-
I'm not Tim, but I do think atonality is possible...I also think it's really tough to get at.
Derek Bailey got close.
-
11-02-2012 02:03 PM
-
Off topic: I went to YouTube to see if there was anything crazy by John Cage for guitar and found this beautiful piece instead:
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
There's a link to sheet music, but it may be for the 11-string guitar
-
That would normally precisely match my own 2 cents, tim. But I asked this question because Reg (among one or two others) has hinted that that's not all there is to it. Originally Posted by timscarey
For me the other possibilities are still a little foggy (despite Reg's best attempts, so far), but I think I'm beginning to see a hint of a light at the end of the tunnel. Just hoping it's not an oncoming train...
-
In the sense of an absence of tonality, it's pretty much been done, by Schoenberg et al. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Atonality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(But just because it's been done doesn't mean it isn't/wasn't "tough to get at", of course...
)
I actually think he went beyond atonal. He was pretty much a-everything! Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Whatever you think of his music (I quite liked it), he was a great thinker on improvisation - wrote a great book on it, which (if I remember right) was made into a BBC programme (or was it a series?).
But my favourite free improv maniac (much less free these days) is Billy Jenkins - also a great thinker on improvisation and what "jazz" actually is (or ought to be).
-
Excellent explanations, Reg.
We can look at this from many angles.
Autumn Leaves is a classic for bagging all the sounds into one area.
I can 'get away' with playing in Gm roughly.
But in comping, you wouldn't play just a Gmin chord just because the tune fits
pretty much that one chord.
So, you can draw on the chord tones for each chord. See those chord tones as part of their respective 'positional' pitch collections or modes, or scales or
whatever, and play 'Autumn leaves' definitively. It will sound like Autumn leaves without reference to the tune and without accompaniment.
As Reg points out, these scales can be made into individual interval sets, triads, quartal, quintal chords. These chords can be built on each scale degree and can then be used melodically. Mix and match musically.
Maj chords can be lydianized (and more)
minors can reference dorian no matter what position (in Impro),
dominants have a ton of stuff they can reference.
Jon, you keep saying 'what's the point' and I'm not understanding that logic.
I keep asking myself 'who's point?'..... I get that you personally do not see a point for you... but how this then takes the leap to 'there is no point' (which admittedly you seemed to have softened on a little) is confusing for me.
Any musical system, concept, etc is only as good or bad as the way it's applied. It cannot be intrinsically bad. (again, I know you're basically in agreement with this but i'm just restating it for emphasis).
It does not matter if the tune is modal or not. Systems can be cross referenced ad infinatum if music can be found lurking.
I mean, you could reference Melodic Min (or Har maj or a ton of other stuff) through the whole tune (I'm talking a different MM on every chord)..... It depends in the end whether that approach shifts you into territory that is challenging or beautiful or interesting or all of that.
Obviously this, OTOH, says nothing about the merits or demerits of treating Autumn Leaves as basically in Gm and playing melodies based around that tonal centre. I might do that if the music asked me to.
One interesting thing to do is hear in your head, any band that had a sound
and give them Autumn leaves to play......
Coltrane during his Love supreme days
Sco during his Rough House days
Metheny during his Question and Answer days
Abercrombie during his Trio with Erskine and Marc Johnson days
Jim Hall in 59 in his Tangerine/Stompin at the savoy days or in his Duo's with Ron Carter days..........
All of these renditions would be approached in a different way.
It's interesting to check what those differences might be.Last edited by mike walker; 11-02-2012 at 05:40 PM.
-
I just quoted a few random sentences for example. I'd just like to say that I've been playing jazz for like 20 years, as well as many other styles, and I have a degree in music, and I have no idea what the f*** you are talking about (not just this thread, just about every time I read anything of yours). Not trying to dis you Reg, but I think you have developed your own theory system, which we all have not learned, and thus can't understand wth you are saying. Yes I understand bits and pieces, like I get the idea of characteristic pitch, I use that in my soloing too. I think everyone just gives you props on your posts because they don't want to look dumb by admitting they have no idea wtf you are talking about lol. They probably pick out the bits they understand (like I picked out the CP) and the rest of it they just assume you must be really advanced to have written it, lol. Well I know enough theory to teach college level theory, and I have no f****** idea what you are talking about. Originally Posted by Reg
-
Great post Mike. Originally Posted by mike walker
-
You're getting a little carried away, I think. Originally Posted by mike walker
"without reference to the tune and without accompaniment" how can it sound anything like Autumn Leaves? Even if you don't change any of the chords, that sequence is not unique.
I'm not saying it has to sound like Autumn Leaves... Nothing wrong with the ideas you're describing. But if you lose the tune and change the chords, then you don't have that song any more.
Well I didn't mean that my opinion should be anyone else's. I meant that in the context of a kind of analysis that didn't provide - in the end - anything that couldn't be hit on some other way. Originally Posted by mike walker
I'm still not saying this kind of analysis is that pointless - bako gave a good example of something interesting coming out of it. I don't think I would have hit on that the usual way.
Quite. Originally Posted by mike walker
Absolutely. Good call. Originally Posted by mike walker
-
This thread is turning into "what to play" I thought the question was about functional analysis. Just to clarify, my last post was not suggesting that someone play only notes from the key, or even then chords, or even the implied modes. Just that it is clearly a tonal piece of music and because of that, the chords are functioning relative to a tonic.
The whole point of modal analysis is to find chord function when there is no tonic. Which in the case of autumn leaves is not applicable.
-
Hey Jazzadellic... no problem... since you have it together, why don't you give us, myself included a working definition of modal analysis, with reference to CPP , Romantic and contemporary and then compare to what we're trying to understand, jazz usage. With like 20 years of playing jazz that should be simple, maybe you could post playing example of how those definitions might translate to Autumn leaves.
That's what I was trying to do.
Reg
-
'You're getting a little carried away, I think'.Jonr.
It has been known,
But trust me, I can make it sound like Autumn Leaves.
That's the whole point.
"without reference to the tune and without accompaniment" how can it sound anything like Autumn Leaves? Even if you don't change any of the chords, that sequence is not unique.
I'm not saying it has to sound like Autumn Leaves... Nothing wrong with the ideas you're describing. But if you lose the tune and change the chords, then you don't have that song any more."Jonr
Who said anything about 'changing the chords or losing the tune?'
You keep leaping. I don't have to play the tune but I can play it's rhythm, I can refer to it with other notes, I can refer to many things, just the high point of the tune, the Harmonic Rhythm, just tons of things.
I'm not sure where 'changing the chords' came from.
The point remains. Without the tune or the chords I can play Autumn Leaves and (if you know your standards obviously) you'll hear it.
Same for Stella or All the Things or whatever.
If it's Rhythm changes or a blues then ya might have a point because so many tunes are based on those changes, but even then, one could easily refer to the individual rhythm of the tune eg, just take the Rhythm of 'Moose the Mooch' and play it on just a few notes.
In fact there is a great game to be had from singing a tune on one note whilst others try and guess it.Last edited by mike walker; 11-03-2012 at 07:01 AM.
-
You might be right Tim... but besides composition and playing... what else would the discussion of functional and modal analysis be useful for on a Jazz Guitar forum. Originally Posted by timscarey
I believe the point was made that the example of 1st eight bars of Autumn Leaves was clearly a Maj/min functional tonal progression. I thought Jon was trying to see if a modal style of analysis would lead to options not implied from standard functional analysis.
I would dig hearing why there is no tonic in modal tunes. Maybe even what is your view of modal analysis and how you use to define chord function.
Thanks Reg
-
Getting a bit carried away on all this, eh? Isn't the thread really nothing more than a roundabout way of asking as to how many ways you can (re)harmonize a melody? Autumn Leaves can be made sound major, minor or any type of mode you choose. It's what you put underneath the melody, is it not? I'm assuming JonR means to keep the tune's melody intact and is really exploring different ways to analyze harmonic function--major/minor/modal/atonal, etc. The possibilities. The implications. I always learn from Reg's posts and dig the way he backs it up with good playing examples. Originally Posted by jazzadellic
-
"Well I didn't mean that my opinion should be anyone else's. I meant that in the context of a kind of analysis that didn't provide - in the end - anything that couldn't be hit on some other way.
I'm still not saying this kind of analysis is that pointless - bako gave a good example of something interesting coming out of it. I don't think I would have hit on that the usual way." Jonr
Right. this is what's confusing.
We have established we can find different paths through the music.
We can play chord tones intervals triads quartal chords etc using 2 or 3, 4 chords at a time per scale.
We have said that identifying which scale we are on by giving it a name (Dorian Lydian) etc is helpful in communication.
We can borrow other modes/scales that are not diatonic to the original progression.
We can do this and more all in one system. (yeah, but what have the Romans done for us?!!).
Now, what confuses me, is this. You say you can do all of this using a different way. Right. I understand those ways. I might use them, though I hear a difference in the approaches of someone who only uses one or the other systems. Either cuts down the actual 'on the bandstand' possibilities of both.
But apart from that, what stops me saying, in turn, 'the way you do it is pointless, coz I do it my way along with Frank Sinatra'.
The 'yes but I could get to that using this' stance, doesn't really say anything, does it? It just says we have different ways of getting to the same thing (though, just to clarify, I rarely hear someone who hasn't at least studied modes or one scale per chord theory using, for just one example, chords scalically. They usually think of the voicings or alterations of a chord as it is, not from a family of possible chords that use coupled voicings, constant structure etc etc.)
Knowing the possibility is not the same as putting that possibility into action, musically.
I read stuff like, 'when ya think scales you have to use all those notes and it's just too many' etc etc. Where is this from? Who says we have to do that?
It's just non-sensical.
And again, I do not say that those who think in different ways, tonal centres etc etc, don't play great. Some do, some don't. But that is all to do with how they handle the information before them, not the information itself.Last edited by mike walker; 11-03-2012 at 04:00 AM.
-
Let's put our energy into another tune, Lets take Dizzy's Woody'n you, another simple tune that is just a collection of II V's..right. about as basic as it gets.
So Jon use your traditional functional analysis and tell us what's going on. Then if you feel like it... try and make a harmonic reference to where the solos go and try and relate that to your functional analysis.... how your functional analysis might also imply where the solos go. Generally the analysis would also reflect...
Hey Jazzadellic... with your expertise, why don't you do the same and then give us an example of how it's done. If your going to talk the shit... you must be able to back it up...right. I think I remember you being a music teacher... If you would rather get into a more complex tune... that's cool, let me know and I'll make a recommendation.
Just for reference... this should be rather simple, I don't know WTF I'm talking about and I can do this as I listen to the tunes.
Here's two versions, one from Gonzalo, pretty straight. And then Keith Jarrett, fairly straight , but harmonically more typical jazz approach.
Reg
-
-
Hold on. That seems to be opening it way out. Originally Posted by mike walker
Are you talking about functional progressions in keys, or modal sequences? or both? (I'm guessing both?)
Those are mode names, not scale names. But obviously labelling is helpful, yes Originally Posted by mike walker
.
Apparently so, yes. To be a little sarcastic, we "can" do anything we like at any time, if we like the sound. My question is which theory terms help us in that choice? Originally Posted by mike walker
I'm not sure modal terms are much use - seeing as we are not talking about modal music as such.
I don't know about "all" of it. I can do pretty much all I want to do. The rest, of course, is what I'm curious about. Originally Posted by mike walker
Well, I don't think my approach to improvisation limits how anyone else I'm playing with improvises. And vice versa. Originally Posted by mike walker
Of course, if one or other of us can't hear what the other is doing, that's an issue - especially if we can't hear the aural logic behind it. We'd be thinking either "wow! what's that! or "huh? sounds like wrong notes to me." Not an ideal scenario, but hardly fatal.
Er, OK. Not quite getting my head round that, but I'm sure you're right. Originally Posted by mike walker
(AFAIK, no jazz player before the late 1950s studied modes in that way, although of course they studied chords in ways that might well have amounted to the same thing. I'm not suggesting jazz of that era was "better", of course.)
Quite! Originally Posted by mike walker
It's not that anyone is saying that, but I often see people talking about applying modes without talking about hierarchies of consonance, of chord tones, etc. As if every note in the mode is equally valid, as if there's no need to refer to the chord. (Of course in modal music this may well be the case, because modal chords are much less fixed than tonal/functional ones Originally Posted by mike walker
IOW - and I know this is kind of an artificial hypothetical scenario - I'm not yet convinced a modal viewpoint is helpful in all music. I think it's often a waste of time, and irrelevant.
But I guess that may only apply to playing in a vintage style (or in various kinds of non-jazz music), ignoring the advances jazz has made in the last 50 years.
Sure. I don't think we disagree fundamentally, and I'm sorry if I've allowed my ignorance or prejudices (and I suffer from both Originally Posted by mike walker
) to get in the way of this debate.
I happen to prefer my theoretical terms to be defined in clear, consistent ways, and if possible with only one meaning per term. (I realise this is probably a naive hope in jazz theory...)
-
I'm sorry Reg, but this is where I admit defeat and bow out. Originally Posted by Reg
I could say that functional analysis of a solo is not the point. (Functional analysis is of the chords first; then IMO one plays accordingly, in or out of what's going on.)
I could say that I can hear phrases using a mix of "inside" and "outside" -which can apply to both functional or modal thinking, but - inasmuch as it refers to chords - is going to have functional impact as long as the chords do.
But I don't think I can spare the time to sit down and go through those solos note by note. My hearing is certainly not good enough to tell what they're doing without slowing it down substantially and working my way steadily through it. I can barely tell what the chord changes are.
I could say that I don't enjoy listening to that kind of playing much anyhow. (I have a prejudice against the piano for a start
) But mainly it's because it all goes right over my head; I can't connect with it - except in a quite superficial way.
But I realise this is merely a measure of my amateur, semi-serious approach to jazz. I just don't like that stuff enough to want to devote a few hours of my life (that's what it would take) to analysing it.
Sorry if I gave any other impression - I started this thread genuinely interested in some specific alternative approaches to a simple functional sequence, but I'm now way, way out of my depth.
(Especially as you regard those examples as "simple"...)
Don't get me wrong - I do appreciate your generous efforts at explanation. But a lot of the time, as far as I'm concerned, you may as well be talking Chinese.
-
Sure, Originally Posted by Reg
I should have clarified a bit, IMO there are chords which function as tonic chords in most modal tunes, but the tune itself has no central tonic. I'm thinking of tunes like "humpty dumpty", "Vera Cruz", "bright size life", "inner urge", etc... tunes which have long sections with no clear reference to a tonic.
Now, it's important to keep in mind that the majority of tunes which use modal harmony mix it with other styles of harmony as well, the tunes I mentioned above do so to varying degrees.
My view of modal analysis is pretty straight forward and has two major purposes at the end of the day. One is to inform me of the most "inside" scale for a particular chord in a modal progression, the other is to determine if a movement from one chord to another will be a resolution or a non-resolution. The former gives me choices when playing over tunes, the latter informs my composition and helps me anticipate how the chords will sound while reading.
I consider (in the general world of jazz harmony) there to be 3 "levels" if you will, of harmonic function in modal harmony.... keep in mind, this is modal harmony, not tonal or blues.
1. Tonic Diatonic (Ionian Major-Aeolian Minor-Sometimes Phrygian minor)
2. Non-Tonic Diatonic (Dorian Minor-Lydian Major-Locrian Minor)
3. Melodic Minor (MM, Dorian -2, Lydian +5, Locrian +2)
you might notice that 2 differs from 1 by only one raised pitch, and that the same is true from 2 to 3, only 1 note different. I call these the Variable tones, I think reg calls them the CP?
I did not include dominant chords in this list because they are the trademarks of tonal and blues harmony and take us out of a modal environment. (just an opinion)
Each chord type (no doms in this list) has several options as to it's 7 note scale..
Maj7 - Ionian/Lyd
Min7 - Aeo/Dor/Phry/Dor -2
Min7(-5) - Loc/Loc +2/Super Locrian
Min6 - Dor/MM/Dor -2
Maj(-5) - Lydian/Lydian +5
What I consider "modal analysis" is to look at a modal progression and determine which scale choice of each chord is most congruent with the notes of the previous and following chords. This gives me the chord's "inside choice scale"
As you can see above, each mode is either tonic, non-tonic, or melodic minor. A quick and easy rule is that 3 resolves to 2 or 1 and 2 resolves to 1. generally speaking, movement in the opposite direction will be movement away from a modal tonic.
Also, once the inside choice mode for each chord is determined, you can also find the parent scale for each chord and look at how the progression is moving relative to the circle of fifths.
I have a method for determining the parent scales for Melodic minor modes and will share it if anyone cares, but it's kind of a long explanation.
So, that's what I consider modal analysis, because at the end of it, I can see if the chords are functioning as Tonic, Non-Tonic, or Melodic Minor. Each category with it's own tenancies toward stability.
Keep in mind, I am in no way advocating improvising using only the "inside choice scales" there are tons of ways to approach improvising, but I do think this gives me a pretty good handle on how chords in a modal progression are functioning, and how to create and resolve tension in my compositions without using dominant chords and without reference to a clear key center (modal)Last edited by timscarey; 11-03-2012 at 03:08 PM. Reason: wrote dor +2 instead of dor -2
-
Bako, Originally Posted by bako
I think of "no harmony" as music which is strictly rhythmic or melodic in nature.
or, just a cop out way of describing music which uses structures not commonly found in western music. (like a lot of clusters, and chords with 8 different notes, etc...)
because melodic music does imply harmony as a function of time, it is not always "without harmony" but theoretically could be, and the implied harmony could change depending on who is listening.
I agree with Mr. B about atonal music. I think it exists, but it's really hard to create, and while it is great as an academic pursuit, I have not worked with the concepts at all outside of theory class. I also have not found any that really speaks to me on an emotional level.
-
That was great Reg, thanks. Originally Posted by Reg
-
Exactly right. Originally Posted by Reg
That would be a simple matter of definition, IMO. Originally Posted by Reg
My understanding is pretty much the same as tim's here - although maybe a bit more limited in thought (in terms of interpretation of modal tunes that is).
"Tonic" is a word (strictly speaking) reserved for key-based tonal music. It doesn't apply to true modal music, which has no chord functions. The equivalent in modal music (again if we're being historically strict) is "final".
However, that is of course an archaic usage, and is arguably irrelevant in so-called "modal jazz", which is very different from medieval modal practice.
Modal jazz IMO is better termed "impressionist" jazz, inspired more by the "post-tonal" work of composers lke Debussy or Ravel. I don't know if "tonic" is a word one can correctly apply to their music.
I don't really have a problem with "tonic" used in modal tunes, except that it can imply either (a) that there is some kind of overall key centre when there isn't (when a tune has several modes), or (b) that the key centre is something other than the obvious "tonal centre" of the music.
Eg, an incorrect (naive) view of "So What" would be that the "tonic" is C, because it uses what we commonly call the "C major scale", and C is the tonic of the C major "key". Some people even say that D dorian mode is "in the key of C", which is nonsense.
IOW, "tonic" may sometimes be a superfluous or misleading word in the context of modal music. (whether or not we regard it as strictly incorrect.)
Even though the word "key" is arguably equally inappropriate, I prefer to say "keynote", or "key chord".
The word "key" or "keynote" does have a history of association with modes, in that a piece could be said to be "in key of C, major mode" or "key of C, minor mode" (meaning C minor). IOW, it simply refers to the keynote, or tonal centre, and suggests we can use it for modes as well as full-blown major and minor keys.
-
Jon,
I'm interested. How would you view a tune like 'All the things you are', which has a few key changes in? How would you improvise on it?
I know folks can chime in with the cyclical nature of these discussions but I find them to be a healthy alternative to the usual 'need to own' type, 'drive by' comments that much of the time display a kind of locked in approach that usually stems from the real reasons they don't get on with Modes (the trouble with modes) or CST (do we need scales?) etc in that these particular approaches, have not worked for them. Which of course is cool.
It's the claim, as I keep banging on about,
that these approaches, therefore, mean nothing in of themselves.
Which, IMO, is utter pants.
-
Er, not sure what your angle is here... Originally Posted by mike walker
It's a totally functional tune, so I'd follow the keys and the chords - using diatonic scales, with occasional leading chromaticism.
Being lazy (and a jazz amateur), I wouldn't look into other potential "modal" interpretations of each chord, or what I understand as chord-scale theory (if it goes beyond the obvious diatonic choices or common subs). I don't want to make my job more difficult than it is, and I have my work cut out dealing with the material the tune presents. I'm doing this for fun, not as a challenge.
Of course, I'm not saying any other approach is "wrong"! Only that I find more than enough to creatively occupy me - and give me sounds that I like - from what (I guess) is a very old-fashioned view of the tune.
It's not that I have a preference for "mellow" or "unchallenging" (although I have a soft spot for both). I like to get edgy when I can, but I would do that with chromatic side-stepping - again, a very traditional approach, of course.
The truth is, my ear is simply not trained for anything more. My knowledge of theory (limited as it is) far outweighs my aural skills.
So in a sense a lot of my questions are here are attracting answers that are out of my depth. I've opened a can of worms! It's not that I don't like the answers, or reject them. I simply don't get them a lot of the time. Or if I get them intellectually, they're so beyond me in terms of practical application that they have no interest for me beyond discussions like this.Last edited by JonR; 11-04-2012 at 09:33 AM.
-
I don't understand that comment, Jon. Originally Posted by JonR
Ok, this makes a lot of sense. Originally Posted by JonR
It's a totally functional tune, so I'd follow the keys and the chords - using diatonic scales, with occasional leading chromaticism.
Being lazy (and a jazz amateur), I wouldn't look into other potential "modal" interpretations of each chord, or what I understand as chord-scale theory (if it goes beyond the obvious diatonic choices or common subs). I don't want to make my job more difficult than it is, and I have my work cut out dealing with the material the tune presents. I'm doing this for fun, not as a challenge.
Of course, I'm not saying any other approach is "wrong"! Only that I find more than enough to creatively occupy me - and give me sounds that I like - from what (I guess) is a very old-fashioned view of the tune.
It's not that I have a preference for "mellow" or "unchallenging" (although I have a soft spot for both). I like to get edgy when I can, but I would do that with chromatic side-stepping - again, a very traditional approach, of course.
The truth is, my ear is simply not trained for anything more. My knowledge of theory (limited as it is) far outweighs my aural skills.
So in a sense a lot of my questions are here are attracting answers that are out of my depth. I've opened a can of worms! It's not that I don't like the answers, or reject them. I simply don't get them a lot of the time. Or if I get them intellectually, they're so beyond me in terms of practical application that they have no interest for me beyond discussions like this.
BTW I like the challenge, because it leads to more fun!!
Reply With Quote
Andy Bartosh plays "Peter Green"
Today, 04:01 PM in Composition