Starting over with Mark Levine

[JonR]

The most ill-considered New Year's resolution, ever? Let's see.

Try as I may, I can't reconcile Mark Levine's observations with any theory. What is the theory?


1. Page 37: note 4 (4th scale degree, in C = F) is dissonant against Imaj7. How can a note be considered dissonant with a chord?

He means if you play it with the chord - eg as a soloist against the chord in the accompaniment - so it's heard as if it's part of the chord.

Simply, if you add an F to a Cmaj7 chord, it sounds nasty. Try it and see. If you're not sure, listen to just the E and F on their own. (Put the F an octave and half-step above the E for maximum effect.)

A single note is a different interval from every note in a chord. Are all these intervals dissonant? Presumably not, but which one is? More than one? He doesn't say.

Good point! The F is most dissonant with the E, as I said, but also with the B.
Or rather, the dissonance it makes with B is acceptable in some chords (such as G7 or Bdim7), just not in a Cmaj7.

2. Page 39: since note 4 is the problem ("avoid note"), the solution is to play C Lydian over Cmaj7. Now, it happens that C Lydian, which is in the key of G, begins and ends on C, so it is a C scale or mode or something. It also happens that it has F# as degree 4. So what? How does the theory lead to from key of C to key of G?

It doesn't. It's just about being able to add a good sounding 11th to a Cmaj7 chord. F sounds bad, and it sounds better to raise it to F#. The key could still be C, because key is established in other ways.
Eg, the sequence Dm7-G7-Cmaj7#11 will sound like a ii-V-I in C major, but with a raised 11th added to the tonic chord.

Levine works backwards from the fact that C Lydian has F# as a 4th degree, because F# as the #4 of C is what he wanted. That's not a theory. That's deciding to sharp the 4 and then go hunting for a mode that has it. Is this the only mode that has F# as degree 4? How did he decide to look for the mode in the key of G?

He didn't. He wanted to raise the 4th because it sounds good.
The "theory" comes from the fact that this is what jazz musicians do. Levine is trying to explain what he has heard jazz musicians do. This is where "music theory" comes from: codifying common musical practices.
Levine knows that a C major scale with a raised 4th is known as "lydian mode". This is a very old piece of theory that predates jazz (by several centuries). So he's kind of borrowing a term instead of inventing a new one. (Never a good idea to invent new theory terms if you don't have to.)

However that was, is it done according to a theory, such that it covers other situations, or just this one? If it only covers this situation, what's the point? Why not just observe that sharping the 4 solves the problem, whatever that may be, and leave it at that?

Because he's a theorist who wants to give us a name for the practice?

An observation is not a theory. Fifty thousand observations that are one hundred per cent accurate are not a theory. A theory is a logical proposition that explains the observations.

Music theory isn't. Music theory is more like the grammar of a language. "This is how people speak. This is how we make sense of that."

I'm resigned to the fact that this isn't "The" Jazz Theory Book. Now I'm grappling with, is it even "A" Jazz Theory Book at all.

You're right "The" is the wrong word. "A" is better - and it is certainly "A" jazz theory book. It's based broadly around the chord-scale theory of post-modal jazz.
It omits a lot of very important stuff about functional harmony, the kind that all jazz before 1959 was based on. It's deficient in that sense.

Like the others say, study some other theory books - including "Jazzology" and anything by Bert Ligon.

[AlsoRan]

He didn't. He wanted to raise the 4th because it sounds good.
The "theory" comes from the fact that this is what jazz musicians do.

Great thread!

JonR, you gave substance to a lot of my thoughts.

But I must address on of your points. I thought the theory is that in any given key, the natural 4th will sound unacceptably dissonant with the IMaj7 chord when played together (other than when playing the 4th quickly. So you can take this theory and whenever you have a IMaj7, you know the 4th would sound better if raised a half step.

So in the Key of G, for a static GMaj7 chord, you would not want to play and hold a "C" at the same time, but you could use a "C#." The same would be true for the key of D, you would raise the G to a G#.

Is this not what Levine was trying to convey in this instance? If so, then this is a where the "theory" comes in because it is a principle that can be applied to all the different keys. (Of course, you can break this rule if you like the way it sounds, but it is not a widely accepted practice in our music tradition).

Is my assessment correct in your humble opinion Mr. JonR?

[JonnyPac]

Thread on testing out theories...

https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/theor...-yourself.html

[Ron Stern]

Thanks to all for your help.

I don't get the conflict or dissonance or problem or whatever the hell it is we're talking about, with regard to the 4 vs. Imaj7 and/or 4 vs. 3 vs. Imaj7. It all sounds good to me.

[brwnhornet59]

LOL, hey man, when in doubt keep it simple.

[AlsoRan]

Thanks to all for your help.

I don't get the conflict or dissonance or problem or whatever the hell it is we're talking about, with regard to the 4 vs. Imaj7 and/or 4 vs. 3 vs. Imaj7. It all sounds good to me.

Then I have to assert what a lot of the guys on the forum say, there is really no wrong note. So I guess it only matters how you use it and put your notes together.

Eventually, I will probably be able to just randomly play my guitar and it will be called music. And, I can also turn over a can of nails and screws on a tin mat and maybe kick a dog and someone will call it music. Just like guys throwing paint on a mat and calling it art.

Where does it end and start to become a cacophony? Or is it all up to the listener or artist to decide? I guess everything - beauty, art, good, evil, darkness, light- is all relative.

Judge not, eh?

[JonnyPac]

From Robert Rawlins review:

[7] In attempting to build a theory of chord/scale relationships from a modal point of view instead of traditional diatonic function, Levine gets into difficulties immediately. He begins with a "Major Scale Harmony" chart, but does not list chords according to diatonic function. Instead, Levine presents a list of the seven modes associated with the diatonic scale and attempts to assign an appropriate chord to each.(3) Placing himself in the untenable position of having to pull all seven notes of each mode into a verticalization, Levin is in trouble on the first chord, since the C chord (the unacknowledged tonic) has an F in it. Levine observes: "There is a note in the scale that is much more dissonant than the other six notes....This is a so-called 'avoid' note....'Avoid note' is not a very good term, because it implies that you shouldn't play the note at all. A better name would be a 'handle with care' note" (p. 37). Levine goes on to explain that improvisers generally treat the note as a passing tone, but nowhere does he mention the note's tendency to resolve to the third. Nor is there any suggestion that the seven notes of the mode (the "available pool of notes" [p. 32]) should be considered in any hierarchical order. Indeed, the very term "avoid note" suggests an embellishing tone, but there is no mention of what is being embellished. Presumably, the members of the tonic triad have no particular importance beyond that of the other notes in the Ionian mode.(4)

The refusal to address a tonal hierarchy within a chord-scale makes Levine's version of chord scale theory very problematic. It is clearly an attempt to make an elegant unified theory, but fails terribly, IMHO. By using the full scale (or mode) and "avoiding" problem notes or recklessly reharminzing everything into some borrowed chord-scale with fewer or no "avoid notes" is pretty ridiculous, and less done by master musicians historically by a huge percentage. Regardless of his selected examples he is in a minority of post 60's jazz thinkers; It is easy to find some evidence to back up ones opinions and proves nothing in such relatively small amounts.

Using maj7#11 in place of a good old tonic major in non-jazz contexts and in older jazz styles will upset some listeners by sounding "wrong" (regardless of how cool is can sound in modern modal-based jazz). I love Lydian as much as the next modal junkie but I am mature enough to use in proper contexts without any blanket always or never rules.

Huff huff.

[Ron Stern]

Perhaps I owe more than I knew to Frank Zappa.

[AlsoRan]

Maybe Zappa had it right all along....

Just enjoy.

[JonnyPac]

One of my old employers on a music store played with Zappa back in the day. He said that Frank was always looking for the "stinkiest notes"- The opposite of "avoid notes"? lol "Jazz is not dead it just smells funny"...

[Sphere]

The explanations I offered:
- the interval between the chord's major 3rd and the 11th (=4th) is a minor second
- the interval between the major 7th and the 11th is a tritone
Those intervals are considered dissonant. Whether they sound good or not is not the question at hand.

[Sphere]

Maybe Zappa had it right all along....

Just enjoy.

Zappa's favorite scale? Lydian.

[AlsoRan]

Zappa's favorite scale? Lydian.

Ha! Ha! It figures.

I do take one other thing from this thread. Like men wearing pants and women wearing skirts, I am used to things being a certain way, including music. I expect certain sounds and chords from Rock, others from the Blues.

Jazz can be so complex, I am just beginning to be able to understand why I like some of it and am totally unmoved by others. That Levine book gave me some help. When I get time, I going to carefully read through that review Johnny P. recommended and see what it is the book is doing that is so "sinful."

[brwnhornet59]

Jazz is like any other genre in terms of having it's own sound. Once you acclimate your ears to it much of the mystery vanishes. A lot of players make the mistake , IMO, of over complicating things especially when something is not completely understood. It is human nature. Many times the simplest answer IS the answer. Like so many things in music there are always several answers and even more roads that lead there.

Patience.

[AlsoRan]

I will obey, Sensei (but I just don't think I will ever like a lot of the modern stuff, at least not anytime soon, there is way too much good "old" stuff from the 40's, 50's, and 60's to keep me occupied for many years).

[brwnhornet59]

Hey brother, it's all good. No one says you have to like anything that does not sound good to you. Our palate can change overtime, but if it does not, who cares!

[JonR]

Great thread!

JonR, you gave substance to a lot of my thoughts.

But I must address on of your points. I thought the theory is that in any given key, the natural 4th will sound unacceptably dissonant with the IMaj7 chord when played together (other than when playing the 4th quickly. So you can take this theory and whenever you have a IMaj7, you know the 4th would sound better if raised a half step.

Yes - I wasn't saying anything different, so apologies if that wasn't clear.

So in the Key of G, for a static GMaj7 chord, you would not want to play and hold a "C" at the same time, but you could use a "C#." The same would be true for the key of D, you would raise the G to a G#.

Right.

Is this not what Levine was trying to convey in this instance? If so, then this is a where the "theory" comes in because it is a principle that can be applied to all the different keys. (Of course, you can break this rule if you like the way it sounds, but it is not a widely accepted practice in our music tradition).

Is my assessment correct in your humble opinion Mr. JonR?

Yes . Good clarification. (In my indeed humble opinion )

AFAIK, the whole idea of the "lydian" raised 4th comes from George Russell's "Lydian Chromatic Concept", which posited lydian as the most stable scale, and therefore a suitable (new) foundation for harmonic theory, and which supposedly influenced "modal jazz" pioneers like Miles Davis and John Coltrane. But don't quote me on that .
(Personally I think the LCC as a whole is debatable at best, but that's another thread...

[JonR]

The explanations I offered:
- the interval between the chord's major 3rd and the 11th (=4th) is a minor second

Or a minor 9th, which is worse...

- the interval between the major 7th and the 11th is a tritone
Those intervals are considered dissonant. Whether they sound good or not is not the question at hand.

Yes, but "dissonance" varies, and is sometimes dependent on context.
In particular the dissonance of the tritone is not only "good" but "crucial" in the context of a dom7, dim7 or half-dim chord. It's "bad", therefore, in any chord with a different function, particularly a tonic major, where it just confuses the harmony.

The minor 2nd is a perfectly acceptable dissonance in other contexts. A common piano voicing for a maj7 is 5-7-1-3, and a minor 9th chord could have the 9th a half-step below the m3 - quite an attractive sound.
It's the minor 9th interval - adding an octave between the notes - that creates a dissonance that is bad in almost any context. (The intriguing exception being the 7b9 chord.)

[Ron Stern]

It's just about being able to add a good sounding 11th to a Cmaj7 chord.

Then why doesn't he "just" say so?

The "theory" comes from the fact that this is what jazz musicians do.

I doubt it. They calculate a change of key and a pick a mode in order to sharp the 4?

Levine is trying to explain what he has heard jazz musicians do. This is where "music theory" comes from: codifying common musical practices.

That's a list, not a theory. A theory is a logical relation between the items on the list. What are the items? What is the logical relation?

I thought maybe by going to the mode he was going to harmonize it and come up with a chord substitution or something. That and sharping the 4 at least would give two things between which to establish a relation. Otherwise what's the point?

[Ron Stern]

Is this not what Levine was trying to convey in this instance? If so, then this is a where the "theory" comes in because it is a principle that can be applied to all the different keys.

In my understanding, the main point of having equal temperament is so that given intervals don't change when you change keys. This wasn't discovered when they first sharped the 4 over Imaj7.

[Ron Stern]

Zappa's favorite scale? Lydian.

Yes but did he know he was changing keys?

[Ron Stern]

Jazz Once you acclimate your ears to it much of the mystery vanishes.

For me, the mystery is in the book, not the music. The music is great. The book appears to suck.

[Ron Stern]

Then I have to assert what a lot of the guys on the forum say, there is really no wrong note. So I guess it only matters how you use it and put your notes together.

That is contradictory. If there is no wrong note, it doesn't matter. If it matters, then some notes are wrong.

[brwnhornet59]

For me, the mystery is in the book, not the music. The music is great. The book appears to suck.

Hey brother, STOP reading. Everything is good.

I am not seeing much productive coming from this anymore. Pick up Bert Ligon's book and see if that one grabs you. It is more of the favorite anyway.

[Ron Stern]

Hey brother, STOP reading. Everything is good.

I am not seeing much productive coming from this anymore. Pick up Bert Ligon's book and see if that one grabs you. It is more of the favorite anyway.

You're right of course, as far as the individual musician goes. Even if I put the book away for the last time, which is like, any minute now, the problem is, you get to talking to people, and you have to wonder, is this guy coming from Mark Levine? Then his understanding is a castle of faulty logic built on thin air.

The criticisms of Levine are either valid, or not. By virtue of the influence of the book it becomes an issue in the world of music that cannot be ignored without great cost.

People have a perfect right to believe him even if they can't state coherently what it is they believe. I can't just nod and say, uh huh, because that would be a lie.

If the criticisms of Levine are valid, then his influence is retarding the progress of music theory and possibly contributing to the demise of jazz, a crime against humanity for God's sake, and for what? So he can make a few bucks?