One for the Post Bop nerds...

[Reg]

Yea I agree James... I kind of enjoy reading possibilities of analysis. I know I've seen WS... man at least 20 or 25 times over the years.... with all the groups from late 60's . And there must have been reasons why Wayne always composed and arranges more than all the other great players. I'm not thinking of player/ composers like Horace Silver etc... more of the guys (gals) who could really play etc..

I pretty much love Horace tunes and arrangements... but WS tunes were on a different level. He was one of the musicians that inspired... raised the level of jazz performance. My last year at Berklee... 76. Weather performed at the newish performance center... I was working there, part of my work study etc... Jaco was crazy but Shorter...

Shorter tunes are always great to play.... I have a bunch or Big Band arrangements of his tunes.... but their definitely not dance tunes...LOL.

Everyone goes through a Wayne Shorter period ... it's part of jazz religion 101

Hey Christian... isn't that Bbmaj really Gmin. etc..

[princeplanet]

.....
Since this post appeared I've spent a good bit of time trying to find such a discussion. Lot's of talk about Miles, science fiction and spirituality, but couldn't find anything from Wayne about how Wayne makes music. Maybe it was decades of experimentation. Maybe he didn't really have a system?
......

Yes, I've always been surprised at the lack of information regarding Wayne's M.O. especially given the fact that he (along with maybe Herbie?) represents an important departure from the earlier, more traditional Jazz forms. Who is the Barry Harris of Post Bop? It's evident that Wayne knew his theory inside out (almost literally!), so how did he use his knowledge to create what he did in the mid 60's? Is it possible that he just sat at a piano and searched out chords that sounded "good" to him in succession without the use of any prejudicial theory to guide him, and then used his knowledge to find ways to create melodies over the top?

[Christian Miller]

Perhaps because I don't know anything about science I therefore can't see any surface similarities between the analyses and science.

But I'd be interested in hearing your objective and mathematical critique of those methods of analysis.

ill set aside maths, which really is a different thing in terms of its standards of proof (although there are elements of music theory that are akin to mathematical axioms, proofs and so on) and concentrate on science which has a different although still rigorous standard of proof.

Any scientist would ask the following of a scientific theory - What falsifiable predictions does the theory make, and under what conditions would the theory be found to be false (or incomplete)?

The thing is music theory makes predictions that a falsifiable all the time - for instance someone could say ‘Wayne shorter uses the melodic minor modes when improvising’. It’s easy to show to what extent that is true or false.

However in most cases what you get is some sort of wiggle room where it turns out the theory works after all because of x or y. The theories are made vague, and people talk in objective terms one moment and subjective terms (‘it’s the way they hear it’) the next. This seems a bit weasely.

Would you hear, say, a Schenkerian theorist seeking ways to put Schenkerian theory to the acid test and maybe disprove it?

Yet scientists would love to disprove Einstein. Imagine being the person to find a flaw in his theories! (Which is why all the cranks claim they can do exactly that of course - fame and glory!) They just haven’t been able to (yet.)

Part of the reason for this is most of the models of music we have are pretty limited and incomplete. Music is bloody complicated. But if you are going to proceed from an incomplete foundation to a more complex edifice built on those basic assumptions… well I wouldn’t hire you to build an office block, let me put it that way.

Are you able to understand those Riemannian network charts? Me neither, but I don't see them as damning evidence of 'scientism'.

Honestly, no. I’m sure I could if I spent some time. I don’t feel inclined to invest my time doing that if I dislike the basic premise underpinning them for the purposes of this paper at least .

There’s actually two seperate lines of critique I have here
1) the basic chord scale analysis does not represent imo Wayne’s process for either composition or improvisation, or at least it misses the most characteristic things about it.

I’m fairly adamant about this and would be prepared to argue it out in detail.

2) the Neo-Reimannian approach is pseudoscience.

I’m on weaker ground with this because I don’t know much about it atm. It does not pass the ‘sniff test’, that’s all I can say, and scientism is very common in music theory in general (I can argue this about theory I’m more familiar with.)

But that’s obviously not proof that it is. I wouldn’t be so confident about arguing this point except in general.

What I can say is that scientism is absolutely rife in music in general. Here for instance is a paper that discusses it in depth. I don’t agree with everything the author has written re Popper (I see popper as much an enemy of scientism as Freyerabend, and you’ll notice my view of science is very much aligned to popper.)
Just a moment...

We come to similar conclusion via wildly different routes. whereas Louth believes it’s the application of scientific method that is the issue I would argue it’s lack of application of the scientific method in conjunction with a superficially ‘scientific’ framing of music education and music theory that is the problem - either music theory should put its quantifiable ideas to the test and accept that intellectual risk of being proven wrong, or it should focus on subjective humanist fields such as ethnography. Or teaching based not on overarching theories but in experience and detail. You can’t have your cake and eat it. That’s what scientism is, essentially.

(My position is closer to Robert O Gjerdingen’s unsurprisingly.)

I really think the latter (the qualitative stuff ) is really undervalued on our culture and it’s down to a latent belief that music and music theory are somehow universal. (Perhaps Music has bad physics envy because it used to be considered physics.)

This isn’t an issue for music alone obviously. Economics is one example.

As I've already stated, I think the article is pretty good. It contains quite a bit of theory, but he has transcribed Wayne's music and analysed it, which is what anyone should want from these kinds of articles.

the best thing to do is make your own transcription and analysis and come to your conclusion. This would time far better spent imo than reading an academic paper of this type. Then you can return to it if you want with a suitably educated state of mind.

[Christian Miller]

Anyway, rather than bang on with my talking points, I think this might be a better use of time.

Turns out that B major (G# natural minor) isn't quite as resistant to analysis as I may have said...



Isn't that cool?

[James W]

ill set aside maths, which really is a different thing in terms of its standards of proof (although there are elements of music theory that are akin to mathematical axioms, proofs and so on) and concentrate on science which has a different although still rigorous standard of proof.

Any scientist would ask the following of a scientific theory - What falsifiable predictions does the theory make, and under what conditions would the theory be found to be false (or incomplete)?

The thing is music theory makes predictions that a falsifiable all the time - for instance someone could say ‘Wayne shorter uses the melodic minor modes when improvising’. It’s easy to show to what extent that is true or false.

However in most cases what you get is some sort of wiggle room where it turns out the theory works after all because of x or y. The theories are made vague, and people talk in objective terms one moment and subjective terms (‘it’s the way they hear it’) the next. This seems a bit weasely.

Would you hear, say, a Schenkerian theorist seeking ways to put Schenkerian theory to the acid test and maybe disprove it?

Yet scientists would love to disprove Einstein. Imagine being the person to find a flaw in his theories! (Which is why all the cranks claim they can do exactly that of course - fame and glory!) They just haven’t been able to (yet.)

Part of the reason for this is most of the models of music we have are pretty limited and incomplete. Music is bloody complicated. But if you are going to proceed from an incomplete foundation to a more complex edifice built on those basic assumptions… well I wouldn’t hire you to build an office block, let me put it that way.

Putting the theory to the test is precisely what happens in the article. The more complex edifice is not built upon, but rather compared with what Wayne actually plays.

Honestly, no. I’m sure I could if I spent some time. I don’t feel inclined to invest my time doing that if I dislike the basic premise underpinning them for the purposes of this paper at least .

No? I can't say I'm surprised.

There’s actually two seperate lines of critique I have here
1) the basic chord scale analysis does not represent imo Wayne’s process for either composition or improvisation, or at least it misses the most characteristic things about it.

I’m fairly adamant about this and would be prepared to argue it out in detail.

2) the Neo-Reimannian approach is pseudoscience.

I’m on weaker ground with this because I don’t know much about it atm. It does not pass the ‘sniff test’, that’s all I can say, and scientism is very common in music theory in general (I can argue this about theory I’m more familiar with.)

I've already quoted aspects of the article's analysis where it points out where a chord scale analysis fails to accurately describe what's going on in the music. And it strikes me as a bit arrogant to dismiss an entire analytic approach solely on the basis of a 'sniff test'.

the best thing to do is make your own transcription and analysis and come to your conclusion. This would time far better spent imo than reading an academic paper of this type. Then you can return to it if you want with a suitably educated state of mind.

Yes, well you could say exactly the same thing about your videos. Better to spend one's time transcribing Adam Rogers on Inner Urge than watch your video about it. But if you are going to read an article like the one this thread is about, it's probably best to read it in its entirety before mouthing off about it because otherwise you look a bit silly ascribing false things to it (as I pointed out earlier in the thread). It's quite bad when someone as otherwise well informed as yourself comes along and rips into something that you haven't even read in full because you could influence some impressionable people, so it's definitely worth the time spent contradicting you.

[pamosmusic]

Anyway, rather than bang on with my talking points, I think this might be a better use of time.

Turns out that B major (G# natural minor) isn't quite as resistant to analysis as I may have said...



Isn't that cool?

I would be interested to see if Adam Rogers is getting some of ideas from this kind of choice.

[pamosmusic]

Putting the theory to the test is precisely what happens in the article. The more complex edifice is not built upon, but rather compared with what Wayne actually plays.

Out of curiosity, have you thought up any applications for the material in the article?

Really asking … I rather like applying weird interpretations to ideas to see if they hold up. I’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of Charlie Christian, for example. Replacing triads with like … quartals or pairs or something. His ideas are surprisingly (or not surprisingly) resilient.

[James W]

Out of curiosity, have you thought up any applications for the material in the article?

Really asking … I rather like applying weird interpretations to ideas to see if they hold up. I’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of Charlie Christian, for example. Replacing triads with like … quartals or pairs or something. His ideas are surprisingly (or not surprisingly) resilient.

I haven't. But I was already aware of using different tonalities in the context of a one-chord vamp, so I have already explored it a bit. I recorded an ad hoc jam a few months ago that demonstrates it a bit.

Never played ESP, Juju or Iris though, nor have I really played tunes like those...

[Reg]

Hey Christian.... yea, G#- thanks. Maybe it's just an approach chord... Ebma7#11. As I listen to his solo.... fairly short.

He seem to spell E7#11 next time around ... I guess my point would be ... he's creating tension, somewhat functioning dominant like and resolving on the weak harmonic rhythm ... And later on he plays nat. 11th on the Ebmaj. again. Shorter seem to like #9s or Min 3rds. He used relative subs a lot.

I mean he only takes 2 chorus... I would think one gets tired of playing the same thing. I'm no one and I'm always playing different improve etc... on tunes. Some how I don't think WS was not a memorize and play the same thing over and over kind of musician. He seem to always be aware of the Form and how to play with the Harmonic rhythm.

[ragman1]

I recorded an ad hoc jam a few months ago that demonstrates it a bit.

Nice, James, very Holdsworth :-)

[Christian Miller]

Putting the theory to the test is precisely what happens in the article. The more complex edifice is not built upon, but rather compared with what Wayne actually plays.

[/FONT]



No? I can't say I'm surprised.




I've already quoted aspects of the article's analysis where it points out where a chord scale analysis fails to accurately describe what's going on in the music. And it strikes me as a bit arrogant to dismiss an entire analytic approach solely on the basis of a 'sniff test'.




Yes, well you could say exactly the same thing about your videos. Better to spend one's time transcribing Adam Rogers on Inner Urge than watch your video about it. But if you are going to read an article like the one this thread is about, it's probably best to read it in its entirety before mouthing off about it because otherwise you look a bit silly ascribing false things to it (as I pointed out earlier in the thread). It's quite bad when someone as otherwise well informed as yourself comes along and rips into something that you haven't even read in full because you could influence some impressionable people, so it's definitely worth the time spent contradicting you.

hmmmm… well you’re not wrong… ok fella, I’ll concede this a little as I am verging on the surly and unreasonable. Which I do enjoy, but…

rather than doubling down on my position, maybe I’ll reserve a little judgement.

So a better way of putting it is that I am highly skeptical, based on the reasons that I’ve outlined, but you’re quite right that it’s rather unfair to have a go at a paper I haven’t read.

(What can I say? I find chord scale networks and hyperspatial toroids in music theory a little abstract/daft.)

Otoh I doubt I will read the thing, so let’s leave it at ‘high theory of this type really isn’t my thing, and the initial chapters don’t fill me with enthusiasm to read the rest’ and we can move on.

(ugh being a grown up is so booooring….)

re my videos. Yes, you are quite correct! 100%. Yes, please do that. I’d tell you that if I was teaching you right?

otoh not everyone transcribed everything and sometimes it’s mildly interesting to watch a vid about a solo or music you don’t know.

I don’t tend to do this myself, but I’m to be honest analysis on transcription videos are I think the least useful material I produce.

I do really enjoy doing it tho and the algorithm likes it. It also keeps me transcribing and gives me focus and goals in doing this. Make of that what you will.. (I’m a bad person?)

one thing that I might cite in my defence is that I think my analyses are often a little different to the mainstream, and that might be interesting to some people, might offer a different perspective.

(I suppose extra-dimensional toroids are also not mainstream, tbf. Knowing YouTube you could probably get serious views analysing John Mayer using that stuff.)

[Christian Miller]

I would say that it’s obviously not how Wayne came up with his music, but to be perfectly having now typed ‘hyperspace toroids’… I think he would have been down with that haha

[Christian Miller]

I would be interested to see if Adam Rogers is getting some of ideas from this kind of choice.

I don’t think I’ve seen the same correspondence in those AR lines so far …

[Christian Miller]

Hey Christian.... yea, G#- thanks. Maybe it's just an approach chord... Ebma7#11. As I listen to his solo.... fairly short.

He seem to spell E7#11 next time around ... I guess my point would be ... he's creating tension, somewhat functioning dominant like and resolving on the weak harmonic rhythm ... And later on he plays nat. 11th on the Ebmaj. again. Shorter seem to like #9s or Min 3rds. He used relative subs a lot.

Shorter uses the whole tone scale there and also on the phrase on the next E7 in the second half if that makes sense.

the natural 4th on the Eb is quite fun.

[Reg]

Yea... the more I hear the tune and solo... anyway,
Maybe the tune is not as complicated as it seems.


Try thinking or hearing the tune in "C", by that I mean WS like deceptive versions of typical harmony and likes and uses relative relationships to camouflage etc...

The tune could have started with Cm6/9 to Fmaj7 and the E7 alt would be a relative sub for Cmaj, and his use of the Bmaj scale would or could have been just an approach chord or note collection.

He started with simple chord progression C69 or Imaj to IVmaj ... then just start using relative type of subs and also the creating of that Week/ Strong harmonic pattern.

I mean the melody's not that out... and I think he ends his solo with that low "C" which would be cool.

Yea... a little crazy, but WS could play and think very complicated concepts. His cognitive skills were off the charts.

I've listened to some of his performances from last century that I was at.... and they don't sound great, but remember that in the moment and live ... the music felt and sounded perfect...LOL.

[Christian Miller]

Yea... the more I hear the tune and solo... anyway,
Maybe the tune is not as complicated as it seems.


Try thinking or hearing the tune in "C", by that I mean WS like deceptive versions of typical harmony and likes and uses relative relationships to camouflage etc...

The tune could have started with Cm6/9 to Fmaj7 and the E7 alt would be a relative sub for Cmaj, and his use of the Bmaj scale would or could have been just an approach chord or note collection.

He started with simple chord progression C69 or Imaj to IVmaj ... then just start using relative type of subs and also the creating of that Week/ Strong harmonic pattern.

I mean the melody's not that out... and I think he ends his solo with that low "C" which would be cool.

Yea... a little crazy, but WS could play and think very complicated concepts. His cognitive skills were off the charts.

In a way not much in there harmonically that's that far away from the GASB tbh

E7-Fmaj7 - well we have that in plenty of tunes from way back when, although GASB tunes would start on the F normally obviously
The fact that he solos on the whole tone like an old school musician cements that connection in my mind.

In fact the D-G-C quartal figure on the E7 does suggest an E7#9b13 tonality, which does not necessarily mean altered (ie the B natural isn't a given)
E7-Ebmaj7 - obvious, tritone sub
then this gubbins
Dm7 G7 Gm7 Gbmaj7#11 - a version of a II7-V7 with the last chord subbed for what I think of as the Bud Powell dominan
Db7#11 G7 Gm7 Dbm7 Gb7 Fmaj7 - sub of a bVI7 V7 I really

OK, so the most Wayne thing in it is this
D7#9 Ebmaj7 E7#9 Fmaj7 (Eb)

Which is not unlike moves he has in Speak no Evil and Deluge for instance. Cm7 Dbmaj7 and D#m7 Emaj7 respectively

the melodies on those tunes on those sections are based on minor pentatonic scales on the first chord (Dm and D#m respectively), and that's what we see in the melody of ESP on the D and E (until we get to the Ebmaj7).

The sole difference is the chord quality of the D and E chords - 7#9 instead of m7. But melodically, they are doing the same job. Which is why I don't regard these chords as being parented by the altered scale in this case.

Melodically I find it interesting - Wayne's use of limited pitch sets over chords.

I've listened to some of his performances from last century that I was at.... and they don't sound great, but remember that in the moment and live ... the music felt and sounded perfect...LOL.

I remember that seeing him live. It was uncanny. He was plugged into something that doesn't go on a record.

[mr. beaumont]

7#9 is so ingrained in my head as a blues sound...I never hear it as altered...

Part of the allure of Wayne's tunes is despite the chords seeming like a puzzle at first, the melodies are always very strong. And sometimes playing right off those melodies is the best ticket in.

[James W]

I remember that seeing him live. It was uncanny. He was plugged into something that doesn't go on a record.

Agreed. The second time I saw him live I was much closer to the stage and able to appreciate how uniquely beautiful his sound really was.

[pamosmusic]

Jealous y’all got to see him.

I have seen Herbie once though, which was a similar vibe.

Solo … the stage had a grand piano, two keyboards, a drum pad, an iMac, and a keytar on it. It was incredible.

Honestly not sure it has ever been or will ever get better than the core of that miles second quintet. Herbie, Wayne, Ron Carter, Tony Williams. Can’t imagine being in the room with all four at the same time.

[James W]

Huh, my experience seeing Herbie was considerably compromised by the lousy acoustic situation where I was sitting in the Barbican. (Or perhaps it wasn't just for me?) His acoustic piano just didn't cut through the mix sufficiently. And it's not like I was far away from the stage.

[grahambop]

Saw the VSOP quintet (Herbie, Wayne, Ron, Tony and Freddie Hubbard) back in the 80s. Then saw the same band but with Wallace Roney replacing Freddie, when they did the tribute tour to Miles in the 90s.

So that was pretty cool!

Also saw Wayne with Weather Report once (post-Jaco).

[Christian Miller]

7#9 is so ingrained in my head as a blues sound...I never hear it as altered...

Part of the allure of Wayne's tunes is despite the chords seeming like a puzzle at first, the melodies are always very strong. And sometimes playing right off those melodies is the best ticket in.

you’ll often hear Wayne doing it for one…

[princeplanet]

In a way not much in there harmonically that's that far away from the GASB tbh

E7-Fmaj7 - well we have that in plenty of tunes from way back when, although GASB tunes would start on the F normally obviously
The fact that he solos on the whole tone like an old school musician cements that connection in my mind.

In fact the D-G-C quartal figure on the E7 does suggest an E7#9b13 tonality, which does not necessarily mean altered (ie the B natural isn't a given)
E7-Ebmaj7 - obvious, tritone sub
then this gubbins
Dm7 G7 Gm7 Gbmaj7#11 - a version of a II7-V7 with the last chord subbed for what I think of as the Bud Powell dominan
Db7#11 G7 Gm7 Dbm7 Gb7 Fmaj7 - sub of a bVI7 V7 I really

OK, so the most Wayne thing in it is this
D7#9 Ebmaj7 E7#9 Fmaj7 (Eb)

Which is not unlike moves he has in Speak no Evil and Deluge for instance. Cm7 Dbmaj7 and D#m7 Emaj7 respectively

the melodies on those tunes on those sections are based on minor pentatonic scales on the first chord (Dm and D#m respectively), and that's what we see in the melody of ESP on the D and E (until we get to the Ebmaj7).

The sole difference is the chord quality of the D and E chords - 7#9 instead of m7. But melodically, they are doing the same job. Which is why I don't regard these chords as being parented by the altered scale in this case.

Melodically I find it interesting - Wayne's use of limited pitch sets over chords.



I remember that seeing him live. It was uncanny. He was plugged into something that doesn't go on a record.

Thanks for this Christian, really appreciated. It confirms a suspicion that Wayne had one foot in the old school and one in the avant-garde sphere, from where he injected some of his
"Wayneisms". It's the latter that is more intriguing obviously, but it's the mixture of the 2 worlds which makes it all so listenable for my ears.

Man, those years between '59 and '66 ...

[Reg]

Yea... I would love to hear some other takes on tune. It's cool to actually play the tunes.

Personally I loved WS's tunes and playing because he was such a great composer. By that I mean... yea great melodic player, he could play old school melody over a harmonic configuration, changes, and stretch and embellish etc.... On top of ...On Top of the on top of etc... But obviously he was using Chord patterns and also embellishing them. As he said.... "the length of your tone.... discloses a lot".

McCoy's use of 4ths must have had an effect on ESP's melody.... LOL

[mr. beaumont]

Definitely down for a playing thread again.