The division between classical and jazz theory...

[oneworld]

this is my first real post here... and i had the impression that this was a friendly place... until i found this thread...

compared to the history of western music theory, jazz theory is a fairly new
game which is turning more into a business than anything else imo.
but going back to the origins and sources (mainly german theorists - piston and his 'common practice harmony' came into play much later) of 'Funktionstheorie' (great article in german: Funktionstheorie ) and 'Stufentheorie' (in english: Diatonic_function) might be interesting to some... i don't think classical theory vs. jazz theory is really a big issue as long jazz composition/analysis is just an excuse to 'blow over changes'... within short structural forms/cycles...

[bako]

I try to be aware of similarities and differences between harmonic areas.
Common tones can connect chords seamlessly and the differences can delineate the evolving harmony.

Here's an attempt to pull the modes closer to each other.

Ema7 (lydian)
EF#G#A#BC#D#--------the A# anticipates the Bb

Fm7 (phrygian)
FGbAbBbCDbEb-----------the Db links to the previous C#

C#m7 (dorian)
C#D#EF#G#A#B--------the A# links to the Bb
or C#m7 (phrygian)
C#DEF#G#AB------------the A anticipates C Major

Cma7 (lydian)
CDEF#GAB---------------the F# links to C#m7

Am7 (dorian)
ABCDEF#G---------------same scale

F#m7 (phrygian)
F#GABC#DE---------closer to Am7
or F#m7 (aeolian)
F#G#ABC#DE-------closer to C#m7

C#m7 (phygian)
C#DEF#G#AB--------same scale

Cma7 (lydian)
CDEF#GAB------------F# links to previous chord as well as the repeat A section of Ema7 and the B section Dma7


B section
DMaj7-CMaj7-DMaj7-EbMaj7 repeat EbMaj7-F#Maj7(+5)-Ab/E

The first 4 chords has the same contour as the diatonic Dm7 Cm7 Dm7 Ebma7 but with parallel Major 7th's

Dma7 (ionian)
DEF#GABC#---------G natural is closer Cma7

Cma7 (lydian)
CDEF#GAB --------F# links to Dma7 before and after

Dma7 (ionian)
DEF#GABC#

Ebma7 (lydian)
EbFGABbCD--------A links to Dma7

Ebma7 (ionian)
EbFGAbBbCD

Gbma7+ (3rd mode Eb melodic minor)
GbAbBbCDEbF----------Ab links Eb ionian and Ema7+

Ab/E or Ema7+ (3rd mode of C# melodic minor)

That's all for now.

Welcome oneworld

Has anyone seen a more joyous people than the Egyptians today, an incredible moment.

[oneworld]

Welcome oneworld

Has anyone seen a more joyous people than the Egyptians today, an incredible moment.

thanks for your welcome, bako !

yes, incredible... reminded me of the fall of the berlin wall back in '89...

[timscarey]

Bako,

Dig your analysis, I usually don't think to use the Phrygian scale on minor chords, I'll give it a shot.

In transcribing the melody/solos, I found that the Natural 9 is used on the minor chords throughout, but that's just one way of doing it.

Thank you for your input, I dig the ideas.

and Yeah it's pretty magical what is happening in Egypt today.

[ksjazzguitar]

First, I just went through Chopin Op.28 No.4 and there is nothing like this in that piece of music, there are some interesting chords in there, but nothing like this.

Really?!?!? This is considered one of the classic examples on non-functional, non-diatonic harmony that works through voice-leading. He may not put it in every other chord and beat you over the head with it - this is still Romantic and Chopin liked subtlety. But the point is that the principle is there. If you dismiss this so easily, I would love to hear your analysis.

How do you explain the E7 in m.4? The Dm7 in m.8? The Fm7 and Bdim7 in m.15? They are great examples of non-functional, non-diatonic harmony that works through voice-leading.

Measure 17 has a nice example of bIIIMaj7#5 serving dominant function.

See, "Voice leading chord" while it may be a good explanation of how the chord is being used, gives you absolutely no insight into how to improvise over it, ...

Man, it is insufferable trying to discuss analysis with you guys. "What scale do I play?" That is all you guys every think about. It's like trying to have a conversation with a squirrel. Human: "Hey, I just bought a new car!" Squirrel: "Yeah, but how do the acorns taste?" Human: "Did you read that Kafka book I lent you?" Squirrel: "When do I get to the part about acorns?" Human: "Hey, I'm thinking of studying forestry." Squirrel: "The theory of forestry has nothing to tell us unless it starts telling us which trees have the tastiest acorns!"

Ultimately, your condemnation is based on two flawed assumptions: 1. The most important thing that theory can tell us is what scale to use. 2. Scales are the only way to improvise.

Also, how do you think these classical guys are choosing the melody notes. Are they picking them randomly? No, they are using the same logic that jazz guys do. It's just more obvious to them so they don't need to talk about it constantly. And seeing how chords voice-lead can be very valuable for improvisers. For some of us, it is far more important that droning on about scales.

You jazzers seem to think that you invented the question, "What notes fit over this chord?" It is the same question that every composer has been asking for 500 years. It's just that people with formal classical training don't find the need to drone on and on about it because it is usually pretty obvious, or you just use your ear.

"Voice leading chord" is a cop out answer as well. WTF kind of explanation is that?

It has a long history. Even in Bach, we encounter chords that cannot be explained, often forming structures that weren't "real" chords. Now, for Bach, they tended to fall in between the beats and were the result of 2 or three voices performing passing notes or neighbor tones. The difference is that with Chopin, these "phantom" chords can be chromatic and can be part of the show. Those are "voice-leading" chords. Classical was doing them more than a century before jazz. For someone who claims to be well versed in classical theory, you sure are dismissive of a standard analysis technique.

and the root is a major 3rd above the next chord. (not the smoothest movement there)

That is the nature of piano music. Chopin had to work within the limitations of the human hand. This is a problem that anyone who writes for the solo piano encounters.

much all cases dominant and diminished chords are the result, not full minor 7th chords.

First of all, so what? The point is that they are non-diatonic and non-functional. There are a non-diatonic and non-functional Dm7 in m.8 and Fm7 in m.15. But really, you think the point is the presence of minor 7th chords?

I think the most "out" he goes is beat 3 of measure 17 where he has essentially a Gmaj7+5 with a D natural in the melody, it's obvioulsy used to resolve to the tonic via the D# in the left hand, but pretty "out" from a jazz perspective. unless you just call it a B7(#9), then it's totally in.

First of all, there is not D natural in that measure. Secondly, the chord is diatonic.

and keep in mind, I let you get away with just the first 4 chords.

But once again, the purpose of the thread wasn't the "See If We Can Stump Kevin" game show. The point was if there was anything in jazz that was without precedent in classical. You gave an example of some non-functional, non-diatonic voice-leading chords. I showed that the same analysis can be used for both.

If you think that that is inadequate, then provide your own. But it seems that you fall into the category of people on this forum who distrust any analysis that goes beyond, "What scale do I play?" For those of us that are not scalar players, understanding voice-leading is extremely helpful. I usually avoid the "What scale do I play?" things because I went through all that mental masturbation 15 years ago and it just bores the hell out of me. Really, is it that hard people?

And I fail to see any analysis here that goes beyond the scope of classical theory. Bako's analysis is good, but again, it is all stuff that derives ultimately from classical theory. Even the "What scale do I play?" question comes from classical. They need to know what notes fit over a given chord. They may not feel the need to group the notes into scales in the same way, but scales are just collections of notes. And there is a lot of 20th century works that have much more disjunct chord movement and more scalar melodies that do require similar analysis.

That's why there are two kinds of theory, actually there are hundreds of kinds of theory and looking at what you presented, I think mine is much more useful than yours if you want to actually "play" music.

So, you think that Chopin chose all of these notes at random? All the composers, you think they just chose the melody notes at random because no one ever thought to ask what notes fit over which chords?

There are not two theories. Really, there is a large Venn diagram of classical theory and many sub-theories that overlap in various ways. If you're analyzing Bach, you use different principles than Palestrina. Mozart need some new analysis techniques, as did Beethoven, Chopin, Stauss, Wagner, Mahler, Bartok, Ravel, Stravinsky, Penderecki, Part, Reich, Cage, etc. Jazz is just another sub-category.

Again, point to one thing that is not in classical theory.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

First, I just went through Chopin Op.28 No.4 and there is nothing like this in that piece of music, there are some interesting chords in there, but nothing like this.

Really?!?!? This is considered one of the classic examples on non-functional, non-diatonic harmony that works through voice-leading. He may not put it in every other chord and beat you over the head with it - this is still Romantic and Chopin liked subtlety. But the point is that the principle is there. If you dismiss this so easily, I would love to hear your analysis.

How do you explain the E7 in m.4? The Dm7 in m.8? The Fm7 and Bdim7 in m.15? They are great examples of non-functional, non-diatonic harmony that works through voice-leading.

Measure 17 has a nice example of bIIIMaj7#5 serving dominant function.

See, "Voice leading chord" while it may be a good explanation of how the chord is being used, gives you absolutely no insight into how to improvise over it, ...

Man, it is insufferable trying to discuss analysis with you guys. "What scale do I play?" That is all you guys every think about. It's like trying to have a conversation with a squirrel. Human: "Hey, I just bought a new car!" Squirrel: "Yeah, but how do the acorns taste?" Human: "Did you read that Kafka book I lent you?" Squirrel: "When do I get to the part about acorns?" Human: "Hey, I'm thinking of studying forestry." Squirrel: "The theory of forestry has nothing to tell us about trees unless it starts telling us which trees have the tastiest acorns!"

Ultimately, your dismissal is based on two flawed assumptions: 1. The most important thing that theory/analysis can tell us is what scale to use. 2. Scales are the only way to improvise.

Also, how do you think these classical guys are choosing the melody notes. Are they picking them randomly? No, they are using the same logic that jazz guys do. It's just more obvious to them so they don't need to talk about it constantly. And seeing how chords voice-lead can be very valuable for improvisers. For some of us, it is far more important that droning on about scales.

You jazzers seem to think that you invented the question, "What notes fit over this chord?" It is the same question that every composer has been asking for 500 years. It's just that people with formal classical training don't find the need to drone on and on about it because it is usually pretty obvious, or you just use your ear.

"Voice leading chord" is a cop out answer as well. WTF kind of explanation is that?

It has a long history. Even in Bach, we encounter chords that cannot be explained, often forming structures that weren't "real" chords. Now, for Bach, they tended to fall in between the beats and were the result of 2 or three voices performing passing notes or neighbor tones. The difference is that with Chopin, these "phantom" chords can be chromatic and can be part of the show. Those are "voice-leading" chords. Classical was doing them more than a century before jazz. For someone who claims to be well versed in classical theory, you sure are dismissive of a standard analysis technique.

and the root is a major 3rd above the next chord. (not the smoothest movement there)

That is the nature of piano music. Chopin had to work within the limitations of the human hand. This is a problem that anyone who writes for the solo piano encounters.

much all cases dominant and diminished chords are the result, not full minor 7th chords.

First of all, so what? The point is that they are non-diatonic and non-functional. There are a non-diatonic and non-functional Dm7 in m.8 and Fm7 in m.15. But really, you think the point is the presence of minor 7th chords?

I think the most "out" he goes is beat 3 of measure 17 where he has essentially a Gmaj7+5 with a D natural in the melody, it's obvioulsy used to resolve to the tonic via the D# in the left hand, but pretty "out" from a jazz perspective. unless you just call it a B7(#9), then it's totally in.

First of all, there is not D natural in that measure. Secondly, the chord is diatonic.

and keep in mind, I let you get away with just the first 4 chords.

But once again, the purpose of the thread wasn't the "See If We Can Stump Kevin" game show. The point was if there was anything in jazz that was without precedent in classical. You gave an example of some non-functional, non-diatonic voice-leading chords. I showed that the same analysis can be used for both.

If you think that that is inadequate, then provide your own. But it seems that you fall into the category of people on this forum who distrust any analysis that goes beyond, "What scale do I play?" For those of us that are not scalar players, understanding voice-leading is extremely helpful. I usually avoid the "What scale do I play?" things because I went through all that mental masturbation 15 years ago and it just bores the hell out of me. Really, is it that hard people?

And I fail to see any analysis here that goes beyond the scope of classical theory. Bako's analysis is good, but again, it is all stuff that derives ultimately from classical theory. Even the "What scale do I play?" question comes from classical. They need to know what notes fit over a given chord. They may not feel the need to group the notes into scales in the same way, but scales are just collections of notes. And there is a lot of 20th century works that have much more disjunct chord movement and more scalar melodies that do require similar analysis.

That's why there are two kinds of theory, actually there are hundreds of kinds of theory and looking at what you presented, I think mine is much more useful than yours if you want to actually "play" music.

So, you think that Chopin chose all of these notes at random? All the composers, you think they just chose the melody notes at random because no one ever thought to ask what notes fit over which chords?

There are not two theories. Really, there is a large Venn diagram of classical theory and many sub-theories that overlap in various ways. If you're analyzing Bach, you use different principles than Palestrina. Mozart need some new analysis techniques, as did Beethoven, Chopin, Stauss, Wagner, Mahler, Bartok, Ravel, Stravinsky, Penderecki, Part, Reich, Cage, etc. Jazz is just another sub-category.

Again, point to one thing that is not in classical theory. All you've done is change the question and then claim that I didn't answer it.

We are the borg. Your harmonies will be assimilated. Your scale patterns and distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.

Get over it czardas. It's not our fault that we don't run flocking to your invented chord terminology. You failed to explain a problem that needed to be fixed or you your system improved anything. It's main use is in naming chords that people don't use very often (if at all.)

And I'm still waiting for you example of a diminished chord built with a d3 interval. Using bad translations of Dutch doesn't count.

Peace,
Kevin

[timscarey]

First of all, so what? The point is that they are non-diatonic and non-functional. There are a non-diatonic and non-functional Dm7 in m.8 and Fm7 in m.15. But really, you think the point is the presence of minor 7th chords?

I just got home from a gig and have an out of town gig tomorrow so I won't be able to respond for a few days but I wanted to just address this real quick.


The example I presented has full minor 7th chords functioning alongside diatonic 7th chords (keep in mind these chords have no tritone) your example does not show Chopin using this kind of harmony. The fact that it is non-diatonic and non-functioning is too vague, there are so many chords that fit that description, I'm trying to give you a specific example. Emaj7-Fmin7 or the same thing in another key.

Also, I think we are getting closer to the point, and that is that the function of Jazz theory is improvising over changes. There is the answer to your question.. "what is the division between classical and jazz theory".... improvising over changes, that is the difference.

also, that whole squirrel thing..... wow man, I'm going to say it.

[Edit]

seriously guy, make music, it'll make you feel better.




bed time.

[davidblair]

Quite a discussion here.

My opinion is that Music Theory is universal to all genres of music, encompassing every style of music which pleases the ear and resolves around a theme.
How to use theory to define music in mathematical intervals is theoretically possible, but as a community we lack clearly articulated examples to study from.

Learning violin none of my teachers talked about Theory. Our focus was on technique and reading notation. To play classical music does not require any knowledge of theory.
Does a parrot understand what he speaks?

Many musicians who don't read notation understand theory, how chords and scales work together, and demolished chords too.

If the goal is to play what you hear or imagine then studying theory is a quicker way to get there.

[ksjazzguitar]

The example I presented has full minor 7th chords functioning alongside diatonic 7th chords (keep in mind these chords have no tritone) your example does not show Chopin using this kind of harmony.

What a bizarre way to judge it. The point is the technique. The technique is clearly used and the fact that you expect me to go through 10 million hours of classical music to find an exact match is ridiculous. The point is the technique. Your complaint that Chopin doesn't count because he uses tritones is ridiculous. They are not functioning as leading tones, and that is what counts.

The fact that it is non-diatonic and non-functioning is too vague, there are so many chords that fit that description,

No, there aren't. It is a specific technique. Clearly it is the one that was used here. Throw together four 7th random chords and see if they voice-lead this well.

I'm trying to give you a specific example. Emaj7-Fmin7 or the same thing in another key.

No, you miss the point. Diatonic substitution is still diatonic substitution, whether it is an Em7 subbing for a CMaj7, or a CMaj7 subbing for an Am7, an Am7 subbing for a CMaj7, or a Bm7b5 subbing for a G7. To say that these are different techniques because they involve different chords is ridiculous. The point is that each of these non-diatonic, non-functional chords is connected to the previous and following chords by common tones, exactly what you example does. That is the technique, not the quality of chords that he uses, that is application. If we resolve guide tones in a Gm7-C7 progression, we don't say that it is a different technique than resolving the guide tones in a G7-CMaj7 progression. It is the same theoretical concept just being applied to different chords. I was never saying that jazz players make the same aesthetic choices as classical composers. I was talking about theory. You are confusing theory and practice.

The point is the abstraction of the principle, not finding that exact pattern. The point is to see what the pattern is doing so that you can see it in other places. The technique being used in both case is the connection of non-diatonic, non-functional harmony through voice-leading. They are clear examples of the same principle. The choice of chord quality is merely aesthetic - it is the principle being discussed here, not whether of not is sounds jazzier to use Maj7 or X7.

But the technique being used in both cases is the same, even if the aesthetics of each genre causes them to use different chord qualities. The point of the thread was to find a jazz technique that didn't have a precedent in classical, and you've failed so far, QED. The only thing you've managed to do is hijack the thread to talk about your tune and to ask, "What scale do I use?"

First you wanted to know if there was a precedent to this technique in classical. There was, but that wasn't good enough, you wanted an example. I provided and examples, but that wasn't good enough, because you couldn't see minor 7th chords working as VL chords. I pointed out that there were, but that wasn't good enough because they aren't connecting to major 7th chords. Even if I combed through 100,000 hours of classical music from the 20th century (not my favorite music to begin with) and found an example, there would still be something wrong with that I'm sure.

And it still misses the point that it is the principle being tested, not the exact chord change. It is very amateurish to think of theory of collections of exact chord changes. Besides, as a theory teacher once told me, "There is not melody of chord change that you can write that Wagner hasn't already done twice." If you examined the literature, you're realize that that is (even if hyperbollically) true. But you guys learn a little bit of CPP literature and theory in school and you think that that is where classical music ends. But the fault is y'all's ignorance, not classical's narrowness. It is much more broad than - in theory and literature - than you guys seem to realize.

Also, I think we are getting closer to the point, and that is that the function of Jazz theory is improvising over changes.

First of all, classical was "improvising over changes" long before jazz was born. Even Chopin was known as a great improviser. Some modern composers are bringing it back. One of my old CG teachers likes to put improv sections into his compositions. What theory does he uses when he improvs on a classical tune? The same one that he uses when he composes. It's also the same one he uses on his jazz gigs.

And you are also putting an unnecessary brick wall between composition and improv. They are the same process, just in different time frames. They use all the same techniques. When you compose jazz, do you use a completely different theory than when you improvise? Please explain. Can you give an example of a theoretical technique that you use when you improvise that has no place in composition?

also, that whole squirrel thing..... wow man, I'm going to say it.

The point is that all you guys talk about is, "What scale do I use?" There are other questions. For many of us, "What scale do I use?" is the most uninteresting question you can ask about a piece. When I've had the pleasure of hanging out with truly monstrous players, and they talk about music, I can't remember them talking about "What scale do I use?" - I do remember several great conversations about voice-leading. I had a recent bad experience where I was trying to analyze the advanced structure of a tune and was constantly getting badgered because I wasn't discussing, "What scale do I use?"

I started this conversation because I hoped we could have a discussion that went beyond, "What scale do I use?" But the anti-theory guerrillas took it over.

My opinion is that Music Theory is universal to all genres of music, encompassing every style of music which pleases the ear and resolves around a theme.

I wouldn't go that far. Hindustani raga has a very different theory. Gagaku has a very different theory. But the point is that jazz theory evolved out of classical theory, especially if you are talking about harmony. With the exception of the blue note, there aren't any theoretical elements that don't have precedent there.

Learning violin none of my teachers talked about Theory. Our focus was on technique and reading notation. To play classical music does not require any knowledge of theory.

Well, then your lessons either weren't very advanced or you had a very bad teacher. My CG teacher and I discuss theory all the time.

And the point of jazz is that it has combined composition and performance into one. Much modern classical has unfortunately divided the two. So jazz players look just at classical performers and think that they have nothing in common. But you have to look at the whole process, not just one part of it.

Does a parrot understand what he speaks?

But a good classical player understands what he is playing. He has studied and analyzed the score. He has read up everything he can about the composer. He has gone through the piece and figured out what aspects of the piece he wants to bring out. He has spent hours and hours figuring out phrasing and articulation. He has read the literature on how this style of music is often interpreted. He has listened to other interpretations to see how it can inform his choices. He listens back to recordings of himself to hear what can be improved.

Does a parrot do that? Often jazz musicians have a warped idea of what classical is because they had a year and a half of piano lessons when they were 9 or they played in the high school marching band. Classical performance is much more complicated than you guys seem to think.

And it is much more creative than jazzers seem to think. It is not (usually) creative in terms of what notes you play, but it is very creative in the way you choose to express those notes and their relationships to each other. It is the kind of thing that is hard to see until you've gotten down into the mud with it.

Jazz guys are woefully uninformed about what goes on in the classical world. It looks like mindless reading of notes so that is how they label it.

Many musicians who don't read notation understand theory, how chords and scales work together, and demolished chords too.

I would agree that many musicians who don't read understand basic theory. But that is only if you define theory as "What scale do I use?" Yes, that is a simple table that can be memorized. But theory is much, much more than that. It would be like saying that someone has mastered physics because they know how to play pool - no, that is just one practical application. I have met a lot of musicians who can't read who have the basics of theory down, but I have yet to meet one that understands deeper topics.

If the goal is to play what you hear or imagine then studying theory is a quicker way to get there.

I agree with that. Theory is a tool. It helps us understand and categorize what sounds good. It is also useful training wheels for a beginner or a handy reminder for the more advanced.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

Fm7 (phrygian)
FGbAbBbCDbEb-----------the Db links to the previous C#

Not to pick specifically on you Bako, this is another problem that I have with these formulaic, formalistic, paint-by-numbers approach with the "just play this scale over these chords" approach. You've built a rationalistic argument for a Gb there but failed to try empiricism. Did anyone listen to the recording? The melody is a big fat G. It is confirmed in his solo, m.10 of his solo (and elsewhere) for example. Glasper wants a G there which would have been my choice too as I tend to Dorianize "random" m7 chords. I never heard him play a D or a Db over that chord (this is not a scalar solo), so I guess that aspect is vague.

B section
DMaj7-CMaj7-DMaj7-EbMaj7 repeat EbMaj7-F#Maj7(+5)-Ab/E

The first 4 chords has the same contour as the diatonic Dm7 Cm7 Dm7 Ebma7 but with parallel Major 7th's

Again, it is just planing. (Looking back in my notes I realized that I was misapplying the term "planarism" - I think that's what my first theory teacher called it. It is more commonly called "planing" or "parallelism.") It is a standard compositional technique. The relationship of the roots to a perceived other progression is secondary.

Look at Satie's Le Fils des Etoilles. With quartal harmony no less! (Another thing that jazzers think that they invented. ) Or look at Debussy's "Nuages" (from his Nocturnes) for triadic harmony being planed. Or take a look at Ravel's "Menuett" from Tombeau de Couperin. Look in m.57 for another great example. I would say m.55, but there is a color change in one of the chords. To make it easier, m.57 is the 25 measure after the key change.

You guys keep looking for other explanations for this, but the explanation is clear to anyone with a background in music theory. Jazz piano players do this all the time (because many of them love playing through Impressionist piano music, Bill Evans for example.) Maria Schneider does it too in her arrangements, lot's of people do. This is not some "out there" technique, but it requires getting beyond the notion that theory is just about "What scale do I play?"

Dma7 (ionian)
DEF#GABC#---------G natural is closer Cma7

Again, listen to how he plays it. He lays off the G most of the time, but does play a G# in the left hand in m.19 of his solo. I found no Gs.

I could go on, but you get the idea. I think that this "this notes relates to the previous and following keys" approach can be good in some situation, but with something like this, players often approach it more quasi-modally (Wasn't he that hunchback guy, "Quasimodally"?) They approach each chord as it's own entity chord/scale entity because there is no functional harmony. He's already used common-tone modulation to connect the chords so he doesn't feel the need to do it with the extensions too.

If you start taking apart his solo, he's not really running a lot of scales. He's more playing chordal licks for each chord that connect together. The chordal licks blend together because the chords voice lead so well together. Remember that line analysis where I showed that every chord tone in the first 4 chords is approachable by a preceding chord tone by either common tone of half-step? A quick look through the rest chords shows similar voice-leading. Although some have whole-steps to voice leading, they all share at least 2 or 3 common-tones (As Bako also pointed out.)

He has constructed the tune so that as long as he stays around the chord tones, they will always voice-lead correctly. This is why the linear analysis that I was trying to do is so important to understanding and playing a tune like this. This guys isn't thinking about scales, he's thinking about how the voices lead. He's thinking like a piano player, not like a guitar player. So, it turns out that my linear voice-leading analysis (instead of "What scale do I play") was much closer to how Glasper was thinking. But I guess that it was easier just to mock it as irrelevant, eh Tim?

Again, theory has more to offer than "What scale do I play?" In fact, for many of us, that is about the most boring question that can be asked about a tune.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

[KS said] "And I'm still waiting for you example of a diminished chord built with a d3"

KevinJust build it or don't build it. It's not my terminology, it's established theory. It wouldn't matter if the inventor was Chinese.

I can't build it because it is a contradiction in terms. A diminished chord cannot be built with a d3 because diminished chords are built with m3s. It if you go with 7th chords, you can get M3 and A3 possible. But there is no d3 (or it's inversion A3) so what you are saying in impossible.

Sure, you can build a chord with a d3 and call it a diminished chord. I can build a box out of wood and call it a "cow," but that doesn't mean that I can get milk from it and it doesn't prove that cows are made out of wood.

If you think that it is "established theory," then show me an example. Don't make one up or use badly translated Dutch to hide behind, show me this mythical chord. Or I can just go on assuming that you're just someone that makes things up. You refered to it as "basic chord construction" as I remember. No, it's not, you just don't know your intervals. You were at a prestigious European conservatory for 6 years and they never taught you how to build basic chords? Why do I get more and more suspicous of your "prestigious" education with each of your posts?

Re : G13+5-10+11

[KS said] "It also could have been written as a poly chord, F+Maj7/B+Maj7"
Thanks, I can see the fuctionality quite easily now you told me that. It's clearly a dominant chord resolving to Cm.

First off all, usually you don't put a 13 in a dominant chord resolving to minor (or a 9 and a #9 for that matter, #11 is questionable.)

Second of all. No harmonic context was given! You can't add one ex post facto and them blame me for not reading your mind! Here is the original quote:

To me the term double diminished, as commonly refered to in Jazz theory, is not a diminshed chord at all: but rather an octatonic dominant chord. I would use the formula G13-9-10+11 : notes G Ab Bb B C# D E F.

And what I gave was just an option. Some people like to write chords that way.

Lastly, I find it odd that the original posting for this has magically disappeared. You have a habit of deleting from and adding to posts after they've already been responded to. This is dishonest and ... well ... I won't tell you the adjective I would use. We all go back and add clarifications and corrections in posts, and sometimes we even make mistakes. But to delete information after the discussion has gone on wrong. Accidents happen, but I've seen you do this at least 3 times in this thread. Once the discussion has moved on, you shouldn't change previous posts except to clear up typos or to add something in editorial brackets.

Look, I don't care about your stupid new chord system. That chord sounds like garbage anyway. Why invent a new system to label it? I remember watching an episode of "Monk" where he was alphabetizing and color coding his files before he sent them to the incinerator. There is no problem with standard chord notation and your system doesn't solve it even if there was. If you want to convince the world to change the way we label chords, then start your own thread as it has nothing to do with this thread, even tangentially.

Peace,
Kevin

[JonR]

I hesitate to enter this debate, but...

Sure, you can build a chord with a d3 and call it a diminished chord. I can build a box out of wood and call it a "cow," but that doesn't mean that I can get milk from it and it doesn't prove that cows are made out of wood.

Seems to me the dispute is about what the phrase "diminished chord" means. Of course in jazz it means something quite clear: something built on a triad with a minor 3rd and diminished 5th.

That's not to deny that one can build a chord (of some kind) with a diminished 3rd.
And I know you're not denying that. This is just a terminological dispute. The question is whether it's right or not (or conventional or not) to call it some kind of diminished chord (say with a dim5 and/or dim7 too): allowing that there might be more varieties of diminished chord than exist in jazz.

Or - (seeing as I'm ignorant here) - is there a conventional name (in classical theory) for a chord with a diminished 3rd, other than an inverted augmented 6th of some kind? If there is, that ought to solve the issue... (or even if it is just an augmented 6th)

First off all, usually you don't put a 13 in a dominant chord resolving to minor

I've seen 13b9 chords used as V in minor keys.

[ksjazzguitar]

...Seems to me the dispute is about what the phrase "diminished chord" means. Of course in jazz it means something quite clear: something built on a triad with a minor 3rd and diminished 5th. ...The question is whether it's right or not (or conventional or not) to call it some kind of diminished chord (say with a dim5 and/or dim7 too): allowing that there might be more varieties of diminished chord than exist in jazz.

I hear ya. But even after I clarified it he continued on (and still does.) He claims to be well versed in theory an chord names but seems to be relying on bad translations of Dutch.

Just having a diminished interval in chord does not make it a diminished chord. The Maj7b5 has a diminished interval it. The 7#5 has a d3 in it (between the #5 and the b7.) Are these "diminished" chords? No. I understand you are just trying to search for middle ground, but the consequences are too grave.

...is there a conventional name (in classical theory) for a chord with a diminished 3rd, other than an inverted augmented 6th of some kind? If there is, that ought to solve the issue... (or even if it is just an augmented 6th)

As I said before, some use the term "diminished third chord" for a 3rd inversion Ger6. But the "diminished" refers to the "third" not the "chord." It is a "chord" with a "diminished third" in it, not a "diminished chord" with a "third" in it.

Or, if Am7 is in first inversion, is that really a "major chord" because that first interval is M3? Is dimMaj7 in second inversion really an augmented chord because the bottom interval is an A3? No, that's not how we build chords.

A diminished chord is built off of a diminished triad, by definition.

He's just trying to do back flips to avoid admitting that he doesn't know what he's talking about. First he tried to defend it with badly translated Dutch (even though he claims to know all the chord names in English, his native language) and now apparently he's going back and deleting his mistakes.

...I've seen 13b9 chords used as V in minor keys.

Yes, you can, but I said that people don't usually. The b13 is preferred because it voice-leads more naturally into the m3 of the resolution chord. 13 can work, but it is a little out. The 13 usually resolves to the M3.

It can work, but it is not the usual way to do it. But the bigger point was that he was adding in an harmonic context ex post facto and blaming me for not reading his mind. When I see a G13b9, I usually assume it is going to CMaj7. But his mythical G13b9♮9#11#5? Who knows where it's going or why anyone would want to play it? (If anyone has.) I don't see the need for czardas to unilaterally reinvent chord notation to accommodate all the chords that people don't use - or to throw a hissy fit because we don't all get in line behind him like sheep.

Yeah, original posts were deleted by me.

You don't think that it's a little dishonest to go back and delete your mistakes? A little cowardly? You make moronic posts, and then when someone points out your mistakes you run and try to hide them? C'mon, sack up, man.

Try sharpening the root of Dm7.

But what is that chord? It's not a diminished chord. D# F A is not a diminished triad. Creating a "chord with a diminished third in it" is not the same as "diminished chord with a diminished third in it." Sadly, in your six years at a prestigious European conservatory, they never taught you that. (Are we still going to keep this "six years a a prestigious European conservatory charade" going? You've already admitted to not being well versed in classical theory or music and seem to have trouble with basic definitions of chords. Most of the conservatories I've known you couldn't even get into them with that lack of knowledge, much less get out after six years. I've seen some of their placement exams. You have even said that you didn't speak the language of instruction. )

Grove defines a "diminished triad" as "A chord built of two minor 3rds, for example B–D–F or C–Eb–Gb." and a "diminished seventh chord" as "A chord formed from a diminished triad with added diminished 7th, for example B–D–F–Ab." and a "half-diminished seventh chord" as "A half-diminished chord spans a minor 7th, and is built from two minor 3rds and a major 3rd, as in D–F–Ab–C."

Can you show me your source (in English, not poorly translated Dutch) where a diminished chord is defined as any combination of notes that has a diminished interval somewhere in it?

I've tried to be patient with you, but you are just making things up, refusing to admit that you're wrong, going back and deleting things to hide your idiocy and you insist on hijacking this thread to push with your "Czardas' Great New Chord Labelling System." You just aren't worth my time. Unless you have something OT to add (or want to explain any of the basic theory 101 mistakes that you have made and deleted to hide you foolishness) then just go away, you troll. I can forgive a lot, but lying and trying to hide your mistakes by editing and deleting old posts - that is beyond the pale. On some forums that would get you booted.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

Am I the only one that finds deleting your old mistakes from old posts in an ongoing discussion to be dishonest and cowardly?

Peace,
Kevin

[bako]

I listened to the tune but I didn't fully take in the melody. I stated 2 times that the melody is where an analysis should start and where I should have started but didn't due to time constraints. I dealt solely with the chords, my bad. What I wrote was mere brainstorming out loud, quick observations , not an analysis but we appeared to be thinking largely on the same track and said many of the same things. I also look for voice leading line possibilities as you suggested, to create melodic logic in chord voicings and to craft melodies around their skeletal structure.

I improvise with an awareness of commonalities and differences in the chords and their other possible associated notes.
What I wrote out with associated scales was aimed at pointing out how to bring the notes together with maximum commonalities.
I wasn't saying that Glasper's m7's were phrygian or that one should improvise over m7 using those notes. Phrygian just added one more common tone. I like to be aware of the implications of all 12 notes at all times but that doesn't mean I have use them. For me scales are just a way of codifying the most prominent 7 out of 12. If all I play is 2 chord tones that's fine too.

"The first 4 chords has the same contour as the diatonic Dm7 Cm7 Dm7 Ebma7 but with parallel Major 7th's"

I am describing how I heard the sequence, that it struck me as a parallel Ma7 version of this diatonic common sequence.
Planing works to name it in general, root motion is one thing that can bring logic to parallel motion.

When I have had the chance to take classes with masterful classical and jazz musicians and or play gigs with them it is an honor and I try to absorb as much as I can. I agree with you that the only difference between improvisation and composition is the time frame but that does have some implications as to how best prepare for each. I believe that every musician regardless of genre has to deal with the questions "What can be done and what do I want to do" Stereotypes get in the way of thinking and prevent us from taking advantage of resources that are helpful in our pursuits.

I would like to see you to present more musical examples here and less proselytizing, battling for your causes and disrespecting people.
Each musical example well understood can offer something valuable. A person with your typing skills can choose to be a force for good or evil.

[JonR]

I understand you are just trying to search for middle ground, but the consequences are too grave.

Indeed. Many graves have been dug in the middle ground...

As I said before, some use the term "diminished third chord" for a 3rd inversion Ger6. But the "diminished" refers to the "third" not the "chord." It is a "chord" with a "diminished third" in it, not a "diminished chord" with a "third" in it.

Right.

It can work, but it is not the usual way to do it. But the bigger point was that he was adding in an harmonic context ex post facto and blaming me for not reading his mind. When I see a G13b9, I usually assume it is going to CMaj7.

That's interesting, because - while I agree with your points - I associate it with C minor. But your experience is greater (and probably more reliable) than mine.
I haven't checked back in my Real Books...

You don't think that it's a little dishonest to go back and delete your mistakes?

I know you're not asking me, but I agree completely.
It's like trying to pretend that one didn't say something that one did say.
Realising one was wrong (or at least confused), but lacking the courage to admit it.
In fact, I think we should regard deleting one's posts as a tacit admission of guilt...

[ksjazzguitar]

Bako, that's cool.

I often use that smooth chord/scale transition approach with an unexplained chord here and there, but I think that a song like this with so many odd chords that at some point it makes more sense to think of them as chord/scale islands. It works for some songs anyway, less so with others.

I wasn't trying to vent on you specifically. I remember you've mentioned the importance of the melody. I'm just getting at this "paint-by-numbers" scale approach that I find so unmusical. Especially if you listen to the solo and hear that that is so not how he is thinking.

...Planing works to name it in general, root motion is one thing that can bring logic to parallel motion.

But the root motion is part of the parallel motion. To my ear, this piece had not established itself in C or Cm well enough to give this 2-1-2-b3 some kind of a referral back to the key. If I'd seen that or similar root movement somewhere else, perhaps I could buy that.

I would like to see you to present more musical examples here and less proselytizing, battling for your causes and disrespecting people. Each musical example well understood can offer something valuable.

I hear ya. I wish I had more time. And I guess I'm optimistic that people will read something like "voice leading chord" or "planing" or "Neapolitan" or whatever - that they will do a little research on their own instead of dismissing it off hand just because it wasn't covered by Mickey Baker. I'm amazed at the number of guys that indignantly tell me that they are well versed in theory and then don't know basic concepts. These things are easy to look up. They are not some secret code that I've invented. Anyone who considers themselves well versed in theory should at least be familiar with them. Again, this presumes that we can agree that there is more to analysis than "What scale do I use?" I guess I'm having unrealistic expectations about what a forum like this could be.

Wouldn't it be more disrespectful for me to just assume that they're lying when they indignantly say that they know all the theory? I prefer to catch someone in a lie before I call them a liar.

And frankly, I find some of the stuff others have done in this thread much more disrespectful. Trolling, lying, deleting mistakes to hide them, adding things to your past posts to put the other side out of context, hijacking the thread to push some bizarre sudoku chord numbering system, etc.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

...That's interesting, because - while I agree with your points - I associate it with C minor. ...

Could be. If you make it sound good, that is what is most important. I just always think of the 13 as going to a M3. Maybe I'm a little prejudiced against it, it just sounds weird to my ears. I have heard it used, but not usually.

One place it might work is in a parallel structure, something like: B13b9 - E7#9 - A13b9 - Dm7


-8--7--6--5---
-9--8--7--6---
-8--7--6--5---
-7--6--5--7---
----------5---
-7--0--5------


I think that parallel major triad on top gives it some structure that makes it work.

But if it sounds good to you, go for it. It just usually sounds a little off to me.


-5--7--6--
-4--4--3--
-5--5--3--
-5--4--3--
-0--5-----
-------3--


That just sounds odd to my ears. It just makes that Bb in the last chord sound "wrong" to my ears. That Gm7 doesn't sound like a tonic to me.

But if you can make it sound purty, then I won't stand in your way. Better men than me have made it work, maybe you're one of them.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

...although I don't have any of the feelings normally associated with guilt. ...

Uh, isn't that the definition of sociapathy?

Peace,
Kevin

[JonR]

No worries, I don't blame you for thinking that way, although I don't have any of the feelings normally associated with guilt. I'm not going to defend my actions because it's kind of unimportant.

Well, yes. But in that case, so is continuing to post to this thread...

[czardas]

Well, yes. But in that case, so is continuing to post to this thread...

Good point.

[ksjazzguitar]

I deny ever having made that statement. ...

You at several times claimed to have studied theory at a prestigious European conservatory for six years. You claimed to know all the chord terminology in English (despite making several basic errors and trying to defend them with badly translated Dutch.) Several times you reacted indignantly when I suggested that you were confused about some basic definitions. You acted so offended. How could I suggest that you, a well trained musician who had studied theory at a prestigious European conservatory for six years could not know his basic chord definitions?!? How dare I?!?

Here, I'll quote the evidence in your own words. Oh wait, I can't - you deleted it all! You shredded all the evidence so people couldn't see how uninformed you really are. Cute. You shredded all the evidence like a mob lawyer about to be indicted.

Most of this would just make you an idiot who is distorting his knowledge on the subject and pretending to know things that he doesn't understand. That would be forgivable. Welcome to the internet.

What makes you a PAB is that you then went and deleted any mistakes that you made so that: 1) People can't see what an uninformed troll you are and 2) All of the comments about your foolishness are now out of context. Your attempt to hide your own foolish words is an attempt to escape responsibility for your own words and to make others look foolish, boxing at shadows.

You claim that it is because what you said was taken out of context. How can your own post be out of context? It is one thing to say that the quotes of your text in other people's posts are out of context (which they weren't) but are you saying that you were putting your own ideas out of context?!?!? The only reason to complain about "out of context" is what others are quoting from you in their posts. If that were the case then the smartest thing to do would be to leave them up and make me look foolish. No, the only problem could have been that they were 100% in context and the only way you could hide that was by deleting your own posts. You deleted your mistakes because you were too childish to admit that you were pretending to know things that you didn't. This is in addition to adding things to your posts after to make it appear as if you'd said things that you didn't, to make the criticisms of your idiocies seem out of place.

Now, even more childishly, it appears that you've gone back and deleted almost all of your posts, like some kid who didn't get to play pitcher so he's going to take his baseball home and pout. All because I wouldn't let you make up your own definition of a diminished chord and I thought that your invented chord system wasn't needed?

How old are you? 11?

You know, people not knowing the minutia of theory - I have no problem with that. But when they start pretending that they know it it gets on my nerves (Christ, you don't even know how a diminished chord is built!) When they start fabricating this great education (that is countered every time they type some new inanity) that gets even more annoying. When the start pumping their harebrained theories even though they have yet to even learn the basics, that is a lot to bare. When they don't have the critical thinking skills to make or follow a basic argument, that is a load.

But when you start lying and trying to add and delete from old messages to distort what happened, that is just offensive. That is cowardly lying in an attempt to smear other people. It makes you a child and a liar. And then in the end your immaturity in deleting everything, in one final hissy-fit, that is just beyond belief. That is just the lowest of the low.

You seemed to be offended that I wasn't taking your words seriously. But it appears that it is you who is not taking the words that come out of you mouth seriously. Maybe if you started to put some thought and care into the words that came out of your mouth and respected them enough to let them stand on their own without your "creative" doctoring, then others might start to respect them. I don't know who it is over there, but over here respect is not a birthright, it has to be earned.

Good day to you, sir!

Peace,
Kevin

[cosmic gumbo]

The diagnosis looks grim....

[ksjazzguitar]

ksjazzguitarNo, most of it is still there.

No, it's not, liar. The vast majority has been deleted. Very little of it was quoted, so you've successfully shredded the evidence of your incompetence. Well, you may not be any good at building chords, but you get an A+ for deception and obfuscation.

You can flatten the minor third in either a diminished chord, or a half diminished chord. You can flatten or sharpen the fifth in any chord,

Well, I guess in six years of theory study at a prestigious European conservatory they never told you that it becomes a different chord if you change the 3rd. If I lower the 3rd of a major triad, it doesn't become a major triad with a m3, it has become a new chord. If I lower it again,what does it become? Still a different chord. It's not a major triad with a d3, you moron. C Ebb G is not a major triad with an altered third, you idiot. Similarly, if you lower the 3rd of a diminished chord, it's not a diminished chord anymore! I didn't ask if it was possible to lower the 3rd of a diminished chord, I asked you to defend your repeated statement that diminished chords could be constructed with diminished 3rds. Don't change what you've said (even though you've conveniently deleted most of the evidence.)

I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm sure it will shock some to find that I actually hold back. But you are an effing moron. No holds barred at this point.

Where is this "prestigious European conservatory" where you studied theory for six years? Please, enlighten us. Where do they teach someone for six years and not explain how triads are built? Please, I'd like to write them a letter and ask them how someone could study there for six years and not know basic triad construction.

I prefer you to critisize me for deleting my posts than critisize me for the content which was not ready for your scrutiny.

You posted it. But I was mainly criticizing for the incompetent Theory 101 mistakes. That babble about your new-fangled sudoku chord naming? It had nothing to do with the conversation and was injected by you! What do you mean not ready for scrutiny? You brought it up, moron! You hijacked the thread! But that was different content than when you were displaying your harmonic ignorance. How convenient that in your rush to hide your magic chord naming system you deleted the part where you couldn't build a triad and kept defending it for 20 posts (and are still defending it.)

But you deleted it all because you are a coward and a liar.

Who's going to believe in your new magical chord system if you don't even know basic theory? Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself? How can you even evaluate the current system if you so clearly don't understand it?

It's entiely up to you if you want to disbelieve me about my education at conservatorium. I can't force you to believe it.

You had a good con going. You could have made me believe it by at least knowing how triads are built! If you are going to pretend to be a harmonic wizard by reinventing the entire harmonic labeling system (because you said #9 is confusing ) then at least learn how to build your triads.

I don't know what "conservatory" means over there, but here it is a very prestigious music university, only accepting the best and costing a lot of money. They definitely know how to build their triads (probably before they get there) and they definitely end up studying a lot of CPP music, which you say that you have very little exposure to. (?!?!?!? ) So, you have six years in a prestigious European conservatory and you don't know how to build triads and have (by your own words) very little exposure to Bach and other CPP composers? It sounds like we cover more in a year of community college here than you did in six years at a prestigious conservatory. Really, I'm supposed to swallow that?

This is beyond pathetic.

Peace,
Kevin

[czardas]

I've had just about enough of you Kevin. Maniac