functional thinking

[pingu]

Recently I've been starting to think of the harmony of standards as steps of the major scale .....

even minor tunes like black orpheus
would go

vi , vii , III7, vi etc in Fmajor
not i , iim7b5 , V7, i in Dminor

I'm trying to get a simple system together
for memorising changes irrespective of key

do any of you guys think like this ?
does it work out ok for you ?

[Guitarzen]

Yes sometimes thinking of the chord numbers makes it easier. But do yourself a favor and call the minor key one by the correct numbers. It's i, iim7b5, V7.

[pingu]

thanks for the thoughts man

if we were playing Black Orpheus in Dmin

Dmin , Emin7b5 A7, Dmin, Dmin,
Dmin, Gmin C7, Fmaj , D7

I would think of it as .....
vi , vii III7, vi , vi
vi , ii V7 , I , VI ,

or maybe
vi , 2 5 to the , vi , vi ,
vi , 2 5 to the I , VI7 etc

is there a simpler way ?
or is this all wrong headed and a blind alley
It seems to be working out so far
ie ONLY thinking in the major key
even on minor type tunes

I started doing this cos I had trouble double thinking
in both major( F) and its' relative minor (Dminor)
at thesame time

any more thoughts on this appreciated guys
ta

[JonR]

thanks for the thoughts man

if we were playing Black Orpheus in Dmin

Dmin , Emin7b5 A7, Dmin, Dmin,
Dmin, Gmin C7, Fmaj , D7

I would think of it as .....
vi , vii III7, vi , vi
vi , ii V7 , I , VI ,

or maybe
vi , 2 5 to the , vi , vi ,
vi , 2 5 to the I , VI7 etc

is there a simpler way ?
or is this all wrong headed and a blind alley
It seems to be working out so far
ie ONLY thinking in the major key
even on minor type tunes

If it makes it easier for you, that's fine, but the conventional analysis of those chords exists for a reason. If you always think in relation to the relative major, you're missing out on something important: that the minor key is just as important as the major key.

IOW, it's important to remember Einstein's dictum: "Things should be made as simple as possible; but no simpler."

Ie, if you reduce things too far, you start chopping off something essential.

Dmin , Emin7b5 A7, Dmin = i-ii-V-i in D minor
Gmin C7,Fmaj = ii-V-I in F major. (You can see Gm7 as a "pivot" chord, belonging to both keys (iv in D minor, ii in F major), on which the modulation turns.)

D7 is then a secondary dominant, V of the following Gm - ie, "V/ii" (in F major)

IMO, you shouldn't try to make it any simpler than that.

I started doing this cos I had trouble double thinking
in both major( F) and its' relative minor (Dminor)
at the same time

But they're not at the same time! First it's D minor, then it's F major.
You could argue the Gm7 is in both keys at the same time, because it's on the "cusp", as it turns from D minor to F major; but otherwise the keys are distinct.

The point, really, is how it sounds - that's what the functional analysis is all about (not some dry abstract academic interpretation). Those opening 4 bars don't sound as if they're in F major, they sound like they're in D minor.
OK, most of the scale notes are shared, so in that sense your simplication is rational. But then it's often a mistake to look right down to the scale level - it can obscure the most important factor, which is key. Key is - er - key! D minor and F major are "relative", but they are two different keys - and that matters.

And to be honest, if you wanted to think one key for his tune, it should be D minor, not F major . D minor predominates. It diverts to F major, but returns to D minor.

[JensL]

I'm with Jon on this: The best approach is to number according to the key that you hear, so for Black Orpheus think minor because that's the key of the tune not F major.

Jens

[Hernandinho]

Hi Pingu, Wouldn't you system be similar to the Nashville Number System?

Nashville number system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Hi Pingu, Wouldn't you system be similar to the Nashville Number System?

Nashville number system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't get the Nashville system, as in I don't get where it's different from using roman numerals. Is there anything new there? That article doesn't mention modulation, but I was told before that you note the modulation and shift your "1" to the new tonic.

This sentence in the Wiki article also worries me:

G is the 1, A is the 2, B is the 3, C is the 4, D is the 5, E is the 6 and F# is the 7 (though in most cases, in a chord progression you would actually use a 7b, an F, instead of a true 7, the F#).

Oh really?

EDIT: So is the Nashville system for people who don't understand Roman numerals?

[pingu]

do you and jon mean for Black Orpheus

you would think the whole tune in D minor ?
cos its a minor tune

i , iib5 V7 , i , i (in D minor)
i , iv , VII7 , III (ie still thinking in D minor)

or for the second line would you guys change over to think in F major
like jon said on the Gmin chord in Bar 6 you'd swap over from thinking 4 chord in D minor to thinking ii V I in F major

Is that the best way ?
ie sometimes think in Major ....
and sometimes in the relative Minor depending on the feel of the tune at that point

appreciate the thoughts guys

[JonR]

do you and jon mean for Black Orpheus

you would think the whole tune in D minor ?
cos its a minor tune

i , iib5 V7 , i , i (in D minor)
i , iv , VII7 , III (ie still thinking in D minor)

or for the second line would you guys change over to think in F major
like jon said on the Gmin chord in Bar 6 you'd swap over from thinking 4 chord in D minor to thinking ii V I in F major

Is that the best way ?
ie sometimes think in Major ....
and sometimes in the relative Minor depending on the feel of the tune at that point

appreciate the thoughts guys

I'd think the same way.
Overall, it's a tune in D minor, but flipping to the relative major temporarily is a common thing to do. Autumn Leaves does the same thing.

An additional thought is that major keys are tonally stronger (simpler, more straightforward) than minor ones, so it doesn't take much to feel you've gone over wholesale to the relative major; and then to think maybe the whole thing's in the major key anyway? (just starting on vi?)
The other way - starting in a major key with a deviation to the relative minor - it's generally harder to hear the minor key taking over.
So when a tune - like this one - is primarily in the minor key, it can feel more finely balanced between minor and relative major. (That's part of the appeal of the tune, and the cleverness of the composer, of course.)

[targuit]

Pingu - Just an opinion. While I understand your instincts in regarding Dm as the relative minor of F, I think you are complicating your overall approach to using 'universal' representation of the tonal relationships and chord progressions. If a song clearly is situated in a minor key, then I would use it as the key designation. There is nothing wrong with a modulation to another key occurring, and that is quite frequent in jazz. It's just a change in key signature.

Finally, the representation is just an analytical tool. The important thing is to internalize the tonal relationships and characteristics. If you need to transpose to a different key, with experience you just do it automatically. Of course, it is necessary to note that some songs don't start on the I chord, but on the iim7 or other interval.

[randalljazz]

you guys really play this tune in D minor?!?!

[Vladan]

I guess the key is written on the staff.

[JonR]

you guys really play this tune in D minor?!?!

A minor normally for me, but it depends on the singer...

[JonR]

I guess the key is written on the staff.

The key signature is.
A key signature doesn't tell you the key. It only narrows it down to two possibilities: major or relative minor. That's when discussions like the above can begin...
(Other possibilities might include modes of the same scale, but let's not go there... )

[pingu]

sorry yes , normally in A minor

[pingu]

Pingu - Just an opinion. While I understand your instincts in regarding Dm as the relative minor of F, I think you are complicating your overall approach to using 'universal' representation of the tonal relationships and chord progressions. If a song clearly is situated in a minor key, then I would use it as the key designation. There is nothing wrong with a modulation to another key occurring, and that is quite frequent in jazz. It's just a change in key signature.

Finally, the representation is just an analytical tool. The important thing is to internalize the tonal relationships and characteristics. If you need to transpose to a different key, with experience you just do it automatically. Of course, it is necessary to note that some songs don't start on the I chord, but on the iim7 or other interval.

yes understood .....
thats very interesting to me that 'with experience'
you can transpose tunes automatically
I know a bass player who does this too
'if she knows the song well'

I cannot do this regularly (ie just feel where the tune goes next)
I wish I could ! but my ear isn't strong enough yet

for now I have to suppliment the ears with
some analytical stuff
I think I might try this hybrid approach of
thinking in minor/majorand flipping to it's relative major/minor
(or whatever the new key centre is , eg 'up a minor third' )when required

Maybe each type of tune requires a slightly
different approach mentally for me

I dunno ... I'll keep at it though !

[pingu]

The important thing is to internalize the tonal relationships and characteristics

absolutely ....the charactaristic guide tone lines etc
of that song , yes

[JensL]

do you and jon mean for Black Orpheus

you would think the whole tune in D minor ?
cos its a minor tune

i , iib5 V7 , i , i (in D minor)
i , iv , VII7 , III (ie still thinking in D minor)

or for the second line would you guys change over to think in F major
like jon said on the Gmin chord in Bar 6 you'd swap over from thinking 4 chord in D minor to thinking ii V I in F major

Is that the best way ?
ie sometimes think in Major ....
and sometimes in the relative Minor depending on the feel of the tune at that point

appreciate the thoughts guys

I would think the tune in minor I guess? Actually I am not really sure what I think when I play it. An important thing for me is that I try to combine the chords so I have to remember less info.

I think Turnaround - Turnaround - I - cadence to bIII - dominant to IV - Autumn Leaves progression - Cadence to I

When I write it out it looks silly, but that is close to how I am summing up the chords. I don't literally think Autumn Leaves, that is just for lack of a better word what I call that 8 bar progression. And all the progressions are related to the minor tonic (since I don't hear it modulate)

Hope this helps more than it confuses

Jens

[johnhall]

I don't think anyone mentioned the use of the leading-tone (raised seventh degree in minor) in the melody and harmony, C-sharp in D minor or G-sharp in A minor, which is what really differentiates the minor key areas from the major.

John

[Reg]

Typically you begin with a reference.... that would organize your labels or analysis.

That reference can be whatever you choose. ( there are standard jazz common practice references)

Personally ...the tune's overall reference is A- or I- ...I use large case roman numerals because of simplicity... when you use classical analysis there are classical implications which are great for one basic analysis and performance...but as a jazz player I generally look at tunes with many references and possibilities.

The tune as with most tunes becomes many tonal center references... every chord can become a tonal reference or tonal center from which you can create relationships. Harmony or chords change, depending on the reference.... what the relationship of that chord is to the reference.

Is the reference of that A- chord to Cmaj, which has a predetermined set of relationships. There are many possibilities, I'll gladly get into that discussion, if your interested. (the reference - relationship discussion).

Personally... when one uses the term Function with relationship to music your implying organization for harmonic or melodic movement. Function is the movement created from harmonic guidelines. (The motor that moves the car... there are many types of motors)

Traditional analysis or use of classical labels... the roman numerals, uses... Maj/Min Functional Harmony... as reference. That's the harmonic organization that creates the guidelines... the basic rules of harmonic or melodic movement. Which is the reference that the labels reflect. (the large and small case roman numeral usage).

That is only one reference... typical jazz harmony has and uses more references, which are always also going on... used as a reference or possible reference.

A possible analogy might be like trying to discuss a painting with many colors... but only using the terms... Black and White in the discussion as far as reference to colors.

Anyway all this BS... is in relationship to how one performs the tune, Black Orpheus. I've played the tune a million ways with all types of references, from very straight classical reference to some ... fairly out modal relationships, even very blues type of references... which becomes almost hip with heavy swing feel and jazz harmony. But that becomes personal and subjective.

If you post an example of your playing of the tune... I'll make a analysis of your playing of the tune... which would reflect what harmonic references your using, at least my personal view. I have pretty developed ears...

I'm around for a while... Reg

[pingu]

Thanks for that Reg .... I understood what you said there about the many different approaches to
playing the tune ....

Could you say more about how you remember the standard changesto a tune like Black Orpheus ?

I mean , do you think ....right ok ... Black Orpheus ..

like this kinda ....
first 4 bars.. tonic minor then 2 5 to the tonic minor,
second 4 bars ...tonic minor then 2 5 to the Relative Major C etc etc ? that kind of thing ?

or do you think a different way ?

or maybe don't have to think at all ?
maybe you just knowBlack Orpheus so it's just kinda
there anyway

I'm trying to work out the best way for me to THINK of
the basic changes to a tune , and consequently memorise them at theirbasic level irrespective of the key

because my ears don't automatically know where the tune is going next a lot of the time .... and I want to get my head out of the sheet !

this question is not specifically about Black Orpheus
just how YOU think of and remember the
changes to standards and tunes generally

thanks Reg and everyone

[Reg]

Hey Pingu.... So talking about how to remember or memorize tunes, jazz tunes.

Personally... the 1st and generally most important aspect of any standard or tune is the Form. The melody, harmony, rhythm etc... don't mean much with out the Form.

Let me first say... my reference for this explanation is the performance of tunes...

My approach is somewhat like filling in the blanks or connecting the dots. I begin with the whole picture and mechanically finish. I start with the Form of the tune and fill in the melodic and harmonic details.(I'm not composing)

I don't think with relationship to Tonic minor, relative or parallel maj. or min etc. I'm aware of harmonic relationships but usually simply think... Target chords or tonal centers and approaches. Those Targets work with the Form and the approaches can and do change with each performance.

Example... Black Orpheus,

My 1st thoughts are two 16 bar sections of Min Blues. So an "A" and variation... " A' " (or AB)

Roman numerals...

I- ..l ...............
I- ..l ...............
IV- l ... l I- l ...
V7 l ....l I- l ...

I- ................
IV- ..............
IV- l .... l I- .....
V7 l .... l I-.....

I can fill in the approaches as I want... but that would be my basic Form.

It also helps to play a few gigs every day and for me personally... I understand Harmony and different methods of organizing harmony... the theorys.

Classical or Maj/Min Functional Harmony is one of those sets of Guidelines. The organizational theory.

There are only basically so many common forms and harmonic progressions... chord patterns. After a while they become instinctive, and you just mechanically play with variations of them.

Feel free to make me get specific etc... Reg

[targuit]

Pingu - When you refer to Black Orpheus, I assume you are talking about the song composed by Luiz Bonfa - Manha de Carnival. It's true that you can write out a harmonic analysis of the song including the number of measures, as Reg notes. But one way to 'learn the tune' is to listen to someone sing it and learn how the lyrics flow, allowing for any musical interlude or solo breaks and intros/endings.

I'm going to post a cool link to Bonfa performing his song with the great singer, Perry Como. Listening to Perry sing the lyrics with Bonfa elegantly playing his guitar may be the best way to learn the progressions. In this case, they perform the tune in Am with a brief intro. In my opinion, although you can diagram out the progression in terms of im7 - ivm7 - V7 - im7- iim7b5- V7 - etc., if you learn the tune concretely in Am, for example, you should be able to transpose to any key just thinking about the transposition in relation to the chord sequence you hear and know.

[Reg]

So there is a perfect example of... you begin with a reference, and that reference with targuit is his posted example of
Manha de Carnaval. Which if that's what you need or are after... is perfect. Pretty dated etc... but beautiful all the same.

I would love to have seen them on the spot have to transpose to say Eb- and with a different style of reference.

A good topic might be... what is learning a tune as targuit said, concretely. Is it simply memorizing a performance, like the classic performance posted above.... or might it be understanding how and why the tune works as a performance.

I know from experience... I've played the tune in every key, style and meters. To the point of creating a different functional analysis.... different tonal references... with different organizational guidelines for function... how and why the harmony moves. At what point is the Tune a different Tune ?

I don't believe there are good or bad methods of learning or memorizing tunes... some do work better, if better is being able to learn faster... and for me personally, to be able to recall or remember faster and be able work with the tune to fit the situation.

I played a gig last night with a vocalist... maybe one tune was in the original or key of composition. And the forms were
developed to fit the gig... Different references for performance... which changes the approach chord patterns and what those approach chords imply harmonically. The target chords may remain the same, but how their connected changes.

I understand most on this forum don't really understand what I'm talking about... but there are very concrete harmonic reasons why some players sound different that others. It's usually difficult to hear what you don't know.

I basically gave the bass player a harmony lesson while we were playing last night... because he really never thought and heard the differences harmonically. He does now, and he'll become a much better player down the line. I have another gig with him this sunday at festival with... again a vocalist. Will be interesting to hear his playing...

Reg

[bako]

Reg,

Glad the boss gave you a few minutes off to drop in and say hello here.

This is my attempt to articulate what I think you are describing.
Let me know if I am on the right track or just hallucinating.

Start with awareness of form (the sections, the shape of the phrases)
Create a very simple mental picture (analysis) of the major harmonic signposts.
Working from a more skeletal conception means fewer obligations to fulfill and therefore greater flexibility to express the connective details in response to what is actually going musically in real time.

Thanks,
Bako