-
Please forgive my ignorance.
I am increasingly hearing the term "linear harmony." How is this different than voice-leading? If it is just seeing lines that move through chord progressions, then how is it different than what Bach did?
I'm not questioning the practice, just the need to come up with a new word for concept that has been around as long as people have been singing harmony (so, for more than a thousand years) - just to make it seem new and "cutting edge." It just seems like rebranding for marketing purposes. I guess there's no harm done - at least this reinvented terminology doesn't conflict with anything old.
Sincerely, I'm just trying to understand what people mean by the term. For all I know it has been around for a long time, but it seems to have been a bit of a buzz word lately. Don't worry, I'm not planning one of my linguistic crusades.
Peace,
Kevin
-
01-20-2011 01:07 PM
-
Old wine in new skins?
Oyster? Erster?
I'd like to know as well.
-
I'd like to know as welll.
Here is a sort-of explanation
https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/impro...-examples.html
under the heading Introduction to Linear Harmony
-
Please don't tear my intro a new AH, KS. I know you don't respect my work or my self-education. It's just basic voice leading in jazz. New skin. No biggie. It's about playing harmonically specific line in real time. I didn't coin the term. I also didn't make up the term "modal jazz". I use decent sources for my writing and apply it to the guitar neck in a very simple way.
THIS IS THE BEST BOOK ON IT:
Amazon.com: Connecting Chords with Linear Harmony (Jazz Book) (9780793561933): Bert Ligon: BooksLast edited by JonnyPac; 01-20-2011 at 05:51 PM.
-
In Bert Ligon's book, "Connecting Chords Through Linear Harmony," the author
defines "linear harmony" as " melodic lines that connect the chords using the significant tones with careful rhythmic placement." ( page 6). Said that way, it isn't much help. This, though not a quote, might help flesh it out.
Ligon claims that a staggering amount of lines played by great jazz players from its earliest days through bebop and beyond have one of three "outlines": 3 2 1 7 / 3 (of the next chord), 5 3 1 7 / 3 (of the next chord), and 1 3 5 7 / 3 (of the next chord). The lines are embellished all sorts of ways---the book gives hundreds of examples from Charlie Parker, Clifford Brown, Tom Harrell, Freddie Hubbard, Cannonball Adderley, Bill Evans, Sonny Rollins, Lee Morgan, John Coltrane, Paul Chambers, Sonny Stitt, Red Garland, Donald Byrd, Booker Little, and others--but the lines maintain their connecting function and they are part of the fabric of jazz language. Some entire solos--and good ones--have been recorded by someone (-Clifford Brown in one famous case) using the same outline on every chord change. It's hard to think that was accidental.
If you pick up the book and play some examples, you'll hear what he's getting at.
-
Thanks Mark, I get it.
copying from Bach?players from its earliest days through bebop and beyond have one of three "outlines": 3 2 1 7 / 3 (of the next chord)...
-
Cool! Sounds like it just a convenient way to let folks know that the book is geared more towards jazzers than classical cats.
-
The book has over 175 real classic jazz examples to illustrate the devices and show the creativity each player brought to the table. It's a great book all around. From Bird, Rollins, Brown, Bill Evans, Wes, just to name a few.
Here's another thread on too. https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/impro...tml#post118458Last edited by JonnyPac; 01-20-2011 at 07:51 PM.
-
How does one define voice leading in traditional or classical music... not a trick question, we all know the answers;
generally a contrapuntal term used for guidelines of progression of lines, preference for stepwise motion, contrary motion somewhere and avoidance of parallel fifths and octaves etc...Most of us spent more time learning and teaching than we care to remember with species counterpoint etc...
I've been brought up in jazz thinking of linear harmony as having more weight on the harmony than guidelines or rules for those lines to follow. The goal of traditional linear harmony, or as kevin mentioned, voice leading...is smooth motion... That can be a goal in jazz, but usually not... parallel motion is one of the techniques of jazz linear harmony, not to be avoided, actually all of the techniques to be avoided in traditional linear harmony/ voice leading are very characteristic in jazz linear harmony. So must be A) adapt existing terminology and theory to fit new material... could be C) create new terminology, theory...(from different thread)... In the new short tradition... best Reg
-
I agree that is is a more liberal spin-off of counterpoint and voice leading. It is very jazz based. I'm glad there is a fresh term.
-
Just goin' on markerhodes quickie explanation, I don't see how you can equate "linear harmony" to voice leading - since LH is dealing only with the one voice.
Last edited by Aristotle; 01-20-2011 at 09:48 PM.
-
It assumes that the bass is creating a root to root type line and the horn/gtr on top will resolve as well; 7'ths to 3rds, and 9ths to 5ths, etc. Guide tones.
-
Yeah. I think Ligon mentions that. He's not suggesting that jazz players invented such lines, only that they use them ALL THE TIME when improvising, and it's part of the fabric of what jazz improvisation (-at least, The Good Stuff) sounds like.
Originally Posted by Aristotle
copying from Bach?
You know, I used to live in New Orleans and when you hear serious Dixieland music, *everyone* is playing lines, not the same ones, but they fit.
-
OK, I just wanted to make sure I understood.
It's ironic, because that is usually the assumption in classical music. Block chord voicings are quite rare - usually used only because of a solo instruments limitations, to harmonize large leaps in the melody, or specific techniques like Impressionistic planarisms.
Perhaps in our modern musical culture, folk musics (where block chords are more the norm) have made it so that many people don't realize that smooth voice-leading should be the norm.
But if people want to call it "linear harmony," I won't fight it. But I do think it is a bit of a marketing trick - repackaging with a scientifical word like "linear" makes it seem more modern and cutting edge, instead of a technique that's been the norm for over a thousand years. Perhaps it has a little value in that it puts the emphasis on "line."
Interesting. It sounds like a lot like someone trying to a Schenkerian-esque analysis of jazz lines. (Not applying Schenker's ideas directly, but doing a similar reductionist search for fundamental structure.) I suspect that (like Schenker) I will find it to be somewhat Procrustean. But that doesn't mean that it has no value, just that sometimes you see what you're looking for. But still, it might reveal something interesting. Originally Posted by markerhodes
Thanks, I just wanted to make sure I understood what everyone was talking about.
Perhaps it's not a perfect overlap, but good voice-leading often involves thinking of individual voices. Even in homophony (or melody-dominated homophony if you call it that) where there is only one melody, the same principles apply. Except for Lignon's ideas of archtypical lines, I fail to see anything that hasn't been standard writing practice for centuries. And so, I think that these archtypical lines probably have antecedents there too. Originally Posted by Aristotle
But if people want to use a separate term here, I won't fight it. I think it's unnecessary, but it's clear and doesn't conflict with existing terminology, so I'll go with the flow for once.
Peace,
Kevin
-
The guitar is to blame for all of the parallel movement. It comes from the "shapes" in barre chords and power chords. I have no exact historic data to back it up, but it's a good guess. Getting back to sensible leading in homophonic music is a good thing LH or otherwise.
I do love Debussy's impressionistic parallel voicings though... Someone just released a 2-disc set of his two books of preludes freshly orchestrated. I ordered them last week... Maybe there tomorrow!Last edited by JonnyPac; 01-21-2011 at 04:06 AM.
-
Bingo. So many borrowed phrases that creep into chic are oxymoron's or just used wongly. Several that have agitated me over the years are learning curve, quantum leap, and critical mass. I am not going to fight "linear harmony," but I won't be using it, either - as I still don't know what it means. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
That's nice of him.copying from Bach? Originally Posted by markerhodes
-
This suggests Ligon is simply packaging old theory in a new guise, but that misses his emphasis entirely. He's a director of jazz studies and year after year deals with students--talented students--who have trouble improvising lines that are "rhythmically coherent and harmonically specific" (page 1). Originally Posted by Aristotle
Over half of the book is devoted to examples by jazz masters, and another third to etudes / exercises so that students can get the three outlines under their fingers and in their ears in relation to blues, rhythm changes, and standards. It's a PRACTICAL book rather than a THEORY book. It is not meant to replace standard books on harmony; it's exclusively about improvising jazz, and more particularly, playing lines that are "rhythmically coherent and harmonically specific." You're not supposed to come away from the book saying "I get it" (-though it helps to get it) but being able to *play* it.
-
"Linear harmony" is not a "borrowed phrase" in the sense "learning curve," "quantum leap," and "critical mass" are. We're talking about harmony in the musical sense--this isn't a borrowing *AT ALL*. And building lines that *connect* a series of changing chords. You may dislike the phrase, think it useless, pointless, what you will, but you can't say that using musical terms to talk about music is at all like using, say, "quantum leap" outside of physics. Originally Posted by Aristotle
I think 'linear harmony' makes sense here because this is not a book about *playing* chord progressions, or *understanding* them, but about playing coherent jazz lines that run *through* them, connecting them. Sonny Rollins praised Dizzy Gillespie because "he could really connect the chords" which is something other than knowing all the notes *of* the chords and being able to "make the changes" (-which most people Rollins played with could do). *That* is what Ligon is teaching here, and saying the "theory" (--connect thirds with sevenths) isn't the same thing as developing the ability.
-
When most think of music they think in A) Horizontally... melodies, lines etc... and B) Vertically or harmonically, chords... (simple version)
So when you use both aspects, Horizontal or melodic and Vertical or harmonic together, you get what,( besides music). Traditional music/ theory has a history of practice...
Palestrina counterpoint...modal
Back C.P. ... tonal
The terms Linear counterpoint, dissonant counterpoint, where the linear aspects rule...(20th cent)
So there has been different means for classification... and many guidelines and rules for voice leading as well as the line.
So traditionally we think of counterpoint as... note against note so the term linear counterpoint doesn't quite cut it.
I know Ligon graduated from North Texas State, I never meet him and don't know if or where the term was first coined... Linear Harmony... His book has taken over the definition.
In the late 60's the term was used to express implying harmony with a melody or melodic line...(and the part that is difficult to explain with traditional terminology), while the existing harmony may stay the same, standard practice with jazz players. Part of the process of improvisation... changing lines to imply different harmony, one aspect of improve.
I Like BL books... and don't think he became rich from term... if he did ... great, I'm sure he put in plenty of time.
So Kevin what Traditional term would you use for this concept? I don't remember any thing from my student or teaching years. Compound linear concepts... over pedal or ostinato harmony...? Reg
-
Well, I did give three historical precedents. But uneducated rock musicians playing barre chords and oblivious to voice-leading probably have put it into overdrive. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
Well credentials and a compelling story isn't enough. Sometimes I listen to the quacks on the radio trying to sell their miracle panacea pills on the weekend, in their paid advertisements that masquerade as medical talk shows. (One week it's coral calcium, the next week its some hormone extract from the spleen of some South American tree sloth, etc.) Every one of them has credentials and a compelling story. It doesn't make their product any less worthless. Originally Posted by markerhodes
Credentials are a great place to start. I ignore the compelling stories. But ultimately it is the ideas that I am judging.
No, that being said, I'm not saying that Ligon's product is worthless, just that he's repackaging an old idea (that used to be the primary way to do melody and harmony) giving it some scientifical language, throwing in a bit of math and selling it as if it's something new. I just fail to see anything new.
The whole structural line idea of lines is interesting. But really it seems to boil down to "jazz players like to outline the 7->3 guide tone resolution." Ummm, how should I put this ... "duh"? It would be like coming out with a groundbreaking study that proved that cows like to eat grass. And I've transcribed enough solos to be suspicious that the majority of jazz lines do it the way that he seems to be saying - I've actually gone through solos and counted the 7-3 resolutions and while they are often the most common single device, I don't think I've ever seen them be the majority.
But I do agree that it is a very common and important device and certainly worth learning and willl be very helpful to beginners and their lines that aren't "rhythmically coherent and harmonically specific." I'm just saying that the language and the press is hyping it a bit - welcome to marketing.
Number one, I don't draw as much of a distinction as others do here. And number two, the samples that I've seen are drenched with theory. When you start talking about guide tones and building mathematical models of how they are approached, then that is "theory" to me. Some people seem to think that it's only theory if it's worthless in application. That's not "theory," that's "bad theory." Originally Posted by markerhodes
Yes, I have heard the term "linear counterpoint" applied to 20th century counterpoint where you are less worried about harmonic function. But that always sounded bizarre to me - all counterpoint is "linear" by definition. It's like saying "cold ice." And if it is the non-harmonic function they are trying to emphasize (not implied by their words) then they just have to look back to medieval music. Those guys weren't worried about I, IV, and V chords because they didn't exist. They were just doing lines that sounded good together. The only difference between them and the 20th century guys is that the modern guys have a more palette of consonance (which also might be affected by the change in temperament. ) Originally Posted by Reg
But it's a good point, the term "linear counterpoint" did perhaps influence his choice of the word "linear." But it seems a strange combination since in the other context it seems to mean "pertaining to non-harmonic lines" - but then he applies to to the word "harmony." Clearly he is talking about harmonic lines, so I think that that makes it a bad choice. But you're right, that many have influenced his thinking.
Sorry, but I'll have to disagree. For centuries classical musicians have been writing for solo melodic instruments and "implying harmony with a melody or melodic line." Even with harmonic accompaniment, they will often do that. Baroque music is filled with examples. Bach has whole suites of solo violin stuff - much of it is just lines implying harmony. Originally Posted by Reg
Again, listening to people describe this idea, I fail to hear anything that I didn't learn from studying Bach.
I'm not sure it needs a "traditional" term. If someone asked me, "What is the term for cows eating grass?" I might say, "Instinct." I guess in answer to your question, I might say "standard melodic practice for centuries." OK, maybe that's a bit too snarky and pat - how about "implying harmony with melody." Originally Posted by Reg
Again, I'm not fighting the "linear harmony" term - I'm just saying that it's describing something that has been around for centuries and the choice of terms has more to do with marketing than clarity - how many young jazz cats are going to buy books called Standard Melodic Practice for Centuries or Implying Harmony with Melody. No, Connecting Chords with Linear Harmony sounds much more cool - and maybe it'll come with a secret decoder ring!
But silliness aside, it does sound like a good book, regardless of hype. It sounds like something I could have used when I started out.
Look, people, I'll accept the term "linear harmony" as long as I don't have to accept the hype.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention. Things like "compound melodies" (a common thing in bop) imply two or more melodic lines and they usually resolve each one. The Groovin' High riff is a perfect example... That explains the little notes at the end of each bop phrase that goes "be-bop"... It's the second implied melody resolving! Pretty neat. Originally Posted by Aristotle
Here is a great little intro from Dirk:
Guitar Chord Lessons : Voice Leading
-
But my point is that Bach did the same thing. Compound lines have been around for a long time and were extremely commonplace in the the Baroque. I'm not sure if Bach said "be-bop" at the end of his lines. (Perhaps if he wasn't in that Baroque machine-gun/sewing-machine texture he would have had a chance.) When we talk about Bach (or Mozart, or Beethoven, etc.) doing this, we talk about it as voice leading within the compound line. When we do a Schenkerian reduction we see that that is exactly what is happening - simple voice leading that has been embellished into a line. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention. Things like "compound melodies" (a common thing in bop) imply two or more melodic lines and they usually resolve each one. The Groovin' High riff is a perfect example... That explains the little notes at the end of each bop phrase that goes "be-bop"... It's the second implied melody resolving! Pretty neat. Originally Posted by Aristotle
I don't see why we need to pretend that something is different is happening here and why it needs a different label - so far no one has described anything "new" that isn't already part of the fabric of music theory for centuries. The only reasons that I can see for the new label are either ignorance of this practice throughout music history, or marketing hype. I find the second less offensive so I choose that.
Again, I'll accept the term "linear harmony" as long as I don't have to accept the hype. I'll just roll my eyes a little.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 01-21-2011 at 06:24 PM.
-
Mark,
I don't think I am missing "his emphasis."
It's not sufficient justification for me, that university level instructional material can't cite the appropriate source of things. It's bad enough, and none of my business, when a nightclub patron explains to his friend during a cover of Pretty Woman; that it was originally a Van Halen song.
Also, I am having a bit of trouble reconciling "talented students" in college-level jazz program, who can't play 1-3-5-7 of a chord.
-
It's because no one teaches harmonic thinking anymore. People just want to learn a bunch of scales and mix and match them. Not everyone. But at the university program where I am I often sit and jam with some of the jazz students - to them I'm a wise old sage (I sure have them fooled. Originally Posted by Aristotle
) (I'm actually a classical guitar student there since they had no jazz degree when I started back to finish my degree.) They are amazed (especially the guitarists) that I can outline the harmony with a solo line while playing unaccompanied. They ask, "Hey man, what scale is that?" I'm like, "I dunno, but I know where the chord tones are." Sometimes they'll play a note and I'll ask them what the harmonic function of that note is and it's amazing how often they don't know and how often they struggle to figure it out. People just don't think that way anymore, at least not most young guitar players it's all just scales and "modes."
*sigh* Don't get me started.
But at least this Ligon approach makes people think of that stuff again - that's a good thing.
Peace,
Kevin
Reply With Quote
Ibanez archtop with 0.010 Thomastik strings and...
Today, 05:27 AM in The Builder's Bench