-
Originally Posted by timscarey
Originally Posted by timscarey
Originally Posted by timscarey
Peace,
Kevin
-
02-04-2011 03:12 AM
-
Originally Posted by timscarey
C Eb Gb B---CdimMa7 or B/C
C E A B------CMa6/7 or CMa13 or Amadd9
C Eb G Bb Db----Cm7b9 or Eb7/C
C E F A C# E G#-----C#m/FMa7
Hey Tim,
#2 and 3 are chords I regularly use. 2 is often played as a rootless Ab7#9 or D13b9.
#4 is a Phrygian kind of sound.
On some level we want to at least document what notes are present and accounted for if the functionality is not apparent.
Triad over bass or Triad over Triad or Triad over Triad over Bass, etc is one possible strategy, even when the triad tones are interlocking instead of consecutive.
Dave Leibman's book "A Chromatic Approcah to Jazz Harmony and Melody" addresses some related issues and also raises some interesting points about how the name can influence our musical response.
In Post Tonal language any notes can be broken down to pitch class sets and placed in prime form.
It doesn't appear to be gaining much traction as a notational tool for jazz lead sheets so far.
-
Originally Posted by bako
those pitch collections may have names, but the specific voicings don't have names specific enough (that are common anyway) to represent them. Then again, it's not as if those chords are really that common as we have named them.
check this out though Jim Knapp uses #2 as a B7 chord....
the reason he calls it a 15 (and i've posted this once before a long time ago, not that I agree with it) is that the "root" of the chord on top is accutally a suspension of the 7th, once resolved to the "A" it leads very nicely to any E chord, as well as a variety of other chords.
This idea is intended for orchestration/arranging and I am not, nor is Jim suggestion that "15" may one day become a often used extension. In fact, I only think of it that way when there is an altered 9th below the "root/15" on top of the chord.
The point is..... what musician would naturally voice the root on top of an altered dom chord?... that's not what berklee teaches, so if you write B7b9 and want the root on top.... you're pretty much out of luck with most players.
edit: I dig C#m/Fmaj7 but I have never, ever seen a piece of music that uses slash chords with more than one note implied on bottom. I hope it catches on, well, I guess it already has, with the people who use those kinds of chords. but even then , the specific "voicing" written here needs to be in this exact inversion to sound this way...... there is no chord symbol for that..... the lesson here I guess... find cats with open minds who can read. ha ha ha.Last edited by timscarey; 02-04-2011 at 04:09 AM.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Me: what key is this one is?
him: (the first chord and a look of "man, doesn't that sound great!")
Me: fumbling to find the root of the chord he is playing "yeah, so it's in F... nice"
I was literally expected to learn everything by ear and memorize as all of the other members did.... one of the best experiences ever.
Edit: I guess I should mention that I am a bass player, who loves to pretend like he plays jazz guitar.Last edited by timscarey; 02-04-2011 at 04:17 AM.
-
Originally Posted by timscarey
On the flip side, much contemporary jazz is less "ear friendly" than, say, swing tunes, which often chained pentatonic pairs (-the 5 and 6, the 2 and 1) to create catchy riffs. (For all the sweating novices do about soaring over "rhythm changes," no one has trouble with the head of "I Got Rhythm" or "Lester Leaps In.") That's easier to pick up by ear, than say Metheny's "Bright Size Life."
-
check this out though Jim Knapp uses #2 as a B7 chord....
I dig C#m/Fmaj7 but I have never, ever seen a piece of music that uses slash chords with more than one note implied on bottom. I hope it catches on, well, I guess it already has, with the people who use those kinds of chords. but even then , the specific "voicing" written here needs to be in this exact inversion to sound this way...... there is no chord symbol for that..... the lesson here I guess... find cats with open minds who can read. ha ha ha.[/QUOTE]
Baddb9 another possibility for #2. As you say the context or how it is being used can be telegraphed somewhat by the naming choice.
I dig C#m/Fmaj7 but I have never, ever seen a piece of music that uses slash chords with more than one note implied on bottom. I hope it catches on, well, I guess it already has, with the people who use those kinds of chords. but even then , the specific "voicing" written here needs to be in this exact inversion to sound this way...... there is no chord symbol for that..... the lesson here I guess... find cats with open minds who can read. ha ha ha.
Dave Leibman makes it sound as if even 3 tiered slash chords are note that unusual in certain circles. He feels that standard naming style leads better to scale understanding and slash chords reveal some of the arpeggio content.
One example he lists:
EBGEbGbBb----EmMa9#11 or Ebm/Em Tr. or GmMa7#5/Em Tr. (no 3) or Bma7/ Em Tr.
What is Group 3.3 (Paul Hindemith)? I'm not familiar with that kind of codification.
As guitarists we regularly negotiate structures that are made up of more notes than we can play (13th chords) and edit it down to a good representation of the essential sound. In our minds there is no limit to what kind of harmonies we can be attempting to imply, in our fingers it is a puzzle to solve.Last edited by bako; 02-04-2011 at 09:42 AM.
-
I'll give you a quick rundown of Hindemith's classification system. This stuff fascinates me...
1.1 = Root position Major and minor triads
1.2 = inversions of those
2.1 = Root position "non-altered dom 7th" (Major 2nd's and minor 7ths only) no 1/2 steps
2.2 = inversions of those
3.1 = Chords with major seconds or minor 7ths but no tritone with root on bottom
3.2 = inversions of those
3.3 = no tritone, minor 2nd's or Major 7th's in the chord
3.4 = inversions of those
4.1 = with tritone (or more than one tritone) and minor 2nd's or Major 7th's in the chord as well
4.2 = inversions of those
5 = Augmented triads and 3-note fourth stacks
6 = fully diminished 7th's and diminished triads.
That is a pretty rough overview and I've only read book one of his theory, but it's pretty sweet, some of the chords he comes up with are very different. And his analysis is pretty f-ing complicated. he takes into account "combination tones" which are notes created by two notes of a higher pich sounding at the same time...... heavy.
-
Thanks Tim, I'll have to give it a closer look.
Next time that I'm at a rehearsal and I miss a DS marking, I can say I'm sorry, I was listening for combination tones.
-
And they say that I hijack threads. jk
Interesting stuff though. I'd say that one of the wholes in my knowledge is that I should read some more Hindemith. His theories seem so bizarre sometimes, but I like his music so they must be worth at least considering.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Many contemporary theorists feel the older tonal theory model for analyzing composers like Bartok, Debussy, Hindemith, Ligeti and not to mention the serialists is the wrong tool. There are several schools of thinking on what details are most relevant to observe within these compositions. Composers are working with a wide array of methodologies. Jazz has also pushed into complex harmonic terrain often springing from a very individualized approach. Do you have any favorite contemporary theory systems that you find relevant to the parallel advances in jazz harmony or do you try to understand everything through the prism of tonal centers, modulations etc.?
I think this one is somewhat steering back towards the original topic.
-
Originally Posted by bako
Peace,
Kevin
-
"The 20th century is only a decade old, so I think we have some times before we have to make up our minds."
That is a patient viewpoint that works well for a historian.
An improvisor/composer requires present moment application of their best guess conceptual thinking.
There are many different approaches out there which mostly I find exciting but also at times overwhelming.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
Originally Posted by bako
Originally Posted by max chill
The phrase "The 20th century is only a decade old..." should have made it clear that I am a decade after the end of the 20th century. My point is just that we lack historical perspective to objectively judge the 20th century.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Originally Posted by bako
When we "analyse" music, we tend to start from tonal concepts: chord function, etc. In the vast majority of 20thC art music, there was either no concept of chord function, or some very different concepts of chord structure and usage itself.
Of course, we can still use traditional terms to describe much 20thC art music (and some new ones such as polytonality, or polymetrics.) It's all just labels really. Understanding the music is another matter entirely...
Originally Posted by bako
Within less than a decade of that revolution, jazz experimented with a kind of loose atonalism ("free" jazz), but then mostly gave up on that and returned to a mix of tonality and modality combined with rhythmic and timbral influences from rock ("fusion").
All jazz that I'm aware of can be described using conventional terms from either the functional lexicon (major & minor keys, chord progressions) or the modal one (quartal harmony). And usually both together, in some form.
Of course, that doesn't describe every aspect of the music - only the harmony!
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
Originally Posted by czardas
Originally Posted by bako
Again, can you list a single harmonic tool of jazz (other than the blue note) that has no precedent in classical?
I say this as someone that loves jazz. But after having studied Beethoven, Chopin, and Wagner, I just don't find it harmonically adventurous.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Originally Posted by bako
I use what I call (I learned this from someone) the three harmonic languages, these include.... Tonal Harmony, Modal Harmony, and Blues Harmony.
All three have slightly different rules for understanding things like harmonic resolution, chord/scales, inside/outside, etc.... Before analyzing/composing, I will decide which harmonic language to use for what I am trying to accomplish. I have definitely "tweaked" my conception of Tonal harmony to fit with my personal ear though... (don't worry Kevin, I don't teach it this way )
So, for example if I am thinking tonally, in the key of C, I will include all diatonic chords, secondary 2-5's, and Minor 4. I also include these chords....
Eb and Ab Maj7 with an altered 5 and BbMaj7 +11
That's just because I love those sounds when mixed with a mostly diatonic progression, I know they could be explained a number of ways (modal interchange/borrowed chords, etc...) but it's easier for me to just include them in the key of C, because that's how I hear them, kind of different I guess.
Whats really different from most theories is how I was taught to look at non-diatonic (modal) chord progressions not including dom chords....
I will post again and try to explain how I think about it.....
-
So it's like this, each major and minor chord has 2 scale options....
Maj7-Ionian/Lydian
min7-Aeolean/Dorian
Maj7(b5 or #11)-Lydian/Lydian Aug
min6- Dorian/Melodic Minor
These scale choices are categorized according to these names....
Tonic - Ionian/Aeolean
Non Tonic - Lydian/Dorian
Melodic Minor - Lydian Aug/Mel Min
The scale choice per chord is up to the composer/improviser and differs in only one or two notes per chord. The ear is influenced as to the "correct" scale based on the notes in the overall harmonic field (a few bars before and after the chord in question)
upon scanning the harmonic field, the most "inside" scale (which is not always"inside") is assigned to the chord thus giving it it's harmonic role in the progression.... Tonic, Non-Tonic, or Melodic Minor.
Basically it is a way of measuring tension and resolution when there is no tonal center but major and minor chords are still the building blocks... Keep in mind that the difference between a Tonic and non-tonic chord is subtle in some cases, while MM chords definitely add some darkness to the music. Also keep in mind that this is a personal thing that I do not teach, just wanted to share it with ya cause you asked.Last edited by timscarey; 02-09-2011 at 04:15 PM.
-
Originally Posted by czardas
Originally Posted by czardas
The question is what do you call the tonic. I think that most times when this chord progression is used, it resolves to the Am. Can you think of an example that doesn't? But if you somehow write it in some magical way where the E7 sounds like the tonic, like if this were some modal tune (but then my ear would want an FMaj7) then that is fine. What is important is how it sounds. It might even work as a bluesy kind of thing where E7 is the tonic, then F7 isn't so weird. But I can't think of an example of this chord progression that doesn't resolve back to Am as the tonic.
Again, that is going to depend on how it is heard. There have been many times that I have been analyzing a tricky section of a classical piece and haven't been sure what to call the tonic. So I sit down at the piano and listen. Sometimes people come to different conclusions. But sometimes that's what a composer wants, that sort of ambiguity.
Again, I really don't see anything that doesn't have a precedent in classical harmony, with the exception of the blues thing, which is really tonal harmony altered by blue notes. Yes, there might be someone
Originally Posted by timscarey
Originally Posted by timscarey
Don't ever let theory tell you what you can't play. Only your ear should have that power.
Originally Posted by timscarey
Peace,
Kevin
-
Originally Posted by czardas
Originally Posted by czardas
But again, that gets me back to the idea that it pretty much all comes from classical theory originally.
Originally Posted by czardas
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-10-2011 at 01:16 AM.
-
Originally Posted by czardas
Originally Posted by czardas
Originally Posted by czardas
I think that you have a confused idea about what theory is and what classical music is. I need to write an essay on the roll of theory. (*sigh*) Soon I'll have time.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-10-2011 at 02:14 AM.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
Originally Posted by czardas
Originally Posted by czardas
With all due respect to your teacher, if he's teaching you that diminished triads have diminished 3rds, and teaching you terms like "hard diminished" and the absolutely incorrect definition of double diminished - then maybe you shouldn't trust him implicitly. (Frankly, I really don't "take for granted" anything my teachers tell me, especially if it were contradicting what everyone else was saying.) Your teacher may know how to play, but his theory is lacking. (The terms might be the result of a foreign language, but in no language does a diminished triad have a diminished 3rd.)
Sorry, but at this point, even Wikipedia would be an improvement.
Diminished triad chord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Diminished seventh chord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Originally Posted by timscarey
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-10-2011 at 04:27 AM.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Of course, in jazz we'd call that a 3rd inversion F7 (Eb in the bass).
And in the thread he quoted, a "Db7/B" was mentioned. Again (I guess) we'd normally want to call that "Db7/Cb" - 3rd inversion of Db7.
But in using diminished 3rd (or augmented 6th), classical theory is being applied, because the chord resolves to the dominant, with the dim3 resolving inwards to a unison. (As an augmented 6th resolves outwards to the octave.) That's what means the notes have to named as they are (D# instead of Eb) - because a D# goes to E, whereas an Eb would go to D.
After, all if we think of the F7 (resolving to E) as the tritone sub of B7 - and an altered B7 at that - we have no problem with a B7b5, which contains D#-F: a diminished 3rd (or its aug6 inversion).
But of course in jazz we like the ambiguity of enharmonics and don't care too much about naming them "correctly" (as a classical person would). D#, Eb, who cares? It can go up to E, or down to D, whatever we call it. We prefer not to think about aug6s and stick with dom7s, however they're used.
I also agree with czardas that an F7 could be used as a dominant function chord in E phrygian mode. Of course, it's not jazz orthodoxy to alter the notes in a mode (we'd normally go for Fmaj7 as you said), but raising the 7th of a mode to get a leading tone at a cadence was common practice in the original modal era.
(However I will disgree with czardas spelling of "dimminished" It's DIMINISHED. )
Can anyone date this? goodwill epiphone
Today, 05:40 PM in For Sale