-
Jonah, you might want to read the book, its worth it: http://www.scribd.com/doc/217657943/...l-Organization
Originally Posted by Jonah
In essence, Russell establishes that a maj13#11 chord can have the gravity of a root chord. In fact, lots of guys use a lydian scale over Cmaj7, in root position, to make things more interesting.
Lets try something simple: Take this backing track -
Now lets noodle around with A lydian. Can you feel that it can stand on its own feet? Dont fall into the trap and play an E maj chord, thinking 'that's what it needs'. It's like going out wearing sandals - you can always say you 'need' your sport shoes, since only that's the real thing. But maybe one can also enjoy 'half' things, which are a bit ambiguous.Last edited by Phil in London; 06-19-2014 at 04:13 AM.
-
06-19-2014 04:03 AM
-
Hi,
I read the book quite a long time ago. I admit that found and still find that basic principles from which Russell derived the concept are bit speculative to me.
The concept might be useful as a practical way of organization, but musical it is... I do not want to say it... not convincing enough for me.
This stability you are talking about here with Lydian chords comes from repetition to me.
Repetition is a quite often used to establish tonic in modal music.
I want to stress as I did before in coversation on modality in other thread - it is not that i do not hear this what you called half thing, it is not that I cannot take pleasure in it, but I just do not think it is functional tonality.
It looks like we go further and further from initial discussion.
Let me turn it back a bit, not to teach, but to stress the points I talked about in cocern of Night and Day:
- There are three functions: T,S,D.
- F#dim in N&D in the key of C belongs to function of S
- 4thstunning stated that he takes this chord simple as root chord (in the form of Cmaj.#4 - Lydian)
- I consider it is wrong becasue within this song as it is originally composed at least, this chord cannot be interpreted as C, it is just imposiible, becasue then the whole functionality idea loses sence
But now we already discuss general issue
- can Cmaj#4 sound satble? yes, it can, I absileutely agree... actulally if we repeat million times any chord it will sound stable, as well as feel consosnats and dissonants are relative to hearing habits
- is this stability connected with functional relations T,S,D? No, I think that no. If we managed to render Cmaj.#4 a feel of tonic stability then #4 will not play a big role in functional relations of this chord anyway, it is colouristic...
BUT - this is not diminiuitive word - colouristic harmony can add its own relations to functional and be quite meaningful, but it will not be functional...
How would T-S-D look like starting from Cmaj#4 tonic chord? What will happen with #4?Last edited by Jonah; 06-19-2014 at 05:13 AM.
-
An alternative view to worrying about which analysis is the exact right or wrong one:
If I believe an idea about harmonic relationships to be true, what musical response will it generate.
Is this something I can hear or is it something I can learn to hear through experimentation and exposure?
Am I intrigued by and pleased with the musical result? If so then in my opinion there is value in it's consideration.
-
Thank you dortmundjazzguitar ,
but this is not what I meant
What you describe is quite clear to me, it is like Russian doll principle - instead of chord we put a new chnge of chords which in their turn inside this change can be approached as having their own functional relation... in practice it is veri convinient way sometimes.
But... let us forget about the idea of substitution - this general concept is very important in jazz and by the way to me it shows that basicway of thinking in jazz composition is relative - but let us just forget about the fact that we substitue something with something and look at this progression
Do you really hear Em7 and A7 here as Subdominant function? (A7 even actually makes already short unfixed key change to d minor)|Cmaj7 F7|Em7|A7|Dm7|G7|
You saidbut I have to diagree because in this new progression there is no more 2 bars of T as it was in original.the first two bars of T become a progression inside a function.
The re-harmonization involves here new functions.
PS
Besides in N&D sample we spoke of interpretation of function of original chord.
There's easy and profane way to check it: we play just basic chord of the function and play/sing an original tune over it... it fits or not by ear if I put C triad instead for F# dim in this song? I think no, not to my ear for sure.
It fits if I put F chord? Yes, though melody is non-chordal for triad here.Last edited by Jonah; 06-19-2014 at 06:14 AM.
-
Thank you
agreed, but F7 is still S here||Cmaj7 F7 |Em7A7|Dm7|G7| is still |T|T|SD|D| in my thinking
I will play around it in trying to catch the sence of TT here in first bars in some context, but just as I can imagine this progression like you wrote it sounds S for me|F#m7b5 Fm6|Em7 Ebdim| is still |T|T|SD|D| in my thinking
That sounds more probable asbasic T T for me than previous one, I will also play it around to check and come back later|Bb7#11|A7b13|Ab#11|G7b13| would basically still be |T|T|SD|D| in this context
I did not get this point - what do you mean by secondary T in this context?i certainly wouldnt analyze the Bb7 as a bVII or a variant of IVm here. in my pedestrian look at harmony it's the tritone sub of E7#9, which is an altered III and thus a secondary T.Last edited by Jonah; 06-19-2014 at 09:45 AM.
-
Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
'In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.' — Albert Einstein
After 6 pages of "theory" we still can't agree on the "function" (whatever that is) of F#m7b5 in "Night and Day". I know my ears reject treating it as some form of 'F'. When playing over these changes I freely substitute chord tones from both F#m7b5 and Cmaj7 and it works beautifully just as it does with the AbMaj7/Dm7b5 changes at the beginning of the tune.
Maybe, just like so many other sorry subjects in college, the theories that are taught are wrong. It's not testable science after all, it's opinion made up after the fact.
Who uses theory to improvise anyway? I don't but I do have some guidelines.
-
Jonah... is there only one reference for everything. You have a musical formula that covers what your able to hear. What you hear may not be Gods final word. Sorry... bad analogy. And please... I respect, appreciate and enjoy you posts, this is not an argument or meant to hurt etc... It's just music, anyway this is just an ongoing dialect about learning to understand Jazz.
So if you need functional harmony... to the point of Warfield's Layer Analysis...or Schenker. You might be somewhat manipulating the music to fit into your Functional Box.
How about getting into a discussion about the possibilities of what Function actually is... not what your education and years of reinforcement have decided what Functions means. ( opinion)It's very simple to me... but I don't want to put music...I mean words into your opinion.
My point again instead of me talking you into becoming aware of different possibilities... how about you playing an example of Night and Day representing what you believe to be the functional analysis... the reference for how you approach performing the Tune. Not the notated out version ... a actual example of how your improvisation... which is one of the structural elements of Jazz...how your improvisation reflects and creates relationships etc... from that analysis.
You could, rather than play... diagram or describe, using harmonic or melodic examples instead of playing example... the harmonic relationships and development with reference to Function etc. (Not everyone has perfect pitch, the first version heard isn't always the only tonal reference.)
Functional harmony is based on harmony... or harmony implied from melodic content, right.
What are the controlling factors which determine the tonal reference, which determine the functional analysis. Is this predetermined... to the point of only one choice for analysis. It is a beautiful tune with many of the compositional harmonic characteristics of Cole Porter.
This is going somewhere...Last edited by Reg; 06-19-2014 at 10:45 AM.
-
Hey 4string... yes and that's where I'm trying to go... there are different possibilities. And yes Function has a definition...with references.
-
Reg,
what do you want from me?
do not take it as you say as an offence, but I will not comment your last answer... I am pretty tired to explain one and the same thing all the way to you. One and the same...
And tired of your thinking that you know me probably better than I do.
Here are lots of gusy who will be greatful to you for teaching
-
dortmundjazzguitar,
Here's with night and day, just by ear, tell me you really hear it as tonic?
it is not how I approach it is just about what I try to speak. sorry i cannot now make normal recored and have no guitar with me
Then what is the difference between T and S?
I just don't get it, guys...
I got your point - but you see I think it is much more theoretical than what I say (though I seem to be reproached by many to be too far from practice)... Em (or E7) here would be local dominant for Am(A7 etc.) and its sub Bb7will work as a sub for its function as Dominant to A here.. but it does not make Bb7 mechanically belong to T function just because Em belong to T also in this case.wanted to show that the same chord (in this case Bb7) can have different functions in C, depending on context. it can be a bVII or IVm (SD function) as well as a sub for Em (tonic function). in the same way the F#m7b5 can have SD or T function in C. in night and day imo it's T, putting it in the same category with tunes like
Though Bb13 sometimes indiactes for inversion of C7th chord C7/2 (in My Romance) that it may correspond to T, but actually it is C in this case.
These songs seem to be pretty simple it's not Wagner or Mahler where function is really difficult to define sometimes (but mostly it is still there)
By the way in My Romance which place you meant with Fis chord? ' no month of May' - Fmaj7 - F#dim-Cmaj ? or some other?
-
Ok, but I do not force you to change your hearing,I am just always curious about how people hear and why and conversation is possible only when there is also attempt to explain.I know my ears reject treating it as some form of 'F'. When playing over these changes I freely substitute chord tones from both F#m7b5 and Cmaj7
If you are not inclined to explain it is also no problem for - I can understand this.
It seems to me that I explain why I hear as I hear - though it looks that for Rge and probably for you that I just speak from the book... I don't know why.
-
Jonah, your video is private so it can't be seen or heard.
One difference in our approach to music is I'm only concerned with how I can approach improvisation whereas you seem to be more interested in how it fits into functional harmony. I freely admit no knowledge of traditional music theory - my youth was misspent elsewhere. Maybe you're right, it is an 'S' function.
Another difference is our ears. In the context of "Night and Day", as a very basic approach I hear the f#m7-5 as a CMaj7 and freely interchange the two chords, their inversions, and their chord tones. I can't do that with some version of the 'F' chord which you seem to justify with all sorts of chromatic notes.
Lastly, I can take the descending chord sequence starting with F#m7-5 and replace it with these very basic triads that still work
Original??
F#m7-5, Fm7, Em7, D#dim, Dm7, G7
Vanilla
C, Fm, C, D, F, G
Gaug
I hope this explains my perspective.
-
Jonah... sorry if I upset you... really, not my intent.
I was trying to get you to explain what you hear in more detail... than basic Tonic, subdominant , Dominant functional Harmony. More than my ears are the real truth... But if that's enough for you... it's enough for me.
My other point was I was trying to see if you play Jazz, not reading through lead sheets from a classical perspective and using that reading of a lead sheet as the reference for analysis. This is not bad or good, right or wrong... just very different from reading and performing from a lead sheet from a jazz perspective.
Lead sheets (may) imply much more than just the notation...
We are in the theory section... so maybe some things to think about (not directed towards anyone)
Is Riemann's Functional Harmony or even Schoenberg's more detailed Structural functions of harmony... designed to be used as references for defining analysis of organizational systems controlling Function within jazz.
Just for thought... function is generally just the motor that makes music move, the organization behind that motor that make music move or not move. Generally with harmonic context. There's personally no difference between melodic and harmonic to me... just what I choose to concentrate on and use as reference.
Disclaimer... these are personal opinions.
-
Jonah, a few comments from my side: Originally Posted by Jonah
@ your concept of functional harmony seems remarkably inflexible to me. As you seem to know, functional harmony in "classical" music has been advanced over time, with more and more ambiguity and, so one could say, 'multi-dimensional' referencing introduced.
@ from various works of contemporary analysts, one can take that 'functional harmony' is much less that it may have originally seemed based on 'nature laws' or something like that. Rather, it is based on hearing conventions and the musical horizon and experience that the participants have. The element of repetition, to which you relate, can create a reference framework of 'functional' context. Within this context, a progression such as C - F - G - C might even sound wrong, or 'dysfunctional', if you may. There is no 'overall natural functional reference' that is applicable to all musics equally.
@ I was on a jazz workshop many years ago where I met an incredibly capable young pianist who took utmost freedom to reharmonise jazz standards on the fly. He said to me: "there are no wrong chords, all you need to know is the melody". Coming from 'classical' composition training, I claimed that after all anybody does intuitively think 'functional', and that his reharmonisations, if only properly analysed, will build on the basic blocks of functional references.
@ To make the story not too long - I do not think so any longer. While many standards have certain, sometimes very simple, functional 'architecture', there is absolutely no rule or requirement to adhere to this structure. In jazz, you can introduce ambiguity and 'non functional' coloristic effects, as well as rebuilding the song with a different 'functional structure' - it really does not matter. What matters is that it sounds good - not that it satisfies a i-iv-v boxing exercise.
@ does that mean that it is futile to apply functional analysis to jazz? Not at all. It is surely interesting to see where tunes are coming from and where they are going. But we should be aware that not all voltes in jazz standards are necessarily 'functional' in a traditional and maybe overly-simplified understanding of classical harmony.
-
Coming back to the song in question, it seems that all has been said already.
N&D starts with a little shift between C min and C maj. No need to go into detail, its obvious.
The F#m7b5 can be interpreted as initiating iim7b5 - v - i, in e min (with B7 Em (or Emaj) following). This would be intuitive, given the function of Dm7b5 at the beginning. The listener might just expect the same pattern another time, related to Emin, instead of Cmin.
However, Porter refuses to follow this expectation and introduces Fm7, leading to Em. My view if this is that Fm7 here has the simple function of iv-m7 (SD min triad, a common pattern) in C, and it makes the Em7 a temporary chord (iii in C), rather than a new 'root' as in F#m7b5 B7 Em. The Ebdim seems 'functional' a D7 with aug9 in bass (v of v to C, nice chromatic bass line), then ii - v - I in C.
Overall a simple blend of first Cmin / Cmaj, then Cmaj / Emin (Gmaj), with a little back and forth. But - as said above - thats just where the journey begins.Last edited by Phil in London; 06-20-2014 at 03:07 AM.
-
nah, a few comments from my side:Hi,
@ your concept of functional harmony seems remarkably inflexible to me. As you seem to know, functional harmony in "classical" music has been advanced over time, with more and more ambiguity and, so one could say, 'multi-dimensional' referencing introduced.
@ from various works of contemporary analysts, one can take that 'functional harmony' is much less that it may have originally seemed based on 'nature laws' or something like that. Rather, it is based on hearing conventions and the musical horizon and experience that the participants have. The element of repetition, to which you relate, can create a reference framework of 'functional' context. Within this context, a progression such as C - F - G - C might even sound wrong, or 'dysfunctional', if you may. There is no 'overall natural functional reference' that is applicable to all musics equally.
@ I was on a jazz workshop many years ago where I met an incredibly capable young pianist who took utmost freedom to reharmonise jazz standards on the fly. He said to me: "there are no wrong chords, all you need to know is the melody". Coming from 'classical' composition training, I claimed that after all anybody does intuitively think 'functional', and that his reharmonisations, if only properly analysed, will build on the basic blocks of functional references.
@ To make the story not too long - I do not think so any longer. While many standards have certain, sometimes very simple, functional 'architecture', there is absolutely no rule or requirement to adhere to this structure. In jazz, you can introduce ambiguity and 'non functional' coloristic effects, as well as rebuilding the song with a different 'functional structure' - it really does not matter. What matters is that it sounds good - not that it satisfies a i-iv-v boxing exercise.
@ does that mean that it is futile to apply functional analysis to jazz? Not at all. It is surely interesting to see where tunes are coming from and where they are going. But we should be aware that not all voltes in jazz standards are necessarily 'functional' in a traditional and maybe overly-simplified understanding of classical harmony.
Phil,
first I take functional system as cultural product - not natural... I am not trying to explain everything with functional tonality, and never did.
Once I had very interesting discussion regarding Webern's piano variations, I would never try to nsme certain chords or functions there (just maybe some 'chordal zonez/fields')... but the semantics, the logic of the form in this piece is connected wit the means of fucntional tonality - though he tries to arrange it like atonal. My oppenent told me that there was nothing like this - that I should quit toal thinking and approach this music in another way. The problem was that he could not explain what was this 'other way', the organzational principles that Webern himself declare are more of a constructional and finally do not form its own semantic system. What else do I have except what I here?
The same thing approximately I encounter in jazz sometimes... I should admit that my understanding of jazz harmony also changed, I just accepted with time that it is absolutely different... and I thought it could be seen from my post. I even once called a harmony changes in jazz 'a mode' - what can be more flexible?) really...
You see, I am not trying to stick to the book, or stubbornly say that it is like this and nothing more, I am just looking for musical means to make meaning.
Reg above said that 'function is what moves the music' - I would coreect that fuction is what makes the music not just 'sound' but a 'music', a semantic system capable to express very complex things..
There are other sytems also but I do not here them as full of sence as functional...
PS
By the way so far none of you showed me Cmaj#11 in the context as tonic function, and meaning of aug4th for its tonic function in fuctional tonality? Is there such a meaning? Why do you call it that name? Only because it sounds stable? Will it still sound stable if we take fis out of it? or not? What would be D or S choed then? And why? If I put G major chord after it with certain voicing will it not make this chord and inversion of dominant? All these could be easily shown I think in two-three rather short samples...
..but everybody goes for general speculations.
Dortmundjazzguitar kindly offered some changes with subs, though maybe it was not exactly what I was talking about, it gives at least some practical material for discussion that I hope is not interrupted because I was rude again...
With 4thstunning I also understand his position 'I just hear like this' - is actually the most fair one.
-
... but the chord stays subdominant fucntion, because Porter chose what he chose.The F#m7b5 can be interpreted as initiating iim7b5 in e min (with B7 Em following). This would be intuitive, given the function of Dm7b5 at the beginning. The listener might just expect the same pattern another time, just related to Emin, instead of Cmin.
However, Porter refuses to follow this expectation and introduces Fm7, leading to Em. My view if this is that Fm7 here has the simple function of iv-m7 in C, and it makes the Em7 a temporary chord (iii in C), rather than a new 'root' as in F#m7b5 B7 Em. The Ebdim seems 'functional' a D7 with aug9 in bass (v of v to C, nice chromatic bass line), the ii - v - I.
Idea about fis-b-em turnaround is nice, but a bit 'too sophisticated' I think the form of the song does not presume such expectation here? don't you think so?
Actually I think he just moved the bass down from C chord inversion C46
-
See, here is the box again. What do you mean with "but the chord stays subdominant fucntion, because Porter chose what he chose."? Originally Posted by Jonah
I guess the thought of F#m7b5 to introduce ii-v-i in E min(maj) seems quite simple, not sophisticated. Porter begins with 2 times the same pattern in C. The F#m7b5 is rather abrupt, and the most intuitive explanation is that Porter just shifts what we heard before. Try to play the pattern: 2 x Dm7b5 G7 C, then F#m7b5 B7 E. Thats what can be implied with the F#m7b5, as an ^expectation^.
Of course, Porter does not go that route, thats obvious. But he briefly indicates he could. Then he takes the Fm7 route, which combines 2 ideas - It opens the F# F E Eb D chromatic bass pattern; and disappoints our (hint of an) expectation by leading back to Cmaj (through SDm7), then briefly Gmaj (through D7), then C maj. Its actually a very simple path, just a little oscillation between Cmaj and Gmaj/Emin.Last edited by Phil in London; 06-20-2014 at 03:37 AM.
-
I guess the thought of F#m7b5 to introduce ii-v-i in E min(maj) seems quite simple, not sophisticated.
here ... not in general, here in this song, in this form...
I always go from the whole song.... meaning of sections, of the sence they bring.
I described it already some post ago...
I think that composing is much more works to reflect meaning in form.
Two affirmative sentences first - containing two phrae each: exclamation-addresing (not quite a question) and then self-answer, again exclamation and then again this answer most probably to himself and by himself... and after that - a section of calm, almost inertive half-dreaming reasoning cocluded with the same phrase of exclamation but now sounding more as an afirmation or confirmation of what in the beginning seemed to be under question...
I just think that fis-b-e would not work for these purposes...
This is whay I mean "but the chord stays subdominant fucntion, because Porter chose what he chose." He chose for the meaning.
-
This may rather belong in the "Bandstand" forum, but anyway: Originally Posted by Phil in London
I agree. In jazz there's no right or wrong. "If it sounds right, it is right." So one is free to reharmonize to his hearts desire. Sometime reharmonizations don't "sound right", but that may have more to do with both the players and the listeners taste - and there's no final answer to taste.
That said, one also has to think about the context one is playing in and ones role in that context. Reg said something about musicianship, and this is also an important part of good musicianship. Often moderation and modesty is a virtue here like everywhere else.
In a group context there has to be agreement beforehand about each players role at any particular time. There also has to be agreement on the harmonic basis on which the group will play. That is, if reharmonisation is used there has to be agreement on it beforehand. It may be incorporated in an arrangement or it may be done on the spot by a soloist. If the latter is the case, the providers of harmony (piano, bass, guitar) must take it into account and play sparsely to leave room for the reharmonisation. If both a pianist and a guitarist are making up spontaneous rehamonizations on the spot, it will likely result in a "train wreck" - unless of course the two know each other extremely well, has played together a long time AND are extremly talented.
On the one extreme is, say, a pianist or a guitarist playing alone. The only limitation is the players talent and taste, depending on which the reharmonization may or may not work.
On the other extreme is the big swing band. Here a rhythm guitarist has better play as sparsely harmonically as possible and stick to the written arrangement (which may or may not include reharmonizations). Alterations and extensions are mostly omitted and fifths and tonics are often not played at all - in essense two note 3-7 chords (or even Freddie Greens so called "one note chords"). One of the reasons Count Basie and Freddie Green worked so well together was that they in a remarkable way managed avoid stepping on each others toes - and didn't step on the toes of the the arrangement and the solists either. All to often one sees a young budding guitarist, who is for the first time is invited to join a big band, rushing out to buy a Twin Reverb to "make sure he can be heard over the band all the time" and the proceding on the first rehersal to play the full chords with all alterations and extensions and on the fly adds more or less successful reharmonizations of his own - all at full blast, clearly "heard over the band". That guitarist will not be called for the next rehersal.
This is of course MHO and is rooted in my own preference for swing and bebop and for playing traditional rhythm guitar. Others may beg to differ.
-
I'm not sure of what theoretically is the precise function of the F#7b5 in Night And Day in the sequence (roughly - not adding in the possible b5 of the initial Ab7s)
(C) Night and- Ab7 day - G7 - Cma7 - / - Ab7 - G7 - *Cma7/G - / - F#7b5 - Fm7 - Em7 - Ebdim 7 - Dm7 - Ab7b5 - G7 - Cma7.
I like to think of it simply as the Fma7 with the F# in the bass (F#7b5) as part of a descending bass pattern from the Cma7 played as an inversion with the G in the bass. So you get that descending bass pattern of G (*Cma7/G inversion) - F# - F - E - Eb - D - Db - C. Love that sequence. Not sure if there really is a Db preceding the final C bass of the Cma7, but I kind of hear it as a tritone type Dbma7 sub for a G7.
But I don't worry too much about functional analysis. Ears rule.
JayLast edited by targuit; 06-20-2014 at 07:10 AM.
-
I do not think this check will help - considering F# it will be altD to we should sin F#. Root of tonic is C and it is a part of this chord also as 5th tone.... both tones will sound OK.here's a profane check: play F#m7b5 and sing a) the root of the tonic b) the root of the SD.
Besides root tone of main function chord id not necessarily chordal soun of every chord of function (like Em e.g.)
I will briefly say how I understand functions... to T,S,D are certain semantic fields for me, and I hear chords belonging to these functions as belonging to these semantic fields. For me it is living system... and whatever other guys say I had realized long before I learnt how it was called in terms of theory.are you familiar with pennies from heaven? please sing the melody and play the #IVm7b5 IVm6 III bIIIdim II V I cliche underneath. do you disagree that IV#m7b5 subs for I in *this* instance?
i'm curious about your findings.
The subs you gave I use myself also very often but I hear them as a sub that causes change of functional 'field'... it is not that I read F and think 'Oh it must be S!" - But after clear C tonic switch to F#7b5 immediatly corresponds to me quite significant semantic shift, it is not only sound, it is the meaning.
So it is an important and quite effective means of musical expression for me.
For example a sub within tonic function like Em7 will also be heard by me but not so... sharp.
Besides, as you truely said function of chord depends on context (especially 7th chords within relatively free jazz voicings) that is why I like to look at whole songs because there it works for the meaning of the song.
For me the sub you suggest will sound like chorus starts in S and IV#7b5 gives a possibility to make it smoother because fis chromatizes and softens the bass line, c and a notes are in S chord, and c and e are in T... this chord is a good transition, but - ok - unfortunately for me as soon as it sounds - especially after C - I immediately hear that shift to Subdoninant semantic field.. at least as prevalent.
By the way in N&D the same thing when IV#7b5 bigins I feel immediately S sence, it works also great there because this progression sounds as it sounded before as if it did not begin but just came from nowhere, the meaning here definitely belongs to other function than tonic that had sounded and was establiched in previous chord.
Is such a sub you offer possible for me? Sure, I use often myself... but it is a sub that involves change of function for me, serious meaning
Is it intersting? Sure, why not, depends on how we use it...
Am I in a box? Sure... and this box is as huge as universe... (actually since I am Jonah, I'd prefer a whale for a box)
-
Jonah, Originally Posted by Jonah
one may point out a couple of things to this:
@ this song is not a Brahms Symphony. Talking of 'sections', form, meaning, architecture etc might overload what is there. The little tricks used by Porter in N&D are rather innocent, however route one choses to explain them.
@ What I refer to is working with patterns. Patterns can create expectations that patterns are repeated in another context. When Porter comes up with the F#m7b5, one might expect a repetition of the pattern that is repeated 2x before (which starts with the same type of chord). That it is not repeated does not change that at the time the chord is introduced, the inner ear might expect a repetition. And it is part of the 'formal' elements of the piece that Porter plays with and disappoints this expectation.
@ You dont have to share this view of course. But what I am trying to show to you is that there might be an explanation of the F#m7b5 that has nothing to do with functional harmony. So there is no need to consider whether the F#m7b5 is in fact Am6 (in mel minor), or a SD maj7 with a b9 in bass (how artificial is that...). Instead, the idea of the (then disappointed) expectation of pattern repetition provides the explanation. Think of motivic working with chords, instead of functional, and suddenly even extreme jumps are plausible.
@ Your argument 'he used what he used' disregards the time element in music. Expectation, disappointment of expected flow, as well as surprise elements, can only be understood from a point in time perspective, not from an overall POV. Like in a movie - once you know the murderer is the gardener, while the movie first pointed towards the wife, there is no surprise element any more. But it makes little sense to say 'it was the gardener, thats what the director decided, so the scenes before the revelation never pointed at the wife'.
@ Finally, the question what would be iv and v in a lydian (maj#11) context shows that you have not yet grasped the idea. Yes, Russell purports the thought that a 'tonic' has something to do with gravity, remanence and stability. And that such 'centres' can be formed beyond the major / minor tradition. But to ask 'well if that is so, where is the iv and v here?', in the sense of functional harmony, is like to stay in a tent in the mountains, as an alternative to the hotel in the valley, and then to say 'hey, where the heck is the sauna in this place'.
-
What was it Shakespeare wrote? "Much ado about nothing..." Probably mangling the Old Bard.
But isn't it interesting that we can't really nail the function down theoretically, yet it sounds just magnificent to me in practice. So why bother? Paraphrasing, "It would sound as sweet by any other name...."
But, carry on!
Jay
-
I do not like most of Brahms. Cole Porter is much better composer to me, no kidding. But not for me here to get into it.@ this song is not a Brahms Symphony. Talking of 'sections', form, meaning, architecture etc might overload what is there. The little tricks used by Porter in N&D are rather innocent, however route one choses to explain them.
And I do not feel that I take it more complicated that it is. Meaning is meaning.
I understnad this, I have quite long expirience in jazz practice and quite familiar with standard modes of thinking. Besides it is very regular calssical turnaround. But in previous I just tried to show why I think it is not like this here.@ What I refer to is working with patterns. Patterns can create expectations that patterns are repeated in another context. When Porter comes up with the F#m7b5, one might expect a repetition of the pattern that is repeated 2x before (which starts with the same type of chord). That it is not repeated does not change that at the time the chord is introduced, the inner ear might expect a repetition. And it is part of the 'formal' elements of the piece that Porter plays with and disappoints this expectation.
Maybe it is your box? That you hear repeated pattern here?
Look.. if I do not share your views and stick to mine does not mean I do not understand what you are talking about.@ You dont have to share this view of course. But what I am trying to show to you is that there might be an explanation of the F#m7b5 that has nothing to do with functional harmony. So there is no need to consider whether the F#m7b5 is in fact Am6 (in mel minor), or a SD maj7 with a b9 in bass (how artificial is that...). Instead, the idea of the (then disappointed) expectation of pattern repetition provides the explanation. Think of motivic working with chords, instead of functional, and suddenly even extreme jumps are plausible.
Actually I do not speak about personal poreferences - I speak about song with its inside relations. So I cannot just pick to work with chords in a motivic way here because it kills the whole song for me... it becomes a set of disconneted sounds...
Check please my previous answer to dortmundjazzguitar I described there why I think here it is functional and what function means to me.
@ Your argument 'he used what he used' disregards the time element in music. Expectation, disappointment of expected flow, as well as surprise elements, can only be understood from a point in time perspective, not from an overall POV. Like in a movie - once you know the murderer is the gardener, while the movie first pointed towards the wife, there is no surprise element any more. But it makes little sense to say 'it was the gardener, thats what the director decided, so the scenes before the revelation never pointed at the wife'.
Probably I said it in a wrong way...
I meant that form the inertial hafstep motion here semantically was much more expected than turnaround that you mention. Again - I believe its meaning that works not patterns
I understand that this could be also an element of surprise and this is a semantic elemtn also, and obviously it is for you, but form me not convincing...
The Russell ideas are not so complex...@ Finally, the question what would be iv and v in a lydian (maj#11) context shows that you have not yet grasped the idea. Yes, Russell purports the thought that a 'tonic' has something to do with gravity, remanence and stability. And that such 'centres' can be formed beyond the major / minor tradition. But to ask 'well if that is so, where is the iv and v here?', in the sense of functional harmony, is like to stay in a tent in the mountains, as an alternative to the hotel in the valley, and then to say 'hey, where the heck is the sauna in this place'.
But I consider the song is functional, Phil... when you joined the thread you immediately started from the point of Lydian concept, but I did not do it.
It is not my fault that people call the word tonic different things...
so what I meant is if you put Cmaj7#11 as tonic in functional piece, please, find place for sauna...
People discuss if it is T or S, another guy joins - and says it is T, ok I ask what is S then... we argue for a long time and it turns out that ne meant another T that does not presume any S actually...
But I admire your argument you start from the point that I did not get the idea... so I'd rather be back to my box...Last edited by Jonah; 06-20-2014 at 08:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
NGD and a Mystery - Epiphone Content
Today, 04:13 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos