Harmonisation with sixths and thirds

[Tal_175]

“The blue print”? Whose?
Cole Porter’s? I doubt it for the reasons I gave above.
A modern jazz harmony professor? They didn’t write Night and Day
Yours? You didn’t write it either.
Then who? The big G?

That’s what I mean about theology. People start talking metaphysically (usually without realising it) very quickly about music theory.

Like the chap here who suggested Bach must have intuited the rules of functional theory that were developed in the 19th century, which strongly implies in his view that music theory must be ‘out there’ waiting to be discovered. That’s quite a metaphysical view (and not uncommon).

I think it’s worth pointing out if nothing else.

What Cole Porter actually wrote in N&D was the notes on the page. There’s no cycle of fourths there.

This relationship you perceive is a product of imaginative interpretation. You might use that as a way of soloing through the tune, for instance. But I would suggest that works because soloing doesn’t always have to honour every passing chord if you know what you are doing. It’s a layering up of one thing on another, another path to the same destinations.

If you claim this relationship to the cycle has some objective reality, then that seems to necessarily entail an appeal to metaphysics.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cycle progressions are apparent in Bach's music also. Is it metaphysics that the progression seems to be pleasing to most listeners? Is it conditioning formed by convention? I don't know. I personally don't find the "Why" that interesting. I believe that certain underlying patterns arise in music that manifest in various styles. Otherwise a notion like harmony wouldn't exist.

[Christian Miller]

Great video! But one question. Who comes up with the figures, the composer?

Good question! Sometimes the composer. Quite often - the editor.

Figured bass is actually a bit of a misnomer because not all basses have figures. A better term is the German Generalbass, or the old English "Thorough-bass."

In the early baroque era (the time of Monteverdi for example) basses didn't have many figures. People just worked it out from their practical musicianship and ears. They knew the style and could improvise a bit. As time went on the harmony got more complicated and more figures were added. But even then, as I say in the video, if you go back and look at the original sources, very often they miss figures out that we'd write in today.

There's obvious chords that people would have just known. So in C major we put a C/E on the E bass (6 3) and not an E minor (5 3), and so on. The Rule of the Octave was a pedagogical tool people used to teach beginners what chords typically go on what bass notes. So what you see in original source figures are the exceptions, or something that the writer of composer wants you to be aware of such as specific voice leading or unusual chords, modulations and so on.

Furthermore in the study of partimento figures are kind of like training wheels. Obviously, if you are creating the piece from the bass you have more freedom in what you can do.

[Christian Miller]

Cycle progressions are apparent in Bach's music also. Is it metaphysics that the progression seems to be pleasing to most listeners? Is it conditioning formed by convention? I don't know. I personally don't find the "Why" that interesting. I believe that certain underlying patterns arise in music that manifest in various styles. Otherwise a notion like harmony wouldn't exist.

The sequence in Night and Day is not a cycle progression.

[Tal_175]

The sequence in Night and Day is not a cycle progression.

It seems like we view harmony differently. I don't see it as a literal cycle progression, I see it as an innovative manifestation of it. One may say that a lot of harmony of standards are just V I's expanded with different harmonic devices like substitutions, secondary dominants, modal interchange etc. These devices add creative variation and artistic subtlety to the underlying pattern. For someone who sees harmony from this lens, the sequence in Night and Day appears as an innovative variation of the turnaround progression. That is agnostic of Cole Porters process of composition. I am convinced that there are certain harmonic patterns that people internalize subconsciously. Composers/arranges/musicians cultivate a conscious recognition of this and incorporate it in their conscious processes to varying degrees.

[Christian Miller]

It seems like we view harmony differently. I don't see it as a literal cycle progression

Yes I am being absolutely literal.

I see it as an innovative manifestation of it.

Manifestation... interesting word :-) Quite... .theological? ;-)

I could describe cycle 4 as a development of a 6-7 suspension chain with a leaping bass.

None of these of these voice leading formulae are exactly the same thing - but it seems to me that the cycle progression is quite distant from the Cole Porter progression. If you look at the voice leading it behaves differently.

One may say that a lot of harmony of standards are just V I's expanded with different harmonic devices like substitutions, secondary dominants, modal interchange etc. These devices add creative variation and artistic subtlety to the underlying pattern. For someone who sees harmony from this lens, the sequence in Night and Day appears as an innovative variation of the turnaround progression. That is agnostic of Cole Porters process of composition.

I mean... YES.

So, you are viewing things through the prism of functional harmony. I am certain Porter knew that stuff, because it's all 19th century music theory. That's not the issue there - I think you are making a bit of a jump beyond that. I am pretty sure he didn't know what a tritone substitute was though, because that's a concept that originates in (later) jazz.

There's some other difference between jazz and classical harmonic theory. Furthermore classically trained composers don't tend to start from chord progressions in the way that we jazz guitar players do. It's kind of a different way of thinking.

What I am saying is that unlike for example, root movement, counterpoint and voice leading has an independent existence that is literal - it's the intervals on the page. What Cole Porter wrote is unarguable. It's a chromatically descending bass and melody related by a minor seventh etc etc. That's empirical fact.

It is empirical fact that this progression is not a cycle of fourths.

Whether it relates is to the cycle of fourths is a matter of debate. It's a story you are telling me about it. Functional harmony is a story we tell about the notes on the page. If you think that story has some deep objective significance, that seems to me to be a leap into metaphysics. It's worth pointing it out cos it happens a lot. Plato and Pythagoras cast such a long shadow.

In terms of playing one over the other, sure why not? I would be surprised if people don't do this all the time. If nothing else this chat makes me want to transcribe some solos on the tune. One could then say - it's common practice to play this thing over this other thing.

I am convinced that there are certain harmonic patterns that people internalize subconsciously. Composers/arranges/musicians cultivate a conscious recognition of this and incorporate it in their conscious processes to varying degrees.

You are talking about what we might call schemata. LEGO bricks etc. Yes, I agree, but over the past few years I would tend to replace the word 'harmonic' with 'voice leading'. This is actually quite a big conceptual difference. I'll post an example of what I mean below, if you are interested.

[Christian Miller]

It probably all seems a bit philosophical and abstract, but mostly for this is about not worrying about irrelevant BS and finding more freedom in things, as well as paying attention to specifics and the details of songs and so on.

For example if I'm working up a solo jazz guitar version of standard, it is important that I come with a strong bass line against the tune and strong voice leading. This could be based on the original song sheet, the jazz changes or some crazy 'non functional' reharm. The process is the same. It is not so relevant that these always be understood according to harmonic theory.

If I need to write this reharm down for a band, I would aim to choose chord symbols that are clear and accurate. But again, this is just about trying to present ideas clearly.

If I'm interpreting chord symbols, obviously I need to be in a slightly different place mentally. Usually that's to do with looking at a progression and recognising familiar patterns. A II V I would be a very obvious example. We then play our II V I stuff on that progression (making sure that we are listening and making choices that are musically appropriate.) . It's all repertoire. Sometimes the harmony doesn't have these familiar patterns and if you went to jazz school, you say "oh it's non functional harmony" which is a learned sounding way of saying, "oh I don't know that one"

Recognising common patterns in charts is key to that. I don't see that as being a theoretical exercise. The theory comes in when you call something "a secondary dominant" or whatever. But even that is just labelling something with the 'correct' term. It's not important to understand why the II goes to V goes to I so much as to know that II to V to I comes up an awful lot (and yet people do discuss it.) This is all very empirical and practical.

If I see the Cole Porter #4 thingy (I don't really have a good name for it) I'm going to recognise that as a module, and have ways of dealing with it as a soloist, whatever they happen to be.

So the answer to all of this is always - play more music. Learn songs by ear, read charts, look at song sheets, make solo guitar arrangements etc etc.

[Tal_175]

Yes I am being absolutely literal.



Manifestation... interesting word :-) Quite... .theological? ;-)

I could describe cycle 4 as a development of a 6-7 suspension chain with a leaping bass.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say but just to clarify my point, manifestation can also be a term used to describe a creative, perhaps more understated expression of an idea, as opposed to literal, or heavy handed.

For example your description above considers the following to be cycle 4:

B-7b5 E7 A7 D-7 G7 C

But not this:

F7 E7 Eb7 D7 Db7 C because you description necessitates leaping bass.

But I would argue the second one is also a manifestation of the same harmonic mechanism with a different bass movement that perhaps softens its effect. A lot of harmonic devices are perhaps about softening V-I's, lol.

[Tal_175]

You are talking about what we might call schemata. LEGO bricks etc. Yes, I agree, but over the past few years I would tend to replace the word 'harmonic' with 'voice leading'. This is actually quite a big conceptual difference. I'll post an example of what I mean below, if you are interested.

There are elements of progressions that are not captured by voice-leading alone in the way I understand it. Voice-leading to where, one might ask? Functional harmony describes higher level patterns of movements common in many styles, I think.

Yes, please post an example.

[Christian Miller]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say but just to clarify my point, manifestation can also be a term used to describe a creative, perhaps more understated expression of an idea, as opposed to literal, or heavy handed.

For example your description above considers the following to be cycle 4:

B-7b5 E7 A7 D-7 G7 C

But not this:

F7 E7 Eb7 D7 Db7 C because you description necessitates leaping bass.

But I would argue the second one is also a manifestation of the same harmonic mechanism with a different bass movement that perhaps softens its effect. A lot of harmonic devices are perhaps about softening V-I's, lol.

Yes, the voice leading in the upper voices is identical. I would obviously acknowledge that the two progressions are certainly closely related. Obviously in jazz it's common to substitute one for the other. The second progression adds an extra chromatic line (which could also be inverted into the other voices.)

It's one aspect where viewing everything from the bass is not a panacea. There are progressions in Baroque music even where the voice leading in the upper voices is the same, but the bass is different. A simple example would be the 7-6 suspensions down the scale compared to the cycle in what jazzers would call shell voicings. In both case the upper voices are identical. Your example is a chromatic version of the same thing. There's lots of other examples.

Another one is cadence. The upper voices in a classically voiced II V I is the same as a IV V I or a V7sus4 V7 I. In all these cases (in four voices) the soprano goes 1-7-1 while the tenor goes 2-2-1, and the alto goes 4-4-3 (these can be inverted).

That's why I say working from the bass is extremely useful - if imperfect. You have to understand and consider the other voices too.

[Christian Miller]

There are elements of progressions that are not captured by voice-leading alone in the way I understand it. Voice-leading to where, one might ask? Functional harmony describes higher level patterns of movements common in many styles, I think.

Yes, please post an example.

Functional harmony seeks to lay down a series of governing principles to music. So, the predominant moves to dominant to tonic. And so on and so forth.

Whereas a schematic approach would simply categorise and collect - identify stylistic features and add them to our bag. There's no need to explain anything. You can observe that some things seem related to other things. But there's not a need to pin everything down to 'harmonic mechanisms' or whatever.

So one wold see a cycle of dominant chords as coming from chromatic movement of descending tritones in the top voices and a leaping fourth wise bass, rather than being the chromatic voice leading and leaping fourth wise bass coming from a cycle of dominant chords.

Anyway, here's an example of what I mean.

There's a great many tunes where the melody orbits around the 5th of the minor key and eventually moves down in steps 5-4-3 while the bass moves down chromatically 1-7-b7-6-b6-5.

That's a move that people use. Beethoven, GASB songwriters, Monk, Jobim, Chick Corea, Radiohead, you name it.

If you play No Moon At All, Blue Skies, Chim-chim-cheree, How Insensitive, Corcovado, In Walked Bud, Got a Match and Exit Music in the same key in rapid succession you'll get the point. It's quite droll. (But not Dido's Lament, Stairway or My Funny Valentine, interestingly - they all emphasise 1-2-b3 at the start.)

So - important point - it's not just the bass or the chords, it's the way the melody behaves. And the reason why this schemata gets used again and again is because it is strong counterpoint, and also it had a rhetorical association in Western culture which meant it kept cropping up again and again in European music.

There's a lot of ways you can harmonise this depending on what you choose for the middle voices, you can also invert these into the middle voice. Here are some options, expressed as chord symbols. But written out in notation it's perhaps a bit easier to appreciate the similarities and differences.

[Christian Miller]

I mean, bloody hotel California, innit?

The chromatic line isn't in the bass, but the progression

Bm F# A E G D has it in the middle

B-A#-A-G#-G-F# (1-7-b7-6-b6-5)

The melody is all on F# (5) the E (4), then D (b3)

The progression isn't one that makes a whole lot of sense right away functionally but when you look at the Eagles contrapuntally it's easier to see the logic (that was a sentence I just typed haha)

[pamosmusic]

Very often it seems like folks approach theory as if it means making a bunch of interesting sounds fit into a very small number of pre arranged concepts.

Remember the whole thread of people arguing about why #iv diminished goes to I … but they were all just dreaming up convoluted reasons to call it some kind of dominant chord?

[Christian Miller]

Very often it seems like folks approach theory as if it means making a bunch of interesting sounds fit into a very small number of pre arranged concepts.

Remember the whole thread of people arguing about why #iv diminished goes to I … but they were all just dreaming up convoluted reasons to call it some kind of dominant chord?

Yeah and they got pissy with me because I noted that the second inversion I chord (6 4) has a dominant function in classical theory and therefore the #IVo7 chord is better considered a predominant/subdominant function. I mean Adam Manness talks about 6 4 chords? They are all over Gospel harmony.

In counterpoint/voice leading terms it's just a chromatic bass dressing up the 4 to 5 move.

A tuba player would play the 4-#4-5. You betcha. (Although my bass sax guy always insists on playing 4-b6-5 here, which is kinda cool, sounds super 1920s. Same function.

As Barry points out you can play 1-3-4-#4-5 against 1-b7-6-b6-5 in a rhythm changes etc. Counterpoint, again. The penultimate chord is an augmented sixth*. So you get C C7 F Ab7 C/G rather than C C7 F F#o7 C/G. Different colour, same flow.)

*another 19th century name for a chord it never occurred the old masters to name.

[Christian Miller]

The brass bass thing is funny. I have a friend who plays Sousa and his work is basically early jazz and trad, Oktoberfest bands, NOLA marching bands and random John Zorn. He's a great musician, conducts Boulez all sorts. He said if someone annoys him by getting into his face about the 'correct period changes' and this sort of thing (which people do) he'll just play C C7 F Bb7 on everything and make everything sound like the 1950s as a dirty protest.

I mean it's a strange world, that. I don't do gigs like that. They won't have me. I do try and play to changes on the record if I get a heads up. The changes on some of those 1920s things are beautiful. (Although a lot of gigs like that are more towards the Brit trad thing, which is ... a different vibe shall we say.)

But it goes to show that the specifics and idiom things are very important to some people and some ways of playing music. No overarching theory can cover all that nuance - music theory is always lossy, because it has to be. God is in the details.

[Tal_175]

Very often it seems like folks approach theory as if it means making a bunch of interesting sounds fit into a very small number of pre arranged concepts.

That's really not saying anything. That's literally how all abstractions work. The concept of "key" is part of music theory that may fit "interesting sounds" into the observation that they are the same tune with a different home pitch.

Remember the whole thread of people arguing about why #iv diminished goes to I … but they were all just dreaming up convoluted reasons to call it some kind of dominant chord?

That seems like a debate where people argue about "which" per-arranged concept fits a specific sound best. Often times a specific musical ideas fit into multiple viable musical abstractions. But people may feel strongly about "their" pre-arranged concepts. Some may view and hear #iv -> I/5 as V/III -> III/3. That's not that controversial. That's also not the only way to hear it.

[pamosmusic]

That's really not saying anything.

Which is different than the rest of this thread. I see.

[AllanAllen]

Re: Cole Porter #4

I’m pretty sure there’s a video of John Pizzarelli saying his dad called it ‘the long way home’

[James W]

Figured bass is most often taught as theory, when it is really a practical toolset for improvisation (early modern composition is really just an outgrowth of improvisation). It's also taught often through the perspective of modern harmonic theory, so saying stuff like '6 3 is a first inversion triad' and 'the 4 2 chord on the 4th degree is a third inversion dominant' which is really just chord symbols with extra steps. No wonder most people can't be arsed with it as soon as they have passed their exams and ticked the box.

From what I've learned over the past ten years or so of messing with this stuff, that is absolutely NOT the way to go about it. It's not a chordal notation system, it's a very neat way of learning tonal counterpoint/voice leading (albeit an imperfect one). Figured bass should be taught on its own terms - and you can be making music very quickly. Hopefully I've shown that in my videos. They taught 8 year olds to do this.

Regarding the teaching of these sort of topics in general - there's an entrenched mindset in music education that shunts things like this, species counterpoint and chorale harmonisation and so on into the realm of irrelevant academic bullshit that everyone sort of has to do for reasons that have never been fully explored. I have a friend who teaches this stuff and was making it a practical session. People would sing through the harmonisations they wrote, create music from figured bass, etc etc. However, the Powers that Be decided this could be turned into an online course at is was 'theory', thus freeing up a room for another class.

Another friend has been recruited by a leading conservatoire to teach improvisation to classical students (TBH this does sound like the Gig from Hell, but if anyone can make it work, they can). The head of department is a big partimento and historical improv guy. An issue for them is everyone else on the faculty knows what a 7-6 suspension chain is, but most of them can't actually sit down at the piano and actually play one. (Although I expect the organists and the harpsichordists are all over this stuff.)

I'm not sure it was categorised as theory when I studied it. It was categorised as Harmony and Counterpoint. IIRC we studied Corelli's trio sonatas in realising the figured bass.

Come to think of it I'm not sure we studied 'theory' in and of itself. But it certainly was necessary background knowledge for most of what we studied.

[Christian Miller]

Re: Cole Porter #4

I’m pretty sure there’s a video of John Pizzarelli saying his dad called it ‘the long way home’

I like that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

Star jasmine

Thank you I really appreciate the long write up. I know the theory behind it, but just not the spelling of the chords. I never thought to start saying the scales in third which is something I play often. I have it in my ear aurally(the sound), but not conceptually(the note names).

My goal of learning how to spell chords offhand is to use that knowledge for Freddie Green style jazz rhythm guitar. Since you want everything to be as close as possible (preferably all on the D string) and the four notes of a seventh chord hold the same weight in that style.

Maybe what you're looking for something like this (check out the practice patterns section):
https://tedgreene.com/images/lessons...e-Patterns.pdf

[Tal_175]

I mean, bloody hotel California, innit?

The chromatic line isn't in the bass, but the progression

Bm F# A E G D has it in the middle

B-A#-A-G#-G-F# (1-7-b7-6-b6-5)

The melody is all on F# (5) the E (4), then D (b3)

The progression isn't one that makes a whole lot of sense right away functionally but when you look at the Eagles contrapuntally it's easier to see the logic (that was a sentence I just typed haha)

Have you checked out the Baroque page of Ted Greene's website? It's got a lot of 2-3 voice counterpoint and chorale exercises. I am curious what think.

TedGreene.com - Teachings - Baroque

[Christian Miller]

Have you checked out the Baroque page of Ted Greene's website? It's got a lot of 2-3 voice counterpoint and chorale exercises. I am curious what think.

TedGreene.com - Teachings - Baroque

I have looked at it a little bit, but it's not something that I have used in my own studies.

There are some people who studied with Ted who I'm sure can correct any misconceptions on my behalf and add context, but the impression I get is that Ted Greene was deriving this material himself. I wouldn't be surprised if he had looked into the books on Bach and figured bass etc he was able to get hold of, but there wasn't the same amount of material readily available at that point specifically on baroque/classical improvisation.

Mostly I get the impression he had an enquiring mind and a curiosity about Bach's harmony, so this stuff is him reverse engineering the music to come up with rules of thumb. These rules of thumb look very much like the sort of things that they actual taught, except he's discussing and teaching it in the language of modern chord symbols etc.

So for example, he talks about coming up with idiomatic harmonies for stepwise basses, which is commonly what we start with in Baroque improvisation - the rule of the octave. He plays all the suspension patterns, diminutions and so on. He worked them out from his own studied, as far as I can tell. Which is really an achievement.

These days there's more info than ever about this stuff and loads of resources on the internet from the actual time. So I went the direction of learning how to understand those sources, and learning directly from those, rather than going to Ted. In this way you have more of a direct link to the tradition of how these musicians learned back in the day. I imagine that had these resources been commonly available when Ted was about, he would have been absolutely thrilled, and vindicated. I'm sure he would have been all over partimenti basses.

[Mick-7]

I don't see how knowing the intervals of these chords help me hit nearby tones.

For example, Dbmaj9 Gb9 F7b9 Bbm

I'm hoping it's easier to recall

Db F Ab Eb
Gb Bb Db Ab
F A C Gb
Bb Db F Ab

I find it easier to see voice leading possibilities if I stack the chord tones in parallel, for example:
Db^9: Db-F-Ab-C-Eb
Gb9:_Db-E-Ab-Bb-Gb
F7b9: _Eb-F-A-C-Gb
Bbm7: Db-F-Ab-Bb

Or look at the progression of the bass or melody chord tones, e.g., 3rd > 7th in bass:
Db^9:__F-Ab-C-Eb (3rd in bass, no root)
Gb9:___E-Ab-Bb-Gb (7th in bass, no 5th)
F7b9 __Eb-A-C-Gb (7th in bass, no root)
Bbm7: Db-Ab-Bb-F (3rd in bass)

That'll help you recognize common voice leading patterns.

[AllanAllen]

From what I've gathered talking to the admin at FreddieGreen.org I need to know what's between the 2nd and 12th fret of the D string, and try not to jump more than a minor third.

So writing things out like you (Mick) suggests then limiting them to my available space. Seems like a good plan. I did rhythm changes already, after this pit gig I'm going to start working through charts my big band plays.

[Mick-7]

From what I've gathered talking to the admin at FreddieGreen.org I need to know what's between the 2nd and 12th fret of the D string, and try not to jump more than a minor third.

So writing things out like you (Mick) suggests then limiting them to my available space. Seems like a good plan. I did rhythm changes already, after this pit gig I'm going to start working through charts my big band plays.

Yes, you could fill notebooks with the voice-leading patterns of chord progressions. In fact, I think I'll follow my own advice, I've done it in the form of chord melodies, but it hasn't been seeping into my comping, which is a weak area for me. As we know, you have to work out and practice these things for them to show up in your playing.