-
Hi, I'm trying to analyse modern jazz tunes like Kurt Rosenwinkel's - The Cross or Synthethics and have no idea what is going on up there. What are the relations between this chords. I understand traditional jazz harmony, II-V-I, turnarounds etc, but this something completely new for me, and I've got no idea how to start thinkig of it, where is tonal center and so on.
For example part D, of tune - The Cross - Kurt Rosenwinkel:
|| Abm7 | Gbm7 | Am7(b6) | Ab/C | E/Ab | | Gb(13) | Am(maj7) | Ab/C | Abm7 | Gbm7 | Am7(b6) | Ab/C | Ab-7 | F#m7 | Am7 | Cm7 ||
Or sth like that: "SYNTHETHICS"
| Ebmaj7 | F7 | Emaj7 (+11) | Gmaj7 F#7 | Am7 Bbm7 | Gb Fm |Gmaj7 Chm7 | D#m7 C#m7 | Dmaj F7alt | Bb7 Abm7 | Bb F7alt | Gbmaj7 Bbmaj7 ||
The next step is how to improvise over this. Is there any book or article that helps to understand this new approach? The next question is how to create such harmony (it seems not to be much related to the melody of the tune). I wonder where does it comes from.
-
10-24-2012 06:50 PM
-
Look at Tom Lippincott's classes; they hit this nail right on the head.
Mike's Master Classes - Masters
-
I just got a book of these songs, so I'm diving into them, too.
The transcription I have has a simplified set of chords during the D section of the solo:
Ab-7 | F#-7 | A-7(b6) | Ab/C
Maybe that might help simplify a soloing approach a bit?
-
Thanks for Tom Lippincott's link. I'll try. There are also many articles on his website.
Bryan, this approach may be usefull. What book do You have?
I wonder if this is a modal or functional aproach to the harmony. Modal seems to be more suitable.
-
It is published by Mel Bay: "Kurt Rosenwinkel Compositions." It has lead sheets and guitar solo transcriptions for some songs on "Deep Song" and lead sheets for some other tunes ("Zhivago" and "Minor Blues" were two that I wanted), plus piano parts for a few tracks on "Deep Song."
The guitar solo for "The Cross" is transcribed and would probably be useful to study.
-
Not having heard or seen these tunes before, my approach would be to look at chord tones and try to see (a) voice-leading connections between the chords, and (b) (for passing notes) to see if shared scales are possible.
Originally Posted by starek
If in doubt with (b) I would probably use passing notes from the chord after, or maybe the chord before.
I might also re-spell some of those chords enharmonically, or even rename them, to clarify connections (for myself); and also arrange the lines in 4-bar sections:
Eg:
|| G#m7 | F#m7 | "Fmaj9/A" (Am7(b6) | Ab/C (Cmb6?) |
| E/G# | F#(13) | Am(maj7) | Ab/C |
| Ab/G#m7 | F#m7 | Fmaj7/A | Ab/C |
| G#-7 (very like E/G#
) | F#m7 | Am7 | Cm7 ||
Now I can begin to make sense of the structure at least.
Taking chord 1 (G#m7) I'd use chord tones combined with chord tones from F#m7. This gives me the A major scale, but I wouldn't think of it like that. I'd go for the same scale on F#m7, but of course focussed on the F#m7 chord tones this time.
The next chord is too much of a break to have a shared scale, but there are clear links:
So there are 2 shared tones, and the other voices move by half-step.Code:F#m7 Fmaj9 (Am7(b6) F# > G E = E C# > C A = A F# > F
There are 5 notes in the arpeggio of Am7(b6), which is plenty to solo with, but the choice of 2 additional (passing) notes depends on whether I want to link it more with the previous chord, or with the next. D would work well in either case, leaving a choice of either B or Bb. B would have more appeal in modal terms (less dissonance with other chord tones), but Bb seems to point onward in the harmony: "Ab/C" suggests some kind of scale involving Bb, not B.
However, seeing as E/G# is following the Ab/C, I might stick with a B natural on the Ab/C, which implies C harmonic minor.
Then again, E/G# is obviously a major 3rd down from Ab/C, suggesting modal isolation of these chords, and treating them both as (say) lydian. On the Ab chord, that preserves the D natural from my previous scale choice.
The easy answer here is to play the exact same phrase on the E/G# as I would play on the Ab, just a M3 down. That highights the logical connection between the chords which might not otherwise be evident.
Even so, I still like the idea of looking for shared tones and smooth voice-leading. That could lead me on to the F#13:
Of course I'm ignoring the written inversions, which are of no account when improvising - although they can sometimes be indicating modal sounds.Code:Ab/C E/G# F#13 Eb > E > D# (13) or E (7th) Ab = G# = G# (9th) C > B > A#
Eg, "Ab/C" might be a shorthand for C phrygian mode, although I might expect a fuller "Abmaj7/C" if that was the intention. In any case, it hardly affects how I would play on that chord. The arpeggio is given, and I'd be looking for other notes that sound good and/or enable good melodic phrases.
With the Am(maj7) it obviously isn't an A minor tonic, so I'd be thinking about some other interpretation. Eg, it's very like E/G#, which we've just had, only with the addition of an A and C. Or (more likely) it works as an augmented transition to Ab/C, sharing most of the notes:
This might seem a hell of a lot of thinking to be doing while playing, but most of it is about seeing the shapes and spotting the patterns and moves, which takes a few seconds at most. (Thoughts are quick, it's words and writing that takes timeCode:Am(maj7) Ab/C G# = Ab E > Eb C = C A > Ab
)
Then again, I wouldn't want to solo on a tune like this without a good amount of preparation and run-throughs beforehand, getting the changes to feel natural, and also (of course!) listening to the melody and the original solo for inspiration.
I would be trying out the above kinds of ideas in rehearsal, seeing which passing notes worked best, seeing if chromaticism worked better.
I might even attempt to prepare a few licks for the trickier chords, although those kind of things rarely work in practice: it destroys the flow to try and force a pre-prepared lick into your improvisation - unless you also prepare how to get into and out of it, which would ultimately lead to preparing a whole solo!
-
here is the original recording: Synthetics by Kurt Rosenwinkel on Deep Song - Free Music Streaming, Online Music, Videos - Grooveshark
-
Yikes. I think I would want to have plenty of experience improvising on nice easy standards - like er "Giant Steps" Originally Posted by JakeAcci
- before I wanted to tackle something like that.
I like the piano solo though. Lots of nice phrasing ideas there, which seem to make the chords sound simpler than they are.
The sax solo, however, (IMHO) starts well but soon descends into tedious 8th note riffing.
Guitar solo? - more like it. Enough variety and plenty of great phrasing, including a strong sense of tension and energy.
Thanks for the link, but I think I need a little lie-down now...
-
JonR - your work and analyse is great, thank You. You are right - Giant Steps seems to be an easy and nice comparing to this one. I try to look for something new and since I've discovered Kurt i try to analise such harmony and try to play it. A lot of work ahead.
-
Thanks for tune link Jake, very cool...
Straight ahead, sort of function and modal use of MM. Head starts of using Ebmaj7#5 #11,(3rd degree of C melodic min.) moves up to Fmaj7 #5 #11 , then E lyd... yada, yada
Seems like is collection of half step relationships with two maj 3rds as form structure.... Eb E, to G, Gb... then breaks the pattern with different sub relationships 3rd statement... The V7 or F7 of V7 or Bb7, hang there for last statement... couple extra beats and your back for another time through.
Pretty hip euro use of traditional composition, I like it. The solo is pretty straight ahead... simple target areas with room to cross over harmonic rhythm both harmonically and rhythmically... Solo section seems like maybe full bar extra rather than two beats during the head...
When you blow through this type of form... you just keep your form together and have as much freedom to stretch harmony between tonal targets as you can keep together... You set up rhythmic ideas and see how you can develop different harmonic relationships... while developing the rhythmic idea...
Not really that difficult once you have the form down, fairly 60's and early 70's concept... just different use of MM and no Blue note relationships...
Of course... you do need to have your skill together, but most jazz players do.
starek... if you simplify the tune... something like A A' B C... and simplify the changes... many of the chords are used ornamentally...
I don't think chord tone is really the approach to use... Maybe if you thought of tonal areas or chords as the notes in a chord tone approach... each chord tone represents a different chord or harmonic area with access to standard modal interchange areas from Subs... But that can be somewhat difficult at faster tempos...
Much more simple to just have simple four target areas, four bars each as starting reference... and develop those.
I didn't listen all the way through...but, 1st four bars, Eb to E... 2nd four bars, G to Gb... 3rd four bars Gb to G... going to Bb
When you approach tunes.... start with the whole tune... and work towards the details...
Reg
-
Thanks REG. That's make sens. I agree with You, that many chords are used ornamentaly. The point is which one is used functionaly, and which ornamentaly. What is the key to read such harmony. Is it modal aproach or is it traditional aproach (tonic, dominant and so on). Originally Posted by Reg
-
Right, good luck! Originally Posted by starek
(Personally, I hate work, always try to avoid it
)
-
OK starek...
I'm like Jon, only I'm lazy, but here you go.
Like I said The tune's a mix of functional and modal harmony with use of Melodic Min. and Modal interchange.
I don't know the tune or composed it...but from quick listening...
I'll give you target tonal areas, how I would approach with out having any inside info... if you hear and understand jazz functional concepts... will be simple... if you're trying to hear and understand with traditional classical functional harmony... you won't get it.
bars 1 - 4
Ebma / ..... (F) / Ema /..../ The chords could be lyd or lyd with #5 from 3rd degree of MM...
bars 5 - 8
Gma/..../ Gbma/.../
bars 9 - 12
Gbma / Gma / Dma / F7 /
Last four and 1/2 bars
Bb and basic turn around to get back to Eb
I would pull from Lydian with all the possible relationships and Melodic Min sources for Maj and Min chords.
The lydian modal area opens related dorian areas
Using Maj7s with #5 and #11 opens Melodic Min sources
So your using functional relationships and Subs for harmonic areas to improvise from and then using modal interchange adds another or different source of developing those relationships.... all the time with same basic starting changes.
Do you understand jazz modal approach, creating functional relationships other than II V I, Subdominant, Dominant Tonic. But still having function... creating and controlling harmonic movement.
When you mix.. plug and play using both tonal and modal functional guidelines for movement... you develop layers of relationships... sound more complicated than it really is... Like I was saying you need to always be aware of the big picture while your filling in with colors... Sorry stupid analogy.
When I say ornamental... they're usually chords or short chord patterns approaching targets. Sometime they become complicated because of deceptive use... not actually going to target, going to sub of target, or becoming the target from starting as approach to target. When you have a few harmonic systems going on all the time you have many plug and play parts...
What I'm trying to say in one post involves quite a bit of understanding, think about some of it... maybe we can break it down, or if is not your thing... no problem there are other ways to approach.
Like I also said... you don't play tunes like this without having you playing skill together...
Reg
-
Reg, I dig that post. It shows a practical application of some of the theory you have been writing about. I'm going to spend some time working thru that... what you wrote to my fingers to my ears.
Thanks
-
Reg, your post is awesome... However jazz modal approach is quite new to me. I know modes but I must learn how to use it or how it should or can be used. When You say there is few harmonic systems going on all the time - You blow my mind. That's too much at this time Originally Posted by Reg
Right now I'm getting to know modal approach.
Finally, you can play the same notes that coes from different aproaches, and that's funny.
There is so much mathematic that it;s hard to find place for music, and that's the challenge.
-
This is true of Chord/scale playing, Modal interchange, chord tone playing, Giant steps, All the things you are, etc etc. Originally Posted by JonR
This might seem a hell of a lot of thinking to be doing while playing, but most of it is about seeing the shapes and spotting the patterns and moves, which takes a few seconds at most. (Thoughts are quick, it's words and writing that takes time)
True, you must work on 'spotting the patterns', and getting them into your ear.
You must work to the point of being able to instantly re-shape them in any given moment. This way, the path is made as you walk it (grasshopper....lol).
-
Where is part D of that audio??
-
Ideally, you'd start with a chord chart or lead sheet! That would not normally include ornamental chords. Originally Posted by starek
Of course, if you're transcribing a recording it's tougher, but generally you can assume every chord in the head is "functional", in the sense of being part of the composition (if maybe not strictly "functional" in terms of traditional theory).
Another simple rule is that a chord on a downbeat is important (and probably functional in the broad sense) - which includes chords syncopated ahead of a downbeat.
Chords that clearly harmonise the melody would also be important. (But then - given all the extensions and alterations available - almost any chord can be explained as a harmonisation of any note! )
Any other chord may be ornamental, but you can test those by leaving them out and seeing how much difference it makes. Sometimes passing chords are important as voice-leading transitions - the sequence would sound disjointed without them - other times (esp in solos) they might be non-essential embellishments, experimental passing reharmonisations.
As for assessing modal v. traditional... I always look for a functional explanation of any chord, instinctively - does this chord lead to the next one? Has the previous chord led to it? That's not just a matter of sequence of course, but of obvious voice-leading moves in the chord tones. I'm not worried about classical analysis ("dammit, is that a vii6 chord or sub for V7?
"), just looking for the sound of logical "narrative" connections.
At least, that's what I do with fast-moving sequences (1 chord or more per bar), because they are the most likely to be functional.
And even if they're not, I like to look for voice-leading anyway, to find sensible linking moves.
With much slower harmonic rhythms - eg, one chord for 2 or more bars - I'll be open to modal interpretations, based on the chord symbol and melody (which together usually provide enough clues to determine the scale, without any reference to chord-scale theory).
IOW, with an unknown tune - esp a modern one - I will be using all the strategies at my disposal (theoretical and practical), but my over-riding concern is to construct phrases with melodic and rhythmic interest. As such, I'm rarely bothered about determining an entire scale for any one chord, just selecting what seem to be the best notes, the ones that will suit the structure I'm building. Those may be the obvious chord tones, they may be extensions I know sound "sweet" (eg 9ths).
There's no need to dig into every chord, just to show everyone you know all your scales! The deeper you dig, the more likely you are to get buried... The idea is to skate gracefully over the surface with a clear directional plan, just touching down on chord tones here and there to stay on track.
I like Dizzy Gillespie's famous quote: "It's taken me a lifetime to learn what not to play."
It's a cliche, of course, to say "less is more" - and it's true nevetheless - but the minimalist style of someone like Miles Davis is hard won. It's the sculptor, whittling down a massive block of misshapen stone, to find the pure simple form beneath. It takes experience to know which chunks you can chip off and lose. To get down to the nitty gritty.
That's not to say that fast and furious passages don't have their place. There's always a balance to be struck, contrasts to be highlighted - a whole spectrum of dynamics, tone and intensity to be explored.
-
Unless I missed it, no one posted the audio for "The Cross," which has the D section being discussed. The audio posted was for the other song being discussed - "Synthetics." Originally Posted by jster
You can hear it here: http://grooveshark.com/#!/album/Deep+Song/3859706Last edited by Bryan T; 10-28-2012 at 11:43 AM.
-
I do this too. What in CST says I can't? Why should I be bothered about determining an entire scale? Are you bothered about determining the whole arpeggio? This may be the root of the problem. A misunderstanding of how CST is/can be used. Originally Posted by JonR
You seem to be basing sweeping generalizations on a false premise. Maybe these are your own personal experiences of CST.
They certainly ain't mine.
Is that what I'm doing, showing everyone I know my scales? Originally Posted by JonR
There's no need to dig into every chord, just to show everyone you know all your scales! The deeper you dig, the more likely you are to get buried... The idea is to skate gracefully over the surface with a clear directional plan, just touching down on chord tones here and there to stay on track.
The more likely who will get buried? Someone who doesn't understand how to use chord/scale stuff?
Who's idea is it to skate gracefully over the surface? Maybe there are more ways than that?
What if I don't want to touch down on chord tones for a while? Then bring them in gradually?
Less is not necessarily more, and sometimes it's just less. Originally Posted by JonR
Dig deep, ya might find something ya didn't expect.Last edited by mike walker; 10-29-2012 at 03:34 AM.
-
Thanks. I got confused because JonR started talking about the Cross and then Jake posted Synthetics and then JonR said yikes (but did he know he was not yikesing the tune he had analyzed but the second tune?) then Reg started talking about Synthetics. Isn't that what happened? Originally Posted by Bryan T
Last edited by jster; 10-28-2012 at 03:11 PM.
-
Yep, that sums it up nicely. Originally Posted by mike walker
...
Less is not necessarily more, and sometimes it's just less.
Dig deep, ya might find something ya didn't expect.
Sometimes I think the anti-CST, anti-modal - new term for me, thanks JonR - crowd is that they assume that people will just mechanically play scales with no acknowledgement of where the tune is going. Nothing could be further from the truth.
PS: not implying that JonR is in the anti crowd at all.
-
Honestly, I have no idea what is going on any more. Originally Posted by jster
I will say that to my ears, I think "The Cross" would be simpler to improvise over than "Synthetics," particularly when you break down the A/B/C/D sections into their critical parts.
-
Originally Posted by jster
Sorry I only talked about Synthetics... a few changes, which may or may not be correct... would be difficult to post solo approach and analysis... so I went with the actual music... Jake's post of Synthetics. The original post was about both tunes.
If you need info.. how I would approach soloing over or a jazz analysis of the other tune...let me know. I'll try and listen... it's not that complicated , you may not like my approach but will still explain organization of tune as starting reference.
Reg
-
It's a nuts conclusion for sure. Originally Posted by 4thstuning
Yep, that sums it up nicely.
Sometimes I think the anti-CST, anti-modal - new term for me, thanks JonR - crowd is that they assume that people will just mechanically play scales with no acknowledgement of where the tune is going. Nothing could be further from the truth.
.
Reply With Quote
Neural DSP plugin 50% sale... Tone King Imperial...
Yesterday, 11:03 PM in For Sale