-
So , I'm not familiar with this book. When was it written? 20-30 years ago? Lots of stuff has changed. Lots of usage has changed.
Back in the 70's - 80's the 7sus 4 was a quartal type chord. They used this instead of 11 to rule out the 3rd.
Now I hear that they use this chord and throw in the 3rd too.
I'm sure his books filled some kind of informational void way back when it first came out. I'm sure it still has some use.
This is another reason why it's always good to have a teacher to help you along. You can always cite you tube, books, wiki, whatever as a learning tool but at some point you're going to need someone to answer your questions.
-
03-17-2011 05:02 PM
-
Just to play devil's advocate here, Levine makes the following point in the opening of his book:
"As you go through this book, lots of questions will come to mind, and perhaps you'll have the good fortune to have a teacher or mentor that can answer them. A good thing to remember, however, is that the answer to all your questions is in your living room.
Your CD or record collection contains the history, theory and practice of jazz. Almost all the great jazz musicians of the modern era learned most of their "licks" and gained most of their theoretical knowledge from listening, transcribing and analyzing tunes and solos from records. Start learning to transcribe now."
Would it be fair to say that the book will be viewed differently depending on how much time and effort one is doing in transcribing the actual music they wish to play (which is in essence the only real 'bible' there is)?
Thoughts?
-
Yes, that is a common misunderstanding of his terminology. Perhaps that is my main objection to calling it "Phrygian" - that and it doesn't sound Phrygian.
Originally Posted by JonR
I actually use them a, as a sub for ii. So, instead of a ii, I'll play V7susb9 (which really just makes it a iim7b5 with an 11th in the bass.) I may or may not resolve it to the V, maybe holding it over and resolving it to the I or i. Originally Posted by JonR
But JonR makes a lot of good points.
I think that that was the Berklee influence - a lot of guys that I know that have come out of Berklee feel that way, preferring to make it altered or something else. But it all depends on how you want to sound. There are plenty of examples of name players who use HM over a V in minor. Originally Posted by JohnW400
JonnyPac, how do I say this without sounding like I'm attacking you. I was making the joke before that you sound like a jilted lover and that's how you come off to me. You put a lot of faith in this adoration of ML and then when you find out that he's not all that you thought he was, so now you go into hate mode and will find fault with all things ML. And now you have moved onto the adoration of someone else, BL.
You can go through anyone's method and nitpick little things. I'm sure when I get around to writing one, others will do the same to mine. No method is perfect and comprehensive. Methods books are pretty much by definition very personal things. This was not some scholarly jazz theory encyclopedia - if it was there would be at least a dozen PhDs along with some big name players listed as co-authors. This is just one guy's take on how it all fits together, or at least how he sees it. This is a snapshot of how ML thinks. The same thing when I read the Joe Pass method - I don't assume that he's going to tell me how every jazz artist thinks everywhere, but just how he thinks.
Perhaps we can say that the marketing for ML's book is a little misleading in that it might lead one to think that this is some objective catalog of all jazz theory from every perspective with universally accepted terminology (even though it doesn't exist.) No, it's just one guy's take. But since when has marketing ever not been misleading?
I think you just need to relax and take this for what it is: one very knowledgeable jazz player explaining how he thinks of things. The same thing with BL's book (I've already found some things that I don't like about his book, but I should be getting it soon so I'll wait until then.) Don't get me wrong, I think that they're both great books, but neither is anything close to holy writ.
Maybe in 50 years, we will have some scholarly, authoritative encyclopedia for jazz, like classical has Grove or Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. But jazz as a "scholarly pursuit" is such a new concept that it is not here yet. Maybe within our lifetimes it will be. Maybe some of us will write entries. Who knows. But until then, let's not confuse single-author, commercial methods with comprehensive scholarly works.
I think a more moderate appraisal is warranted.
When did I become the voice of moderation?
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 03-17-2011 at 05:22 PM.
-
The copyright date is 1995. Originally Posted by JohnW400
Levine makes a point of stating that a sus4 doesn't mean you have to omit the 3rd. He calls that notion a "myth". He gives examples of 7sus4 chords with a major 3rd on top. (It has to go higher to avoid the b9 interval formed by an 11th above a major 3rd.) Originally Posted by JohnW400
Mind you, he doesn't use the "11" symbol. To him these are still sus chords, because of the sound produced by the quartal voicing of the main part of the chord.
When I bought the book (2000), there was no other jazz theory book around that I was aware of. (Outisde of the various books on improvisation techniques and strategies.) I remember it was on a stall at a jazz summer school, along with stacks of Real Books, Aebersold playalongs and similar stuff. (It's published by Sher, like the New Real Books.) Originally Posted by JohnW400
Absolutely. Originally Posted by JohnW400
What's better than a book: 2 books (or 3 or more).
What's better than books: a teacher.
What's better than a teacher: listening to recordings and copying them!
(although I guess that might depend on the teacher and your ear
)
BTW, in the acknowledgements, Levine credits as his teachers Joe Pass, Jaki Byard, Herb Pomery and Hall Overton.
-
Levine doesn't deny that. He mentions "Milestones", and Kenny Barron's "Sunshower". Originally Posted by JonnyPac
But he certainly doesn't give it much space: 2 pages, which amounts to 3 paragraphs and 2 notated examples (one of which is a passing chord in Ain't Misbehavin'...).
And he says what is IMO a rather dumb thing about jazz musicians preferring to play a vi chord as a VI7. Yes, I suppose they do, sometimes, but that's not about dismissing aeolian, it's about creating secondary dominants (a phrase notably missing from his index).
And anyway, what about those vi chords in All The Things You Are, or Autumn Leaves or Fly me to the Moon? Not to mention the aeolian tonic in Blue Bossa? Hardly obscure tunes...
I'm still looking for examples of 9b13 chords in chord charts or published notation. All contributions welcome. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
I'm not dismissing your examples of the mode, btw. I haven't seen a chart for Coltrane's Greensleeves, and only heard it briefly. The tune does use melodic minor of course, in part. But then so does Autumn Leaves.
Yes of course. Cole Porter was definitely into that - Night and Day and Love for Sale too, right? (correct me if not... Originally Posted by JonnyPac
)
Well, polychords are pretty rare in jazz. I don't recall ever seeing one in the jazz I've played. (I do remember one in a piece a tutor arranged for a choir performance at one of my summer schools). Originally Posted by JonnyPac
That is, other than alternative ways of notating complex chords. Eg the altered dominant chords mentioned. Eg, D major over a C7 for a C lydian dominant chord, or Bbm over G7 for G7alt. Those aren't really polychords, as I understand it.
IMO, polychords would only have a place in a more advanced book than this one.
Got it. I don't mind that so much. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
I don't like the notion of "magic" in the context of a theory book - and the 1%-99% distinction is just a catchy and meaningless platitude.
It may be true that there are elements in good improvisation which are not accessible to theory (or at least not to the kind of theory Levine is dealing with), but to describe that as "1% magic" is unnecessarily romantic mystification. It's a cliche - but it's the kind of thing one might expect in an introduction to this kind of book. (Though symptomatic of the conversational tone of the rest of the book, which makes it readable at the expense of rigour in places.)
Well, yes. I definitely found that "Listen" chapter intimidating. And he introduces it as "some of the most important jazz recordings". Some? You mean there's more??? Originally Posted by JonnyPac
It's like he's saying "my CD collection is bigger than yours... MUCH bigger, so just forget it".
Mind you, it did me the favour of reminding me that I'm not THAT into jazz - happy to remain an amateur. "OK, if that's what it takes, I think I'll just go back to blues and rock, thanks very much. My life is too short."
-
A susb9 chord doesn't sound phrygian? Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
How would you characterise it? Or what chord (if any) would you use for phrygian mode?
(Apologies if I've misunderstood you.)
Yes, I've heard of that usage before. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Personally, I've only ever seen susb9s in the odd Wayne Shorter tune, where they are (AFAIK) phrygian chords. I'm prepared to be corrected...
-
Polychords in every book I've encountered are simply the things like Cmaj9 being an overlapping C major triad and an E minor triad. Pretty simple. Nothing truly bi-tonal like 20th some cent classical, as far as I know. Using C major triad over a Bb7 is a good lyd dom example. Also an "upper-structure", though upper-structures can be quartal or pentatonic. There may be details and history that only Kevin knows... just wait an hour and he'll fill us in.
-
@jon r
I thought that book was older than 95. I entered the WC jazz program in 1976. No Berklee influnence until later. I think jazz programs at conventional colleges was still pretty novel at that time. But please don't quote me. I could be wrong.
On sus chords, back in the day I was told they were just a quartal version of an 11th , no third like the rhythm part in Follow Your Heart by McLaughlin. Since then I use 7sus4 to represent 11th w/o a third and 11 whe a third is ok. I hear there's lot's of opinions on this though.
Still , It appears to be an ok book. My opinion on books (not that you asked mind you ) is that if you find a good teacher , then you don't need the book.
I was fortunate enough to study with Harry Leahey. He had a system. It was logical and thoruogh. Very concept heavy with practical excercise to apply the concept to the fretboard. It's my understanding that he developed his methods from studying with Johnny Smith and Dennis Sandole. Mick Goodrick is another guy with a system. So is Jimmy Bruno. Some other guys with a well thought out system (at least in my neck of the woods) are Vic Juris and Bob De Vos.
If you want to get hooked up into really learning without buying a ton of books then study with these guys or one of their advanced students or anyone with a good, methodical system that get's you to think on your own
-
It's a decent book. I disagree with a bunch of stuff in it, but I appreciate the fact that Levine mentions several times not to expect all the answers to everything ever from it and to use your ears and transcribe. It's also not a method book, so if you're looking for that you'll be disappointed.
I'm surprised you guys don't like the tune list and the suggested listening list. These, along with the "you must transcribe" stuff were the most valuable sections for me.
-
The tunes list is good. I have a ton of it now. I was talking about the other sections on being a jazz cat. No biggie.
-
For E Phrygian, I'd use an Em. I just have a notion in my head of how Phrygian sounds from using it in modal counterpoint and modal jazz. To my ears, and Esus7b9 just doesn't sound like Phrygian to me. Obviously ML disagrees. I've seen Esus7b9 used as the "other" chord in a Phrygian vamp, but to me, it should sound like a tonic in that mode if we are going to label it as that mode. Originally Posted by JonR
I agree with that. Usually in jazz a polychord is just another way of writing a more complex chord as two simpler chords. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
The whole "upper-structure" thing can be just extended harmony like you are saying, but can also refer to arranging techniques. For example, a trumpet section in a big band can really "pop" if you give them a major triad because they can tune it to their overtones. So, if I'm writing a big band chart and want a Bb7#9, I might give the saxes and bones a Bb7 and give the trumpets a Db triad. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
You mentioned something about history. I'm not sure. I remember in my 20th century analysis class (my first class returning to finish my degree, I was still a little nervous), we were looking at some Stravinsky (L'Histoire du soldat, I think) and we ran across some notes that didn't fit (sounded good, but looked odd on paper.) The teacher asked for suggestions, but the class was stumped. I summoned some courage and meekly raised my hand. "If this was a jazz solo, I'd say he was superimposing non-harmonic triads over the underlying harmony." The teacher smiled, "I think that that's an excellent way to describe what he's doing." I remember seeing similar things in Copeland and as far back as Bartok. It may go back farther.
Peace,
Kevin
-
You could. I have no idea. Originally Posted by JohnW400
My impression - not just in jazz - is that "11" stands for "9sus4", and should never be played with the 3rd. Other than, I guess, in Levine's formulation with the 3rd on top (that was a new one on me when I read it). Originally Posted by JohnW400
Of course, opinions on dissonance evolve, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some players play "11" chords in more or less tertian form with the 3rd below the 11.
I agree. It's just that teachers that good are harder to find (or certainly more expensive!) than a good book. Originally Posted by JohnW400
Still , It appears to be an ok book. My opinion on books (not that you asked mind you ) is that if you find a good teacher, then you don't need the book.
IMO, a good book, a good ear, and a good record collection can take you a long way. Personally, I studiously avoided taking lessons of any kind for the first 25 years of my "career" (I mean, after I'd learned notation and how to play recorder at school). When I finally had jazz tuition of a sort (group workshops) it mostly confirmed what I already knew. Naturally I learned some new jargon - and I read books like Levine's, which didn't change my playing at all (not because I thought he was wrong to start with, but because I guess I was too set in my ways).
It wasn't until I encountered Ed Byrne that I read a jazz writer who was speaking my language. Of course, that means I think he is "right".
-
Right. I might do the same, but I have a slightly different perspective, which is that dissonance in modal music doesn't have the meaning it does in functional music. So the susb9 acts as a sonority, a colour tension, not a meaningful tension requiring resolution. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
The same kind of idea is employed in the sus chords used in mixolydian. They're less aurally dissonant, perhaps, but certainly don't have the loaded imperative they have in functional harmony.
As I understand it, the other reason tertian chords tend to be avoided in modal jazz is that they have functional baggage - they are too reminiscent of functional chords. Quartal chords (which have to be named as sus chords because the language derives from tertian) are usefully ambiguous.
Eg, Dm7 sounds too much like a ii in C major, so let's use Dm11, or D7sus4. Likewise, Em7 sounds too much like ii in D major (or a iii in C major given the scale), so let's use some kind of sus chord - and let's put the b2 in it to nail the point.
I mean, that's my interpretation of what I see modal jazz composers doing.
-
I take it the opposite way - to me the 11th can have a 3rd, but the very nature of a suspension is that the 3rd (in this case) has been replaced, there for it would be illogical to have an unreplaced 3rd. The with the 11th, the 3rd has simply been omitted so it could be readmitted. But at some point it comes down to "tomayto, tomahto." Originally Posted by JonR
Agreed. Originally Posted by JonR
I can understand that this sonority can be heard as a tonic, but to me that sound does not sound Phrygian to me. Just because it can be built of the Phrygian mode is not enough to me. I mean, I could build a CMaj9sus chord and call it an "Ionian chord" but the question would be, "Does it sound Ionian?" Not to my ear. Originally Posted by JonR
And when I hear Esus7b9, my ear does not think, "Hey! It's the Phrygian chord." If that Esus7b9 resolves to an Em then the whole package sounds like like Phrygian. Some modal jazz people use this movement to bring out Phrygian, perhaps to avoid the insipid repeating of the chord progression F->Em. It is just a different way to get that "characteristic pitch" of F in there, and the A adds some movement too. But in that case, the Esus7b9 is functioning as the contrast chord, the ersatz "dominant." (OK, it's not really a "dominant", but "ersatz dominant" is easier than writing "harmonic structure that works in opposition to create contrast and pull back to the tonic structure.") The point is that it "resolves" to the true tonic chord, the Em. So, to me, that Esus7b9 is the Phrygian opposite of a tonic, it is meant to be the polar opposite of a tonic. I understand that modal thinking doesn't have the same need of resolution that functional thinking does - you can hang on a dissonance. But there still is a concept of a "home" chord, and to me the sus7b9 just ain't Phrygian.
Additionally, since I like you use this voicing functionally, the Phrygian sobriquet is even less appropriate. For example, if I were in A (or Am), I might use an Esus7b9 as a suspended dominant or as a sub for a ii chord (implying a Bm7b5/E). Now, in this case, to my ear, the chord scale might include a G#. So, is this a "Phrygian Major" sus7b9?
I think that we should just call a "sus7b9" a "sus7b9" and forget about the Phrygian labels. I think that people are already confused enough about modes without twisting the meaning further and applying it in places where it doesn't really fit. But I don't see myself winning this battle. Ultimately it may come down to "tomayto, tomahto" argument again.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 03-18-2011 at 03:24 AM.
-
Right. What I meant was that "11" has come to stand for 9sus4, because the strictly correct 11th chord (with the 3rd) was so rare. And "11" is quicker to write than "9sus4". Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I think if anyone else had used the word "tonic" when talking about modal music, I'd have expected you to come down like a ton of bricks on them! Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
It's "final" dammit!
Modal music is not "tonal".
Not that I mind too much myself. (I certainly don't think modal music is "atonal", so to say it is not "tonal" never made much sense to me - although I do understand the distinction.)
I get your point. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I hardly ever play in phrygian mode myself, so it's only really an academic point for me. But I do like the idea that a dissonance like a susb9 can be made to sound - not exactly "stable", but at least attractive as a contemplative sonority, if you like. I like the idea that one could continually play that chord (or some such dissonant mix of notes from the mode) and feel no desire to resolve it anywhere.
It's like taking the concept of the sus4 - which we can easily feel doesn't need to resolve - and pushing it a little further. "OK, you can accept a sus4. Now try it with a b9 on top. Tricky huh? Just stick with it.."
Of course, a plain Em triad sounds more consonant - just a lot less interesting.
Well, I don't use it myself - I just said I'd "heard of it" - but I can how it would work like that. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Well, quite. I certainly wouldn't call it phrygian if it was functioning as a dominant! Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Yes I guess it could be. Or "phrygian dominant 7susb9", to use the more common name for that mode of harmonic minor. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Well, it would only be phrygian if clearly used as a phrygian chord. Which means as a "tonic" (woops), or I chord in a piece clearly based on its root note as keynote. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
No, not even if I stand alongside you... Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I've been waging war against the "modes are fret patterns" brigade for some years now. People with bafflement on their faces keep appearing out of the mess that creates.
"I've learned all the modes. Now how do I apply them?"
"I'd like to get a phrygian feel in this major key progression. What pattern do I use?"
Aaargh. Give me strength...
(BTW, why does this site ban the use of more than 4 smileys per post? I keep running foul of that rule. Grrrr. See I can't even put an angry smiley now...)
-
Perhaps, but I still like to distinguish between the two, but I may be in the minority. Originally Posted by JonR
Yes, but it does have "tones." Originally Posted by JonR
I think if anyone else had used the word "tonic" when talking about modal music, I'd have expected you to come down like a ton of bricks on them! It's "final" dammit! Modal music is not "tonal".
But I'll have to admit that you got me there - this sound like the kind of thing I'd go anal over.
But just for clarity, Jeppesen (the noted Palestrina scholar) uses the terms pretty much interchangeably in his book Counterpoint: The Polyphonic Vocal Style of the Sixteenth Century. But us does think of them as different things - on page 64 he says "The final (which in Gregorian melodies is as a rule identical with the tonic) ..." On page 70 he says, "In these formulas ... the tonic generally has such a clear-cut and definitive effect that the mode can be determined easily and the final, because of this, sounds convincing." So he clearly thinks of these as two things, perhaps the "final" (to him) is just the last note while the "tonic" is the "home" note of the mode - which are pretty much always the same thing.
For what it's worth, I tend to prefer the term "final" when I'm talking about the medieval church modes and "tonic" once I get to the Renaissance. But I can't prove that there isn't some arbitrariness in that.
There is a lot of confusion over the term "tonal." In it's broadest sense, it just meant any music centered around a tone, which would include modal. A more narrow definition exists, that "tonal" means "having to do with the major/minor key system." In this more narrow definition, there are three categories: tonal, modal, and atonal. This is the definition of "tonal" that I am used to and I believe is the more common usage. Grove's online gives the usage note: Originally Posted by JonR
So clearly Grove considers there to be three categories.(c) Within Western musical traditions, ‘tonal’ is often used in contrast with ‘modal’ and ‘atonal’, the implication being that tonal music is discontinuous as a form of cultural expression from modal music (before 1600) on the one hand and atonal music (after 1910) on the other.
Yeah. Once I finish the uni, I want to write some articles clearing up some of the nonsense being taught about theory and history. What "mode" means throughout history is definitely towards the top of the list. Originally Posted by JonR
Idk, bandwidth? Originally Posted by JonR
As far as Phrygian and 7susb9, we seem to agree on most of the important stuff.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Thanks for that - interesting. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Very reasonable, IMO. I'm not too well educated on the subject, of course, but it makes sense that there would be a lot of overlap, with gradual historical evolution of the music, the thinking and the terminology. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I don't suppose there was a point in history where someone (the pope presumably) said "OK, that's it guys. No more "finals". From tomorrow it's "tonic". Got that?"
Thanks for all the other info. It's nice when you can come to a forum and actually learn stuff.
-
Originally Posted by JonnyPac
Johnny, I'm going to have to disagree with you on these two points. For #5, I don't think it's at all necessary to delineate chords as V7/V7 or V7/ii7. I think any capable jazz musician should be able to see a III7-IV7-II7-V7-Imaj7 progression and immediately be able to comprehend the secondary dominants. In terms of using these numeral systems for actually playing, it is much faster to determine what III7 represents than it is to determine what V7/vi represents. For example, in the key of Ab major, III7 is a C7. This is a direct translation. The same chord can be derived from the symbol V7/vi; however, this requires a two step process: you must first determine that the vi chord is an Fmin7, and then determine that its V7 is a C7. Much less efficient. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
For point #10...well, what can I say? It's a theory book. Its purpose isn't really to provide examples of how to craft melodic lines. I know you like Bert Ligon's work on this subject; would you criticize Connecting Chords With Linear Harmony because it doesn't talk enough about theory? No, because that isn't the book's purpose.
-
But that's the issue. Originally Posted by max_power
Surely, any jazz musician capable enough of comprehending secondary dominants as you say already understands quite a lot about theory. There is already plenty in this book which is too beginner-level for them. (The opening chapters about intervals, triads, ii-V-Is - that "capable jazz musician" will know all of that too. Should that have been omitted?)
IOW, the book is not addressed to jazz musicians at that level. It's not an "advanced jazz theory" book, nor an "advanced theory" book for jazz musicians. It seems to want to be a comprehensive jazz theory book - starting basic, moving through to advanced. And yet (ii-V-Is aside) it skips functional harmonic principles almost entirely.
I can see that Levine might have assumed a level of prior knowledge in his readers (the ability to read notation at least, and perhaps familiarity with piano) - but that assumed level of knowledge seems very patchy. Would a musician who can recognise secondary dominants need to learn about intervals or triads?
True, and I think that may have been Levine's reasoning: trying to keep it practical. Originally Posted by max_power
But this is a theory book, it's not about practice! A theory book ought to be about theoretical understanding of the music, not just about how to play it.
But much more explanatory about why the chord is there. C7 would be used in Ab major in order to tonicise Fm (at least if Fm follows the C7). Therefore the "theory" of that is that it's a secondary dominant, labelled V/vi. Originally Posted by max_power
"V/vi" is a proper theoretical label. "III" isn't.
Right! Originally Posted by max_power
I agree totally - and I already disagreed with Jonny in the same terms. Originally Posted by max_power
-
I hear you guys, obviously Levine didn't define his target audience very well. When my editor first read my book's text, I made similar mistakes. If someone knew the information, they wouldn't be the first to buy/use the book, if someone was a true beginner, the format and omissions would leave them misinformed, etc. I was the latter, and that is my beef.
I didn't know about secondary dominants (in the usual sense), I just knew that cadences were V7 up a P4, and they poped up all over the place in tunes. Specifying V7/ii V7/iii and V7/vi makes me choose certain tensions; whereas V7 I, V7/IV, and V7/V7 (not to mention V7/V/V/V and so on) I choose distinct others. This especially comes in handy with deceptive cadences. If it doesn't resolve to major/minor/dom the isolated V7 can be troublesome to choose tensions for, etc. It took me reading the just intro pages to Bert Ligon's Connecting Chords, to fully grasp the concept. Levine could have spared a page to include a chart/explanation in the appendix, etc.
-
Exactly. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
Even someone just beyond beginner - who might feel they were ready for something called "The Jazz Theory Book" - would be unaware of what was missing.
An intermediate player might forgive the omissions (knowing that stuff already), and skip the opening chapters - and actually get a lot from the latter sections of the book.
But it still leaves the book somewhat unsatisfactory, certainly as a sole reference for jazz theory.
On Levine's side, it would have been difficult not to fall between those two stools. Writing a comprehensive Jazz Theory Book is probably impossible. Any musician writer is going to have a bias. He's unfortunate that he had no competition at the time, and therefore drew a lot of expectations. "At last, "THE" jazz theory book!" Um, no it ain't...
-
As a beginner working his way through this book, I appreciate this thread....going back and rereading some sections with this discussion in mind. I am definitely reading it with a grain of salt, but I never really expected to get everything from one source - this just seemed to be the most comprehensive and readable place to start to get serious about learning jazz theory.
I expect to learn everything else in this forum.
-
I'm not sure the original release date on Bert Ligon's Jazz Theory Resources (it may have been out pre-HL), but they are far more comprehensive, and he is up front about things that books cannot offer. The order he presents the material is excellent too. I'm under the impression that they were out by 2000, the year I bought Levine's book; I wish I knew then what I know now. A decade of practicing his views would have served me better than a decade of Levine's.
Un-learning sucks. Kevin had to rattle me over "modal" vs "tonal" music to wake me up to the pitfalls of chord-scale theory. I've had to study like a madman in the last 2 months to get up to snuff. I had to find ways of articulating tonal hierarchies within CST, besides "every note is a stable chord tone except for the avoid note". Of course my ears hear the difference between a lower structure and an extension, but I had no verbal distinctions. "Tendency tone" is a beautiful word!
-
Thought I might read a book... why bother... so much HERE!
I agree with some of Mr. Pac's criticisms. He just restated a lot of Rawlin's... You guys all make good points... Listening and teachers is good, but not all have $$$. A good book is helpful for those.
Randalljazz, I saw your comment on the review. Perhaps keep the discussions here where we all can debate. I'm related to a troll, but even I don't follow members elsewhere... Let suckers be suckers where we can sucker punch back...
Again, great points all around here.
-
Hey dude, so what's the best way to go about reading and studying from the "jazz theory book?" That's my main resource right now and honestly I don't see the correlation between modes and actually playing jazz.
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos