Experiment

[ragman1]

I believe a major 3rd over an m7 chord and major 7th over a Dom.7th chord are considered "avoid" notes, I don't know if the term is synonymous with "tension" notes. But tension notes that don't resolve, as in your second measure (in particular, but actually throughout the piece) are something I wish to avoid, because my aim is to play elegant melodic lines.

Okay, but elegant melodic lines wouldn't come under premise of the thread which, as I understand it, is to make a challenge, a puzzle we're supposed to solve.

(Re. my 2nd bar, it's very simple.



There are two chords, DM7 and Eb7 (because I'm disregarding the ii). The F# is diatonic to DM7, being the 3rd. The Eb goes with the Eb7, obviously.

Then it leaps to a high D which, I agree, produces a ghastly tension with the Eb7. But it resolves to the AbM7 in the next bar where it becomes the #11 of that chord. That's an acceptable extension and therefore a resolution. M7#11 chords are nice and there are several videos about them on YouTube.

The other chord in that bar is C7 and I'm playing C# and E natural. That makes the C7 into C7alt. C# is the b9 and E is the 3rd. But I play it slightly before the actual chord sounds, of course. And that resolves into FM7 in the next bar, not shown).

[pamosmusic]

Whoa whoa whoa, i am ALWAYS elegant

[ragman1]

I am occasionally elegant... by accident, usually

[Mick-7]

Okay, but elegant melodic lines wouldn't come under premise of the thread which, as I understand it, is to make a challenge, a puzzle we're supposed to solve.

(Re. my 2nd bar, it's very simple.



There are two chords, DM7 and Eb7 (because I'm disregarding the ii). The F# is diatonic to DM7, being the 3rd. The Eb goes with the Eb7, obviously.

Then it leaps to a high D which, I agree, produces a ghastly tension with the Eb7. But it resolves to the AbM7 in the next bar where it becomes the #11 of that chord. That's an acceptable extension and therefore a resolution. M7#11 chords are nice and there are several videos about them on YouTube.

The other chord in that bar is C7 and I'm playing C# and E natural. That makes the C7 into C7alt. C# is the b9 and E is the 3rd. But I play it slightly before the actual chord sounds, of course. And that resolves into FM7 in the next bar, not shown).

But did you play a AbM7#11? (didn't notice). If not, the note never actually resolved, plus you leaned on it, so I hear tension without resolution. Your second example of a resolution (C7b9 > FM7) is delayed too, so apparently we have different conceptions of what tension/resolution means. My understanding is that a tension note is best resolved to a neighboring chord tone, say D to Db or Eb over a Eb7 chord, not to a distant chord tone in the next chord, i.e., the resolution should be clearly heard, not vaguely hinted at.

[ragman1]

But did you play a AbM7#11?

No, just the straight one. But there's no need for it to be a #11, one can impose extensions on non-extended chords. And alterations too. It's a fallacy to think you must only improvise using the chord in the lead sheet.

the note never actually resolved

It didn't need to resolve, it was an extension, not an alteration. Also it was a M7 chord rather than, say, a dominant. Dominants like to resolve, except in blues forms probably. M7's tend to be quite happy where they are.

Your second example of a resolution (C7b9 > FM7) is delayed too, so apparently we have different conceptions of what tension/resolution means.

Yes, it was delayed but that's a stylistic thing rather than a musical rule. Pre-empting is fine because you get there in the end! Coming after the chord is over, on the other hand, doesn't really work, then the boat's definitely been missed.

(Actually, the other two notes in that bar are D and C which is more pre-empting because they're the beginning of an Em arpeggio over the FM7 which makes a perfect lydian sound).

My understanding is that a tension note is best resolved to a neighbouring chord tone, say D to Db or Eb over a Eb7 chord, not to a distant chord tone in the next chord, i.e., the resolution should be clearly heard, not vaguely hinted at.

I think it rather depends on the style. A lot of modern playing (Scofield, Bernstein, etc) doesn't really bother with all that. But probably if you're playing a nice standard in the traditional way a sudden tension would stick out like a sore thumb if it didn't lead somewhere agreeable to the ear.

[pamosmusic]

I think it rather depends on the style. A lot of modern playing (Scofield, Bernstein, etc) doesn't really bother with all that.

Well that’s not true

[Jonah]

Christian,

interesting...

my idea of theory (comes from classical mostly) is mostly that it analysis 'audial experience': that is what I hear musically.
Basically with this approach - when I say 'Bach thought/ Chrstian thinks...' I do not necessarily speak about actual thinking, I speak about the process of the personality as it is represented in the piece of art (there can be and is a huge difference between the two).

Both classical and jazz (much more) have lots of theoretic compositional/improvizational approaches that are often based structural/abstract side of music: visual notation, technical organization of particular instrument, abstract non-musical philosophy (from medieval theories of sphere to modern aleatoric conceptions etc.)

With first approach even if you think of F and ignore Bb in first bars - it is still that I hear you play around Bb (I believe by the way even if you conciously ignore it you also still hear Bb in comping and align with it musically)... etc.

Though I admit as a practical tool this excercise of course is interesting and useful.
I just tried to explain how I see it.

PS
I noticed visually from the score that you probably play different changes over the blues but I tried to ignore it and think of it just musically in all integrity as if I just hear the record.

[ragman1]

A #11th is liable to sound like a b5th, an altered chord tone, if you play it over a generic M7 chord which doesn't include the Maj. 9th, which is the case in your piece, it sounds like an altered tone that does not resolve. You're saying you resolved your tension note (maj.7th over a Dom. 7th chord) to a chord tone that you did not play. Is your listener supposed to ignore what he's hearing and instead imagine he heard a chord extension that cannot be heard? (because you did not play it.).

Mick, sorry, I can't keep repeating myself. I've explained it.

[ragman1]

Anyway, here's another experiment for the thread. It's not specifically for Mick although it's far more traditional than the Coltrane one. So he might like it better :-)

This is Laura, nice tune. I wish I'd written it myself. I'm playing:

• The melody (only first 16 bars)
• A diatonic solo based on the chords, no altered notes
• An embellished solo using colour notes and lines

Here's that last solo for you to work with, if anybody wants to (I'm dubious).

[pamosmusic]

For what it’s worth, dear Ragman, I don’t think all the specific rules about how this tension must do this and that must do that have much relationship to the way people actually play.

But Scofield and Bernstein are both extremely attentive to what tensions they use and where.

[supersoul]

Anyway, here's another experiment for the thread. It's not specifically for Mick although it's far more traditional than the Coltrane one. So he might like it better :-)

This is Laura, nice tune. I wish I'd written it myself. I'm playing:

• The melody (only first 16 bars)
• A diatonic solo based on the chords, no altered notes
• An embellished solo using colour notes and lines

Here's that last solo for you to work with, if anybody wants to (I'm dubious).

hey Ragman, this one sounds good. I tried with your last one, but all I could see were melodic and harmonic minor scales, and I couldn't really tell how they related to the underlying chords.

what program are you using to produce the lead sheet? It looks good.

[ragman1]

hey Ragman, this one sounds good. I tried with your last one, but all I could see were melodic and harmonic minor scales, and I couldn't really tell how they related to the underlying chords.

Thanks. I've since explained it in gory detail. Does it make any more sense now?

what program are you using to produce the lead sheet? It looks good.

Noteflight.

[ragman1]

For what it’s worth, dear Ragman, I don’t think all the specific rules about how this tension must do this and that must do that have much relationship to the way people actually play.

Absolutely.

But Scofield and Bernstein are both extremely attentive to what tensions they use and where.

To be quite honest, I hadn't looked/listened to much of either recently. I just tried to think quickly of a couple of names that played in that kind of angular style. There's also Lund and Lage, and so on.

On reflection, having had a quick peek again, I'm tempted to say you're right. Depends what they're playing but, on the whole, yes.

[pamosmusic]

To be quite honest, I hadn't looked/listened to much of either recently.

Gasp!

Im shocked. SHOCKED!

[ragman1]

There was one from Bernstein I seem to remember where it was leaping about all over the place. I'll see if I can dredge it up.

[supersoul]

Thanks. I've since explained it in gory detail. Does it make any more sense now?

It still doesn't, but I'm not really a theory guy. The #11 makes sense, though! Here's as far as I got. (mm = melodic minor while hm = harmonic minor), so I saw you as moving down and up chromatically. But I couldn't figure out how they related to the underlying changes.
Central Park West is from Coltrane's Giant Steps period, and it looks like it's also doing similar moves. Up a minor third, down a tritone, down a minor third, and around. So I thought that maybe you had a tricky way of using melodic/harmonic minors as dominants. I don't know the tune, so I've never tried to get inside those chord changes before. Beautiful tune!

[Mick-7]

Alright … So I’ve been working with some students on taking some characteristic chord progressions and big time simplifying them.

Peter, Did your students find it helpful to "dumb down" the chord progressions like that? I can see benefits and drawbacks to that approach.

[pamosmusic]

Peter, Did your students find it helpful to "dumb down" the chord progressions like that? I can see benefits and drawbacks to that approach.

I like how you put “dumb down” in quotes like that.

And so far yes.

For what it’s worth, one thing I tell them is that it’s not “dumbing down” the chords at all. Stella, for example, is loads of ii-Vs. Treating them all like Vs with no iis is a pretty standard way of handling that progression.

Theres also the matter of the end goal … which is that ii V I, II V I, bVI V I, bVImaj7 V I, bVI bII I, etc can all seem like disparate things, and it’s hard to see how one is like the other or to get one from the other but when you treat them all like what they are (cadences to I) then it becomes a lot easier (1) to navigate them, and (2) to use them interchangeably and see how fluid chord substitutions can be in real time.

At least that’s the theory. Bourn out at least by my own experience. We’ll see.

[Mick-7]

According to this, the original changes of Stella were simpler... it's from an analysis of a Keith Jarrett solo on it.

[pamosmusic]

According to this, the original changes of Stella were simpler... it's from an analysis of a Keith Jarrett solo on it.

1. sweet Jesus don’t start on the original changes to Stella on this forum unless you’ve got a week to kill.

2. most American songbook tunes can be interpreted as having simpler changes originally …. or at any rate more internal harmonic motion but fewer ii-Vs and quick root moves like that. I’m not real big on the whole “original changes or death” thing, but it’s another reason not to be too religious about the usual changes in ireal or whatever

Anyway … part of the deal is that I want folks to start mapping the harmonic movement of the tune more than getting hung up on the individual changes since a lot of those changes aren’t original anyway.

[Mick-7]

I find it useful sometimes to see the original score to better understand the composers harmonic intent.

Here's Ralph Patt's Vanilla Book* version.

* P.S. - Correction: This chart is from Bob Taylor's Vanilla Book.

[pamosmusic]

I find it useful sometimes to see the original score to better understand the composers harmonic intent. Here's Ralph Patt's Vanilla Book version.

These are identical to the real book changes.

And to all the Stella Originalists out there.

Have mercy on this man. He knows not what he does.

[ragman1]

. Beautiful tune!

It is. Shame what I did with it

Well, I did this (because everybody else did) but thought it was a bit messy for the thread. However...

I wasn't thinking in terms of scales (except the D minor scale over the DM7) but rather notes that changed the chord itself. Incidentally - and I should have told Mick this - I played all the chords as shell voicings (R,3, 7) so any other notes wouldn't get in the way. On the chart, I put in what the chord becomes/sounds like when the melody notes are added to it (i.e. A7 + C = A7#9).

It's a bit of a mess but just follow the colours, man :-)

[ragman1]

In your Central Park West improv you held the #11th (F# of CM7 chord) over from the V7 chord (G7) that preceded it and never resolved it over the IM7 chord - held the note over the bar line and followed it with the 4th and #5th of the IM7 chord, all played over a plain I Maj.7 chord. There was no resolution!

Yes, the #11th is a fine color tone if you use it as one, but you did not in that piece.

I don't know what you're talking about. There's no G7 or CM7 in the CPW chart. And I used the #11 on the AbM7 (D, bar 3) and the FM7 (B, bar 4).

While we're at it, that vanilla chart of Stella is not Ralph Patt's. This is Ralph Patt's:

[Christian Miller]

Christian,

interesting...

my idea of theory (comes from classical mostly) is mostly that it analysis 'audial experience': that is what I hear musically.
Basically with this approach - when I say 'Bach thought/ Chrstian thinks...' I do not necessarily speak about actual thinking, I speak about the process of the personality as it is represented in the piece of art (there can be and is a huge difference between the two).

Both classical and jazz (much more) have lots of theoretic compositional/improvizational approaches that are often based structural/abstract side of music: visual notation, technical organization of particular instrument, abstract non-musical philosophy (from medieval theories of sphere to modern aleatoric conceptions etc.)

With first approach even if you think of F and ignore Bb in first bars - it is still that I hear you play around Bb (I believe by the way even if you conciously ignore it you also still hear Bb in comping and align with it musically)... etc.

Though I admit as a practical tool this excercise of course is interesting and useful.
I just tried to explain how I see it.

PS
I noticed visually from the score that you probably play different changes over the blues but I tried to ignore it and think of it just musically in all integrity as if I just hear the record.

“Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long”

TS Eliot, the Hollow Men


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk