The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Posts 226 to 250 of 268
  1. #226

    User Info Menu

    I'm perfectly willing to accept that my problem is that I haven't grasped the theories we're discussing.

    But, at this point, I understand the explanation that this chord or that one is from modal interchange, borrowing, parallel or relative.
    So, as I understand it, for example, if I start with C major I can "borrow" or "interchange" chords from Cminor or Aminor or maybe other choices. Most of the websites have tables of possibilities. And tunes do this all the time.

    But, the tables I see include lots of choices, not all of which are usable. Meaning, you first have to figure out what sounds good and then, afterward, you can "explain" what happened.

    The explanation, it seems, may help you figure out how to solo over the changes.

    Of course, I get stuck again. That Cm7. It's the ivm from Gm. It's the iim from the Relative Major, so why not C Dorian? Why C phrygian? For that matter, it's the vim in Eb which relates to the Cm or the Gm in different ways. So, it's a iim iiim or vim, which is exactly what I learned from Warren Nunes years ago. I suppose, I need to consider melodic and harmonic minor as well.

    So, where I end up is it's a Cm7. That gives me 4 chord tones. I probably don't want an E. F# is unlikely or the composer would have put it in the chord name. That's a total of 6 notes. B is iffy, so maybe that's 7 notes I can account for without any theory.

    I have to listen to the sound of the various possible 6ths and 7ths and b9. From that, I can decide which notes I like. In fact, I can do it by ear, on the fly, by listening to the pianist play the chord. I'm only talking about Db D F Ab and A and that includes the 11 and the 9, which are usually consonant.

    I know somebody is going to explain what I'm missing and when they do, I hope it's in simple declarative sentences with examples written out in specific keys.
    Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 12-03-2019 at 12:06 AM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #227

    User Info Menu

    Yea RP... the best way to really understand theory, or harmony is to go through the process of notating out the different results from different borrowing from relative and parallel minor. And then Modal interchange, you seem to like the process of hearing and deciding what sounds good, and them that becoming part of your ears. What you can hear and accept.

    Which is probable normal ? I don't know. I trust my ears also... but I also trust my mind and can easily teach my ears to hear what I might not be aware of. I still may not "like it" but generally with time, I do. The other thing... I went through all this BS over 40 years ago... I apologize for being satirical way too much.... there is just a lot more material to cover before one generally starts to decide what's right, wrong, good or bad.

    The door opened for me when as a kid, I discovered functional organization from an arranger/ composer perspective. Which can become an approach for improv.

    One of my gigs is in east bay later in week, Sun. 5-9pm, come sit in and play some tunes. The rhythm section is pretty burnin... just standards... well some modern standards. We can talk and I'll play any example you want... PM me if your free.

  4. #228

    User Info Menu

    I have no idea what’s going on in Ana Maria (oh hang, modal interchange, modal references, extended functional tonality or whatever it is Reg normally says, blue notes) but this makes sense to a jazzer.
    I still trust ears only.
    Whether it is Beethoven (where I know theory very well) or Wayne Shorter (where I have no idea about theory).

    I believe for me the best way is to pick it up by ear.

    the most important thing for me taht I hear it as in integral form with some changes in character - some development, climax... that means I hear relations (but it can be wrong -- I could be intuitively applying the realtions of the language I feel more 'native'... if so you cannot help it comciously, it may change one day - or it may not).

    As for how it all came up --- I think it was 'loosening' traditional relations in general... jazz extentions in harmony were mostly triadic - it brought in many purely consonat colourful harmonie (the same thing as happend with impressionist)... these harmonies become more and more 'entities per se' --- if we speak about meanings in functional tonality in general there is no chord, there is only function represented by chord.
    But in that case the chord itself becomes more and more meaningful entity... which is not dependent that much on a context... even dissonances become very smooth because they are not aimed to release mainly... they form the 'clusters' that make each its own meaning in that language (I speak very generally of course).

    Supposedly another hierarchy and realtions should be coming up there eventually...

    I remember times when I did not dig taht music at all --- but I never thought it was complex))) --- it seemed to me very arbitrary how the choices were made... whatever the choice is it sounds approximately the same... in a word: I did not distinguish a language there...

    Now I hear it in a different way... I hear much more determination there and I distinguish defferent solutions...

    Today I hear more as a mix of 'modality and tonality' - -- not in traditional sense... just meaning modal linear melodic tools (like it was in early modality): motives, intonation, repetitions, intervals as meaningful elements... combined with very intensive vertical harmony...

    I suspect he wrote really good melodies that kind of wander about in interesting ways and cool rhythmic hooks and backs them up with funny chords that sound right to him...
    It could be, Christian... but I probably imply more instensive meaning to music in general so I naturally suppose it in any music I like...
    Even if he played melodies first - his tunes sound like 'chord-melody' --- every note is a chord.


    As a contrasting and (paradoxally maybe) more traditional way of thinking there is Ornette Coleman...
    he is closer to me becasue however loose he gets it he stays within 'my language'...
    And with hin I really think that he was almost purely melodic linear lentality (this is real modality maybe... the same stuff happend in classical tradition- everything got reduced to motive then to intonatio.. and finally even to just speach).

  5. #229

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    You really think he wrote that melody first.?
    I think he writes most if not all of his melodies first. It’s motivic, well balanced and actually exhibits many of the virtues of traditional melodic composition.

    Not quite a smoking gun, but very suggestive.... it’s also reharmonised from the first and second times if you listen - same melody, different chords.

    What makes you think he wrote the chord progression first?

    As Miles said, Wayne is a real composer. Real composers start with melody then write the bass, or conceive of everything together which may well be the case with Wayne. Poor composers (like me haha, but I’m getting better) melodicise chord progressions. I certainly don’t hear Wayne doing that, unlike a lot of modern jazz ‘composition.’

    Even if you don’t buy this, I find that Wayne’s melodies certainly sell his compositions, make them memorable and hip. Listen to the man solo and you will hear melodic quotation and variation all the time. I cant see how anyone could miss this?

    I suspect the focus has always been on the chords with Wayne because jazz musicians are obsessed with blowing on on tunes rather than appreciating them as pieces of music. Even something as lightweight as Footprints as a master miniature, developing its initial melodic material in a highly imaginative way. The reharmonisation of a minor blues is also, for me, a window into his compositional technique.

    Hey even if I’m ‘wrong’, exploring this side of things will certainly be more interesting than doing the usual spaff most jazzers do on these songs. Not that spaff can’t be great, it’s just everyone does it. I don’t know about you, but I understand musical analysis as an exercise of the imagination and a search for alternative ideas that can open up creativity...

    (I always liked the comment by a friend, a clarinetist who specialises in exactly recreating 20s jazz (but loves John scofield randomly) when he was listening to some contemporary jazz record ‘why so many notes? It’s inane.’)

    Wayne is not inane. Although sometimes I find his playing sort of humorous or droll or just very human and almost deliberately flawed. (Just one note for 8 bars? Ok. What possessed you to play that on an orchestral Joni Mitchell number you absolute nutter? And so on.... But I love his late music, quite a few I have spoken to don’t.)

    I respect Kurts approach on Ana Maria - check it out, he is super restrained and just plays the composition. And he is a master of CST spaff lol.

    Kurts a great melody writer too.
    Last edited by christianm77; 12-03-2019 at 05:40 AM.

  6. #230

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    I still trust ears only.
    Whether it is Beethoven (where I know theory very well) or Wayne Shorter (where I have no idea about theory).

    I believe for me the best way is to pick it up by ear.

    the most important thing for me taht I hear it as in integral form with some changes in character - some development, climax... that means I hear relations (but it can be wrong -- I could be intuitively applying the realtions of the language I feel more 'native'... if so you cannot help it comciously, it may change one day - or it may not).

    As for how it all came up --- I think it was 'loosening' traditional relations in general... jazz extentions in harmony were mostly triadic - it brought in many purely consonat colourful harmonie (the same thing as happend with impressionist)... these harmonies become more and more 'entities per se' --- if we speak about meanings in functional tonality in general there is no chord, there is only function represented by chord.
    But in that case the chord itself becomes more and more meaningful entity... which is not dependent that much on a context... even dissonances become very smooth because they are not aimed to release mainly... they form the 'clusters' that make each its own meaning in that language (I speak very generally of course).

    Supposedly another hierarchy and realtions should be coming up there eventually...

    I remember times when I did not dig taht music at all --- but I never thought it was complex))) --- it seemed to me very arbitrary how the choices were made... whatever the choice is it sounds approximately the same... in a word: I did not distinguish a language there...

    Now I hear it in a different way... I hear much more determination there and I distinguish defferent solutions...

    Today I hear more as a mix of 'modality and tonality' - -- not in traditional sense... just meaning modal linear melodic tools (like it was in early modality): motives, intonation, repetitions, intervals as meaningful elements... combined with very intensive vertical harmony...



    It could be, Christian... but I probably imply more instensive meaning to music in general so I naturally suppose it in any music I like...
    Even if he played melodies first - his tunes sound like 'chord-melody' --- every note is a chord.


    As a contrasting and (paradoxally maybe) more traditional way of thinking there is Ornette Coleman...
    he is closer to me becasue however loose he gets it he stays within 'my language'...
    And with hin I really think that he was almost purely melodic linear lentality (this is real modality maybe... the same stuff happend in classical tradition- everything got reduced to motive then to intonatio.. and finally even to just speach).
    It might be interesting as an exercise to take ornette tunes and harmonise then ala Wayne.

    OTOH Wayne did play in the biggest Ornette tribute group of all time, the second Miles Davis quintet.

  7. #231

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    ... Pretty tonal easy to hear harmony version

    here is another


    And of course here is the most viewed version
    Thanks for these. I really like Nelson Veras’s version.

  8. #232

    User Info Menu

    Well that clears a few thing up... yea I consider analysis part of basic musicianship and generally part of performing jazz.
    Have you played ana's theme by it's self... it's on the edge of being random notes.

    And sure when the harmony is vanilla basically always the same with embellishments, you usually compose themes, melodies and go through that 12 step process.

    But even when the harmony is established or just implied.... well there you go, it's already there. Once you have more than one note, you have harmony. Melodies don't have references without harmony. A 7th isn't a 7th without harmony.

    I do get it... your traditional old school dance band jazz, swing and bebop. I also dig that style of music. Fun to perform and generally very audience friendly, which is a good thing. Shorter's tunes don't fall into that category.
    All good...how many Shorter tune do you perform? I've played through most of them and have 8 big band chart arrangements, ton's of small ensemble arrangements. (2-4 horns and rhy).

    Definitely not for beginners or good players not aware of modern jazz harmony.

  9. #233

    User Info Menu

    Melodies don't have references without harmony.
    For this specific case (and for most of jazz and cclassical) I agree.
    But in general there are styles and musical laguages where all references are purely melodic through in linear intervals or rythmic patterns or repetions etc.

    I do get it... your traditional old school dance band jazz, swing and bebop. I also dig that style of music. Fun to perform and generally very audience friendly, which is a good thing. Shorter's tunes don't fall into that category.
    All good...how many Shorter tune do you perform? I've played through most of them and have 8 big band chart arrangements, ton's of small ensemble arrangements. (2-4 horns and rhy).

    This is hard to argue, there is nothing better than intensive practical experience.




    Definitely not for beginners or good players not aware of modern jazz harmony
    This is where I at least partly disagree... the thing is we never really know. Creating arts of course have technology and may require technical skills but perception of art - not really. This is very specific thing about art that it is not rocket science.
    We may have all the background with education and knowledge and there is always a chance that there would be a novice who dig it without it all.
    Of course for performing you would need skills and some background.
    But again you never know... this formula 'not for beginners' is wrong imho... it presumes that beginners will not get, that it is complicated but there is nothing really complicated in it and if you take a guy whose parents listned to a lot of such music he would probably feel quite comfortable with it...
    Last edited by Jonah; 12-04-2019 at 02:51 AM.

  10. #234

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    Well that clears a few thing up... yea I consider analysis part of basic musicianship and generally part of performing jazz.
    Have you played ana's theme by it's self... it's on the edge of being random notes.
    No it’s not.

    And sure when the harmony is vanilla basically always the same with embellishments, you usually compose themes, melodies and go through that 12 step process.

    But even when the harmony is established or just implied.... well there you go, it's already there. Once you have more than one note, you have harmony. Melodies don't have references without harmony. A 7th isn't a 7th without harmony.

    I do get it... your traditional old school dance band jazz, swing and bebop. I also dig that style of music. Fun to perform and generally very audience friendly, which is a good thing. Shorter's tunes don't fall into that category.
    All good...how many Shorter tune do you perform? I've played through most of them and have 8 big band chart arrangements, ton's of small ensemble arrangements. (2-4 horns and rhy).

    Definitely not for beginners or good players not aware of modern jazz harmony.
    You are such a troll lol. Or if you are serious - Get over yourself dude.

  11. #235

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    For this specific case (and for most of jazz and cclassical) I agree.
    But in general there are styles and musical laguages where all references are purely melodic through in linear intervals or rythmic patterns or repetions etc.
    One such is Middle Eastern music and there’s a lot of ME jazz fusion out there. Harmony is on many ways a very limited prism to view music through. It’s useful, but there are others.

    This is hard to argue, there is nothing better than intensive practical experience.
    [COLOR=#000000][FONT=&quot]
    Sure I’ve never played a Wayne tune on a gig. Holy shit. :-)

    Look: People do like to put you in a box don’t they? Sometimes I feel it was a mistake getting into the old stuff, as that does affect people’s perceptions of you, but I do honestly think it’s given me an interesting perspective. I get very interested in commonalities, not differences.

    But the melody thing - look Peter Bernstein is one of my favourites ok? And that’s what he teaches. Reg thinks he’s ‘vanilla’ or something lol.

    So I don’t actually need a forum to validate these ideas. But I would like to expose people to them as I found them very helpful. It took me years to realise that Jazz is not the study of chord symbols. And I was pretty good at realising chord symbols and playing lots and lots of notes. (And not much else)

    I think there’s also a difference in priority here. I want to get inside these tunes, understand them, and understand how Wayne improvises because I love the way he plays (playfully!). Reg is I think more interested in practical skills. Covering, playing the gig well and getting repeat calls. This is super important of course.

    But what constitutes that practical skill set actually varies from player to player. Some are scales guys, some are not. It’s all good. Most modern players have a knowledge of what reg quaintly calls ‘modern jazz theory’ but everyone gets taught that stuff. It doesn’t mean they apply that directly.

    Look at Jordan! He sounds pretty contemporary to me. I hope Reg wouldn’t mind me saying that he sounds much more modern than Reg does. Reg does the whole turbo Wes thing and it’s great, swings like hell, super chops, great vibe and energy...

    Jordan is coming out of (to my ears) Peter Bernstein, Lage Lund, Bill Evans... restrained, considered, highly melodic in a sometimes unconventional way. Very clear, but colourful harmonies....
    Last edited by christianm77; 12-03-2019 at 11:17 AM.

  12. #236

    User Info Menu



    If Peter is vanilla, fetch me my ice cream, I don’t need no pistachio

  13. #237

    User Info Menu

    All good, Turbo Wes thing, I like it. Playing modern somewhat depends on Gig and the reference for modern. I dig Jordon's playing and approaches... and if the organizations behind Jordon's playing are what your talking about, well yea, he seems to use different approaches for controlling Function, or at least the voicings and note collections.

    The melody harmony/ debate, I don't know. I believe I've always said.... it's all going on all the time, Melody is one of many.

    Are you saying Shorter's music isn't about harmony? Vanilla isn't a bad thing, at least I hope... I'm very vanilla most of the time. And yea... I do like pushing buttons. It does get things out there...LOL

    Yea Jonah... The beginner thing was in reference to the section, where this thread is going on.

  14. #238

    User Info Menu

    Yea love that vid. Scott's good man. So is the tune modern... maybe. ABA with "A"s being 14 bars, fun tune to play. I arranged for BB many moons ago. Always dig Golson's tunes, but is it the tune or the soloing that works for you. Probable the intervallic thing. So if you notated out the solo... would the changes be the same, or would there be re-harms. If you transcribed the solo and voiced with notes below, would they be the same changes with embellishments or would you add and change harmony.

  15. #239

    User Info Menu

    An aside: I heard Scott Colley with Luciana Souza and Chico Pinheiro in SF and was blown away by Scott (I'd heard the others before).

    Then, went to hear him at Mezzrow with Kenny Werner.

    He's an amazing bassist and I can't recommend him highly enough.

  16. #240

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    An aside: I heard Scott Colley with Luciana Souza and Chico Pinheiro in SF and was blown away by Scott (I'd heard the others before).

    Then, went to hear him at Mezzrow with Kenny Werner.

    He's an amazing bassist and I can't recommend him highly enough.
    I heard him with Jim Hall and with Pat Martino. Great player.

    John

  17. #241

    User Info Menu

    In European tradition I would say that melody is one of the possible impersonification of harmony.

    In that tradition great players - play melody (even if they conduct a symphonic orchestra), great composers compose melody (even if this is Webern)...

    But it does not mean there is no reference to harmony.

    Mozartian themes or Duke Ellingtons theme --- they already contain information of their possible harmonization (or re-harmonization)... probably Bach's fugue's themes are at teh top of it - they contain the whole harmonic plan of the on-coming fugue).

    With melodies like Wyane's it is a bit subtle thing... Reg says that without harmony the sound like 'random notes' - I understand what he means...

    But Christian disagrees and I understand that too... I can more or less imagin how that kind of tune can be refered to as pure linear modality that has no harmonic reference (like it was in Gregorian chants for example).

    I personally tend to hear it as harmonic but again I do not insist on it...

  18. #242

    User Info Menu

    Modern jazz harmony with monster player/educator Jerry Bergonzi.


  19. #243

    User Info Menu

    yea... I also like tune... was called a lot back in 70's.
    And again modern is? The use of different organization for creating Function. The organization for harmonic movement. Inner Urge obviously is Modal and uses modal cycles. So if you think of one chord to represent Joe.... would it be Lydian, maj7#11. Which opened his relative door to Dorian and then the pentatonics.(blues and MM) And maybe with Wayne.... the Lydian Aug door.

    Anyway great tune. I still love Joe's 1st tune... Recorda-me.

  20. #244

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    yea... I also like tune... was called a lot back in 70's.
    And again modern is? The use of different organization for creating Function. The organization for harmonic movement. Inner Urge obviously is Modal and uses modal cycles. So if you think of one chord to represent Joe.... would it be Lydian, maj7#11. Which opened his relative door to Dorian and then the pentatonics.(blues and MM) And maybe with Wayne.... the Lydian Aug door.

    Anyway great tune. I still love Joe's 1st tune... Recorda-me.
    Inner Urge got called at my local jam recently. Good thing I wasn't on the stand. I guess this why why god made saxophonists. I'll take Record-a-Me.

    John

  21. #245

    User Info Menu

    when we talk about melody and harmony, it is good to have in mind the history of music, the passage of ancient modes and plain-song to temperament : temperate music destroys these differences between modes, even though composers are used to finding different feelings with different tonality

    same thing when talking about modes, especially with greek names as if temperamental modes had the same heights as greek modes

    what justified the need for harmony, in other words after the counterpoint, chords, and this with increasing complexity from the 17th to 19th and 20th centuries, is to restore to the melodic notes the weight of meaning and feelings that they had in old modes

    therefore, in addition to the Western cultural habit of no longer hearing a melody without harmony, we are inclined to appreciate the two inseparably

    it can be noted that the simpler the melody, for example the blues, the more it requires a rich treatment of sound, timbre (e.g. BB King, Santana...). They thus find a quality "vocal" lost with the Art music and beautifully found by blues and jazz singers

    sorry to impose sanctities, and the horrible images in this video, but at that time without the good god, no music

  22. #246

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Reg
    yea... I also like tune... was called a lot back in 70's.
    And again modern is? The use of different organization for creating Function. The organization for harmonic movement. Inner Urge obviously is Modal and uses modal cycles. So if you think of one chord to represent Joe.... would it be Lydian, maj7#11. Which opened his relative door to Dorian and then the pentatonics.(blues and MM) And maybe with Wayne.... the Lydian Aug door.

    Anyway great tune. I still love Joe's 1st tune... Recorda-me.
    still gets called a lot.

    i like maj7#9#11 on those chords. Heard Adam Rogers doing it

  23. #247
    joelf Guest
    I doubt any harmony is new. What makes it 'modern' is trends, usage at a point in musical history.

    When I went through Tom Harrell's Sail Away I thought 'a Major 7 #5--cool. But where did Tom get it from? My guess: Jobim---he was using those years ago. Where did he get it from? Perhaps a classical composer, since he did have that background.

    Evolution...

  24. #248

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by joelf
    When I went through Tom Harrell's Sail Away I thought 'a Major 7 #5--cool. But where did Tom get it from? My guess: Jobim---he was using those years ago. Where did he get it from? Perhaps a classical composer, since he did have that background.
    as for the X79#1113, one wonders why the invention is attributed to Bartok (lydian b7...), since it was already found in Scriabine's Prometheus: The Poem of Fire, 1910, and Debussy ...
    "Synthetic or Mystic Chord" (sic, mythical chord ?) With Scriabine, we talk about Acoustic Scale

  25. #249
    joelf Guest
    Then there's this: 2 diminished 7th chords played a 4th apart. Jazzers use it as a 5 chord. It came from classical composers, who had an entirely different usage in mind.

    Don't ask me what it was, though (LOL). I ain't no egghead...

  26. #250

    User Info Menu

    The harmonic use of that scale I usually credit to Messiaen, but be interested if it shows up earlier? I think Rimsky Korsakov used it earlier but melodically, and Stravinsky has the Petroushka chord (two major triads a tritone apart) which belongs to it.

    be interested to know the history of it in jazz. Obv if you do a LNT thing on a dim7 chord, you get that.... but how did it take off as a concept I wonder, and when?

    just curious. Sort of thing doesn’t bother most people haha