Thinking theory

[pamosmusic]

Approaches and enclosures to chord tones. Also practice just winging it with chromatics. I winged it with chromatics on my No Mo clip. I suppose I could look for notes to add to the blues/mix scale.

What approaches and enclosures? What chord tones?

[pauln]

You know what I'm referring to*. 'Not aural skills.'

*"Theory is explanation or conceptualization or methodology for making music in dialect that is not music."

I think when you define theory as not aural skills, you are making a division like this...

... but maybe it's more like this...

... and if so, what would you call the overlap?

[Bobby Timmons]

^ Absolutely there's overlap of the 2 topics in practice, not in definition.

Peter: Well the main thing for me is to think of the sound I want to achieve and then try to convert that into what theory I need to use. I'm a heady guy, so regular jazz language over the blues comes naturally for me. The down home thing is harder for me so working on that I would have to figure out interesting material that still sounds bluesy to add to the basic blues vernacular.

[pamosmusic]

Peter: Well the main thing for me is to think of the sound I want to achieve and then try to convert that into what theory I need to use.

This sounds ....... very ear-oriented.

[Bobby Timmons]

Think so? I try. I started with theory only on bass. I could accompany a band by just theory-ing up everything. Then when I went to learn melody I was like errrrr. I realized I had to improve my ear. And recently I learned about technical skills. That was also a big hurdle.

[Christian Miller]

Is it possible to delete posts on Tapatalk?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Litterick]

Coincidentally, this morning I heard this item from NPR Morning Edition, about the rehearsal tapes for Take Five. It as an example of the difficulty of translating from theory to form, as the transcript demonstrates:


MICHEL MARTIN: That's Dave Brubeck's son, Chris. He says his dad in 1959 challenged his bandmate, saxophonist Paul Desmond, to write a song in that unfamiliar 5/4 time.
BRUBECK: And when they first went into the studio at Columbia Records, they tried to record "Take Five," and they couldn't get it. And they actually gave up after 40 minutes and said, this is just too strange for us, and we'll come back in a week. And that's when they came back on July 1 and did record the version that everyone knows around the world.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
UNIDENTIFIED MUSICAL ARTIST #1: Are we supposed to be leaving some hole in there? Open these drums?
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
...
UNIDENTIFIED MUSICAL ARTIST #2: They're a little cocky down here.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MUSICAL ARTIST #3: Forget it. I'll get it. One, two, three, four, five.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
UNIDENTIFIED MUSICAL ARTIST #3: No.
...
UNIDENTIFIED MUSICAL ARTIST #3: OK, try it again. That's great. This is all rehearsal.
UNIDENTIFIED MUSICAL ARTIST #2: Yeah, you're [expletive] right it is.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MUSICAL ARTIST #3: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MUSICAL ARTIST #2: And I'm not getting paid for it.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MUSICAL ARTIST #3: Here we go.

[Tal_175]

Let's make the discussion more concrete. Here is a litmus test of whether you are an "ear" player or a "theory" player.
What is your approach to secondary dominants in major keys and how did you arrive at that approach?

You'll encounter secondary dominants in most if not every standard. By approach I mean your choice of notes outside of the four chord tones both when playing lines and chord voicings. Did you ever organize your approach for secondary dominants when practicing tunes or do you just play tunes and whatever happens, happens?

[Tal_175]

I think different approaches to secondary dominants is one of the reasons why Gypsy jazz and swing jazz sound more inside and tonally cohesive than modern jazz (which is not a good or bad thing). If you make your note choices aurally, you probably sound more inside and "in the key" over these dominants then plugging in chord-scales.

Bach's approach to secondary dominants was also more "in the key" I think (although these concepts didn't exist theoretically).

[supersoul]

... and if so, what would you call the overlap?

I'd call the overlap being a musician.
Theory/aural skills is not an either/or proposition.

[pamosmusic]

Think so? I try. I started with theory only on bass. I could accompany a band by just theory-ing up everything. Then when I went to learn melody I was like errrrr. I realized I had to improve my ear. And recently I learned about technical skills. That was also a big hurdle.

So this is my chromatic approaches page in my crazy red practice binder



Theory cat.

[frabarmus]

I'd call the overlap being a musician.
Theory/aural skills is not an either/or proposition.

Right! The two are not necessairily in opposition, one does not necessairily deny/negate the other, it's more a matter of "doses" (and appropriate times of application)...
Personally, I need just the right amount of theory when I'm studying or practicing and just the right amount of "lack of theory" when I'm playing/performing...

I've learned to play by ear at first... and enjoyed the benefits of theoretical knowledge later on. I find music theory a little more "abstract" than actually playing music, but I also enjoy "figuring out" musical materials, especially if/when I love something I've just played (or heard)...

[pamosmusic]

Let's make the discussion more concrete. Here is a litmus test of whether you are an "ear" player or a "theory" player.
What is your approach to secondary dominants in major keys and how did you arrive at that approach?

You'll encounter secondary dominants in most if not every standard. By approach I mean your choice of notes outside of the four chord tones both when playing lines and chord voicings. Did you ever organize your approach for secondary dominants when practicing tunes or do you just play tunes and whatever happens, happens?

So I frame a lot of my practicing around upper structure triads because they open up a lot of interesting sounds but it’s super easy to apply whatever existing vocabulary I have to the shapes.

I’ll take the dominant and think about what sound I want, 9#11, 7b9, b5b9 or whatever. I’ll grab the chord scale and start choosing upper structures, usually starting on the root and going up in thirds.

I have a framework for this … dominant going to a major position in the key and I’ll start w dominant off the root or the melodic minor off the fifth. If it’s going to a minor position in the key, then I start w dominant up a m3 or TT minor.*

(example: in All of Me the E7 goes to A7 … it’s resolving to a dominant chord but that’s still the vi of the key so I’m starting w the dominant to minor sounds. Ditto the A7 to D7. The D7 to G7 I’m starting w dominant to major sounds. This is absolutely NOT a rule. Just a starting place based on the sounds I hear and like a preponderance of the time)

I might take a short lick as a jumping off point, like maybe the first bar of Au Privave, since that’s easy to apply to a triad.

So for a Eo A7 Dm … I might want to explore the altered scale thing and I’ll tinker with

Ao to Dm
Cm to Dm
Eb to Dm
Go to Dm
Bbm to Dm
Db+ to Dm
F to Dm

I’ll keep coming back to ones I like. And over time I’ve whittled down the possibilities but I’ve noticed when I pass through all these possibilities I feel a lot looser and more free with the sounds generally.

* I have found the BH applications to be more effective. So rather than looking for different mode sounds, I work a similar process but choose from dominant off the root, up a m3, or up a TT, and minor and TT minor.

I also really like to use Jordan Klemons’s quadrads in place of the triads.

This is an absolute bastardization of his quadrads that we would not endorse, for whatever that’s worth. Probably ditto for the BH stuff.

THEORY CAT

[pamosmusic]

So to anyone who thinks I’m “mad at theory” or whatever, I suppose you can just meet me in hell.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

THEORY CAT

[Bobby Timmons]

I'd call the overlap being a musician. Theory/aural skills are not an either/or proposition.

Right! The two are not necessarily in opposition, one does not necessarily deny/negate the other, it's more a matter of 'doses' and appropriate times of application.

Exactly

So to anyone who thinks I’m 'mad at theory' or whatever, I suppose you can just meet me in hell.

[Tal_175]

So I frame a lot of my practicing around upper structure triads because they open up a lot of interesting sounds but it’s super easy to apply whatever existing vocabulary I have to the shapes.

I’ll take the dominant and think about what sound I want, 9#11, 7b9, b5b9 or whatever. I’ll grab the chord scale and start choosing upper structures, usually starting on the root and going up in thirds.

I have a framework for this … dominant going to a major position in the key and I’ll start w dominant off the root or the melodic minor off the fifth. If it’s going to a minor position in the key, then I start w dominant up a m3 or TT minor.*

(example: in All of Me the E7 goes to A7 … it’s resolving to a dominant chord but that’s still the vi of the key so I’m starting w the dominant to minor sounds. Ditto the A7 to D7. The D7 to G7 I’m starting w dominant to major sounds. This is absolutely NOT a rule. Just a starting place based on the sounds I hear and like a preponderance of the time)

I might take a short lick as a jumping off point, like maybe the first bar of Au Privave, since that’s easy to apply to a triad.

So for a Eo A7 Dm … I might want to explore the altered scale thing and I’ll tinker with

Ao to Dm
Cm to Dm
Eb to Dm
Go to Dm
Bbm to Dm
Db+ to Dm
F to Dm

I’ll keep coming back to ones I like. And over time I’ve whittled down the possibilities but I’ve noticed when I pass through all these possibilities I feel a lot looser and more free with the sounds generally.

* I have found the BH applications to be more effective. So rather than looking for different mode sounds, I work a similar process but choose from dominant off the root, up a m3, or up a TT, and minor and TT minor.

I also really like to use Jordan Klemons’s quadrads in place of the triads.

This is an absolute bastardization of his quadrads that we would not endorse, for whatever that’s worth. Probably ditto for the BH stuff.

THEORY CAT

Cool. Barry Harris style line construction, triads and other similar ideas are also how I "mine" ideas from scales.

You gave the example of All of Me. Let's take the 3rd and 4th bar, E7. We are in Cmaj (which is also the chord in the first two bars). I presume you'd also use altered scale ideas (F melodic minor)?

But there is the problem. The melody outlines the Emaj triad. So you have a perfect 5th. If you use the altered scale, you don't have the perfect 5th. If you use the plain E dominant scale, you're adding two additional outside notes to the key (F# and C#). Of course you don't have to worry about the melody note (or outside the key notes) when soloing but if you choose a soloing approach that reflects the compositional elements of the tune and make lines by ear you'd probably play different extensions over E7. Try it if you don't believe me.

That's an interesting tension I find. Throwing language at chords vs hearing your way through the note choices. In this case you'll probably find A harmonic minor (ie E phrygian dominant) to be the more natural sound in the tune. But if you are more conversant with the altered scale or TT dominant (like I am), then the tendency is to rely on strong phrases rather than harmonic conformance.

[pamosmusic]

You gave the example of All of Me. Let's take the 3rd and 4th bar, E7. We are in Cmaj (which is also the chord in the first two bars). I presume you'd also use altered scale ideas (F melodic minor)?

Okay so to quote back the post.

I have a framework for this … dominant going to a major position in the key and I’ll start w dominant off the root or the melodic minor off the fifth. If it’s going to a minor position in the key, then I start w dominant up a m3 or TT minor.*

(example: in All of Me the E7 goes to A7 … it’s resolving to a dominant chord but that’s still the vi of the key so I’m starting w the dominant to minor sounds. Ditto the A7 to D7. The D7 to G7 I’m starting w dominant to major sounds. This is absolutely NOT a rule. Just a starting place based on the sounds I hear and like a preponderance of the time)

So note the all caps where I said that it is “NOT a rule.” I think these are the sounds I hear a preponderance of the time. By which I mean probably the barest majority of the time. 7b9 and various combinations of altered fifth. Which is to say that other sounds are fairly common too, if maybe a little less so. 9#5 or b13 over a VI7 chord for example. 13b9 is pretty common in a lot of situations.

But there is the problem. The melody outlines the Emaj triad. So you have a perfect 5th. If you use the altered scale, you don't have the perfect 5th.

I don’t really see this as a problem at all. Again it’s another good starting point but not one that people adhere to with any regularity in practice. I was having this discussion exactly with Christian and he immediately found an example of Sonny Stitt playing loads of prominent B naturals over the A7 in bars 5-6, where the melody clearly has a Bb.

So not terribly concerned with that.

If you use the plain E dominant scale, you're adding two additional outside notes to the key (F# and C#). Of course you don't have to worry about the melody note (or outside the key notes) when soloing but if you choose a soloing approach that reflects the compositional elements of the tune and make lines by ear you'd probably play different extensions over E7. Try it if you don't believe me.

Dont need to try it. Have tried it. Dont need to believe you. Believe it already.

Like I said, the sounds I mentioned are starting points and very much not rules. Also note that they’re kind of context neutral. Examples of tunes where the melodies run counter to these sounds are everywhere … the second chord in My Ideal. Bars 7-8 of Out of Nowhere. Bars 7-8 of a fair many Parker blueses. Etc etc. those are good things to know but generally not something that governs how people improvise over the tune in the wild.

I’m generally thinking more about the shape of the form and direction of resolutions … the manner of and dissonance in the tension chord is kind of up to the improviser. Though for what it’s worth, I think I err on the side of more inside sounds and outside sounds are extremely dependent on the voiceleading.

In this case you'll probably find A harmonic minor (ie E phrygian dominant) to be the more natural sound in the tune. But if you are more conversant with the altered scale or TT dominant (like I am), then the tendency is to rely on strong phrases rather than harmonic conformance.

The first thing I mentioned in this context was dominant up a m3 which is a synonym for that harmonic minor sound you mention.

[pamosmusic]

For what it’s worth, when I’m working with students, I usually teach them to just outline the bare changes using triads and use notes from the parent scale to embellish when they’re ready for that.

Introducing these other sounds very very gradually, usually on characteristic progressions and using super simple plug and play things if at all possible.

[Christian Miller]

I think the sort of thing I have in mind when I say ‘theory’ is the kind of videos you get from people like Rick Beato ‘What makes this song great’ when he tells you Kurt Cobain wrote a great melody because it has the extensions of chords in it. This is music appreciation via arithmetic.

(And I can’t help but notice the evaluation of an ‘incredibly great melody’ is done in terms of harmony. This is classic jazz boi energy.)

Most people here are talking about stuff they can do to make music, which is usually the thing that interests me, not music appreciation or musicology.

If this is the case, the important thing is to try and ground things a little in the process of making music. So if I analyse a piece of music I try to do so in a plausibly practical way. That’s subjective of course, and what seems plausible to me might seem different to someone else, but it’s a good guideline. A degree of flexibility and common sense goes a long way.

So from what know of his approach to music, Cobain thinking about extensions of the chords when writing the tune is unlikely. It is of course interesting that they are objectively there for whatever reason and Rick obviously isn’t wrong for saying it. But I wouldn’t see that as especially relevant to the composers process, and it might not help you write similar melodies. I would also hesitate that this is what ‘makes this song great’. I don’t think music is objectively assessible in this way. We can’t assess Beethoven in the same way as we assess Bach, let alone jazz or rock music.

In that vein I try to keep things anchored to something that at least feels practical and connected to how a musician may have conceptualised things (which is questionable of course). So I think Cobain in the verse of Smells like Teen Spirit has a bluesy melody here using mostly minor pentatonic notes but adding a very striking 9th/2nd of the key at the end of the line. He may not have known the names of the notes even, but I feel he would have recognised the coolness of that 9th, and that this was a key aesthetic choice to include it.

For a jazz example, I’d rather think of the melodic line in bar 4 of conformation to be a blues lick than a Bb7b9 arpeggio, because that feels more connected to what I suspect bird was doing musically (but both interpretations check out and it’s interesting that the blues lick has that harmonic aspect to it.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Someone mentioned secondary dominants. I couldn’t even remember what that means. Looked it up, oh, just those old shoes?

[jameslovestal]

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Someone mentioned secondary dominants. I couldn’t even remember what that means. Looked it up, oh, just those old shoes?

We're the Orange Wig Republicans of Bebop. Which explains why we are mad @ theory. Which is felony.

[pauln]

Someone mentioned secondary dominants. I couldn’t even remember what that means. Looked it up, oh, just those old shoes?

I looked it up on YouTube...

Old Shoes [Gary Smith, Jazz Guitar]
Old Shoes [Mauricio Smith, Jazz for Kids]
Old Tennis Shoes [Jan Akkerman, Jazz Fusion]
Old Socks New Shoes – New Socks Old Shoes [The Jazz Crusaders]

edit... wait, you looked up secondary dominant; I know what those are, didn't know what the old shoes was about...

[rpjazzguitar]

The longest threads tend to focus on some term that is not adequately defined. That is, people define it how they will and argue about it with people who define it some other way.

Which I believe is true about theory. In a past thread it was stated that players who claimed to play only by ear and know nothing about theory, actually, according to some, knew lots of theory. I can't resolve that, but it certainly seems that there's no agreement on the definition of knowing theory.

Recently, we've been posting about post-hoc analysis of solos.

It occurred to that if I posted a transcript of an error filled solo, part of which sounded good and part of which didn't, the following might happen.

The errors would be analyzed as if the notes were intentional. There would probably be no comment about which parts sounded good and which didn't. There would be minimal comment about the rhythms being employed, even though they are critical.

In the end I could read the analyses as if a disinterested party since I would have little or no idea about what I was thinking when I played it.

The kinds of thoughts that go through my mind when soloing over a tune I know well are things like "quieter", "louder", "whisper", "leave space", "fill space", "more drama", "build", "palm mute for the next section", "go to chords", "higher pitch", "slide down to particular sound, so I get it with a gliss in front", "quote melody". If the drummer is interacting, it might be "copy drum lick and wait for response".

When it's stuff like "X scale against whatever" the solo usually gets worse.