Anybody use the Goodchord Voice Leading Books?

[Christian Miller]

Rules refer to the rules of counterpoint. These rules don't have to be specifically species counterpoint. By rules I mean any set of principles that inform how voices move in a given style.

Oh yeah, I missed this. There you go. Make up rules if you want.

Counterpoint is embedded into jazz anyway. Guide tones in Cycle 4 progs are an example of contrapuntal schemata - one that goes way back to, well Bach, and before. Barry Harris stuff uses contrapuntal principles, such as similar, contrary and staggered (borrowings) motion.

Species counterpoint is kind of like explaining the rules of chess. Things like Cycle 4 shell voicings/guide tones are more like common openings that people use that follow the rules but work very well for various reasons. (Literally an opening in the case of the Bach above.) Things like the melodies of Autumn Leaves, ATTYA and so on reflect realisations of these pre-baked 'four knights game' type sequences of moves.

One thing I noticed - Falling Grace by Steve Swallow obeys the rules of species counterpoint between bass and melody (I think) - it does not follow the standard cliches one would use in this context. Which I thought was interesting.

[Tal_175]

Please bear in mind you are quoting me quoting Robert Gjerdingen before this becomes 'a saying' haha.. I can't trace it back further. It does sound like the sort of thing people like Boulanger might have said.

Yeah, I remember hearing him say that in a podcast a few years ago. I've also seen you mention it. I wasn't sure if it was a saying that predated Robert Gjerdingen or it was his view.

Well, it's not easy to answer. I think many would answer technique. For myself I think its perceptual. Modern harmonic theory is very hung up on stuff like naming chords and root movement. Counterpoint is concerned with intervals and voice leading first and foremost. It's a different perspective.
...
I actually think counterpoint is a better way to understand modern harmony (or at least how it can be composed) than functional harmony, because functional harmony is often powerless to explain unusual or modern harmonies anyway.

I was under the impression that you also believed that counterpoint is a better way to understand even the functional harmony (eg American songbook stuff). If that is true, than I'd be curious if you completely abandon the functional view and chord-scales to achieve harmonic motion through counterpoint.

FYI, I'm not that interested in the more period correct approaches to counterpoint. I'm happy with exploring the voice movements in various cycles as well as just thinking movements as consisting of separate bass, melody and inner voices. It's amazing what you can do by starting with a mostly scalar bass movement, then adding a melody on top and finally experimenting with different middle voices. But I'm still firmly grounded in everything I know about harmony as my reference (even when I'm not aware that I am, lol). Moreover, I hear the movements in relation to these references (like most people in the 21. century would). So that's why I'm curious if it's even possible for someone who is trained in modern harmony to be able to eliminate that reference when thinking contrapuntally?

Attachment 109550
In chord symbols
F B/D# | F D | Bb Gm Gm6 | D

Cool huh? Late romantic harmony of this kind can be characterised as highly chromatic counterpoint. It's hard to analyse a lot of this stuff using Riemannian functions etc. The ur-example is Wagners Tristan chord.

Yeah, that's interesting. Functional harmony works. But not everything that works is functional harmony.

Another interesting point is that, are these voices melodically independent? Not really. So what we often consider counterpoint is really something in-between vertical harmony and counterpoint.

[James W]

So that's why I'm curious if it's even possible for someone who is trained in modern harmony to be able to eliminate that reference when thinking contrapuntally?

It would depend on what sort of counterpoint you're thinking of. I'd guess it's not so much about eliminating references, just thinking about the music differently because it's a different texture... 'eliminating that reference' sounds a bit absolute whereas rather there is a spectrum of differences and similarities across different styles and textures of music.

[Christian Miller]

Yeah, I remember hearing him say that in a podcast a few years ago. I've also seen you mention it. I wasn't sure if it was a saying that predated Robert Gjerdingen or it was his view.

I was under the impression that you also believed that counterpoint is a better way to understand even the functional harmony (eg American songbook stuff). If that is true, than I'd be curious if you completely abandon the functional view and chord-scales to achieve harmonic motion through counterpoint.

I don't see it as a replacement for functional harmony, more as a complementary understanding. Even in historical improv circles there are relatively few hardcore headbangers who think we should reject modern theory entirely. (But those people tend to be in to hexachordal solfege which is a whole other rabbit hole haha.)

I also don't see it as a way of understanding harmony exactly. Without wanting to sound obtuse and ciruclar, I see counterpoint as a way of understanding the counterpoint of standards, which is a separate, if related feature. Harmony is another feature. As is melodic contour, form, etc etc.

I think there's something missed in the conventional approach to schemata in jazz which is we look at C A7 Dm7 G7 for example and call it a turnaround. In fact there are effective counterpoint ideas that work very well with that basic progression, and show up in jazz. The guide tone thing is an example of this - but while 3rd and 7th are the classic choice for circle 4 progs, they are not the classic choice for all progressions. Also a II V I has different characteristics melodically from a Cycle 4 chain, you don't see nearly as many standards melodies for example based on guide tones through a II V I. In the latter case it's quite common to find a melody that goes IIm9 V13 and then to the root of I, for instance. On dozens of standards. Even without dwelling on the history of music, this strikes me as something that might be useful to write about.

FYI, I'm not that interested in the more period correct approaches to counterpoint.

I mean I kind of assumed not from the tone of your posts.

But as much as I enjoy the style of that harmony and as pretty as it sounds, that' snot my ultimate goal. I mean I'd need to be a better classical musician for starters.

OTOH I think there's also something here which exists independent of wanting to improvise like Bach or whatever. There's a lot of stuff that crosses over, and this logic could still be interesting for stuff that doesn't (like Wayne tunes.)

I'm happy with exploring the voice movements in various cycles as well as just thinking movements as consisting of separate bass, melody and inner voices. It's amazing what you can do by starting with a mostly scalar bass movement, then adding a melody on top and finally experimenting with different middle voices. But I'm still firmly grounded in everything I know about harmony as my reference (even when I'm not aware that I am, lol). Moreover, I hear the movements in relation to these references (like most people in the 21. century would). So that's why I'm curious if it's even possible for someone who is trained in modern harmony to be able to eliminate that reference when thinking contrapuntally?

I've got to the point where I often find myself sort of translating from contrapuntal/figured bass terms. The main reason is this is language that is more specific about what is going on in the bass and top line. Often that's much more to do with the identity of a given musical idea than the chord progression. Also seemingly diverse chord progressions might have more in common contrapuntally than it might appear from the chord symbols.

For example, have you noticed how many tunes with some sort of descending chromatic voice leading in the harmony focus melodically on the fifth and then the fourth of the key? This is contrapuntal archetype that dates from the C18, and it's everywhere from baroque to, well, rock. I bet Mehldau's noticed lol.

So it kind of opened my awareness up to that kind of stuff. The main thing I've found it good for is composition, solo jazz guitar and reharmonisation. Jazz improv? Not so sure. For instance Charlie Parker doesn't really play melodic sequences in the same way that you find even in jazz composition. Melodic sequences are a big part of this stuff, and jazz repertoire is full of them, but not in Bird's solos. That's interesting.

Yeah, that's interesting. Functional harmony works. But not everything that works is functional harmony.

Functional harmony works for... err... functional harmony? Well I guess that's sort of circular.

The way I view it , what we refer to as music theory is about categorising features of music. Function is one aspect which may be apparent in some music, or not. The more types of theory you have, the more things you can get from analysing music.

Several theorists have noted that when the three functions theory became established (predominant, dominant, tonic) people started writing more progressions that worked that way. There's loads of stuff in so called common practice music (curly wig music) that breaks those rules.

Another interesting point is that, are these voices melodically independent? Not really. So what we often consider counterpoint is really something in-between vertical harmony and counterpoint.

It really depends what you mean by counterpoint. You have to be careful of talking at cross purposes. For a lot of people on this forum and in the jazz guitar community, counterpoint is a texture. If you think about harmony in modern terms then counterpoint is about finding ways to make the texture of less chordal, usually taking an already arrived at chord progression. How can I make Autumn Leaves sound a little like a Bach fugue? That type of thing.

If you are talking about the way classical composers studied, counterpoint is kind of the same thing as ... I want to say voice leading? But the logic of harmony. It doesn't work from a preset progression in the same way as jazz improv does. Even ground basses and things work a bit different.

So the Dvorak example is an example of Chorale texture. But in terms of how the voices move, you can look at them from the lens of counterpoint, as you could a Bach chorale. This might seem a bit odd because... block chords, right? But in fact the strictures of counterpoint function in the same way - and this is what we could call first species.

So instead of thinking of chord progressions and thinking of voice leading, you are engaging with voice leading immediately. You think about the intervals between the voices and the way they move and if needs be are prepared and resolved.

In fact today Bach's chorales are usually taught in terms of functional chord progressions with voice leading considered secondarily. In Bach's era, he would teach from the bass line. You'd come up with a whole bunch of bass lines that represent good counterpoint to the chorale and then populate the inner voices accordingly.

This is actually a really good way to work on interesting reharmonisations for standards. Come up with a bassline, drop in the inner voices after.

I don't really see any compelling reason to think about chord function in this context. I think it just complicates things wondering whether you wrote a II V I or a IIIm chord or whatever. If you’ve practiced this stuff well enough you can write convincing stylistic harmony without a thought and if you don't want to write trad harmony it scarcely matters, you can experiment and choose according to your own preferences and make your own personal language.

[Christian Miller]

Btw I’ve never really seen chord scales to be of much use when understanding chord progressions. Does anyone else find them useful for this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

Btw I’ve never really seen chord scales to be of much use when understanding chord progressions. Does anyone else find them useful for this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I find chord-scales useful for creating movement inside a chord, not so much for understanding progressions. It provides an organization for non-chord tones. If I want the sound of lydian dominant as the back door dominant, then when I move voices, I know that 9, #11, and 13 are available.
Of course you can expand this as a progression. Then iv minor (the ii of backdoor dominant) becomes MM etc.

[pamosmusic]

I find chord-scales useful for creating movement inside a chord, not so much for understanding progressions. It provides an organization for non-chord tones. If I want the sound of lydian dominant as the back door dominant, then when I move voices, I know that 9, #11, and 13 are available.
Of course you can expand this as a progression. Then iv minor (the ii of backdoor dominant) becomes MM etc.

Was just watching this today.

Honestly the title is clickbait and conceptually there’s nothing much different than what you’re talking about here, but it’s an interesting take

Why I Stopped Using Scales - YouTube

[Tal_175]

Was just watching this today.

Honestly the title is clickbait and conceptually there’s nothing much different than what you’re talking about here, but it’s an interesting take

Why I Stopped Using Scales - YouTube

I'll check it out. Thanks.

[Christian Miller]

Was just watching this today.

Honestly the title is clickbait and conceptually there’s nothing much different than what you’re talking about here, but it’s an interesting take

Why I Stopped Using Scales - YouTube

Classic Manness


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

All roads lead back to Bach!

Gavotte 1 from BMV 995 starts with cycle 4.

Am - Dm - G - C - F - Bm - E

Attachment 109547

So I dug this out today after your post. Bloody lovely it is too. Are you learning the suite?

Favourite bits
That move from G7/Am in the B section - Bach is the interrupted cadence master imo.

Also (possibly more relevantly) there’s a lovely descending figure



This thing could be interpreted as a triadic cycle 6 on each bass note - on the first on Am, F/A, Dm/A then G, Em/G, C/G etc. Which is a nice thing to have on a stepwise descending bass

I actually think what it is to my ears the harmony is an incomplete 5-6-2 (5 3 - 6 3 - 6 4 2) in figured bass which would be Am, F/A, Bm7b5/A, G, Em/G, Am7/G etc which is similar. As the 2 isn’t in the music this is purely implied and how I’d expand it to 4 voices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Also that delicious pre-cadence thing in the last bar of the bit I posted. Those two scrunchies are both incomplete Dm6 (or the second is Bm7b5/F if you like, same thing).

[Liarspoker]

I'm not learning the suite yet. Just revisiting some grade 7 and 8 pieces.

I might do the bridging year before the ATCL diploma ( if I do it, time is my enemy ). My classical technique needs it.

Btw I am noticing more schemata in classical music especially like your example above. Scalar descending bass harmonized with the 10th or 6th.

[Tal_175]

For example, have you noticed how many tunes with some sort of descending chromatic voice leading in the harmony focus melodically on the fifth and then the fourth of the key? This is contrapuntal archetype that dates from the C18, and it's everywhere from baroque to, well, rock. I bet Mehldau's noticed lol.

I know that the root or the 5th are the most common pedal notes over a moving harmony. The fourth seems a little riskier but more interesting perhaps.

[Christian Miller]

I know that the root or the 5th are the most common pedal notes over a moving harmony. The fourth seems a little riskier but more interesting perhaps.

I don’t think that’s exactly what I mean. I don’t want to clog up this thread with too much OT stuff (no really) so I’ll post something up on this on my jazz counterpoint thread when I’ve done a sheet on it.

For now, try playing/singing
Blue Skies
Insensatez
Chim chim cheree
In Walked Bud
No Moon At All
It Don’t Mean A Thing
Exit Music For a Film
Hotel California
It Was Just One of Those Things
Corcovado

Back to back in the same key. The effect is quite funny, even though the tunes don’t all share changes, the affinity is kind of obvious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jimmy blue note]

This Saturday April 6 I'll have a Zoom to discuss voice leading strategies over traditional standard harmonic movement using Almanac and modal interchange structures.

In other words: Nice hip progressions that sound beautiful and give you new ways to see chord movement.

All are welcome.

1PM EST

Launch Meeting - Zoom

Come by and see what the fun is about!

[Mick-7]

Reply moved to:
George Van Eps - Harmonic Mechanisms for Guitar

[Jimmy blue note]

For anyone interested in a Zoom meeting discussing specific, general, practical, theoretical, expansive, improvisational and compositional aspects of Almanac material, there'll be a ZOOM this Sunday June 2 at 3PM EST. All are welcome.

Launch Meeting - Zoom

[Liarspoker]

I have been experimenting since the last zoom meeting with composition using but strict composition and composing using improvisation.

It seems like the stuff that I write is different from what I Improvise and vice versa. Composing allows search for things you know but don't use often whereas with improv you play what you know most of the time.

Improv also leads to happy accidents. I was messing with A minor this morning and came up with this.

Edit. The original melody starts on the major 3rd then ascends to the 4th. In this minor version the melody starts on the major 2nd and ascends to the minor 3rd.

Lots of other fun stuff happening too.

[JohnoL]

After delving into Mick's 840 chords and 120 3 part chords you should know, I started wondering

Where do 5 note chords stand in the Goodrick universe?

[Jimmy blue note]

After delving into Mick's 840 chords and 120 3 part chords you should know, I started wondering

Where do 5 note chords stand in the Goodrick universe?

They're not addressed for a number of reasons.
Many times you have a five part chord, in practical terms, they're most commonly used with doubled voices. The voicings are for distinct voices.
Harmony, particularly playable, practical and "hearable" chords are defined within a SATB (soprano, alto, tenor, bass). This is the basis for modern harmony; within that can be any chromatic voice. You can pretty much define or pick a colour pallet from those four voices. After that, additional voices, particularly in the lower range, become harder to hear.
More than 4 voices, when voice led, become problematic in voices either becoming left unresolved or being led in directions that don't contribute to the harmonic movement.
In the Almanacs, each page consists of ONE chord structure manifest through root position and three inversions. Simply put, if you start out with 4 voices, you maintain 4 voices throughout the cycle. These are permutations or initially presented tertially (in thirds) but through the triads/bass notes and cluster voices, exhaustively address possible intervallic chord types.
If you're trying to express a harmonic idea that is not possible through a four part chord, the cycles are used to break a larger than 4 part chord into chord pairs, which, in combination can give you all notes in a scale within two adjacent chords, and creating a sense of movement.
In volume 3, he opens the idea up of chromatic movement within voice led progressions. That opens up possibilities beyone 4 part chords.

Do you tend towards 5 note chords yourself? I used to wonder about that, but as I delved deeper into the almanacs, I actually found myself exploring the almost infinite possibilities of 3 note triads in chromatic intervals. I found that the sounds were much more intriguing whereas adding more than 4 voices just became muddier to my ear.
But it's a life time pursuit.

Hope this opens the line of thought for you.

[JohnoL]

They're not addressed for a number of reasons.

Do you tend towards 5 note chords yourself?

I occasionally like a big Barney Kessel sounding chord, or adding a bass note to a 4 part chord on upper string sets.
I don't like using my thumb , or slanting one finger to play two frets at once. And there are only so many options for Bar chords.

Note to self - Start checking out the stuff in volume 3 mentioned in the previous 2 posts.

[jazznylon]

I've been thinking about giving this a go but doing the chordal arpeggios on just a single string for the time being (Major Scale only). Might be an interesting thought experiment, anyone else considered this?

[pamosmusic]

What do you mean by chordal arpeggios?

Like doing diatonic arpeggios around the cycle but just on one string?

[jazznylon]

What do you mean by chordal arpeggios?

Like doing diatonic arpeggios around the cycle but just on one string?

Yes thats what I mean!

[pamosmusic]

Yes thats what I mean!

Hmm. I've definitely worked on diatonic arpeggios this way. Not sure I see the utility of doing them on one string though. I'm sure there is something a person could get out of it.

I guess my question would be: what would you hope to get out of it, rather than doing the same exercise on two strings or three strings or in an octave or position?