-
Hi can anyone shed some light on this.
This is From Mark Levines book - The Jazz Theory Book
few questions -
1. what is with the phrygian chord being Esusb9 -why not E-7
and Fmaj#4?? how about Fmaj7
2. avoid notes - he doesnt cover this previously - i can assume these are notes to avoid during soloing but its a little confusing...anyone?
3. Lastly what the heck is with the final reassesment of mixolydian??
any clarification would be appreciated. thx all
-
02-06-2017 10:12 PM
-
Please read the book carefully, Levine explains it.
-
Firstly, an "E phrygian" chord has to have E as its root. The idea is to have a chord that defines the mode. (Fmaj7#11 is a lydian chord.)
Originally Posted by skilpatrick
Secondly, the modal jazz principle is to (largely) avoid tertian chords, ie chords built in 3rds (like Em7). Tertian chords are too reminiscent of functional harmony (major and minor keys). Play an Em7, and it may well sound like a ii in D major, or a vi in G major - or (with a b9) a iii in C major. That's not "phrygian", that's a major key function.
Modal harmony requires ambiguous chords that don't have an obvious function. Their dissonances don't need to resolve. That's why quartal chords tend to be chosen - i.e., sus chords of various kinds. Esusb9 (E-B-A-D-F) is just a usefully mysterious sonority, implying E phrygian mode. (As Levine says elsewhere, it could also fit E phrygian major 6, 2nd mode of D melodic minor.)
Avoid notes are any note that makes a b9 interval with a lower chord tone, which sounds nasty (or confuses the chord function) and therefore can't be used as an extension. (The exception is the b9 on a 7b9 chord.) They don't have to be avoided in solos - they work fine as passing notes. Originally Posted by skilpatrick
Check the index of the book for explanations and illustrations of the idea.
"Final reassessment"?? Where does he mention that? Originally Posted by skilpatrick
Lastly, remember - despite its title - this is not "The" jazz theory book. It's just "A" jazz theory book. There are others, many of which disagree with Levine's approach, think it's misleading, or at least regard it as leaving a lot of stuff out. There's a lot of good stuff in Levine, but make sure you can connect it with actual music, and understand (and play) the sounds. IMO, you can understand most jazz without having to understand Levine's book. And for understanding older jazz (anything before 1959), the book is mostly useless. (There were no modes or chord-scale theory in jazz before then.)Last edited by JonR; 02-09-2017 at 02:37 PM.
-
Hi JonR
""Final reassessment"?? Where does he mention that?" in the image i attached he covers all 7 modes and then sticks a second version of the mixolydian mode at the end - so he covers it twice -
Your words make a lot of sense - much of this first portion is review for me but i have never seen the modes explained that way and unfortunately i am more interested in earlier more traditional jazz than modal stuff - at least for now.
THanks much for your knowledge - makes sense and i will possibly pick up another book that is more traditional and not focus on this one so seriously for right now.
-
Bert Ligon jazz theory resources is a good balance for Levine.
-
you guys are awesome - i think i found a forum ill be spending a lot time at - thanks so much all...btw matt.guitarteacher, i just ordered the first book today!! looking forward to it.
-
First it is related to G7 chord, saying 11th is avoid note. Originally Posted by skilpatrick
Second is related to G7sus, saying 11th is not avoid note.
-
It's like looking for the Theory Of Everything, isn't it? :-)
-
It's good for a different approach as well providing approaches for simple analysis of traditional playing, which isn't really scale based. Originally Posted by skilpatrick
-
Thats good because traditional is exactly where i need to be for right now.
-
Traditional folk music, of course, was modal, long before Miles & Co got there...
-
Yeah, and modal jazz is very much it's own thing. I always giggle when I see music theory people try to make it fit with "modal music" rules. Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Quite so. Not quite the same as Renaissance music :-) Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Sorry, yes, I see what you mean. But I think Vladan has answered you - it's about the chord you associate the scale - sorry, mode - with. On a G7, the C note clashes with the B in the chord - at least if you hold it, and it's in the upper octave: it makes that nasty b9 dissonance. (The "avoid note" concept is really an "avoid interval". Notes by themselves are harmless! Originally Posted by skilpatrick
) On a Gsus (G7sus4), the B sounds OK, even if you add it as a chord extension, provided it's above the C in the chord.
"Unfortunately"? I hope that's not an apology... Originally Posted by skilpatrick
There's a good argument for saying that jazz started to lose its way when bebop came along... Of course, as a musician, I wouldn't quite say that, but I can understand non-musician listeners saying that. As soon as jazz stopped being dance music, and started being music you wore roll-necks for and sat and stroked your bearded chin to, it lost something important. Like modern art (and 20th century art music for that matter) it became self-referential, inward-looking, as if it no longer cared about the general public and was off on an exploratory journey of its own.
It's all very well jazz being a musical "conversation", but who wants to go and listen to a bunch of people having a conversation among themselves, on a topic you can't begin to comprehend? The conversation has to include the audience - and in good jazz it always does.
Whenever I hear well-played New Orleans jazz (or gypsy jazz, or Afro-Cuban), I can't help thinking that's the real thing. It's not about the intellect. It's about the rhythm.
[/rant]Last edited by JonR; 02-11-2017 at 04:08 PM.
-
Actually jazz had a bit of a modal tinge long before Miles got there...
Anyway - why do we use stupid Greek names anyway? It's not like the way we use them has anything in common with Rennaisance music theory. I mean when was the last time you used the Hypophrygian?
-
Because the Greeks gave us Youvetsi and Galactoboureko. Show some respect.
-
and Civilisation and a few other bits and bobs Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Overrated. Originally Posted by pingu
Now, loukamades...
-
Interestingly, I think it was the very advanced use of rhythm in bop which was alienating to the general public. Swing is easier to dance to. People did dance to bop but they had to a) like it and b) be pretty accomplished dancers already. Originally Posted by JonR
Sorry, yes, I see what you mean. But I think Vladan has answered you - it's about the chord you associate the scale - sorry, mode - with. On a G7, the C note clashes with the B in the chord - at least if you hold it, and it's in the upper octave: it makes that nasty b9 dissonance. (The "avoid note" concept is really an "avoid interval". Notes by themselves are harmless!) On a Gsus (G7sus4), the B sounds OK, even if you add it as a chord extension, provided it's above the C in the chord.
"Unfortunately"? I hope that's not an apology...
There's a good argument for saying that jazz started to lose its way when bebop came along...
Barry Harris is quick to point out that he often player dance gigs and first heard Charlie Parker in a dance hall. In any case social forces beyond music were in action - jazz musicians realised they could earn more money playing clubs. So jazz became an art music for a seated audience.
HahaOf course, as a musician, I wouldn't quite say that, but I can understand non-musician listeners saying that. As soon as jazz stopped being dance music, and started being music you wore roll-necks for and sat and stroked your bearded chin to, it lost something important. Like modern art (and 20th century art music for that matter) it became self-referential, inward-looking, as if it no longer cared about the general public and was off on an exploratory journey of its own.
It's all very well jazz being a musical "conversation", but who wants to go and listen to a bunch of people having a conversation among themselves, on a topic you can't begin to comprehend? The conversation has to include the audience - and in good jazz it always does.
I like interaction as a musician, but I think if that's the only thing it can get a bit much. Also it's knowing when to interact and when to play against something.
For example if I play a big cross rhythmic phrase - I really like dotted quarters - then I want the rhythmic tension that creates against the 4/4. Some more 'interactive' players will play inside that and modulate with me. Creates a different effect - not a bad thing of course, but it's not a groove concept of rhythm.
Bird played all sorts of crazy rhythmic things against the 4/4 pulse, but they were based around that context. Now players will often go with you.
It can be magical actually, I love Ari Hoenig's use of this. It's extraordinarily sophisticated. It's a different flavour to the polyrhythm over 4/4 thing of jazz 1920-1960s though. The old way of doing things could create a lot of rhythmic excitement.
Yeah, jazz can go beyond this and can be an Art music, but it's got to be close to its dance music roots.Whenever I hear well-played New Orleans jazz (or gypsy jazz, or Afro-Cuban), I can't help thinking that's the real thing. It's not about the intellect. It's about the rhythm.
[/rant]
BTW - I have a good rant about the decline of medium bounce. It's extraordinary the extent to which jazz musicians have forgotten how to feel medium tempo.
-
Another thought or two about interaction.
The history of jazz music can be thought of as a trend towards greater interaction and a less defined groove.
Early jazz and swing - the rhythm section defined a steady beat against which the horns would press and swing.
Bebop - the drums and piano developed greater freedom to interact with the soloist
Modern jazz - the bass started to develop more freedom in counterpoint, metrical modulation started to appear
Contemporary Jazz - anything goes
Secondly, I went to improvisation classes with a classical composer, improviser and performer called Stevie Wishart (albeit one with a very unusual background - she plays medieval Hurdy Gurdy and studied with Cage and Zorn) and she pointed out something very interesting about improvisation.
In improvisation it is very hard to achieve transparency - composers spend a lot of time organising their music so that all the elements can be heard. In improvisation a common tactic is to hear something and copy it. In fact this can make the different elements disappear into each other. Sometimes that's the effect - a blend - like using a bassoon, cello and double bass together in traditional orchestration, but sometimes you want the parts to develop more contrast so that they can clearly be heard.
It strikes me that in straight up jazz this holds for the way we use rhythm (and other elements of course.)
-
Another thing is that when you think about it the conventional modern jazz line ups are those which have inbuilt transparency.
The traditionally problematic line ups in jazz (piano/guitar for instance) are where transparency is harder to achieve.
-
Reporter: "Mr Ghandi, what do you think of Western civilisation?" Originally Posted by pingu
Ghandi: "I think it would be a very good idea."
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions