes a lot has 2 5s but you dont have to have it is not a requirement,

    with Shorter in many cases he does have (to coin Reg's term) camouflaged 2 5 as you mentioned in your Speak no Evil vid going to the bridge is 2 5 in Gmin at that point. using that logic, WS is full of that whilst on this Your c min pentatonic vibe was interesting to a point, (not a Christian bash here) hey i enjoyed your video ( i do know what is going on re a lot of those tunes, i made it my business no big deal)

    It did a recent post which did not gain much traction .MAJOR pentonics, .............i have gone off topic here i know, it was( 2 5s etc )

    back to your Speak no evil, you mentioned F Hubbard playing C min. .yes Cmin can also be Eb maj pentatonics used over both Eb Dominant or Eb major. add some chromatics yes can be construed as Cmin but additionally just adds extra Targets references that is all. In fact could be Lydian getting back to your lose the b9 etc on Cmin.

    i have departed from your Isn’t non functional jazz code for ‘it’s not a ii v i’ ........ it saves the to connected to your video, you get my drift. i like your videos, wish i could make one, just cant seemed to get close, dont take what i said as dissing , its not,
    i was being sarcastic/taking the piss. Of course there are other functional chord progressions... It’s just the sort of thing a lot of jazz musicians who have never really dug into classical music, say. Or prewar jazz for that matter... camouflaged ii v’s? Sure if it helps you. I don’t even view ii Vs as ii Vs anymore so the notion becomes rather abstract for me....

    it’s quite hard to make videos. It’s taken me years to get this crappy haha.

    with Wayne and for that matter Freddie there’s often a heavy blues reference in what they play on the Cm Dbmaj7 vamp. Herbie alternates dorian and Phrygian modes in his solo (or C dorian Db Lydian if you prefer.)

    There are some obvious commonalities with Deluge...

    anyway, I’m just listening and copying what they do on the record. I could play out of the chord scales etc sure, but I’m interested in what great musicians actually play, not so much what people say you can play (because 1) there’s loads of options and 2) what they do sounds better and more interesting to me than what most people do. Perhaps this is because they didn’t have stuff so worked out in terms of systems etc.)

    One thing about Waynes 60s stuff ... this music has a lot of blues and a massive swing feel.

    I hear a lot of players who don’t include this in their interpretations and I also feel people take away ‘non functional harmony’ from their studies of Wayne and write noodly, floaty shit with it. Wayne has that melodic and rhythmic centre.

    Wayne in particular is a brilliantly quirky improviser, he’s almost hilariously funny sometimes. I fail to get that from most contemporary musicians playing his music. They sound like all the right notes like out of a book. It’s just a progression to them.

    I think most people would look in Herbie because it’s obviously chord scalic in that way... but there’s value to be had in following the road less travelled...
    Last edited by christianm77; 04-30-2020 at 07:56 AM.

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    I still realte 'functional tonality' to classical notions.

    So that means T, S, D are big areas which are fundumental in the form. Starting from high baroque and till very late romantics.
    These areas form the basis for expression of very complex plots, ideas, images - they allow to build cathedrals and create wrolds landscapes with forrests, mountains, spritis, humans - interacting. They are complex as complex is the life and reality. They are cultivated to the subtlest detail.

    The conception of functional tonality represents the universal conception that came to life in late renaissance: In general circular system, a system of mutual forces and tensions, sort of planetary system where the center of force can switch from one planet to another while one moves through it... it brings in unparralleled ambiguity which made it such a powerful and creative tool for art.

    And also it represents philosophic coceptions of the day: Tonic is total rest (that is why in traditional classical there is only one chord of Tonic function - total peace is absolute cathegory), Dominant is the utmost tension (at the edge of becomieng a new point of total rest), and Subdominant is in the middle (not really stable, but not so much tension - in my opinion to modulate to subdominant is more difficult than in dominant because - paradoxally - it 'idoes not want; to become a new tonic wheras Dominant is just crazy about becoming it))).


    Turnaround ii - V - I (or IV-V-I, or just V-I) is not necessarily functional tonality.

    It can be easily interpreted as modal... and mostly it is about linear voice-leading (intervalic tension maybe rather then harmonic)... they began to notice it more and more in late Renaissance.

    Yes this turnaround is the basis for development of functional tonality in European music but it is not it yet.
    No. Functional harmony is a retroactive 19th century analysis of earlier music. You can talk about tonality, but the idea of functional
    harmony is the brainchild of 19th century music theorists. functional harmony is a tool in the study of what we call tonal music, not the music itself.

    (And it is to some large extent an abstraction (because for instance obviously different inversions of the tonic chord for instance have different functions in classical music.))

    the use of the term in jazz is less problematic because most of the composers who wrote the standards were trained to think and hear this way.

    can’t Chaconnes and similar vamp pieces in the baroque can be thought modal? I suppose that’s maybe why they were eventually abandoned or developed into less repetitive forms.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Rubbish. Functional harmony is a retroactive 19th century analysis of earlier music.
    No, Christian.

    Terminology comes later it is true. But I am not talking about terminolgy. It often takes time for theoretic apparatus but who cares when it was developed if it works and describers things respectively?

    The aesthetics was already at prime in the high baroque.

    any piece (I mean close to any except maybe some rare anachronistic works by Bach) of Vivaldi, Bach, Corelli, Locatelli and hear these tonality masses and how the operate with it.
    Handel's opera's dramaturgy, psychology of the characters, expression of action in great deal are built on it.
    Bach's music contents is all built on functional tonality (whether he knew the term or not).

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    No, Christian.

    Terminology comes later it is true. But I am not talking about terminolgy. It often takes time for theoretic apparatus but who cares when it was developed if it works and describers things respectively?

    The aesthetics was already at prime in the high baroque.

    any piece (I mean close to any except maybe some rare anachronistic works by Bach) of Vivaldi, Bach, Corelli, Locatelli and hear these tonality masses and how the operate with it.
    Handel's opera's dramaturgy, psychology of the characters, expression of action in great deal are built on it.
    Bach's music contents is all built on functional tonality (whether he knew the term or not).
    sorry I embellished my response above. Give it a read. I was a little short there.

    there’s a philosophical distinction here between analysis and craft. Between the thing itself and how it’s understood.

    It might be pretty academic with reference to jazz.

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Also, by your reasoning can’t Chaconnes and similar vamp pieces in the baroque can be thought modal?
    Yes, I consider Chacconne essentially modal as any purely variational form. And this is one of the reasons that it became less and less popular during baroque and almost gon in classical period. From pov classical tonality thee is nothing going on.

    By the way .. what Bach does with Chaconne is scaringly functional! Only he could do that.

    Variation forms were heavily influence by functional tonality aesthetics - rondo-sonata is one of the classic examples of this permustation.
    Last edited by Jonah; 04-30-2020 at 08:25 AM.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Let me put it this way.

    Would you agree that there is value in a chord scale analysis of Mozart’s music?

    Many jazz educators might see value in a CST analysis of Charlie Parker (who historically didn’t use CST consciously) so what’s the difference?

    should we analyse music using whatever tools we like, or only tools available to those that created it? Either our tools have some ahistorical platonic truth to them, or we follow a historical craft centred approach.

    it seems quite hard to argue a middle position. I think it kind of has to be one or the other.

    (I haven’t made my mind up though)

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    sorry I embellished my response above. Give it a read. I was a little short there.

    there’s a philosophical distinction here between analysis and craft. Between the thing itself and how it’s understood.

    It might be pretty academic with reference to jazz.
    I think it is important to stress that I refer not to theory, real practice (methods, eduction), but mostly I refer to aesthetics which is behind it all to me and not necessarily consiously throught through byt artists themselves (that is why I do not really take in consideration what artists say but rather listen to what they wrote or played).

    Probably can bring in some mess in discussion.

  27. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Let me put it this way.

    Would you agree that there is value in a chord scale analysis of Mozart’s music?
    Many jazz educators might see value in a CST analysis of Charlie Parker (who historically didn’t use CST consciously) so what’s the difference?

    should we analyse music using whatever tools we like, or only tools available to those that created it? Either our tools have some ahistorical platonic truth to them, or we follow a historical craft centred approach.

    it seems quite hard to argue a middle position.
    The difference is in the aesthetics.
    Fucntional tonality really describes the principles of Mozartian aesthetics. Yes, it does.

    Maybe CST also describes the aethetics of Parker to some degree.

    The conception of using historic tools for analysis is one of the basic HIP idea (Harnoncourt, Kuijken talked about it many times). I find it interesting to learn and be able to recognize, it can teach some practical things but in general there is no need in it.

    You see I can understand when people have problems with understanding early medieval music but with Mozart.

    I know what his music is about, I know an dhear how it works becasue I still belong to this tradition, I was born like that... and for me it does not matter what tool is chosen to decribe it, it will not change anythng about the contents for me.

    Often I feel like people do not hear it and begin to invent (or look for in history) some tool to decode it.

  28. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    I think any system can be viewd as functional in that sense (modal music too has some functions).
    I just believe when we say functional we often drop out that we speak about functions in terms of European fucntional tonality.

    yes excellent point Jonah , and what i meant, but did not................... damn Trumpish of me

  29. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    The difference is in the aesthetics.
    Fucntional tonality really describes the principles of Mozartian aesthetics. Yes, it does.
    Simply stating this is not an argument.

    Maybe CST also describes the aethetics of Parker to some degree.
    OK so, there is some 'leakage' of Aesthetics into the basically Praxis oriented ideas of jazz. My argument is actually that early stages jazz education should be more aetethic (i.e. professionally legitimate) and less praxial (process oriented) but I think for instance CST actually does a poor job of recreating the aesthetic of Parker's music for instance. That's why people study bop by transcribing...

    So why analyse it that way?

    OTOH as a praxial 'hands on' tool CST is effective - try this. Here's a cool scale... (Somewhere it went from 'try this scale on Dm7' to 'this scale is Dm7' and that's the problem... I don't think this was every done on purpose.)

    Reg is actually much more praxis oriented than me, notice.

    The conception of using historic tools for analysis is one of the basic HIP idea (Harnoncourt, Kuijken talked about it many times). I find it interesting to learn and be able to recognize, it can teach some practical things but in general there is no need in it.

    You see I can understand when people have problems with understanding early medieval music but with Mozart.
    How do you know you are not simply looking through 19th century lens at Mozart? Perhaps you are comfortable with this. But then, how is it different 21st century lens.

    It seems like you are arguing from a continuity of tradition. All these traditions are continuous to some extent. Mozart's musical language formed the bedrock of musical materials for Bird too... He may have used them in a very different way, but there is a continuity there.

    I know what his music is about, I know an dhear how it works becasue I still belong to this tradition, I was born like that... and for me it does not matter what tool is chosen to decribe it, it will not change anythng about the contents for me.
    All I conclude from this statement is that you are not willing to look into it philosophically and that's no use to me writing my essay sonny Jim (although I might use you as an example of typical Aesthetic thinking in classical music education... actually that's quite useful.) The correct way of looking at Mozart is whatever they taught you at music school. Cool.

    Look, someone who was actually contemporary to the tradition that produced Mozart's music could argue that position with greater strength. Obviously that's an academic point because we are not in fact Necromancers. OTOH, Barry Harris thinks jazz is an outgrowth of the classical tradition. So, do you think he's wrong? Maybe someone else thinks you are wrong and thinks Barry is right. So who's right?

    Your answer would reveal that the analysis of the Aesthetics of music is (of course!) grounded in the social realm... Subjective. There is not platonic aspect to this. Which is - FINE! - but one has to admit that. The positivist and relativist/post modernist perspectives have a moment of alignment here.

    Anyway; I think jazz could be a little more careful in who it untangles the Aesthetic and the Praxial in its teaching. CST being the whipping boy, but it does encapsulate these problems perfectly.

    With all of that said I'm deeply aesthetic in my feelings about music. I do in fact believe that Bach's music has intrinsic value, and this value can be understood in an objective way. I play a form of music that serves little social or commercial function because I think it's beautiful, and I believe that its initial teaching should be oriented towards the aesthetic/legtimate rather than the praxis/process oriented.

    Right, better go and read Regelski to work out what Praxis actually means here haha.
    Last edited by christianm77; 04-30-2020 at 09:24 AM.

  30. #29

    User Info Menu

    BTW, when I say Aesthetics I mean, a study of great past music using branches of music theory to work out why it’s good as opposed to people just naturally liking certain sounds or music.

    Aesthetics can be perhaps best understood as the role education to refine music appreciation.

    there isn’t to my mind a jazz music theory of Aesthetics away from practice. Mostly we gain an aesthetic sense through immersion in the music itself.

    However if we realise Aesthetic theory is itself grounded in identity and social constructs the only difference between it and individual intuitive taste is that the former occurs within a wider community and takes the form of a series of elaborate rationalisations, and the latter occurs at the individual level.

    Given that this probably happens anyway through cultural immersion, I do end up feeling this sort of stuff is ... superfluous?

  31. #30

    User Info Menu

    You see today's humantiy is much about 'bing something else' , 'looking from somnebody else's point of view' etc.

    Somebody from mozartian time could argue something... someone next door can argue something too.

    I mean do I have a purpose to recreate what particular person in Mozartian time though about particular piece of Mozart? No.

    Mozart is not the only theing I know about that time - time before - and yes - time after that. It is a big scope of things .. really big.

    (By the way historic perspective is only one way of looking at things, and in my opinion it is often contraditcing artistic mentality. In concern of perception (not analysis) of particular piece of art it often does not matter what was after or before, usually great piece of art excludes othe worlds and cisumes you completely). Whe we make comparative we think in terms of art history, but it is not art.


    do in fact believe that Bach's music has intrinsic value, and this value can be understood in an objective way.
    I would say - conventional, I do not believe that anything objextive is really possible about it.

    Look, someone who was actually contemporary to the tradition that produced Mozart's music could argue that position with greater strength. Obviously that's an academic point because we are not in fact Necromancers. OTOH, Barry Harris thinks jazz is an outgrowth of the classical tradition. So, do you think he's wrong? Maybe someone else thinks you are wrong and thinks Barry is right. So who's right?
    There is nothing wrong about being wrong. Really, I am always wrong from someone point of view but I am not going to change my point because of that.
    When you say people that you think they are wrong they often get mad about it... but there is no reason for that. We should not be right for anyone.


    But coming back to our topic: if someone takes you by the hand and leads to - for example - Mona Lisa and says: Look I discover new tool and we know how people thought of this painting. Actually we know they saw it was an elephant?
    You ask: why?
    He says: I do not know, it is jus the tool.. we are wrong, they are right..

    What should I trust more: my involvement in Don Giovanni, my compassion to characters, my fear and admiration of how that music manage to express the personalities without even using leitmotives? Or shoudl I trust some tool taht tells me that people thought it was all different?
    Actually I can believe Barry Harris not because he lived those days but becasue I hear it when he plays, because I hear he hears.

    PS
    There was one air by Bach that actually was almost a sonata allegro form, I will find it later and post.. just would be interesting how you would hear it.

  32. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah View Post
    You see today's humantiy is much about 'bing something else' , 'looking from somnebody else's point of view' etc.

    Somebody from mozartian time could argue something... someone next door can argue something too
    .

    ah, but the very basis of Music Theory proper is that we can make these arguments as to the greatness of the Western Canon etc. It’s its raison d’etre. It wasn’t simply enough to say ‘this is Western Art Music and it is our culture’; the Enlightenment intelligentsia had to link it to something eternal and immutable. They called Rameau ‘the Newton of music’, right? (Earlier it was linked to cosmology of course via the Greeks and medieval Christian theologians)

    For example, someone who says on a jazz guitar forum that modern pop is shit because it only has four chords is basically doing this on a low level. (some arguably great music is really shit by that logic of course, so again we see the unsatisfying limitations of this type of argument.)

    If you accept its all based on culture (and it is) you have to put this idea in the dumper to some extent. YMMV on how much can be salvaged from it. Emotionally I feel it’s not dead wrong... but this sort of thing is a fucking rabbit hole.

    but that’s not my principal concern... that is actually how this Music Theory leaks into the music theory we use in jazz etc. To make music, and how we get confused in our methods of teaching. That’s actually really practical despite all this high falutin’ talk.

    I mean do I have a purpose to recreate what particular person in Mozartian time though about particular piece of Mozart? No.

    Mozart is not the only theing I know about that time - time before - and yes - time after that. It is a big scope of things .. really big.

    (By the way historic perspective is only one way of looking at things, and in my opinion it is often contraditcing artistic mentality. In concern of perception (not analysis) of particular piece of art it often does not matter what was after or before, usually great piece of art excludes othe worlds and cisumes you completely). Whe we make comparative we think in terms of art history, but it is not art.

    I would say - conventional, I do not believe that anything objextive is really possible about it.
    Post Modernist!

    i actually disagree here. I have no convincing evidence for this though.

    There is nothing wrong about being wrong. Really, I am always wrong from someone point of view but I am not going to change my point because of that.
    When you say people that you think they are wrong they often get mad about it... but there is no reason for that. We should not be right for anyone.


    But coming back to our topic: if someone takes you by the hand and leads to - for example - Mona Lisa and says: Look I discover new tool and we know how people thought of this painting. Actually we know they saw it was an elephant?
    You ask: why?
    He says: I do not know, it is jus the tool.. we are wrong, they are right..

    What should I trust more: my involvement in Don Giovanni, my compassion to characters, my fear and admiration of how that music manage to express the personalities without even using leitmotives? Or shoudl I trust some tool taht tells me that people thought it was all different?
    Actually I can believe Barry Harris not because he lived those days but becasue I hear it when he plays, because I hear he hears.
    So yes I respect this precisely because it is not trying to make an argument. See above.

    I feel many things I can’t prove.

    So how does this impact on music education? Should we be teaching music appreciation and aesthetics and on what basis?

    i have no answers for this btw

    but these arguments are being made at the state level. They are deeply politicised.

    PS
    There was one air by Bach that actually was almost a sonata allegro form, I will find it later and post.. just would be interesting how you would hear it.
    cool

  33. #32

    User Info Menu

    There’s also some weird attitudes in my course.

    So, many of the teachers are classical musician but at odds with the way music is taught. Wanting to reintroduce aural and improvisation elements more. That’s all good I think...

    But generally they seem to have a very idealised concept of other musical cultures, jazz for instance. endless blinking lectures about the failings of classical music education. All of which is both irrelevant to me and annoying.

    I actually often find myself arguing the corner for trad classical music education haha. (Although a lot of these things they want to incorporate used to be part of western music....)

    I’m an aesthete in so much as I want music to be excellent. That’s always going to keep me away from purely praxial arguments...

  34. #33

    User Info Menu

    Sorry for the massive derail. I am a divergent thinker.

    Anyway, back to Wayne.... perhaps we should just avoid functional harmony as a term. In a sense no jazz has functional harmony.

    Conrad Cork argued this, and used the phrase ‘the song as Raga’ which connects to what Jonah was saying about vamps.

    From the point of view of the improviser we simply have more and less common successions of chords. We tend to practice the common ones or simply have more experience with them.

    Wayne introduces more diversity into these successions and that’s one of the problems in playing his music, we are not as well prepared to deal with these unfamiliar combinations as we are with the more common and familiar ones. So far so obvious, right?

    my contention is simply that the melodies (again obviously) offer elegant and helpful solutions to playing lines through these successions and that this is reflected in the choices made by many of the musicians who play on them, including Wayne himself (again obvious if you listen carefully to them).

    Furthermore the blues and pentatonic ideas are often a reference point for these melodies.

  35. #34

    User Info Menu

    So now I'm a Praxial Elitist Snob. LOL. Well maybe... as far as philosophy of music ed. ... I just missed out on most of the privileged aspects. While I was teaching at UCLA... I had to gig, write music for film,TV...all the dirty parts of Music.( I needed the $). Funny how that works...

  36. #35

    User Info Menu

    Maybe if we come up with some definitions of what Function is. I obviously have preached too much of how I think.

    Maybe even keep historical perspective, (by that I'm implying 18th and 19th century common practice), as what it is and try to apply concepts to playing jazz. (Only because we're on a Jazz Guitar site and I'm a praxial snob).

    Anyway we might come up with a few classifications of Function, which could lead to guidelines of different styles and forms of Jazz. Which could help give clarifications to functional and non-functional harmony in different musical Jazz contexts. Maybe get in to Melodic Function...

  37. #36
    Non Functional harmony is summed up by Chief Bromden's first words "Mmmm..... Juicy fruit."








  38. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    Maybe if we come up with some definitions of what Function is. I obviously have preached too much of how I think.

    Maybe even keep historical perspective, (by that I'm implying 18th and 19th century common practice), as what it is and try to apply concepts to playing jazz. (Only because we're on a Jazz Guitar site and I'm a praxial snob).

    Anyway we might come up with a few classifications of Function, which could lead to guidelines of different styles and forms of Jazz. Which could help give clarifications to functional and non-functional harmony in different musical Jazz contexts. Maybe get in to Melodic Function...
    I would say the aesthete is much more snobby haha! I know I am.

    I don't think you are actually completely praxial ... you do tend to frame theory in terms of options while I tend to frame it in terms of style and precedent. But not entirely by any means.

    The fact that you think you are is a case in point of what I'm talking about. This is 'vanilla', that is 'muddy', you don't like diminished seventh chords and so on. I think you have the two in a mix, like most jazz musicians. You don't really think that your aesthetic is objectively better... well actually maybe you do ... anyway you don't separate the two out.

    All jazz education is aesthetically oriented to some degree (classical musicians DO NOT understand this by and large), otherwise we would non idiomatic improvisers.

    But in any case you are not by trade an educator... so, you get on with it... OTOH I have to write essays about BS lol. I do find the ideas quite interesting though. Although they are strongly nudging me in the direction of more praxis based music education (community groups etc) and I'm not really interested in that TBH. But I do it for the course...

    In my experience most jazzers use 'functional harmony' to relate to progressions that are derived from typical progression we find in the GASB. These progression are indeed functional, but in jazz that function is somewhat relaxed. (We don't care so much about resolving the leading note for instance.) In this understanding, Wayne is 'non functional' harmony.
    Last edited by christianm77; 04-30-2020 at 12:32 PM.

  39. #38

    User Info Menu

    yea Juicy Fruit, I like that.

    Yea, I agree with the snob arrow.

    So if leading notes are functional, what makes them functional. (yes trick ?)

  40. #39

    User Info Menu

    I reckon - tuning.

  41. #40

    User Info Menu

    This is what Regelski, Mr Praxis, has to say:

    "Instrumental reason, especially in the traditional theory of Anglo-American philosophy and social theory, at best can tell us how the world is, not how it ought to be. Because positivism is its epistemology, and because empirical proof of what is true, real, or good necessarily omits any future or ideal states, instrumental reason either refuses to talk rationally about right and wrong, or takes its means and immanent ends as being good or good enough. In music education, for example, considerations of curriculum – namely what of all that could be taught is most worth teaching – cannot be determined by empirical research and thus are all but ignored in the present “how to” climate of instrumental reason. Furthermore, various teaching methods take for granted that good means (i.e., “good” methods) automatically bring about good results, although these results are never validated by comparing actual results to claims. Instrumental reason thus leads to the authoritarian, how to, orthodoxy where the method is revered regardless of results – where, in any case, results are not even noted because full faith is placed in good methods.

    Even more problematic, the availability of a multitude of teaching methods leads to an attitude of relativism or nihilism that amounts to “do your own thing” or “what works for me” with regard to curriculum, method and evaluation. Values, in this technocratic view of teaching, are nothing more than statements of opinion. Thus the conviction arises that one method is as good as another as long as it is followed properly, which is to say with single-minded devotion.

    A second platform in the agenda of critical theory is the argument that traditional theory (of all kinds in philosophy and the social sciences) is Idealistic, with a capital “I.” It goes beyond the actual conditions of life by analyzing and describing human action in universal and absolute terms that are abstract and thus unreal. Once again I would point to the continued teaching of Rameau’s common practice theory versus, for example, the functional theory of the jazz musician’s fake books. Such idealism unconnected to functional reality is ungrounded, and realism of the positivistic kind is both aimless and blind because no amount of knowledge of the?way things are can tell us how they ought to or could otherwise be. This tension between theory and practice is a major issue addressed by critical theory. It seeks to avoid being idealistically utopian or unreal, while simultaneously remaining critically “down to earth” concerning human nature and actions. According to this view, any theory-and this includes music theory-that doesn’t inform practice, or that impedes it, is at best false and at worst an ideology."

    Critical Theory as a Foundation for Critical Thinking in Music Education By Thomas A. Regelski

    Not sure if I agree... But kind of relates to my screeds...

    TL;DR he embraces the jazz idea of 'functional harmony'. Adorno would not be impressed haha.

  42. #41

    User Info Menu

    "Seventh, as a result of this “how to” kind of techne that lacks the direction given by a rational determination of right results, attention is misdirected to getting things done effectively or more efficiently without clarifying or telling us what things are good or best to do. In music education, for example, curriculum is all but ignored and the techno-rationality of this or that method is dictated by authorities via ideology and orthodoxy as doctrine, and the ends which such means are supposed to serve are all simply taken for granted as inherent to the instrumental reason offered by the method. Because adherence to the doctrine and its practice comes close to worship of religious idols, I call this technological approach to music education methodolatry."

    Hehehehe. Definitely agree with this bit. Oh man.

  43. #42

    User Info Menu

    LOL so maybe in like 10 words or less.

    So maybe.... leading note has function because of it's implication of movement.

    So Function is movement or lack of.

  44. #43
    Me: Hello Doctor would you please issue me another prescription for some more Prozac .

    Doctor: Ah, been on the Jazzguitar forum again, have we.

    Me: Yes Doctor, but more specifically engaged in a Non-Functional discussion this time.

    Doctor: I see not, not to worry, as a Junior Doctor in Afghanistan i heard a lot of that music played, mainly by the Taliban shortly before an explosion.

  45. #44

    User Info Menu

    I'm trying to decide whether to discuss this thread with a music teacher, a philosopher or maybe a psychiatrist. <g>

    I hope it's possible to play decent guitar without understanding this thread.

  46. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg View Post
    LOL so maybe in like 10 words or less.

    So maybe.... leading note has function because of it's implication of movement.

    So Function is movement or lack of.
    Yes. But jazz relaxes that. Early example I always use is Struttin With Some Barbeque. So it’s not a new thing either.

    So anyhoo I have a theory about this but it’s quite irrelevant to anything really.

  47. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar View Post
    I'm trying to decide whether to discuss this thread with a music teacher, a philosopher or maybe a psychiatrist. <g>

    I hope it's possible to play decent guitar without understanding this thread.
    Nope. Impossible.
    Last edited by christianm77; 04-30-2020 at 05:49 PM.

  48. #47

    User Info Menu

    Also I was kind of blathering for the sake of it, but nothing I posted was that hard to understand or totally irrelevant.

    A bit general perhaps, but given the amount of numbers and Greek spouted here, and endless technical info and boring discussions of gear, it’s a little rich. You don’t get to make that joke lol.

    how we think about what we do in a wider sense is important.

    the idolatry of a method - regardless of a results it produces - is one thing I think people on JGO should be more aware of. Regelski was talking about classical music education, but is it EVER true of jazz. Holy shit.

    Also Analysis - how we do it, what we expect to find. Interesting thing to be aware of.

  49. #48

    User Info Menu

    Its a mystery
    simple things with repetition have hypnotic effects
    they put you in a place ....
    and the complex things can just swim around that

    I think a lot of this argument here is semantical

    we know all the music based on the white notes
    V I resolution , the Tritone thing ....
    can't we agree to call that 'functional harmony'

    (probably not )

    (we all know there are other 'functions' going on of course !
    just talking about what we call things

  50. #49

    User Info Menu

    Sorry if a bit OT there .....

  51. #50

    User Info Menu

    I find it's teachers that get most caught up in trying to understand some abstract stuff so they can codify it. They can't seem to validate themselves unless they figure out how to put that "lightning in a bottle", so they can sell it to others......"this is the way it works"....

    I like jazz because you just make it up as you go.