"Dissonant" Intervals?

[JakeAcci]

I was going to mention Monk. He did like those minor 2nds, anywhere he could get them. As I mentioned, it's a pretty common maj7 piano voicing - now - to put the maj7 right next to the root (in the right hand anyway): eg 5-7-1-3.

Not sure whether even Monk would have liked the maj7 a b9 below the root though...

not maj7, but:
"Played Twice" bar 9 - melody note is Bb, harmony is considered F7, piano voicing on the and of 3 is, from bottom to top: F A Eb Bb - the Bb does not resolve to A or C

On guitar, when playing with a bassist, I use this voicing for that chord, from low to high, on strings 4321: A Eb G Bb

I haven't investigated more thoroughly, but I'd imagine with a little prodding one would find many examples of Monk using the b9 interval in voicings of all sorts of chords.

[JonnyPac]

Monk, Andrew Hill, and Cecil Taylor are some classic users of dissonant intervals- They are all a lot of fun to listen to.

[danjw]

I agree totally that the teaching of so called avoid notes is counter productive. It's the creative use of dissonant intervals that gives jazz its colour and helps define a players "voice".
Also CST gives an unrealistic framework when it comes to "conssonant" intervals over chord changes.
Take a iii vi in C:
|Em7|Am7|
CST tells us that the most consonant scale choices would be Dorian for both, as it contains no avoid notes. In reality the change of key that would occur with parallel dorian scales creates its own dissonance. Or to put it another way "has an unsettling effect on the key center".
In the context of a larger progression in Cmaj, Emphasizing b9 and b6 on the Em and b6 on the Am is actually more consonant because of the overall key.
In short consonance and dissonance are dependant on the underlying harmony and also the function of that harmony at any given time I.E (as someone else pointed out) what comes before and after.

[JonnyPac]

Avoid notes are kinda BS, but there is a hierarchy among tones. From my blog:

It is a common pitfall for students of chord-scale equivalency theories to give every note within a chord-scale equal treatment. There is a tonal hierarchy that must be recognized. The core triad needs to be thought of as the lower structure, the seventh as what I call the “gateway” tone, and the other chord-tones as “upper-structures” or “extensions”. Every note besides the core triad may be treated as a “tendency tone” (meaning a tone that is unstable and naturally tends to resolve either upward or downward to a more stable tone) depending on the immediate context. “Avoid” notes or “handle with care" notes are the most unstable tones within each chord-scale. Tonal hierarchies within each chord-scale can fluctuate depending on the harmonic conditions of the music at hand. Use your ear to determine the level of complexity that is appropriate.

[whatswisdom]

Take a iii vi in C:|Em7|Am7|...CST tells us that the most consonant scale choices would be Dorian for both, as it contains no avoid notes. In reality the change of key that would occur with parallel dorian scales creates its own dissonance.

I would have thought Phrygian & Aeolian were the most consonant, or am I missing something?...

[JonnyPac]

That's the difference in local vs global CST. Staying in key is more "inside" despite the unstable pitches. Using Dorian for both is "local", and somewhat short-sighted, IMHO. Who's so afraid of an unstable tone or two that they pay the price of obscuring the sense of overall key? (Mark Levine, for one...)

Pentatonic and hexatonic scales are one, simple answer- taking the notes out altogether, but emphasizing the chord tones and stable extensions is often better and done by the bebop masters. Bird never subbed out thinking of "avoid" notes; he played in key most of the time with an eloquent use of chromatic melodic embellishments, etc.

[AlsoRan]

This thread is really helping me frame my approach to choosing notes. More and more I am looking at knowing each of those 12 fellows and what they bring in different contexts of harmony and melody.

[danjw]

I would have thought Phrygian & Aeolian were the most consonant, or am I missing something?...

Not at all... as i mentioned, a b9 and b6 over one and a b6 six over the other chord are the most consonant in this context. I was merely pointing out that some teaching methods can be counter productive when they try and define consonance and dissonance using just a chord scale approach.

Another interesting example of the absurdity of "avoid" tones is that IMHO a #5 on a MAJ7 is much more consonant than a nat4. But i wouldn't start constructing scales based on this fact. Instead it's much easier to take all twelve notes as possible and be aware that some are more consonant than others.

personally as my playing has improved i've noticed that my musical instincts allow me to use dissonance more creatively. essentially I'm able to resolve it when it occurs instead of just thinking i've made a mistake.

[brwnhornet59]

Not at all... as i mentioned, a b9 and b6 over one and a b6 six over the other chord are the most consonant in this context. I was merely pointing out that some teaching methods can be counter productive when they try and define consonance and dissonance using just a chord scale approach.

Another interesting example of the absurdity of "avoid" tones is that IMHO a #5 on a MAJ7 is much more consonant than a nat4.

+1

[JonR]

I agree totally that the teaching of so called avoid notes is counter productive. It's the creative use of dissonant intervals that gives jazz its colour and helps define a players "voice".

Yes, but the concept of "avoid notes" refers to specific kinds of awkward, or useless dissonances, that get in the way of functional sequences. It's true that the concept is often misinterpreted as a note that can't be used in any circumstances - ie as a limitation on creativity, which is not the point.

Also CST gives an unrealistic framework when it comes to "conssonant" intervals over chord changes.
Take a iii vi in C:
|Em7|Am7|
CST tells us that the most consonant scale choices would be Dorian for both, as it contains no avoid notes. In reality the change of key that would occur with parallel dorian scales creates its own dissonance. Or to put it another way "has an unsettling effect on the key center".

Agreed.
I think that may be an over-simplistic application of CST, but yes, applied that way it makes nonsense of what is probably a functional chord relationship.

In the context of a larger progression in Cmaj, Emphasizing b9 and b6 on the Em and b6 on the Am is actually more consonant because of the overall key.

IMO, that's not the best use of the word "consonant".
Those notes are correct because they are diatonic, and will (probably) sound better in any melody or improvisation on those chords. But they are still dissonant notes if held over the chords in question. They are "avoid notes" in that sense (but only in that sense, in that they make unpleasant sounds if used as chord extensions - and the reason they sound unpleasant is that they have no functional meaning on the chord, and usually distrupt the chord function).
Of course, that's no reason to either avoid the notes altogether, nor to substitute some altered note to make it more consonant (ie a major 9 on Em or major 6 on Am). That's misunderstanding the issue.

In short consonance and dissonance are dependant on the underlying harmony and also the function of that harmony at any given time I.E (as someone else pointed out) what comes before and after.

IMO, "consonance" and "dissonance" can adequately be defined purely in relation to the chord of the moment, regardless of key context. Of course context rules, but that doesn't mean we redefine a dissonant note as consonant or vice versa - although it might mean that a dissonant note is less objectionable if we perceive its diatonic role.
Eg, an F note is going to sound bad (to varying degrees) on an Em chord (if held) - even if the key context is C. It will sound OK (outside of any context) if played as part of a scale run or melodic phrase on the chord. It will sound "right" if the key is C major. It will sound "wrong" if the key is G or D, even in the latter case. But sounding "wrong" is different from sounding "dissonant".

IOW, there are three ways we hear any individual note:
1. as a diatonic scale degree (or chromatic alteration) in the key of the moment;
2. as a chord tone, extension or alteration on the chord of the moment;
3. as a melody note, relative to notes before or after.

It's only #2 where the issue of dissonance arises, because it's the only relationship which is simultaneous. A note can still be "in" or "out" in the other two relationships (in #1 at least), but that's not the same as "consonant" or "dissonant" (which both imply notes sounding together).

[whatswisdom]

IMO, that's not the best use of the word "consonant".
Those notes are correct because they are diatonic, and will (probably) sound better in any melody or improvisation on those chords. But they are still dissonant notes if held over the chords in question. They are "avoid notes" in that sense (but only in that sense, in that they make unpleasant sounds if used as chord extensions - and the reason they sound unpleasant is that they have no functional meaning on the chord, and usually distrupt the chord function).

Great post. The only way to fully understand this is to solo over changes and hold the notes. The slower the better. Holding the b9 over the iii-7 for example. It's just another part of ear-training/jazz vocab...

[JonR]

Great post. The only way to fully understand this is to solo over changes and hold the notes. The slower the better. Holding the b9 over the iii-7 for example. It's just another part of ear-training/jazz vocab...

Exactly. You have to know WHY they're dubbed "avoid notes". And when you play them you might well disagree, which is fine! But you just have to know how it sounds, by experimentation - and also how it sounds in different contexts.
Eg, a b9 on a m7 chord is an acceptable dissonance on a phrygian modal chord - because it's non-functional. IOW, still "dissonant" (no more "consonant" than in any other context), but a dissonance we can enjoy as "colour", because the chord doesn't have a job to do in a sequence.
But even that is still a kind of "conventional" view - good to know about it (and understand it), but not essential to agree with it, or to follow that rule in one's own playing .

[danjw]

Yes, but the concept of "avoid notes" refers to specific kinds of awkward, or useless dissonances, that get in the way of functional sequences. It's true that the concept is often misinterpreted as a note that can't be used in any circumstances - ie as a limitation on creativity, which is not the point.
Agreed.
I think that may be an over-simplistic application of CST, but yes, applied that way it makes nonsense of what is probably a functional chord relationship.
IMO, that's not the best use of the word "consonant".
Those notes are correct because they are diatonic, and will (probably) sound better in any melody or improvisation on those chords. But they are still dissonant notes if held over the chords in question. They are "avoid notes" in that sense (but only in that sense, in that they make unpleasant sounds if used as chord extensions - and the reason they sound unpleasant is that they have no functional meaning on the chord, and usually distrupt the chord function).
Of course, that's no reason to either avoid the notes altogether, nor to substitute some altered note to make it more consonant (ie a major 9 on Em or major 6 on Am). That's misunderstanding the issue.
IMO, "consonance" and "dissonance" can adequately be defined purely in relation to the chord of the moment, regardless of key context. Of course context rules, but that doesn't mean we redefine a dissonant note as consonant or vice versa - although it might mean that a dissonant note is less objectionable if we perceive its diatonic role.
Eg, an F note is going to sound bad (to varying degrees) on an Em chord (if held) - even if the key context is C. It will sound OK (outside of any context) if played as part of a scale run or melodic phrase on the chord. It will sound "right" if the key is C major. It will sound "wrong" if the key is G or D, even in the latter case. But sounding "wrong" is different from sounding "dissonant".

IOW, there are three ways we hear any individual note:
1. as a diatonic scale degree (or chromatic alteration) in the key of the moment;
2. as a chord tone, extension or alteration on the chord of the moment;
3. as a melody note, relative to notes before or after.

It's only #2 where the issue of dissonance arises, because it's the only relationship which is simultaneous. A note can still be "in" or "out" in the other two relationships (in #1 at least), but that's not the same as "consonant" or "dissonant" (which both imply notes sounding together).

realistically I was just pointing out the limitations of certain teaching methods. Your man here takes similar issue with Levine:
MTO 6.1: Rawlins, Review of Levine

I agree my uses of consonance/dissonance are not the most accurate but I would also argue that your arguement is based on traditional harmony and goes no where to explain some modern melodic substitutions. Mainly those where relationships with underlying harmony are disregarded in favour of structure. (coltrane changes over ii-V-I, pentatonic side stepping etc)

I agree with your three definitons but point out the fact that these three things always happen "simultaneously" and that we, as students of music theory choose in retrospect to analyse notes in these ways.
Personally I hear notes as being either melodic or harmonic. Of course they're always both but some function in a very melodic way and some in a very harmonic way. And yes it's largely down to the duration - an f held over a CMaj sounds bad whereas as part of a phrase it sounds ok-on that we all agree.

Largely this comes down to semantics I think. "Avoid" is a misleading term I agree. But it also comes down to a fundimental misconception:
Scales are for constructing harmony not melody.

All i'm saying is whilst many things are correct in theory they can get in the way of learning jazz, which actively disregards these rules.

*cough* descending melodic minor *cough cough cough*

[brwnhornet59]

*cough* descending melodic minor *cough cough cough*

+1!

[LvJz]

I was jamming out a blues in G and found a cool way to use m2 dissonance. I was superimposing some extensions over the I chord in a G Blues.

-
-5
-4
-3
-
-

Then decided to invert it.
-
-6
-9
-9
-
-
To resolve the tension, you can move the F up to G.

[bako]

I was jamming out a blues in G and found a cool way to use m2 dissonance. I was superimposing some extensions over the I chord in a G Blues.

-
-5
-4
-3
-
-

Then decided to invert it.
-
-6
-9
-9
-
-
To resolve the tension, you can move the F up to G.

Combining F B E inversions with inversions of Db F G (G7b5)

Played on the D G B strings:

F G Db // F B E // G Db F // B E F // Db F G // E F B // F G Db // F B E //

[Nuff Said]

There's no wrong notes, but it's good to resolve the tension created by wrong notes, unless your intention is to sound like you're playing random notes.

Tension is what the Altered scale is all about in a Minor 2-5-1.

Nuff

[JakeAcci]

There's no wrong notes, but it's good to resolve the tension created by wrong notes, unless your intention is to sound like you're playing random notes.

Tension is what the Altered scale is all about in a Minor 2-5-1.

Nuff

"Sounding random" is extremely subjective.

[Nuff Said]

"Sounding random" is extremely subjective.

Ok, I was being polite. I'll rephrase---------

"If you play a wrong note and don't resolve the tension that is created, it sounds like you don't know how to play."

Nuff

[JakeAcci]

But that is equally subjective.

Resolution is subjective to the individual's ears, which are conditioned by their culture and listening history.

There are countless examples of intervals or harmonies that
-used to be considered dissonant and are now commonplace
-would be very unusual in certain styles but 'vanilla' in other styles

And even more bluntly, as somebody who has taught guitar to a LOT of beginners and very small children, I know that people's ears develop over time, and what can sound 'wrong' at one stage of the game can sound beautiful at a later point - and vice versa!

[Nuff Said]

But that is equally subjective.

Resolution is subjective to the individual's ears, which are conditioned by their culture and listening history.

There are countless examples of intervals or harmonies that
-used to be considered dissonant and are now commonplace
-would be very unusual in certain styles but 'vanilla' in other styles

And even more bluntly, as somebody who has taught guitar to a LOT of beginners and very small children, I know that people's ears develop over time, and what can sound 'wrong' at one stage of the game can sound beautiful at a later point - and vice versa!

If you intentionally play notes that others may consider "Wrong Notes", that is a very different situation, but that's not what I stated.

Nuff

[JakeAcci]

If you intentionally play notes that others may consider "Wrong Notes", that is a very different situation, but that's not what I stated.

Nuff

"others" = other people, and all individuals hear things differently. A crowd of music school students will have a different perception of a 'wrong note' then a randomly selected high school class of freshmen.

What I was referring to wasn't intentionally playing something to sound wrong, it's that what is acceptable and normal to some, in some styles, in some times, with some background, might sound extremely wrong and dissonant to others.

[AlsoRan]

"others" = other people, and all individuals hear things differently. A crowd of music school students will have a different perception of a 'wrong note' then a randomly selected high school class of freshmen.

What I was referring to wasn't intentionally playing something to sound wrong, it's that what is acceptable and normal to some, in some styles, in some times, with some background, might sound extremely wrong and dissonant to others.

Jake,

It's guys like you that stifle the "Old Guard Traditional Jazz Club" from growing.

How do you expect a person to get dogmatic about and entrenched in a certain Jazz style if you allow for pushing the boundaries? How do you expect us to be able to arrogantly take verbal shots at Jazz guys that use a lot of distortion, bend notes, use vibrato, and don't use chord progressions that resolve? What meaning in life will we have left?

I hope you are proud of yourself...

[JakeAcci]

Haha, joke taken, but honestly I think my comments don't only apply to things we might dub 'modern' but are pretty relevant to traditional jazz (wes, miles, bird, trane, etc) as well.

A very simple example, Wes often liked treating a dominant chord as a ii V, so if it was Bb7 he might treat it as if it were Fm7 to Bb7. And sometimes he might just sort of superimpose the Fm7 without the original Bb7, sometimes even ending a phrase by holding an Eb note (usually in a higher register) and not resolving it.

That's a very simple example of something that might seem 'wrong' on paper, a tension that 'needs' to be resolved, but, well, Wes wouldn't resolve it. And then there's...Monk? Herbie Hancock? Konitz, Tristano? Boy Howdy, and we're not even in the 1970s yet!

It's another case of prescriptive vs descriptive - if we have an Am7 chord and somebody honks out a C# on top of it, it's accurate to say that in most cases that C# gets resolved to a C natural or D - that's an accurate description of what is the most common, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a rule of how it should be done, or how it always is done.

[Nuff Said]

If you are hearing and intentionally playing notes that others may consider "Wrong Notes", but you love the sound, I take my hat off to you. That is the Jazz tradition.

Nuff