Question about scale notation...

[Vladan]

I have another question.

Since we already have do, re, mi, fa, sol, la and si for our ladder steps, is it really necessary to have all pitches, cdefgab, mentioned?
I understand it's convinient so to avoid confusion when learning and analysing, but is it a must, since we already have another tool for same purpose?

[targuit]

Not sure what you are asking, Vladan.

[Vladan]

In previous posts it was suggested each scale should have all the letters (pitch designators) mentioned, cdefgab, with or without proper accidentals, all because those pitches are actually steps of the ladder, so ladder would not be complete without one of them.

I say, I've heard steps of the ladder are actually named do, re, mi, fa, sol, la and si, regardless of the pitch.

So in a sense, above statements can not both be correct.

If we already have do re mi for ladder steps, is it really a must to use all
different lettered pitch designators, or actually it is correct to write them in any enharmonic combination?

Hope I made my self more clear.

[Phil in London]

I guess it is fair to say that there is theory and there is practice, and in practice lots of stuff which might seem important 'academically' may not have too much value, because anyway making music is a much more complex exercise than the pure notation may indicate.

However, there is a link between the two. When I studied composition and conducting at the Music University in Vienna, a long time ago, one of the things I admired (and never accomplished) was how some especially gifted people can convert a full orchestral score (notated in various clefs and keys due to use of viola, horns, clarinets etc) 'real time' into a continuously flowing piano arrangement. A good friend of mine has specialised in this and is now teaching 'corepetition' at the same university. You can put almost any score in front of him and he will play it "vom Blatt". We are talking routinely about Brahms and Rachmaninoff chamber music etc, stuff that is rather cumbersome to read and even more to play, and more complex things.

The reason why I am mentioning this - if one tries to get anywhere near that level, the key to fluent sight-reading seems to be able to understand what is going on. It would be futile to read a complex score in a linear way (unless one plays one single instrument from the score). Rather, the conductor, corepetitor etc, needs to instantly grasp what is going on harmonically (as long as there are any functional connections, of course), in a forward looking and holistic way, across multiple voices, and then translate this into a piano arrangement in a milisecond.

Even though my sightreading is far from that level, I feel confident to say from experience that if things are more complex than that Metheny arrangement, e.g. if somebody would use a Cb in a G7 chord in a multi-instrument orchestral arrangement, under fast tempo and with rhythmical variations in the voices, this would potentially create confusion. I agree that there are musics where the harmonic context becomes rather blurred, particularly through the introduction of chromaticisms. Take the late Skriabin as an example, there will be ample space to discuss if it would be more suitable to use Cb or B, depending on the ambiguity of the harmonic concept. However, the Metheny example seems, in my point of view, far away from this. Its a rather simple sequence in Eb maj / C minor, which ends up with G7 (as dom7 chord in C harmonic minor). Since Cm is the tonic to which G7 leads to, Cb in G7 makes little sense.

Again, this is not to be 'right' or anything like that, its just my 5c on the issue.

[Phil in London]

to spice things up a bit - here are 2 more examples. The (wonderful) Charlie Parker songbook is full of "mistakes" from a notational perspective, some rather irrelevant, and some more interesting.

This first example I would consider as rather irrelevant. the minor chord moves chromatically from dm to cm, and it does not matter if one notates C# minor or Db minor (the example does both):


The second example seems a bit more interesting: Functionally, the Gb in Charlie's line will quite likely be the major 3rd in D7, thus F#. Equally, the Bb will likely be A#, thus making the improvised line a D7#5b9 (D-F#-A#-C-Eb) arpeggio, with omitted root. Notated as it is, it reminds rather on a Cmin7b5 chord, which might seem confusing. However, one could also say the way it is notated shows that one could play a Cmin7b5 chord over D7 and achieve a D7#5b9 effect, which could even be used as a pattern from a practical perspective - it all depends.

[Reg]

Or it could be a simple A-7b5 to D7 etc... Hey Phil... your analogies are cool and fun. When a orchestral composition is performed... what's notated on the paper is usually played... so the compositional understanding... may help, and I ...as you seem to believe... that the understanding of what's going on compositionally will translate into a better performance.

Hmmm maybe.

Most of the symphony/opera musicians... I know and even play golf with ... anyway most don't have a clue of what Jazz harmony is about...(don't really care), and generally just read the music on the pages... even though they've performed most of the music many times, to the point that they almost have their parts memorized. It's a job, not a meaning of life.

I know and have known many pianist who can sight read a non transposed score... most of them were just great sight readers. I wish I had the skills... I can transpose changes and horn lines fairly well. But reading a complete orchestral score and being able to make the choices of what parts to play... while transposing, and not knowing the music...yes quite a talent.

But while we're talking about music....as compared to playing. I've been commissioned to compose a numbers of works, from quartets to small orchestras and have conducted the performances... have scored a number of films and conducted the studio performances. Still arrange and compose Big band scores etc... reading scores is not complicated... if that's what you do.

Sorry my point... most of the time performers want the line(s) or parts to read easily. ( so do I). They generally don't really care if I'm using a multi tonic compositional concept... with modal interchange to the effect of multiple possible analysis functioning simultaneously, I'm not sure I care. But that is one of the difficulties of performing jazz.... the second time through a tune may be completely different with respect to theory or harmonic reference and understanding. The music notated on the page is not all of what's going on.

We all have our opinions of what's right or wrong notationally... I've said what my organization is for notational practice, which is with respect to jazz composition. The parts are notated for ease of reading and I use the changes to imply harmonic concepts and references. Very simple and functional. Most want simplified changes... too much too think about.

So what is your common practice for notational. I understand there is a very large difference between jazz composition and Traditional or classical notation as well as performance. But do you have a standard.

Man I can really ramble on sometimes, Sorry. As I said before... I'm simply trying suggest we use a common practice for notational practice and leave our opinions for different discussions.

Your examples above were perfect, thanks.

[Phil in London]

Reg, I agree with you - when transforming a score into something playable per instrument, all that counts is to make it simple to grasp and enable the musicians to play. Such, what we discuss here has more educational or academic value. I know that my old composition prof would have hunted me out of the classroom, should I have come up with a Cb in G7. But that would have been more an expression of conservatism, rather than anything else.

Personally I do enjoy a pinch of stubbornness in notation, such as this wonderful move towards d#minor in good old JSBach's WTC1 fuge G# minor, where 'the master' insists to notate D# melodic minor, rather than the simpler Eb melodic minor (Eb melodic minor would enable to write C, D and F, rather than B#, Cx and E#):



Here, the 'correct' functional notation (hey, we are in G# minor, so the modulation has to go to D# minor, how can one even consider Eb minor?! ) causes actually a bit of confusion at first. Once decrypted, its clear and easy, and it may be educational for the student (which will likely have been JSBs intention), but of course from a performers perspective its rather cumbersome to read. So this example supports more the point you were making - there are clearly no absolutes.

One last point regarding performance: A good violin player may confirm that it makes a difference to play either B or Cb, from an intonation perspective. This may be something that needs to be considered also from a practical point of view when writing down music. I am not a specialist in this, but I assume if you give the Metheny example to a really good orchestra (the intonation of which is to the point), the Cb may sound out of tune in a G7 context (until the musicians understand what is going on and correct the notation in their minds).

For the OP - can you see what may be debatable in the following Charlie Parker transcriptions?



Best regards!

[JonR]

For the OP - can you see what may be debatable in the following Charlie Parker transcriptions?



Best regards!

I'm not the OP, but I can see no sensible justification for the Ab and A# there. (There are similar howlers elsewhere in the Omnibook.)
Maybe it's something to do with how horn players think? (Does the chord before the E7 give some kind of hint?)

(The Bach one is logical because he's moving from G# minor, and to lurch into Eb minor would require a whole load more accidentals.)

[Phil in London]

hi, yes, Ab should be G# (3 to E), and A# is Bb (7 to C) - but of course its not surprising that you spot this in a sec. I thought of horn players too, but I guess especially the A# is actually quite 'non-hornish' (if there is such a thing...

Re JSB - true, it would require some naturals. However, when I play this, I always think about a Bb7 chord and its resolution to Eb minor when grabbing the keys, its just cumbersome to think in a scale with 8 sharps)

[Jonah]

One last point regarding performance: A good violin player may confirm that it makes a difference to play either B or Cb, from an intonation perspective. This may be something that needs to be considered also from a practical point of view when writing down music. I am not a specialist in this, but I assume if you give the Metheny example to a really good orchestra (the intonation of which is to the point), the Cb may sound out of tune in a G7 context (until the musicians understand what is going on and correct the notation in their minds).

I agree, and I think it works also on piano - with a good player. It looks strange, because practically pianist cannot regulate tuning while playing, but there are other very sublte qualities of articulation which can correspond the effect of being out 'of tune' here.

[Jonah]

For the OP - can you see what may be debatable in the following Charlie Parker transcriptions?

My opinion is that lines here are practically modal, there are like two layers: 1) chord chages 2) line. Separately they may have absolutely different logic.

In Bach, and even in Mahler) - it is never like this, the melodic line is always representation of harmonic solution, no layers in this concern, only various 'encarnation' of the same musical essence/logic.
And when late Prokofiev or Scriabin notated in C, they just did it becasue it made no sence to distinguish key and fix key changes all the time... and it is not only convience for performer, but it was a kind of musical declaration of shifting tonality (though still tonality)... they were like saying "look I do not put the key here, it is a signal that you also please cosider this key uncertainty".
As well as for Bach it was essential to show all these keys, because he practically proved the abilities of equal temperation.

But in case of this Parker transcription free notation is possible because it is actually chord changes that belong to the key, but melodic line here not, (there are different musical ideas that work together and make unique effect).


the other point - BAch, Mahler, Prokofiev whoever else - they all belong to musical tradition where Augenmusik (Eys music) is a part of musical culture, and a certain way of expression also.
After all good player plays it by ear and even if it is not notated and he still hears the key, he will correct intonation to the key temperation instinctively.

In jazz Eyemusic never originally existed, and only became supplementary later.
So practically in jazz notation could be just a tip.. apptoximately like tab...
It seems there are lots of such things im practical jazz - they just took what they had at hand and used the most convinient way...

[Phil in London]

hi Jonah, understood, thats a way to see it. However, at least the second Parker example is quite clearly 'functional', in the sense that there is an arpeggiated C7 chord (E G Bb E), with D# and F# being guide tones to this chord. The A# is not 'modal', its simply misleading from what is going on.

I guess this is also the point of this thread (for me, at least) - sometimes a consistent application of functional notation can clarify for people who are learning what Parker actually did here. To use 'free notation' might in some cases inhibit to understand the pattern and thus be able to use it for one's own purposes. Not more, but also not less.

Good point regarding "Augenmusik" (never heard the term before, but understand what you mean). Yes, thats a difference in tradition, and explains why in jazz it matters so much less.

[bako]

The Ab-Db it's possible to conceive of as derived from an approach Bbm7 or Bb7#9.
I'm not asserting that this is what the notator did in this case but there are many instances where the chord symbol is insufficient for the total analysis of the melodic content of a measure.

[Phil in London]

The Ab-Db it's possible to conceive of as derived from an approach Bbm7 or Bb7#9.
I'm not asserting that this is what the notator did in this case but there are many instances where the chord symbol is insufficient for the total analysis of the melodic content of a measure.

agree, the first example is more ambiguous, given the Ab Db relationship, which may form its micro tonal center, rather than just being 3 and 6 to E.

[Jonah]

hi Jonah, understood, thats a way to see it. However, at least the second Parker example is quite clearly 'functional', in the sense that there is an arpeggiated C7 chord (E G Bb E), with D# and F# being guide tones to this chord. The A# is not 'modal', its simply misleading from what is going on.

Hi,

you are absolutely right.
If I notated this I would out Bb just mecanically... and you are absolutely right it can help undertanding it this way.
But I am not sure that Parker 'did it', for me he exactly did the opposite thing, this layer idea I think comes from the earliest practice of jazz, in classics they improvized harmony itself, in jazz they improvized over haromony (essential it is already 'modality over tonality'))))And I think Parker had this confusion in his feel of playing... I mean I am not sure that correct notation here would show correct idea, though it is just a suggestion...

The other point - those who notate this solo maybe also just unconciously involve some 'eye meaning' - here probably they wanted to show line ascending step by step... and if we take it out of chord pattern - why not? A# can be followed by B... they probably hear this level distinction and hear this line like this.

Whao know what would be better for student? To show it as C7 arpeggio shows probably costructional method, but musical, for the style - I am not so sure....

[JonR]

hi, yes, Ab should be G# (3 to E), and A# is Bb (7 to C) - but of course its not surprising that you spot this in a sec. I thought of horn players too, but I guess especially the A# is actually quite 'non-hornish' (if there is such a thing...

Re JSB - true, it would require some naturals. However, when I play this, I always think about a Bb7 chord and its resolution to Eb minor when grabbing the keys, its just cumbersome to think in a scale with 8 sharps)

Sure. It's a conflict between writing/reading/theory (saving ink on accidentals, modulating in a sharp direction), and thinking/playing.
I agree the latter is a lot easier in Eb minor. I'd be doing a similar mental flip reading that Bach.

[JonR]

The Ab-Db it's possible to conceive of as derived from an approach Bbm7 or Bb7#9.
I'm not asserting that this is what the notator did in this case but there are many instances where the chord symbol is insufficient for the total analysis of the melodic content of a measure.

Right - so maybe the chord symbol is wrong .
I suspect there was an E bass, but equally Bb7 would be a common tritone sub in this case (explaining the Ab at least).
However, A-F# also form a common enclosure of a G# chord tone, which is how I suspect Parker was thinking.
The Db/C# is a little more interesting: C# as the more sensible E7 chord extension, but obviously resolving down a half-step to C, which supports calling it Db.

[Jonah]

The Ab-Db it's possible to conceive of as derived from an approach Bbm7 or Bb7#9.
I'm not asserting that this is what the notator did in this case but there are many instances where the chord symbol is insufficient for the total analysis of the melodic content of a measure.

I think it exactly corresponds to what I mean... it shows the idea that actually it does not matter how this line can be notated harmony-wise, it is not the point in this music.

[Phil in London]

Without any attitude of being an authority in this field - in my impression Charlie Parker's improvisations are (still) mostly quite conventional in terms of harmonic function. Yes, there is the occasional 'outside' pattern, but when one looks at the underlying chords of the tune, Charlie plays mainly 'inside' and most of his lines are explainable by reference to guide tones, some extensions, some chromatic transitions, some triad overlays.

Dont get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that. Needless to say that CPs phrasing, his vitality, tone, dynamics, and having invented a language of his own on which generations of other built, are phenomenal achievements. However, I would be careful to make a modal mystery out of a C-Dom7 chord, which is enriched by a few guidetones that lead into it.

The E7 Amin example is actually quite good to show the limitations of this (my) statement. Yes, the Ab may be G# to E, but its also the swing up to Db, which is (as JonR rightly says) the guide tone to c (in A min). Charlie was a master of winding himself through almost virtual changes he added in his head. Cool stuff...

[JonR]

It's just occurred to me that both the Ab and Db make sense in terms of resolving to the C-G in the next bar.
And of course it also means courtesy accidentals (naturals) are not needed on the C-G.
That seems to be the logic behind that choice of enharmonic.
One could even argue for F#-Ab as the enclosure of the G in the next bar.

I still don't like seeing Ab on an E7 chord, though; but then (as mentioned) maybe it's the E7 that's debatable.

[Jonah]

I am not really after insisting here on my point. It is too subtle for me here to state for sure...
And even more in general terms I would put be-bop within the same tradition with earlier jazz styles, but...

Just for fun... let's look at this line with C7 - where is this line going? Bb is 7th, we all know what should happen to 7th in dom7th chord like this in functional tonality... but nothing like this happens.

When do we meet such cases in classical music? I think only in arpeggio texture, that is non-melodic chordal arpeggios - and even in this case it will probably resolved in a proper way in the next chord.
And also we can find it in ornamentation and graces.

With Parker's tune it is definitely not сomping arpegпio... ornament? Well this is more tricky... his lines can be easily considered as endless ornamentation... it is natural probably because what is old jazz shool improvization if not exquisite ornament ... and Parker brings it to absolute, to the highest point of tensio, it becomes only ornament without original tune practically... nowhere to go on (so in a couple of years this tension will break through to relaxed modality...)

But even if I take it as an ornament developed to the point of melodic self-sufficincy (like in some oriental music) - it is definitely should be considered as single note line, it does not reflect harmony, it only uses the notes of conventional harmony chord..

Though as I said it looks very subtle to me just to make statements, but I think to consider both approaches might be good for understanding.

PS


As per E7 - it could be also the notator way of seing intervals practically on the instrument, that he always sees it like this, say Fis-A as a part of D7 shape, Ab-Db - as part of Db shape.. especially considering that these intervals are highly idiomatic...

[Jonah]

I still don't like seeing Ab on an E7 chord, though; but then (as mentioned) maybe it's the E7 that's debatable.

It is strabge for me, but I feel quite comfortable with how it is notated here, probably it is becasue i see these two figures as definitely belonging to different chords...

Maybe E7 here is used enharmoncally - not the notes of the line... Parker meant in his mine another harmony but rythm section still followed the traditional chart they all used a ground - not to stand but a ground to push off and fly...

But it shows also the idea of this music...

[Phil in London]

Just for fun... let's look at this line with C7 - where is this line going? Bb is 7th, we all know what should happen to 7th in dom7th chord like this in functional tonality... but nothing like this happens.

I guess the whole figure is a C7 chord (with ornaments), thats why the Bb does not resolve right away. The E's and C's that follow are equally part of the same C7, and the D is just a 9 that is added (together with some chromatic connections). This is how it goes on:



So the Bb eventually resolves 'how it should' into the 3rd of F.

When do we meet such cases in classical music? I think only in arpeggio texture, that is non-melodic chordal arpeggios - and even in this case it will probably resolved in a proper way in the next chord.
And also we can find it in ornamentation and graces.

From my perspective, there are lots of similar things happening in 'classical music' (sorry for the ', but I tend to dislike that term). Consider for example Chopin's etude op 25 Nr 2:



The chords are 'defined' in the left hand and the right hand winds itself through the harmonic context, with lots of chromatic transitions, guide tones, ornamented arpegios etc. Of course its not exactly the same what CP does, but there are parallels (at least so it seems to me).

Anyway, as you say, no need to be right or wrong - interesting to see where you are coming from, thank you

[Jonah]

Thank you,

yes finally Bb resolves in A - it looks much more clear like this, it forms also a kind of hidden poliphony here, actually quite close to the way it was used by Bach...

Chopin's example is really good to compare because I think Chopin is exceptional in this case, in general the instrumental piano texture is very important with his music and often much more important than key relationaships... he did not actually use much forms that are built on tonal relationships, and the key changes are mostly not the most interesting part of his music. He prefers smaller forms with more or less static keys, between sections he often uses change to key of the same name - very directly and usually not impressive (if we compare to highly meaningful changes to the same name key in Schubert's pieces for example!)...
even in sonata form he might use the same key for the second subject - it just did not matter much for him...

And here it is a kind of pianistic trick - combination of traditional chordal arpeggio and ornament but with involvement of piano texture much. I cannot see how I would orchestarate it - at least now - it is too instrumental... on the other hand if we add chords to the left hand and ask violine to play right hand it will be very close to that 'layer concept' that I mentioned... it is very interesting actually, some things to think over twice)

Sorry for long wrinting... what I mean is that Chopin is a bit closer than many other composers musically to the jazz musical condition - tonally closed forms, instrumentality... and he is quite a rare bird for classical tradition.


By the way in this concern Parker's line looks much more conventional here)))

'classical music' (sorry for the ', but I tend to dislike that term)

Me too, I just put it conventionally here

[Phil in London]

Apologies for the incomplete C7 quote, you are right, its more explanatory with the resolution into F7.

Regarding Chopin etc - there are various composers which went similar paths in this respect as FC (e.g. Schumann, Liszt etc). I dont know how familiar you are with 'classical music', and I dont want to sound like a teacher, but the early Skriabin exhibits some rather astounding parallels to jazz lines or even bebop phrasing...

Take the prelude op 15 no 2 as an example:

Here AS is quite clearly finding his winding path through the changes, and he even uses 'quartal' elements in his lines which became popular in jazz some 70 years later...



I admit of course that its not exactly the same, but there is a familiarity. Take the right hand line in bars 7 and 8 and play it on a saxophone. Then ask somebody where he thinks it comes from. Imo more than 50% chance to get back a jazz name, rather than that of a Russian late 19th century composer.

But - I guess that belongs to a different thread altogether... sorry for leading this thread off track! ...