Starting over with Mark Levine

[Ron Stern]

I'd personally be happy for you to say anything else you want to say.

Perhaps you could gather signatures and petition Governor Brown Hornet for my early parole.

[JonnyPac]

Keep it civil and the discussion will continue. Britt means well- let's not draw attention to any individual posters if we can avoid it. Use your "ignore" function if it someone getting to you.

[Sphere]

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.

I think you are contradicting yourself. Unless you don't consider Levine to be a person? I think his 'ass' is safe, he's a very well regarded educator here in the bay area. There is a lot, lot more to his book than chord-scales, which he isn't even responsible for popularizing in the first place. It's a book, not a religion - you can have and like more than one.

As to the lydian over maj7 - the main reason the #11 sounds 'better' than a natural 11th, is because it's a part of the harmonic series. That's why George Russell chose it as the most basic, natural scale in his system.

[AlsoRan]

As to the lydian over maj7 - the main reason the #11 sounds 'better' than a natural 11th, is because it's a part of the harmonic series. That's why George Russell chose it as the most basic, natural scale in his system.

You made me go and research harmonic series. Very interesting analysis.

So the 12semitones on the guitar are nor quite in tune at the 7th and 11th, enough to create dissonance

[JonnyPac]

I think you are contradicting yourself. Unless you don't consider Levine to be a person? I think his 'ass' is safe, he's a very well regarded educator here in the bay area. There is a lot, lot more to his book than chord-scales, which he isn't even responsible for popularizing in the first place. It's a book, not a religion - you can have and like more than one.

Levine makes no online appearances for discussion, has not revised his book based on any professional criticisms from contemporaries, and has not released any further blog/essays to clarify so many upsets and misunderstandings. I'd feel ashamed to trash on other educators who are "online" and in it with us here. Levine is nothing but a book to me as far as theory goes. His music/person are out of the picture, IMHO. I'm sure he is nice enough, etc.

Ironically George Russell created the first "jazz theory book" and Levine has no mention of it in his whatsoever (not in the index, footnotes, etc). Using the LCC is a can of worms and this might be of great interest: http://www.jeff-brent.com/Lessons/LC...crepancies.pdf

I hope I don't come across as a "hater". I dig a great many concepts and books and always enjoy discussing their virtues as well.

[JonR]

I think you are contradicting yourself. Unless you don't consider Levine to be a person? I think his 'ass' is safe, he's a very well regarded educator here in the bay area. There is a lot, lot more to his book than chord-scales, which he isn't even responsible for popularizing in the first place. It's a book, not a religion - you can have and like more than one.

Good call.
No one is attacking Levine as a person. He's a great musician, and - like I said - I like his writing style, and there's lots to admire in that book. But there's also lots that's contentious.

As to the lydian over maj7 - the main reason the #11 sounds 'better' than a natural 11th, is because it's a part of the harmonic series.

Not in equal temperament it isn't. The 11th harmonic is exactly in between the perfect 11 and #11 - or rather octaves of those notes.
To give just a couple of figures, the 11th harmonic of A=110 is 1210 Hz.
Nearest tuned pitches: D = 1174.7; D# = 1244.5.
1210 is 51 cents sharp of D, and 49 cents flat of D#. IOW, nearer D#, but negligibly so.
The same applies to the 11th harmonic of any other note, of course.
That suggests Ionian mode has as good - or rather as bad - a claim to be a "natural" scale as lydian does.

That's why George Russell chose it as the most basic, natural scale in his system.

I doubt that was his reason. He can't have been that dumb (he must have done the math).

The fact is, the #11 simply sounds better - more consonant - with a maj9 chord, because of intervals with other chord extensions. IOW, it approximates consonant ratios with those notes - not with the root. (Or rather not with the 11th harmonic of the root.)

If you work up in perfect 5ths from A, you get a different result from the harmonic, which is presumably more relevant to Russell's claim about lydian's "naturalness".
Firstly. a stack of perfect 5ths produces lydian mode (A E B F# C# G# D#). That's encouraging. It suggests A as the natural acoustic root of all 7 notes.
Secondly, if we calculate that D# with perfect 3:2 5ths, it comes out as 1253.0, which is 12 cents sharp of the tempered D#.
Each individual tempered 5th is only 2 cents out, which makes them highly consonant, and 12 cents away from an ideal pure 11th is not too bad, especially as it is likely to be harmonising with notes closer than the root. (We already tolerate equal tempered major 3rds that are 14 cents away from pure.)

Personally (although I've only read very brief excerpts of the LCC), I think Russell may have missed the point about Ionian (it works because of the dissonance with the P4), and I don't see the need for all the new jargon he invented - or for the ridiculously expensive cost of his book - but I do think there's mileage in such a fresh look at harmony, which modal jazz did of course prove (to some extent). IOW, the idea of basing a harmonic system on a fully stable mode (lydian) rather than the partly unstable mode that drives traditional functional harmony.

[brwnhornet59]

Perhaps you could gather signatures and petition Governor Brown Hornet for my early parole.

LOL You are paroled. The thread seems to have taken a constructive turn. Many good points have been posted in the past day.

[Sphere]

I hope I don't come across as a "hater". I dig a great many concepts and books and always enjoy discussing their virtues as well.

Fair enough. Btw I'm hoping to attend a couple of his workshops at the Jazz School in Berkeley later this month.

You made me go and research harmonic series. Very interesting analysis.

So the 12semitones on the guitar are nor quite in tune at the 7th and 11th, enough to create dissonance

The equal temperament is mostly out of tune, it's a compromise necessary to make the music sound in equally in tune (or out of tune...) in every key. If you spend any decent amount of time listening to music based on true temperament, like Indian classical music (a true modal form of music), returning to equal temperament is almost grating to the ear.

[JonR]

You made me go and research harmonic series. Very interesting analysis.

So the 12semitones on the guitar are nor quite in tune at the 7th and 11th, enough to create dissonance

As Sphere says, in ET nothing is in tune (apart from octaves). But "out of tune" is a different matter from "dissonance".
The way we hear harmony has a kind of threshold of tolerance. An interval has to be more than a few cents out of tune (with a pure ratio) before we find it unpleasant. (Different people seem to have different thresholds of tolerance. Musicians are not necessarily more sensitive than non-musicians.)

Eg, a "pure" major 3rd has a ratio of 4:5 between its frequencies. (From an A of 440, the ideal C# would be tuned to 550.) But in ET, the 3rd is 14 cents sharp (that actual C# will 554). People with sensitive ears can be bothered by that, but mostly we've learned to live it, to hear it as "in tune". (Largely because the offending frequencies are in the harmonics of the notes, not the main pitches we hear.)
It only becomes an issue when guitarists use distortion, which enhances all the upper overtones. This makes the clashing overtones of the ET major 3rd more evident: the chord sounds "muddy" and "harsh". So rock guitarists leave out the 3rd to create "power" chords - so called because of the pure strong sound of the perfect 5th (which is a negligible 2 cents out of tune). The overtones of the root contain a pure major 3rd anyway (5x the fundamental frequency).

Here's the harmonic series of the A string on guitar (as far as the 19th), showing all the frequencies and the nearest equal tempered notes.

HARMONIC - FRET - FREQUENCY - NEAREST NOTE - cents away from ET
 1st        0       110 Hz          A
 2nd       12       220 Hz          A
 3rd      7, 19     330 Hz          E  (329.6)   2 cents sharp
 4th      5, 24     440 Hz          A 
 5th    4, 9, 16    550 Hz          C# (554.0)  14 cents flat
 6th        3       660 Hz          E  (659.2)   2 cents sharp
 7th 2.7, 9.7, 14.5 770 Hz          G  (784.0)  32 cents flat
 8th       2.3      880 Hz          A  (880)
 9th        2       990 Hz          B  (987.8)   4 cents sharp
10th       1.8     1100 Hz          C# (1108)   14 cents flat
11th               1210 Hz          D# (1244.5) 49 cents flat
12th               1320 Hz          E  (1318.5)  2 cents sharp
13th               1430 Hz          F  (1396.9) 40 cents sharp
14th               1540 Hz          G  (1568.0) 32 cents flat
15th               1650 Hz          G# (1661.2) 12 cents flat
16th               1760 Hz          A  (1760)
17th               1870 Hz          Bb (1864.7)  5 cents sharp
18th               1980 Hz          B  (1975.5)  4 cents sharp
19th               2090 Hz          C  (2093.0)  3 cents flat

The "fret" column shows the positions of harmonic "nodes" on the string, if you want to try and play these harmonics. (Above the 10th they get increasingly hard to hear, and are increasingly insignificant in the sound of the note itself. Remember the sound of the open A contains all these frequencies; they get faint quite quickly, but not in a regular way; the shape of the harmonic spectrum is what makes a guitar playing this note sound different from a sax playing this note.)

If you check the 5th harmonic with a tuner, it will register as 14 cents "flat". This is why I've used that reference in the "cents away from ET" column, but it might be truer to say the ET note is out of tune with the harmonic. Eg, the C# of 554 is 14 cents sharp of the purer-sounding 550 harmonic.

Even if we made a scale where all the notes had pure ratio relationships with one another (meaning we could only play perfectly in one key), we would still have dissonance between certain intervals. There is still a spectrum of consonance-dissonance, governed (mostly) by how small the ratio figures are - ie the ratios of their fundamental frequencies. The smaller the numbers, the more consonant the interval sounds, because the notes will share more overtones.
Here's how the intervals within an octave would go (remember these are pure intervals, so the ET equivalents might not work in quite the same order - although largely they do):
Unison = 1:1
Octave = 1:2
Perfect 5th = 2:3
Perfect 4th = 3:4 (inverted P5)
Major 6th = 3:5
Major 3rd = 4:5
Minor 3rd = 5:6 (inverted M6)
Minor 6th = 5:8 (inverted M3)
Minor 7th = 5:9 (or 9:16)
Major 2nd = 9:10 (or 8:9; inverted m7)
Major 7th = 8:15
Minor 2nd = 15:16 (inverted M7)

That's obviously increasingly dissonant, down to the worst sounding one at the bottom. There would probably be subjective variation in the middle of the range (is a major 3rd more or less consonant than a major 6th? a minor 6th more or less than a minor 3rd?).
And a lot depends on context. Eg, a perfect 4th is considered a dissonance in classical harmony. That's when the bottom note is heard as the root - when the top note becomes a suspension. If we hear the top note as the interval root (ie as an inverted 5th) then the interval is highly smooth and consonant.
Likewise, a minor 6th might be heard with the bottom note as root (enharmonic with an augmented 5th), which would be dissonant. But in a context where the upper note is heard as the root, then it's perceived as consonant.
And in chords, the mix of intervals matters. Eg a maj7 on its own is highly dissonant (just try it). But when we add a M3 and P5 in between, to make a 1-3-5-7 chord, it's softened, because we hear the 7 making smoother intervals with the 3 and 5.

Also notice there are two options for the major 2nd and its inversion. Both these are acceptable, and led to early "just intonation" scales having two sizes of tone (whole step). Some major 2nds would be 8:9, some would be the smaller 9:10; they had to be in order for the scale to fit the octave.

Notice too that the ratios are all in factors of 2,3 or 5. This is known as "5-limit" tuning. The older Pythagorean tuning used factors of 2 and 3 only - IOW, working everything out using 5ths and 4ths. This led to a major 3rd with a ratio of 64:81! That's a little sharp of even our ET 3rd, and may explain why the major 3rd was considered dissonant in the medieval era.
It's theoretically possible to refine intervals further by introducing a factor of 7, but this leads to intervals some way from the nearest 12-tone equivalent.
Eg, a 4:7 ratio sounds very consonant, and approximates a minor 7th (smoother than 5:9), but is 33 cents flat of the ET minor 7th.
So when we listen to our tempered minor 7th, what is it we're hearing? Which "just" interval (if any) are we relating it to? 5:9 (17 cents sharp)? 9:16 (4 cents flat)? or 4:7 (33 cents flat)? 9:16 is obviously closest, although it's the least "pure" option (judging from the complexity of the ratio).

Lastly - just to totally bugger up the picture - the way we judge intervals is not as straightforward as the math seems to promise. Eg, research has shown that people tend to prefer an octave that is very slightly out of tune (sharp) to one that is an exact 1:2. They hear it - bizarrely - as being more "in tune".
Add that to the facts of inharmonicity (the irregular vibration properties of stretched strings), and the appealing simplicity of the harmonic series - as a foundation of musical perception - starts to dissolve. That is, it's obviously still relevant and important; but it's far from the whole picture.
That's even before we consider cultural familiarity - the way we've got used to accepting equal temperament as being "in tune", and the various habits of chord formation and progression that we're used to hearing, that underpin our judgments of "good dissonance" (chords with functional tritones like dom7s) and "bad dissonance" (eg b9 "avoid notes").

[Lecture ends. Please file out quietly...]

[Ron Stern]

LOL You are paroled.

Thanks Gov !

[Ron Stern]

JonR as the heroic defense attorney gets me out of the pokey. Thanks.

You've said what I've been trying to say and much else besides, more clearly than I could ever hope to.

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.

Yeah. If it isn't a reason, what is it? A coincidence? An electro-magnetic anomaly?

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.

Yeah. You have a song, the song has a chord, the chord has a note that has an avoid note (oik !). The solution . . . is to change keys to get the "correct" mode ?! What happens to the rest of the song when you do that? Nothing? Then why do it?

I may be being a little unfair to Levine here . . .

I don't see how.

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?

Exactly.

I got into this because the last time I put down the book I left a book mark way on into the melodic minor part. To get that far I (1) re-wrote every example up to that point, in my own words, so far as I was able (2)constructed a database of Levine's statements and tried to find ways to relate them. Gave that up too. New year's resolution, start over. I started over with this #4 business and it made even less sense the second time. So I figure, what's the point of going further? Am I missing something fundamental right off the bat?

I think I've been more than fair to Mark Levine. I'm not criticizing his theory, I'm trying to figure out what it is. Seems like its been around long enough for someone to figure it out.

[Ron Stern]

You never see 3-page threads beating Ligon's excerpts to a pulp . . .

I once started a thread called "What does Mark Levine mean by a triangle with a line under it?" and it went three pages.



https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/getti...e-under-2.html

[JonnyPac]

I once started a thread called "What does Mark Levine mean by a triangle with a line under it?" and it went three pages.



https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/getti...e-under-2.html

LOL mM7... oh boy.
***

...I'm done with this thread BTW. Glad it's constructive. See y'all on the other threads.

[JonR]

I once started a thread called "What does Mark Levine mean by a triangle with a line under it?" and it went three pages.

Sometimes them jazz improvisers just don't know how to stop...

[randalljazz]

yeah, levine is just a non-playing no-nothing who could stand a few lessons from the great musical minds of cyber-heaven...

• Mark Levine & The Latin Tinge, "Isla," Left Coast Clave - Grammy Nominee, Best
Latin Jazz Recording of 2003
• Mark Levine, "Exact Change," Jazzschool Records
• Mark Levine & The Latin Tinge, "Off & On, the Music of Moacir Santos", Left
Coast Clave - Latin Grammy Nominee, Best Latin Jazz Recording of 2010
• Mark Levine & The Latin Tinge, "Serengeti," Left Coast Clave - UPI'S Ken
Franckling named "Serengeti" as "One Of The Ten Best Jazz CDs of 2001"
• Mark Levine & The Latin Tinge, "Hey It's Me," Left Coast Clave
• Mark Levine Trio, "One Notch Up, " Heavywood
• Mark Levine, "Smiley & Me," Concord Jazz
• Mark Levine, "Concepts," Concord Jazz
• Mark Levine, "Up 'til Now," Catalyst, w Tom Harrell
• David Ginsberg, "Tribute," Jazzschool Records BAJA 1
• Linda Goldstein, "What's To Expect?" Jazzschool Records BAJA 2
• Mike Morris, "The Legend Of 'Trane," Jazzschool Records BAJA 3
• Ellis Island, "Ellis Island 1977," Jazzschool Records BAJA 4
• Chuck Clark, "Blue Room," Jazzschool Records BAJA 5
• Que Calor, "Keeper Of The Flame," Jazzschool Records BAJA 6
• Esencia, "Esencia," Jazzschool Records BAJA 7
• Mark Levine, "New Music From New York," Jazzschool Records BAJA 8
• Wayne De Silva, "Marble Park" Jazzschool Records BAJA 9
• Jerry Rusch, "Serenata" Jazzschool Records BAJA 10
• Mark Levine, "Live at the Reunion with Woody Shaw" Jazzschool Records BAJA 11
• Paul Nagel, "NLS" Jazzschool Records BAJA 12
• George Cotsirilos, "Seems To Be" Jazzschool Records BAJA 13
• Khalil Shaheed, "Tajine" Jazzschool Records BAJA 14
• Don Weed, "Without A Song" Jazzschool Records BAJA 15
• Don Weed, "Without A Song" Jazzschool Records BAJA 16
• Warren Gale, "The Timeseekers" Jazzschool Records BAJA 17
• Eddie Marshall, "Jazz at Filoli" Jazzschool Records BAJA 18
• Sal Nistico, "Stella Wise" Jazzschool Records BAJA 19
• Betty Shaw, "Ask Me Now" Jazzschool Records BAJA 20
• Mongo Santamaria, "Afro-American Latin," Sony/Columbia
• Joe Henderson, "Canyon Lady," Milestone
• Blue Mitchell, "Blue Mitchell Live," Just Jazz
• Cal Tjader, "La Honda Va Bi en," Concord Jazz Grammy winner, best Latin
album, 1981
• Cal Tjader, "Gozame Pero Ya," Concord Jazz
• Cal Tjader, "A Fuego Vivo," Concord Jazz
• Cal Tjader, "Good Vibes," Concord Jazz
• Moacir Santos, "Saudade," Blue Note
• Chuck MacKinnon, "New Transmission," Krispytone
• Warren Gale, "The Joe Henderson Songbook," GFR
• Poncho Sanchez, "Keeper Of The Flame, Concord Jazz
• Poncho Sanchez, "Sonando," Concord Jazz
• Poncho Sanchez, "Bien Sabroso," Concord Jazz
• Carmen McRae & Cal Tjader, "Heat Wave," Concord Jazz
• Mark Murphy, "Stolen Moments," Muse
• Luis Gasca, "The Little Giant," Collectables
• Luis Gasca, "For Those Who Chant," Blue Thumb
• Luis Gasca, "Born To Love You," Milestone
• Bobby Shew, "Salsa Caliente," MaMa
• Peter MacDonough, "The Woo"
• Mark Weinstein, Con Alma, Jazzheads
• Houston Person, "Underground Soul," Prestige
• Sal Nistico, "Sal Nistico Live," Just Jazz
• Gabor Szabo, "High Contrast," Blue Thumb
• Shigeru Suzuki, "Lagoon"
• Bruce Forman, "Forman On The Job," Kamei
• Charlie Barreda, "SF Latin Jazz," MyLatinJazz Records

[JonR]

yeah, levine is just a non-playing no-nothing who could stand a few lessons from the great musical minds of cyber-heaven...

OK, you made your point.
Begin a great musician - and I agree he is, I'm fully aware of his experience (and love some of his tunes) - doesn't automatically translate to being a great writer of theory.
And actually, his book is fine, as long as one is aware of its bias. It's actually a tremendous work in many ways. There's years of study in it. But there are still glaring omissions and woolly statements in it, at least in those early sections.
Doesn't mean he "could stand a few lessons" from any of us. But a student is entitled to ask questions and criticize when a teacher is being confusing or forgetting stuff.
Do you have any comments you'd like to make on the points I brought up? Do you see no problems there?

[wizard3739]

I just received my copy of Jazzology and on first pass at it, it looks really good.

wiz

[aniss1001]

Hmm funny how some seem to get a rise out of talking about Levine Well it's a jazz theory book, not THE jazz theory book. But I guess that's the problem.. it's been cranked up to be just that.

When I first started reading up on jazz theory (around last april) I was definately convinced after doing some SERIOUS research that Levine was the best and most complete book of them all on the subject.

So I got it and read most of it. And learned a lot. Fortunately I've got the habit og googling, checking, double-checking everything so yes I did get the idea that he was being sorta biased, limited and presumptious sometimes.

For instance when he claims that people vary rarely use the 5th mode of harmonic minor on dominants going to minor chords. Yet every I sat down and transcribed, studied solos or licks I would come across obvios uses of this mode. Everybody from Chet Baker to Bill Frisell.

Still I have checked out a lot of other books on the subject and I think it has a LOT of valid information. Most other books are really .. well .. messy. For instance I still haven't been able to find a good book on chord voicings for guitar. Something with a logical system instead of just memorizing 1500 grips! Eventually I started making my own system hehe ..

But Let's face it jazz theory has it's moments but it ISN'T rocket science. Yet it is possible to talk/write about it such that it seems REALLY compliced. More so because jazz theory lacks standard nomenclature; you can refer the the same concept in many different ways. And worse there are different ways of viewing entire concepts. So being able to simplify rather than complicate is extremely important when writing on the subject and in my opinion Levine did pretty good at that.

[JohnW400]

Bruce Forman, "Forman On The Job," Kamei

Great CD. One of two that I have by him. He doesn't get mentioned here that much.

[JohnW400]

For instance when he claims that people vary rarely use the 5th mode of harmonic minor on dominants going to minor chords. Yet every I sat down and transcribed, studied solos or licks I would come across obvios uses of this mode. Everybody from Chet Baker to Bill Frisell.

Back in the late 70's some of the improv professors at the college I went to would often say that nobody uses the harmonic minor. The wisdom of the day was to use the jazz minor.

Yet here we were listening to people like Chick Corea et al and lo and behold....harmonic minor.

[randalljazz]

Bruce Forman, "Forman On The Job," Kamei

Great CD. One of two that I have by him. He doesn't get mentioned here that much.

yes. i have that one and still of the night, with john clayton and tootie heath. also a splendid recording. blistering "cherokee"...

...bruce will be playing a few gigs with the gorgeous and talented singer/bassist kristin korb in sunny socal in march (also at NAMM jan 19), for you left coasters...

@jonr--great respect for your intellect and analysis, and appreciation for the time you put in on these forums...will try to answer you a bit when i get some time...

[wizard3739]

Thank you Jonnypac for getting me interested in the "Jazzology" book. It is an excellent reference for jazz theory. I really like the exercises provided throughout the book.I spent the last couple of days reading through the book.

wiz

[HD280]

hey guys...i went thru all the posts here...one should learn how to build the diatonic harmony learn his / her modes, there is lots of confusion on modes, now the thing is over maj chords use maj modes and min chords use min modes and then just keep your ear open... one thing in jazz is that there is no theory at all, apart from that there are only concepts...

[brwnhornet59]

now the thing is over maj chords use maj modes and min chords use min modes ...

Why would you think in modes at all?

one thing in jazz is that there is no theory at all, apart from that there are only concepts...

How exactly did you come to this conclusion? Theories are concepts, a hypothetical set of guidelines put in place to facilitate a particular train of thought.

[HD280]

ok here to the theory concept...whats a Amaj over a Cmaj?...i guess you can come to a conclusion there. Now the modes thingy....see modes gives you variation in sound...you simply play different notes to give you fresh sounds while keeping the tonality together...