Stan Willis on Combining Keys: 2 + 2 equals 4

[Jonah]

and still why is it called '2+2=4'?

And listen, when you extend a major 7 chord, it is always a #11. the natural 11 is a sus4

Sus4 should be resolved to the 3rd in dom7 chord... but natural 11th in maj7 not necessarily...

[mr. beaumont]

Well, post April of 1965 or so, sus chords certainly don't have to resolve.

[Nate Miller]

and listen, quibbling about #11 or 11 in an extended major chord isn't the subject at hand. It does give us a subject that is a lot less daunting than playing harmony derived from superimposing one key on another, but jazz men don't aim low, do they? No, we actually want to grapple with the limits of functional harmony

this subject may well be over the heads of some folks. I know that there are a lot of people here that are just getting started, and this is definitely not an easy or simple subject. In fact, even among veteran jazz musicians, this topic gets into some unfamiliar areas.

That's actually a good thing. Challenging yourself and everything you believe in is what you, as an artist, should be doing

[Jonah]

Well, post April of 1965 or so, sus chords certainly don't have to resolve.

Mr. Beaumont
in this context I took it as real suspended 4th, that's what Nate posted

''And listen, when you extend a major 7 chord, it is always a #11. the natural 11 is a sus4. So just like I always speak in concert pitch, when I say a maj13 I assume you understand that means a #11''

So to my mind since here 'natural 11' is kind of opposed to 'sus4'.. I supposed it was about common diatonic suspension

Sus chord you speak about have different nature I believe and in this case the name is bit misleading.. they are not actually suspended... they use the same notes they are not treated as suspension...

From point of view of harmonic analysis I'd probably speak about natural 11ths in these April '65 dom chords... at least it's the way to explain it...

[Nate Miller]

and just for the record, the way I learned is that major 7 chords you alter the 11 if you play it. The natural 11 over the major 3rd "clashed" and you showed you were hip by not playing it and playing the #11

basically, I never played a natural 11 over a major 7 chord or I got yelled at

so if that is different from what you were taught, its probably just a generational thing

[christianm77]

and just for the record, the way I learned is that major 7 chords you alter the 11 if you play it. The natural 11 over the major 3rd "clashed" and you showed you were hip by not playing it and playing the #11

basically, I never played a natural 11 over a major 7 chord or I got yelled at

so if that is different from what you were taught, its probably just a generational thing

Well that's because an 11 over a major chord sounds perfectly hideous. It should be its own punishment...

I thought everyone knew about the natural 11 on a major chord being an 'avoid note'?

Obviously (this gets cats confused sometimes) the 4 is very common if it resolves stepwise to 3, for example in an enclosure line etc. But you can't use that note as an extension of a maj7 chord any more than you would the #2...

In my own playing I tend to use the #11 only for special effect (and sometimes #5), I generally extend up to the 9 and down to the 6 on major and minor chords and use all the extensions on dominants and altered dominants.

I have absolutely no problem about using a natural 11 on a dominant seventh chord, for example.

I feel when you start to bring the #4 in, you are starting to get into the post bop thing a bit... Meaning I would instinctively do it on gigs with more modern players...

How do you feel on that Nate?

[Nate Miller]

I think I agree with that about 100%

#4 does have a more modern sound to my ear, and I usually avoid it like you said. And I even avoid it in the exact same manner you stated...on major7 I fool with the 9 and the 6. nobody moves, nobody gets hurt sort of thing

and like you said, I thought everybody knew that so I didn't think it was necessary to be very exact in my language because, well, everybody knows that, right?

[bako]

Harmonies and melodies are fluid.
I don't find myself playing against a massive sustained organ sound playing C E G (1 3 5)
and even in this scenario I wouldn't hesitate to play an F enroute to E or G ect.

In a looser rhythm section scenario, F can indicate Csus (not a particularly ugly or unusual sound)
It can also be referenced as part of a passing/approach chord G7 C within a C major moment.

Chords:

C F B E not a bad sound.

C B E F also ok

C E B F the b9 is pretty crunchy but not a big deal in motion. C E B F > C E A E > C E G D etc.

The idea of an avoid note is an oversimplification.
Better to do some investigating and come to our conclusion than follow a rule, in my opinion.

[pingu]

whats a good song to learn to get
the tonic maj #11 into my ear ?

[docbop]

whats a good song to learn to get
the tonic maj #11 into my ear ?

The Simpsons theme and many TV use Lydian for the #4/#11 to create interest.

[Jonah]

I thought everyone knew about the natural 11 on a major chord being an 'avoid note'?

i agree with your ideas about style applications of these sounds...

but you see Christian... in this thread I just tried to approach it from point of view of harmonic thoery as explanatory tool... maybe like musicologist a bit...

I know about regular practice but musicians' practical tools do not necessarily reflect harmmonic processes from audial point...

so I think that using natural 11th in maj chord surely depends on context - but so far I can imagine only modal context... also quartal harmony - but to me quartal harmony is also kind of modal stuff basically just arranged in 4ths...

the same thing about Maiden voyage sus dom chordes mentioned by Mr. B...

they're not real sus... suspeded is just a borrowed term from their application in diatonic concept...

[Jonah]

The idea of an avoid note is an oversimplification.

I think 'avoid note' is just reflection of some general concept...

there are kind of 'avoid notes' in any musical concept - but form me it's always better to understand why they are to be avoided...

When I was kid learning classical - I always mocked avoiding parallel 8ve and 5s... but later I got into this language so much that I immidiately heard these voicing and felt why it was wrong to use them...

It is not even wrong - it's just false and neglegent...

and even more you could appreciate when Mozart or Bach sometimes used it in a disgiused way ... sometimes even with special meaning...

so to me the best way is to feel the .musical language'of the stylke you're in.... but soimetimes you really have to start just with a rule - like 'avoid note' to fix it into your ear...

[docbop]

I think 'avoid note' is just reflection of some general concept...

there are kind of 'avoid notes' in any musical concept - but form me it's always better to understand why they are to be avoided...

When I was kid learning classical - I always mocked avoiding parallel 8ve and 5s... but later I got into this language so much that I immidiately heard these voicing and felt why it was wrong to use them...

It is not even wrong - it's just false and neglegent...

and even more you could appreciate when Mozart or Bach sometimes used it in a disgiused way ... sometimes even with special meaning...

so to me the best way is to feel the .musical language'of the stylke you're in.... but soimetimes you really have to start just with a rule - like 'avoid note' to fix it into your ear...

Avoid Note is just easier than saying Special Handling Note.

[Jonah]

Avoid Note is just easier than saying Special Handling Note.

In the context of my post I do not see any difference between these to names... )))

I tried to say that if you avoid you after all have to know 'why' - and better picture you get in time... when you hear all the innternal realtions of style and language...
same thing about 'special handling'

[bako]

The 11/4 can be a disruptive to the major 3rd, the most defining note in a major chord.
In my opinion, "to be investigated note" is a better idea than "avoid note"
(although even more difficult than "special handling note")

Picture the arrangement scenario of walking bass with short chord stabs.
There is infinite room for passing notes, resolving suspensions, passing I V7 I sequences implied or stated.

Bach Minuet in G Major

D GABC | D G G

The 1st time I learned clearly the sound of resolving suspensions were from James Taylor songs and they
are all over the rock opera "Tommy" by the Who.

Yes, suspensions can be these days a chord unto itself but historically they were a passing harmony back
to the major chord.

Bebop cliche in C

F D D# E

Can be viewed as implying a passing G7 G7+ C, a resolving suspension or as chromatic approach notes
from above and below.

6, 9, 7 and #11 on a major chord were at one time sounds that needed to resolve. Now they can go either way.
Unresolved, they are thought of as colorations or extensions of the major chord, essentially as chord tones.

Anyway, enough of this, I'm interested to hear more about Nate's intended meaning of 2 + 2 = 4.

[Jonah]

I'm interested to hear more about Nate's intended meaning of 2 + 2 = 4

+1

[Vladan]

I think he explained well what he meant and It was not him who gave it that name.

[Jonah]

I think he explained well what he meant

Could point out where? Either I misses or did not get it... just curious

Thank you...

[Vladan]

In his OP and couple of times after it. C'mon.

2 +2 is for one chord played over another, to give 4 which is more complex harmony.

Gumbo nicely pointed that 2+2=5 would be better metaphor. It could be literally 3+7=13 (#11), or whatever, but he did explain.
Also he said several times "2+2=4" is what the person he picked the principle up from named it.

I am curious how many of you have encountered this idea before and where you came across it.

I learned this from Stan Willis, who was a piano player who played with Art Farmer in San Francisco in the 1950s. Stan never got famous, and he's not anywhere to be found on the interwebs, but that doesn't diminish any of the lessons I learned from him.

So what's all this got to do with "2+2=4?"

Stan used to always say, "2+2=4"

what he means is that when you play in 2 keys at the same time, the result is more than either of the parts individually.

[christianm77]

The 11/4 can be a disruptive to the major 3rd, the most defining note in a major chord.
In my opinion, "to be investigated note" is a better idea than "avoid note"
(although even more difficult than "special handling note")

Picture the arrangement scenario of walking bass with short chord stabs.
There is infinite room for passing notes, resolving suspensions, passing I V7 I sequences implied or stated.

Bach Minuet in G Major

D GABC | D G G

The 1st time I learned clearly the sound of resolving suspensions were from James Taylor songs and they
are all over the rock opera "Tommy" by the Who.

Yes, suspensions can be these days a chord unto itself but historically they were a passing harmony back
to the major chord.

Bebop cliche in C

F D D# E

Can be viewed as implying a passing G7 G7+ C, a resolving suspension or as chromatic approach notes
from above and below.

6, 9, 7 and #11 on a major chord were at one time sounds that needed to resolve. Now they can go either way.
Unresolved, they are thought of as colorations or extensions of the major chord, essentially as chord tones.

Anyway, enough of this, I'm interested to hear more about Nate's intended meaning of 2 + 2 = 4.

I believe I covered the fact that you are perfectly free to use the 4th as a neighbour/passing tone in my last post.

As far as the natural development of harmony etc goes.. well, the reason why the F doesn't gel with the other notes of the C major is deeply built into the mathematics of pitch and the way we tune our instruments.

The explanation is pretty long and mathsy, so I won't go into it here... Suffice to say I think the 4-3 melodic cadence is the most important in tonal harmony - listen to Mozart to hear what I mean. Nowadays, everything else in the major mode may be up for grabs now (in part because of the adoption of equal temperament, possibly) but the 4-3 thing remains. It is a functionally important note... That's what's going on when you play yer wiggly Golden D suspension like a baby boomer ;-)

To my ears if you add an F to a C major chord, what happens (if you voice it right) is that the harmony moves to the subdominant. So

C E G + F

Sounds like an inversion of Fadd9, not a Cadd11 chord. YMMV. I do know composers who write this chord, perhaps trying to make the same point as you.

------Compound interval nomenclature and the difference between passing tones and extensions-------

I feel one of the shortcomings of modern chord scale theory is that compresses stuff that should be two octave into one octave - it's a simplification of something else. Much of the time this works as an approximation, but there aer some things missing in this understanding. What do I mean by that?

I feel something that demonstrates this rather nicely comes from Warne Marsh. He would play a 2 (and a bit) octave extended C major harmony like this:

C E G B D F# A C#

This is a case of 2+2+2+2=8 perhaps - we are adding C, G, D and A triads on top, or perhaps Cmaj7 and Dmaj7 - there are many ways you can look at... It's a structure of major 3rd, minor 3rd all the way up. (We could extend it into 3rd octave: C E G B D F# A C# E G# F# etc)

This works because the F# and C# blend into the other notes because of their positioning in the octave. If you transposed the C# down by an octave it would sound dissonant. Same with the F#.

Warne would would then turn this third stack into a scale by running passing tones from the normal C major scale. So the scale is NOT the same in the second octaves:

C D E F G A B C D E F# G A B C#

Notice how the chord tones are on the beat - exactly like a bop scale, but in two octaves instead of one.

This book goes into Warne's teaching in some detail. Highly recommended.

Anyway, when I talk theory I like to make a distinction between non chord tones used in passing (which I refer to as 2, 4, 6, 7 and second octave extensions which are referred to as compound intervals - 9, 11, 13, 15) Obviously it gets a bit confusing with 6ths and 7ths but there you go.

It's another simplification, but IMO it is a bit closer to the truth than always calling for example D in a C major scale a '9th' regardless of octave. Sometimes a D is a 9, sometimes it's a 2.

It's interesting watching Lage Lund's video because he basically ignores this for the purposes of the video, but he still points out that using a first inversion of the Cmaj9 - D B C E - Doesn't sound like a Cmaj9 if it's in too low a register. This is why.

Anyway apologies for the rather long post. This is as brief as I could make it. I hope it's of interest to some wierdos out there :-)

[mr. beaumont]

It is to me. It's nice to see an actual explanation versus the usual regurgitated internet wisdom that the F is somehow "dissonant" against the C, because my ears have never heard it that way, and never will.

[Jonah]

In his OP and couple of times after it. C'mon.

2 +2 is for one chord played over another, to give 4 which is more complex harmony.

Gumbo nicely pointed that 2+2=5 would be better metaphor. It could be literally 3+7=13 (#11), or whatever, but he did explain.
Also he said several times "2+2=4" is what the person he picked the principle up from named it.


Originally Posted by Nate Miller
I am curious how many of you have encountered this idea before and where you came across it.

I learned this from Stan Willis, who was a piano player who played with Art Farmer in San Francisco in the 1950s. Stan never got famous, and he's not anywhere to be found on the interwebs, but that doesn't diminish any of the lessons I learned from him.

So what's all this got to do with "2+2=4?"

Stan used to always say, "2+2=4"

what he means is that when you play in 2 keys at the same time, the result is more than either of the parts individually.

Sorry for being dumb but I do not get it... What is "2" here ?

[christianm77]

Sorry for being dumb but I do not get it... What is "2" here ?

I think you may be taking this a little literally.

[Vladan]

@Jonah

You quoted me, so I'll answer your post, but I won't answer your question. I'm enough satisfied with OP's description/ explanation. You are not?
O.K. If OP feels like explaining again (further?), that's up to him. I can not addd more to what he already wrote.

BTW, I totally agree with you on distinction btw harmonic analysis and ways of practical implementation.
From the point of listener, "2+2=4" as described by OP is harmony decomposed into simpler chunks for easier (explanation of) practical implementation.

On the other hand, from the point of player, I can see how once long time ago it may have happen, proably by pure mistake, two players to play one same tune from 2 different keys, click, and realise they are onto something, then repeat it enough so listeners have something to analyse, today.

Again, and maybe OT, I have aversion to "play one thing over something else, it'll sound good".
I always play one thing, with different additions, extensions ...
For example ... Play Bb over Cmin?! No way I could do that. If I think about Cmin I'll play Cmin, being aware that I'm in global key of Bb, if I am in that key,
or otherwise, I'll just play Bb over everything that fits into key, without thinking about Cmin and individual chords. If I made it clear enough.

[Reg]

Hey Nate... I still like the voicing or two keys at once concept. It does have different results. different organization of the notes and how they react to each other. When I was very young... a was taught how to go through adding flats or a series thought of in 4ths for developing non diatonic notes while soloing... Key of C to F to Bb to Eb... which would add blue notes. Or later during the modal 60's it was another approach for organizing taking your solo ... "outside" gradually. Eventually it all just became Modal Interchange... more of a general category for using different organization of rolls of notes with harmonic reference.