-
That is the beauty of having different approach's. Since no one can definitively say This Is The Way It Is, it all comes down to which school of thought we choose to pursue.
-
01-06-2012 03:08 PM
-
Well, I think he makes it clear that's what he means (eg on pages 37-9). I'd agree he'd could perhaps be more direct about it; eg explaining the clash with the major 3rd.
Originally Posted by Ron Stern
I don't recall this is as a problem when I first read it, but I think I was already aware of the issue - I'd known of the P11 vs #11 debate for some time.
You can "doubt it" all you like. You need to have listened to all the jazz Levine has listened to before you can make as valid a claim about what jazz musicians do. Originally Posted by Ron Stern
Simply put, in this case - and now I'm being as hypothetical as you are
- if one plays a maj7 chord, and then puts a P11 on top (eg a voicing of C E G B D F), one may well think "ouch, I don't like that F. I'd better leave it out. But I wonder what happens if I play F# instead?"
One doesn't have to invoke another key, or to be aware of modal terminology. (Of course, any jazz musician would know that by using F# he's implying G major scale, not C major. He may or may not regard that as significant, or as a reason not to do it. Depends how much he values what he hears over what he knows of theory.)
It's not just a list if you codify the items on it - by that I mean establishing relations. (There are all kinds of things musicians do, I'm not going to list them all here!) Originally Posted by Ron Stern
And as I said before, there may not be a "logical" relation.
Is there a logical reason why, in English grammar, we put the verb in the middle of the sentence, and not at the end (as they do in German)? All that matters is that we know the right word order for the language we're speaking. It doesn't matter why it's that way.
Music "theory" is the same; it's about grammer, vocabulary and syntax. Why things are the way they are may be interesting (as a historical study) but it's not essential knowledge. It's not the business of music theory to explain "why" - only "what", "when" and "how".
Well, firstly I think you're overthinking this issue of the 4th. But secondly I agree his focus on modes in general is misleading. Key-based harmony doesn't work like that. Originally Posted by Ron Stern
He's talking about modes, and describing what kind of chords can be built from them. And then giving examples from recordings by well-known jazz musicians which seem to illustrate their usage.
This all seems quite convincing to a neophyte (and did to me), but the issue is that the examples only "seem to illustrate" his theories. If one didn't know any better, the vast amount of listening Levine claims to have done and the constant stream of illustrative musical quotes make it all seem unassailably authoritative. It really looks as if Levine has listened to all this stuff, and then come up with ideas to explain what's happening - theories which make sense of what he's heard. He's come back from the mountain with tablets of stone.
But it's equally possible (and maybe more likely) that he had some ideas first - based probably on his personal experience of playing as well as listening - started formulating them according to how they made sense to him, and then looked for more examples to illustrate his points. Of course, he found what he was looking for, because he rejected anything that didn't fit.
This is the most telling criticism of his book: can you use it to meaningfully analyse (and help understand) ANY piece of jazz you come across? The answer has to be a resounding NO.
You CAN analyse, say, Charlie Parker or Louis Armstrong according to these mode/chord-scale ideas, but it doesn't help; it doesn't feel like you get inside their thinking, not as much as an analysis from functional key-based theory does. IOW, while it can describe what's going on - eg mixolydian mode on this dom7 chord - it doesn't reveal anything. You don't get any "oh I see!" response from it. Pre-modal jazz improvisation is much more satisfyingly explained using key and chord-tone notions, with embellishments of melody. (And even much post-modal jazz is clearer from that perspective.)
-
You may be overstating its influence. I think you may be right in relation to beginner/intermediate jazz players, or amateurs. The kind easily swayed by Levine's accessible yet authoritative style. Originally Posted by Ron Stern
More experienced jazz musicians - in my experience - don't take any theory book too seriously (because they get all they need from the music), and would take Levine with a pinch of salt.
There IS plenty of value in the book (IMO), but it has to be taken as a personal perspective. I don't think any of it is downright wrong, or flakey, but what it doesn't say is more important than what it does.
Now you're definitely exaggerating! Originally Posted by Ron Stern
Jazz is not going to die because of a misleading theory book - even one ten times worse and ten times more influential than Levine's. (And if it did, then it deserves to. Books, schmooks...)
That's not to say that his influence - or rather the influence of chord-scale theory in general (I blame Jamey Aebersold too) - is producing students who can't solo their way out of a paper bag. Like Joe Henderson's observation about jazz graduates whose solos "sound like the index of a book" - and probably Levine's book at that!
I myself have been through countless jazz courses and workshops where one is told what scale to use over this or that chord, and then feels successful if one manages to play a solo with all the right notes. Each tune is treated like a test - can you get through it without playing a wrong note? If you can, success! If you can't, just learn your scales better. That's not jazz. It's barely even music. But it's easy to teach that way.
I don't know if you know Hal Galper, but I find his youtubes a refreshing antidote to all this chord-scale theory business ("business" being the operative word). Try this one if you haven't seen it:
Last edited by JonR; 01-06-2012 at 03:38 PM.
-
Ron, there are different types of major 7 chords. I just checked the pages you listed in your first post and Levine is pretty clearly suggesting you play lydian over IVmaj7, not Imaj7. He also suggests you play lydian over maj7 chords that don't function as either, like in Inner Urge.
I don't get the controversy?
-
Thanks for that clarification. I was also confusing the idea of playing a #11 on a tonic maj7 with Levine's comments. I think you're right he doesn't explicitly say that, and yet that is (as I understand) a conventional jazz concept, that you can add a #11 to a tonic maj7. Originally Posted by Space Pickle
I would appreciate any further info on this, esp any clear reference in any other theoretical work, and where the idea came from - I can't remember where I read it, but I know it was way before Levine.
-
I would be much more interested to hear some musical examples of #11 on a Imaj7 chord if anyone knows of any.
-
Yeah, me too! Originally Posted by Space Pickle
I do know one lydian tune, a deliberate exercise in that mode:
- but of course it's not the same as adding a #11 to an otherwise major key tonic. I've done the latter myself quite often - at least in ballads - but I couldn't quote an example from a well-known jazz recording, which is what we need here. (And it really ought to be one where the #11 is a held chord tone, rather than a #4 approach note to the 5, which is pretty common, and not really the same thing.)
-
Joe's tune is modal.
The way you will usually hear someone implying lydian over a IM7 is in their soloing.
Metheny, Pass, Benson, Gambale, Henderson, Stern, are some of the many guitarists I have heard do it a lot. Many Pianist and horn players have done this for decades as well including Evans, Corea, Jarret, Rubalcaba, Brecker, Garret, Locke, Eubanks, Marsalis, Lane, McGlaughlin, Zawinal, Hancock, Goodrick, Juris etc.... .
There is nothing mystical about. It gives a brighter sound and is just another color of the myriads of colors we choose from everyday.
-
OK, I'm sure you're right (and I'm sure I must have heard it many times), but can you give us a youtube link to at least ONE track, with a timing for the occurrence of the tonic maj7#11? Originally Posted by brwnhornet59
A held chord would be ideal, but the clear use of a lydian solo phrase on a tonic major is also good.
(I don't mean to ask you to do work I ought to do, but I'm thinking you may know a few specific examples better than I do.)
-
I mostly I hear it as a funny final chord in a tune that otherwise used normal tonics during the choruses. It leaves it hanging in effect.
Don't forget that thinking linear, the b5 (#4 or #11) might actually be a CLNT* of the P5. (*chromatic lower neighbor tone) Melodies use this frequently and they don't necessarily reflect on the underlying tonic chord.
In functional music, a tonic colored with "Lydian" de-emphasises the function of the tonic key. This is subjective as far as good or bad goes. Common practice is the big question; I'd say tonic with #11 is in the minority statistically speaking.Last edited by JonnyPac; 01-07-2012 at 06:52 PM.
-
Yes, which is why we need to exclude such examples. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
I'd say that too - probably very much in the minority. But obviously that suggests it does occur, and it's actual examples we're looking for. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
Personally I think a sustained lydian chord, voiced with 9 below the #11, has a good stable quality, quite suitable for a major key tonic. Eg:
-x-
-7-
-7-
-9-
-7-
-8-
No G there, but that sounds OK to me as a final chord for a C major ballad. The lydian "colour" is just that: a colour, maybe a little odd, but not something that suggests "hey, that's a IV chord in G!" (not to me anyhow).
Even so, I want some examples of jazz musicians on recordings actually doing this.Last edited by JonR; 01-08-2012 at 07:33 AM.
-
He says no such thing. Originally Posted by Space Pickle
He uses the chord and the scale to make his point, and nothing more. No chord function is mentioned or implied.Go to a piano and play a root position Cmaj7 chord with your left hand while playing the C major scale with your right hand. There is a note in the scale that is much more dissonant than the other six notes. -- p. 37
1. He doesn't say it makes a difference.
2. If it makes a difference, he should say so.
3. What difference does it make?
He says that after he says: Originally Posted by Space Pickle
You can play it (the #4) on almost any major 7th chord. -- p. 39Last edited by Ron Stern; 01-08-2012 at 05:01 PM.
-
I'm over-thinking it? I'm not the one who wrote a book that says when you sharp the 4 you're changing keys and playing the Lydian mode, and remember that, even though it bears no relation to anything else in the universe. Originally Posted by JonR
-
*shrug* I would say it's pretty clearly implied given that all of his examples are either IVmaj7 or non-functional maj7 chords.
-
Hey Ron, why don't we move on now? You obviously feel the way you do, it does not matter what others say. So why are you still talking about this? Put the book down. Lets talk about something that can have a positive impact for everyone. This thread was pointless many replies ago.
Peace
-
Whether it's a matter of feeling is kind of the question. Mark Levine and I both feel the #4 sounds good sometimes. He states that this is true because the #4 comes from the Lydian mode. My question is, how do you figure? Originally Posted by brwnhornet59
I still talk about it because no one seems to have an answer.
But you've been helpful to me in the past, so I'll let it go.
-
I see a bit of heat in this thread... and that is very typical of Levine-based topics. Right here, is a testament that TJTB is an overblown biased collection of jazz tips, and not the #1 reference on jazz or general improvisation theory. You never see 3-page threads beating Ligon's excerpts to a pulp; his work is honest with no BS- designed for the lay person and skeptic alike. He even spent a long time on forums refining his opinions, much like we are doing right here!
Ron, I feel your pain, but remember that most of the jazzers in the current zestiest seem to embrace a non-Levine approach. Thank goodness!
-
I will always strive to be helpful. I have no qualms with you Sir. Originally Posted by Ron Stern
But this topic does not have an answer that you except. That is fine. You are not going to get an answer that you except, so that is why I am saying this. This particular subject will yield no good answer. It is to polarized. So lets dig into something more beneficial. That is all I am trying to do.
Your fine dude. It's all good, let's move on!
Last edited by brwnhornet59; 01-09-2012 at 05:30 PM.
-
How do we figure what? that a scale with a raised 4th is Lydian? By it's construction. The placements of whole tones and semi tones. Originally Posted by Ron Stern
If you're referring to why does it sound better, it only sounds better than a natural 4 depending on the context in which it is used. and of course personal taste.
In a harmonic sense using the natural 4 creates too much ambiguity. Adding F to Cma7 then the chord could be either a Cma11 or a G11.
Adding the #4 eliminates that particular ambiguity. You know the chord is Cma7. The only ambiguity left is whether or not it's the #4 or b5
-
I don't think Levine invoked that as a reason. He says it sounds good (better than the P4) and describes it as a Lydian sound. And it's a little annoying he doesn't go further. Originally Posted by Ron Stern
But there's a lot more in this section I'd like to take to pieces (and to get other opinions on). He seems to write lucidly - his style is attractive - but as I look back on it now, many years after first reading it - the writing seems dodgy for various reasons.
As you mentioned before, he doesn't go into detail about why F is an "avoid note" on a C chord (p.37). He doesn't bring up the interval with E.
On P.38, he claims (offering no musical evidence) that bebop musicians began raising the 4th over major chords. (Why can't he give us some examples from his vast listening experience?)
On P.39, he says:
"Until the 1960s, most musicians called it a b5, but as more and more jazz musicians started thinking of scales while improvising, the term b5 gave way to #4 or #11."
Hmm... Again, no evidence or quotes (musical or verbal) for these assertions. They seem vaguely believable, but don't bear examination.
1. If musicians did call it a b5, maybe they knew what they meant? Maybe they really did think of it as an altered 5th, like a blue note, maybe combined with a P4? That's quite a different thing from a #4.
(The question is surely what other notes were used with it? If it was used with a P4, and no P5, then it should be called a b5. If it was used with a M3 and P5, then it should be called a #4. If both a P4 and P5 occur alongside it, then it could be called either. It's of no concern what any particular musician might have called it at one time.)
2. "more and more jazz musicians started thinking of scales while improvising". They did? So what did they think of before the 1960s? Wouldn't that be an interesting question for a jazz musician? How did Louis Armstrong think when he played a solo? Or Lester Young or Charlie Christian? If not scales, what?
(If he had called his book "The Jazz Chord-Scale Theory Book (for post-1960s jazz)", such an omission would be acceptable - although it would still be nice to have some kind of comment on it in an introduction.)
Further on P.39, under the heading "The Lydian Mode and the Major 7th#4 Chord":
"Even though the chord symbol reads Cmaj7#4, you're actually playing in the key of G."
"Even though"? Why would we think that chord symbol meant anything else? And does it really mean we're "playing in the key of G?"
IF the key is G major, THEN the IV chord could be Cmaj7#4 - that's true. But a Cmaj7#4 might not always be "in the key of G". It's a tune or chord progression that is "in" a key. The whole point of this modal stuff is that key boundaries are either broken or irrelevant.
(At the bottom of the page he has an example with Abmaj7#4 and Gbmaj7#4 - those two chords are not in the same key. And if you play Ab lydian on the Abmaj7#4 - even if you think of it as "Eb major scale" - you're not really "in the key of Eb", are you?)
He then says: "Learn to think key, not chord, as much as possible." [His emphasis.] All well and good, we might think, but then he goes on to say:
"You don't have to wait to see a #4 in a chord symbol to play a raised 4th on a major 7th chord. You can play it on almost any major 7th chord."
OK - this is the interesting concept! Now we're (potentially) ignoring key. After all, if we saw a Cmaj7 in key of C, and were following his "think key not chord" principle", we would NOT consider a #4. But now he's saying we can.
A little further on, he says:
"One place to play a raised 4th on a major 7th chord (making it a Lydian chord) is when the major 7th chord is acting ike a IV chord."
Well, duh! If the chord is a IV chord, then a #4 is diatonic. We wouldn't play a perfect 4! (certainly not if following the "key not chord" rule).
IOW, rather than "one place", that's the normal place.
And still - what's the idea of calling it a "lydian" chord? Where's the sense in that? "Maj7#4" is the natural quality of a major key IV chord. It's not "in lydian mode" (which would mean the maj7#4 was the I chord).
IOW, he's using the word "Lydian" merely to describe the sound of a maj7#4. OK, but it's an arguably superfluous term.
In short, all he's saying on this page is that we can add a #4 to IV chord even if the chord symbol doesn't mention it. We have to guess whether that's simply because it's diatonic (in the key), or because it sounds good in its own right (which is the implication behind that throwaway remark about "almost any" maj7 chord).
On P.40, there's a lengthy quote from "Black Narcissus" showing a string of maj7#4 chords, unrelated by key. So these are all modal lydian chords.
But then at the bottom of the page is a quote from "Happy Birthday" showing the diatonic #4 on the IV chord. IOW, he's conflating two usages again (without drawing a clear distinction). Happy Birthday may be unusual in leading with a melodic #4 on the IV chord. But it's not a lydian modal idea, it's an accented neighbour tone.
Let's pick some more holes in him...
P.41: "If you saw the chord symbol Fmaj7... the first scale you would think of would be the F major scale."
No it wouldn't! Not if we're following his (perfectly good) principle from 2 pages earlier, "think key not chord". We'd look at the progression (and possibly the key sig too)to decide whether the Fmaj7 was I or IV - or maybe a non-functional modal chord.
P.42 has a brief tangential reference to lydian dominant, which is off topic in this section, and pointless because he comes back to it in more detail on P.64, in his look at melodic minor modes.
I may be being a little unfair to Levine here, but I'm agreeing more and more with Ron. Levine describes various modal scales, and shows them in use on suitable chords. But he doesn't really go any further than that. Despite the use of quotes from recordings, there's no sense of grounding for these concepts.
So - a "maj7#4" chord symbol implies a major scale with a #4. So far, so "duh!" We call that scale "lydian mode". OK. Now what?
When we see a plain "maj7" chord symbol, we can add a #4. Maybe. Or probably. (Does it have to be a IV chord? Or do we just have to imagine it as a IV chord? Or doesn't that matter?)
IOW, it all seems a bit woolly and detached. We get the argument about the #4 sounding better than the P4 "avoid note", fair enough. But the "lydian mode" connection, and the IV chord function connection, are not properly dealt with.
Anyway, I've ranted long enough already... (Naturally, a bigger debate is whether, or how much, the flaws in these pages render the rest of the book unreliable? I happen to think there's a lot of good stuff elsewhere in the book, but how authoritative is it?)
-
Killer post, JonR. Great points.
"The Jazz Chord-Scale Theory Book (for post-1960s jazz)" Would save his ass.
-
I'm wanting to say something, but I promised to shut up.
-
Ron, you are all right. I learned a lot from this thread. Good lesson, even if a few feelings got rattled here and there. Maybe you are a rational soul?(smile) Originally Posted by Ron Stern
Last edited by AlsoRan; 01-10-2012 at 08:45 PM. Reason: added
-
Let's just remember to keep everything from getting personal. No one should feel upset by discussing music, IMHO. I have beefs with bogus theories, but that doesn't mean I have the right to slander members who subscribe to them, etc. Keep it friendly, and let's continue as needed.
-
Then you just broke that promise. Originally Posted by Ron Stern
Seriously, as AlsoRan says, your questions have opened up a useful thread. It's certainly led me to properly re-read parts of the book at least (after many years of it gathering dust on my shelf).
I think you're right to be irritated that the Levine book seems to have this undeserved authority (even if only by virtue of its arrogant title).
I'm sure there are many more detailed criticisms that can be made of it. (Jonny posted Robert Rawlins' critique of it earlier in the thread - one of the best.) I'd personally be happy for you to say anything else you want to say.
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale