-
I'm coming round to kevin's view of your 6 years at a conservatory...
Originally Posted by czardas
Do these numbers refer to scale notes, and if so which scale? Is this jazz terminology? Originally Posted by bako
I'm totally self-taught in theory and I can tell what they mean.
Or at least I can make an informed guess (confirmed by kevin's answer), because I know what "4-3" means.Last edited by JonR; 02-14-2011 at 06:01 AM.
-
02-14-2011 05:50 AM
-
That would be exactly how I'd see it (coming from a kind of self-taught half-way point between rock and jazz). Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
But I was interested to see that Mark Levine doesn't even mention sus2 chords in his Jazz Theory Book. And I don't recall seeing one in a jazz chart.
That was behind my comment about them not existing (being inverted sus4s) for jazz musicians. And my conclusion from that was that all suspensions except the 4 seem to be treated (in jazz) as chord extensions rather than suspensions.
What's your view on that?
Do you know a jazz tune (eg in a Real Book somewhere) that has a sus2?
-
Pi
I always thought sus2's were just shorthand for add9(no3rd). Easily understood in reading but sounds more like a 9 than a 2. For non-jazz guitarists they seem to be interchangeable Originally Posted by JonR
with add9; merely a voicing consideration.
-
I made an example that incorporates suspended structures over different bass.
I start with DSus2 which reveals itself to really be BbMa7+ and I use D G A------C F G------G C F------C7Sus-----G# C# F#
The bass note creates the context that defines these suspended structures. The same notes can mean many things.Last edited by bako; 02-14-2011 at 12:11 PM.
-
Well, my running partner is sick today, so I can take care of this inanity before my run today.
Once again, you display ignorance of Music Theory 101. If it isn't built on a diminished triad, it is not a diminished chord. Just because it used to be a diminished chord before you lowered the third, is irrelevant. When you alter the 3rd of a chord, you change it's fundamental character. Originally Posted by czardas
No, there is no leading tone in that scale. The fact that it contains the leading tone to another scale is not relevant to naming the scale. The point of putting a scale over a non-diatonic chord is that it first has to fit over the chord - it's relation to the parent key is a distant second. The scale is F Lydian dominant, the standard scale for Ger6 chords. It is spelled as Eb when talking about the scale and (if you're a classical guy) as D# when talking about the chord. You seem to be also confusing that "aug6" refers to the scale degree - no, it is the b7 scale degree that has been spelled enharmonically for voice-leading purposes - it refers to an harmonic interval in the chord spelling, not to the scale degree. It is, and always was, the 7th scale degree, regardless of the voice-leading spelling. Originally Posted by czardas
You're attempt to fit a scale with adjacent m2s in it is just wrong. Again, in tonal harmony, we don't use scale with adjacent m2s. There is no purpose for the E to be in that scale. It is not part of the chord and defies standard scale construction principles and also sounds bad over that chord, IMHO. It should be a lyd dom.
Even in medieval modal practice, the leading tone was almost never used for this exact reason. (I'm told that it was used, even if very, very rarely. But I have never seen and example, nor have any of my teachers.)
But it's not a question of style. None of the chords are built off the 7th scale degree, their built off their roots. You are confusing "bass note" and "root." You can't just grab the bottom note and assume that it is the root. Originally Posted by czardas
Sorry, I'd misread what you'd written. Originally Posted by czardas
It is not a conclusion, it is an observation. Your source declined to give a symbol and the stated reason is because it's an inversion of a seventh chord. And out of the 18 chords listed, it was the only one that didn't have a symbol listed - from which we can easily infer an air of illegitimacy. Things that get used a lot tend to get labels. Originally Posted by czardas
But anyone with a basic theory knowledge would recognize those. Even if they don't remember the ins and outs of medieval through Baroque practice in regards to those, they at least know what they refer to. Originally Posted by czardas
It would be like someone claiming that they had studied chemistry for six years at Stanford, but then it turned out that they said, "Well, I'm still not really sure what atoms are. People say that they are made out of 'corks' so maybe they have something to do with wine. I don't know, does it matter? I can do all advanced chemistry stuff, I just get confused about the basics."
You just don't know what you're talking about. The sad thing is that you are so ignorant on the subject that you think that you're winning the argument.
I think that in jazz/pop chord construction, they all can be chord extensions that do not require resolution. Classical just has different rules. (Of course that is just CPP, 20th century classical may not resolve them either.) Originally Posted by JonR
Not off hand. It's not really part of the jazz vocabulary. But it shows up in a lot of pop tunes and it may show up in a jazz tune here or there. It can also show up in arrangements - I've used it in a few chord melodies. Originally Posted by JonR
Of course, at some point labeling just becomes arbitrary. The choice between 2 or 9 is certainly arbitrary. The chord label doesn't tell us voicing. We don't call the CMaj7 a CMaj14 if the 7th is up high. Even if we put it in the bass, it is still a CMaj7. And Csus2 can be voiced with the 2 in the top voice or Cadd9 can be voiced with the 9 down low. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
So, the difference between "Csus2" and "Cadd9(no3rd)" is just about how we think of the chord. Is it C E G with the 3rd replaced with a 2nd, or is it a C E G D with the E removed? Mathematically, the result is the same - it's just a matter of how we choose to think of the chord.
But that logic could be extended - why not call the "Cadd9" a "CMaj9(no7th)". At some choice the decision to think of a chord as having a life of it's own is arbitrary.
But I think that the Csus2 has enough individual character and shows up enough (in some musics) to be considered separately from Cadd9. It is also similar in sound and function to a sus4. Obviously they are closely related, but there are a lot of chords that are closely related to each other.
That's how I see it anyway. There is not a strong theoretical argument for "Csus2" over "Cadd9(no3rd)", just ease and convention and sound.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-14-2011 at 01:08 PM.
-
We can continue our other discussion, but czardas' insanity has been thankfully quarantined there.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Do you mean literally that he has been confined to one thread by Mods? Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
No, I assumed that he has just decided to continue his fight against reality in one thread instead of splitting between the two.
I guess it's progress. In the same sense that it's progress when a cannibal decides to use a fork.
I was just being silly and making it clear that it was just czardas little digression that was being diverted to the other thread. I'm not aware that Mods had anything to do with it. But combining the discussions made sense since they'd basically become the same thing, and he'd already deleted the vast majority of his posts here.
Peace,
Kevin
-
pm sent... Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
fyi... here you go... enjoy...
Last edited by oneworld; 02-15-2011 at 04:17 AM.
-
Originally Posted by oneworld
VERY COOL, Oneworld! Great playing - kudos to you! To rehash what you said earlier: all this debate and negativity - we'd rather hear some good playing. And now are we to wait 'breathlessly' for his challenger?
Last edited by orasnon; 02-15-2011 at 04:44 AM.
-
originally written for piano players much of the content can be transferred to the guitar... deep harmony book... Originally Posted by czardas
Bill Dobbins - A Creative Approach To Jazz Piano Harmony
some more info about bill dobbins:
http://www.esm.rochester.edu/faculty/dobbins_bill
combine this with george van eps 'harmonic mechanisms for guitar vol.1'
and you've got many years of work cut out for you...
http://www.amazon.com/George-Harmoni.../dp/0871669064Last edited by oneworld; 02-15-2011 at 11:23 AM.
-
Well, yes. "Sus2" is just shorter. Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Why would anyone use "add9(no 3rd)"? (Not a symbol I can recall seeing anywhere.)
As kevin says, symbols don't indicate voicing. The "2" can go anywhere; in fact sus2s are commonly played in rock as two stacked 5ths (that's how Hendrix liked them).
-
Very nice, man. Spirited comping. Good show! Originally Posted by oneworld
-
Well hell, that cleared that up lol. Originally Posted by oneworld
Really enjoyed those!
-
@orasnon, markerhodes & jazzpunk... thank you guys for your positive feedback !
@matt.guitarteacher... everything's cool... though i do hope my pm helped you to understand my position/comment which you called 'childish barbs' on someone like ksjazzguitar... if you claim to have real or superior knowledge it should show how one acts in public and in your music & playing... imho...
-
Outstanding Paul, keep'em coming. We appreciate your willingness to help, as well as your talent.
-
well... i never had to teach guitar for a living and i'm not here to promote any merchandise or services but had a good time teaching college level theory and improvisation to classical and jazz students for a few years... so if i can give some specific pointers i'll be glad to do it via pm... as FZ put it, 'shut up 'n play your guitar'... helped me a lot.... Originally Posted by lkmuller
-
Man, I just watched those clips again and enjoyed them even more the second time! I agree with all of the points you have made on this thread and have to say that they come through loud and clear in your playing. Originally Posted by oneworld
Looking forward to your continued contributions on this forum!
-
thank you... i can't tell you how much i've learnt playing and hangin' with alto player charlie mariano who died in 2009 at age 85... i've played with him since Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
Man, I just watched those clips again and enjoyed them even more the second time! I agree with all of the points you have made on this thread and have to say that they come through loud and clear in your playing.
Looking forward to your continued contributions on this forum!
'83 after i got back from spending some time at berklee... he kept telling me
'why do you want to play this old s*''# ?!?'... :-) check out his history...
he was sitting next to bird in kenton's band at age 18... and did a couple of
brilliant recordings with mingus...
Charlie Mariano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
btw, sorry for being off topic here... personally i don't believe in a division of 'classical' and 'jazz' theory... we did a recording in the past where charlie selected his favorite 'classical' themes to 'fool' around with as he put it:
Adagio - Charlie Mariano | AllMusicLast edited by oneworld; 02-16-2011 at 08:51 PM.
-
Sounds like you were really blessed to have had the time with him that you did! Thanks for sharing. Originally Posted by oneworld
(btw I think your comments and the points that you backed up with your playing are very much on topic considering this is a forum about playing jazz guitar. )
-
Originally Posted by oneworld
WOW!!! Great Stuff!!! The reply makes me think you are a Judo master also!
-
Cool I'd be very interested to hear what you were thinking on Originally Posted by oneworld
well... i never had to teach guitar for a living and i'm not here to promote any merchandise or services but had a good time teaching college level theory and improvisation to classical and jazz students for a few years... so if i can give some specific pointers i'll be glad to do it via pm... as FZ put it, 'shut up 'n play your guitar'... helped me a lot....
the intro at 0:40 to 0:48 those 3 chords in parallel decending motion
with the open E bass pedal is lovely sound man ,
I can't figure whats happening harmonically
E7#9#5 , Eb7#9#5 , D7#9#5 maybe ?
leading to the normal B section G7#5
Nice job anyway .... great stuff
-
let me take my reply to pingu's question to a new thread about Stella...
Last edited by oneworld; 02-17-2011 at 06:37 AM.
-
IMO, that's a good way of putting it. There is no (essential)difference in the theory. The difference is in the "fooling around" - the absence of the exaggerated respect for score that has become traditional in classical music. (Which if course was not always the case. Improvisation was once part of classical music performance too.) Originally Posted by oneworld
In jazz, the composition is merely the raw material, the starting point. The performance of the tune simply bookends the real business of jazz, which is the extemporisation in the middle. The performer puts himself on a par with the composer, as it were: "I like this tune, but I'm now going to compose my own version of it, on the spot..."
You know someone doesn't get jazz when they say "I like the tunes, but not all that stuff in the middle...."
-
hey jon, perfect description... !!! i agree with you 100 %...
especially if we as improvisors have to deal with shorter harmonic forms/cycles...
it's of course a little different when you play modern (larger jazz ensemble/orchestral type) compositions by let's say maria schneider, bob brookmeyer or vince mendoza where you solo over sections which can be composed (for sections) or improvised by rhythm sections only... just fooling around won't get you a lot of approval by these kinds of composers either... :-)
Originally Posted by JonR
IMO, that's a good way of putting it. There is no (essential)difference in the theory. The difference is in the "fooling around" - the absence of the exaggerated respect for score that has become traditional in classical music. (Which if course was not always the case. Improvisation was once part of classical music performance too.)
In jazz, the composition is merely the raw material, the starting point. The performance of the tune simply bookends the real business of jazz, which is the extemporisation in the middle. The performer puts himself on a par with the composer, as it were: "I like this tune, but I'm now going to compose my own version of it, on the spot..."
You know someone doesn't get jazz when they say "I like the tunes, but not all that stuff in the middle...."
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions