-
Man I hate my mac, wrote a long reply and lost it because of the stupid hair trigger touchpad.
But maybe for the best... T/D or any other theory is basically useless until you have some vocabulary to play, and then it gives you a license to explore
I prefer T/D to complicated substitution formulae because I prefer a relaxation of the rules to having more of them. Personally.
But there are other ways of couching it. Barry Harris, for instance is a systematisation of this basic idea into scales. Reg has tonal targets, modal interchange etc.
Eventually, theory of any kind can be rejected.
After 25 years, basically how it works for me now is that when playing an unfamiliar chart, I identify tonal centres and make movements in and out of them. I don't express the chords really, just play lines.
It works well enough that can improvise fluently at sight over Kenny Wheeler tunes etc. One thing that helps is the fact that my time and phrasing are much better than when I started, which helps glue my playing together horizontally and places the harmonic aspect in the background over fast changes. I know when to resolve, and can pick my battles so to speak.
It's kind of cheating/winging it, but actually there's nothing dishonest about it... In the practice room you can express every chord. In the real world, you need to play MUSIC.
I think this is how experienced jazz guys seem to work, but the only way to learn it IMO is on the band stand, with the pressure on. Hal Galper points out in Forward Motion how important 'winging it' is to jazz performance.Last edited by christianm77; 05-18-2017 at 08:13 AM.
-
05-18-2017 08:10 AM
-
Come on Christian... do you really think I would make a theoretic thread to find out tha the theory is useless without vocabulary to use it with?
Thanks to Win10 my post survived
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
i don't follow...
-
it just seemed an off-top to me...i don't follow...
-
Soon enough you'll all be strumming "Oh Susanna".
Quote is often attributed to Einstein: "Things should be explained as simple as possible, but not simpler.".
Basically, within a key, all music can be played with not more than I. That's how it started. Then it got spiced by V, then ... all about tension and resolution ...
Aren't those the very first lessons in music theory at elementary school level? They were in my school.
So yes, of course it's all I and V, what else could it be?
Sorry Mr. B, not directed to you personally, but ... more I multiply numbers more I think it's just adding in disguise.
-
Right. But it's not the same I and V the whole time...and that doesn't mean you have to play I and V. It's not an oversimplification, really.
-
Soon enough you'll all be strumming "Oh Susanna".
Quote is often attributed to Einstein: "Things should be explained as simple as possible, but not simpler.".
Basically, within a key, all music can be played with not more than I. That's how it started. Then it got spiced by V, then ... all about tension and resolution ...
Aren't those the very first lessons in music theory at elementary school level? They were in my school.
So yes, of course it's all I and V, what else could it be?
Sorry Mr. B, not directed to you personally, but ... more I multiply numbers more I think it's just adding in disguise.
I am usually blamed in overcomplicating... then I say: what can I do? It's my natural way of thinking...)
To be honest when i initiated the thread I kept in mind something thought - provoking.. not that simple statement that all is just 'V- I'..
And actually I am not looking for simplification... on the contrary to me it makes things more complex..
What I am usually disppaointed with in jazz harmony discussion that people tend to avoid discussing form... and how things work within a form .. as for me it is the most important expressive tool.
But on the contrary there's usually a tendency to split everything...
Also I do not believe in similarity))) I mean I usually try to find contrasting features in different styles, approaches etc. because it seems to me it is the only possibility to value originality and individuality... whereas mostly people seem to try to find similarities... which in my understanding often leads to the point that 'all is all' and everythinng can be everything... and what's it all about then?
I personally do not say that there's I and V... I hear two harmonic areas that are in certain relations within musical continuum... where in classical music I hear three harmonic areas....
To me it's not subdominant absorbed by dominant function... I hear it - as I said before - as polarity...
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
In a TGP thread from years ago there was an epic debate about whether acknowledgement of the SD was important or not. To some guys it most definitely is. Again, for any newbies, take the key of C again: 2 -5 - 1. OK, so lets say you want to play Dominant for the Dm7 as well as the G, infact, lets take the notes b d f a (essentially rootless G9- very common note group for Dom). There's a "c" missing against Dm7 - oh no! we can't have that!!
But you can, it just creates a "suspended" kind of sound which gets absorbed into the G7. Even if you never play the c note against a Dm7, you can still be a legit Jazz player! It's just a question of style, or even "taste"... Of course, for a 2-5-1 in minor, it's a different story - e.g. might work better to play the iim7b5 over the V7b9 instead of the other way around, but you might miss the more compelling voice leading if you don't address the a to g#.
In fact in minor keys you really have to rethink the T/D thing because the b9 Dom is a different class again, closer to a Diminished class. Add to that the fact that the minor i is more often than not a m6 (actually half dim in quality so Dom essentially), then, you have D/D/D or maybe Dom/Dim/Dom. So if you didn't employ b9 against V, you don't really get any tensional flux, just D/D/D. Well you do, sorta, because the first Dom PC resolves to a Dom PC a P4th lower, so you still get resolution to a different PC. But no "Tonic" class (relative maj-min).
Curious, innit??Last edited by princeplanet; 05-18-2017 at 11:35 AM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
One question- *Pentatonics in Improv I use and transpose etc.
But when I said McCoy Tyner I meant his comping and also some Herbie Hancock...
There's always a bunch of cool stuff to improvise with - but creating Interesting- Excellent - chord successions - Writing- has always been VERY trial and error ( maybe always will be - but I do come up with interesting stuff )-
And I want Theory and different things to 'force' me into new Areas.
Very astute Observations on the Rock Cadences- I still like them..
The 'Non Functional' stuff is a fertile resource - even though the Name implies it won't work lol.
If we extend the Non Functional Harmony -it can be called Dysfunctional Harmony..haha
But I love most the Composers/ Players who can go either way Functional/ Nonfunctional/ Quartal
like Hancock/ Tyner/ and maybe even better Stevie Wonder..
* Were you suggesting building Chords from Pentatonics ?
* The Classical Guy who is a Pro Jazz Player has an interesting expanded View - as you do.
That's what I am trying to get to although when actually Writing even the most basic voice leading or chromatic alteration of Any Temporary Tonic can cause it to 'want to move ' and there are Multiple Choices...so the 'chords ' and Harmonic Rhythms can 'write themselves' but I AM ' hearing ' more now.. and there are SO many interesting Voicings on Guitar still that have not been exploited...
But the Non Functional is very interesting- and I am experimenting with good results..but that feels really like fumbling around till something sounds cool...
More Theory gives more productive fumbling though....
-
The Jazz Piano Book might be a good shout, and the Theory Book. Levine is a good guy for this post-modal stuff IMO. Originally Posted by Robertkoa
@RobertKoa - I might add that I was one of those rock guys, and yes I still love a bit of Zep...There's always a bunch of cool stuff to improvise with - but creating Interesting- Excellent - chord successions - Writing- has always been VERY trial and error ( maybe always will be - but I do come up with interesting stuff )-
And I want Theory and different things to 'force' me into new Areas.
Very astute Observations on the Rock Cadences- I still like them..
BTW I enjoyed this analysis of Stairway:
Speaking of non functional harmony.
I think that's what I write lol.
The 'Non Functional' stuff is a fertile resource - even though the Name implies it won't work lol.
If we extend the Non Functional Harmony -it can be called Dysfunctional Harmony..haha
Yeah maybe... A lot of pop/rock harmony is non functional. I mean Stevie isn't in general writing crazy stuff AFIAK, but even the move I-VIm-I-VIm-I in Signed Sealed Delivered is non functional from in the classical sense but it's not exactly Dolphin Dance...
But I love most the Composers/ Players who can go either way Functional/ Nonfunctional/ Quartal
like Hancock/ Tyner/ and maybe even better Stevie Wonder..
Anyway I'm not totally familiar with all Stevie's tunes but there are nice little twists in a lot of them, #IVm7 in Sir Duke for example...
Well quartal chords and pentatonics are closely related, but many of Tyner's lines derive from pentatonics.* Were you suggesting building Chords from Pentatonics ?
I tend to write harmony from basslines or a concept I like, but not everyone goes for this in their own process...* The Classical Guy who is a Pro Jazz Player has an interesting expanded View - as you do.
That's what I am trying to get to although when actually Writing even the most basic voice leading or chromatic alteration of Any Temporary Tonic can cause it to 'want to move ' and there are Multiple Choices...so the 'chords ' and Harmonic Rhythms can 'write themselves' but I AM ' hearing ' more now.. and there are SO many interesting Voicings on Guitar still that have not been exploited...
But the Non Functional is very interesting- and I am experimenting with good results..but that feels really like fumbling around till something sounds cool...
More Theory gives more productive fumbling though....
But there's always the Kenny Werner idea of pulling random chords out of hat and changing any chords you don't like.
I play with a guy who writes some really cool, unusual non functional progressions and says he just chooses the sounds he likes. I wonder if this isn't the case for many composers of this type of music.
-
Charlie Christian used a V9 sound in minor keys incidentally. No flat 9s for him (AFAIK) Originally Posted by princeplanet
In a TGP thread from years ago there was an epic debate about whether acknowledgement of the SD was important or not. To some guys it most definitely is. Again, for any newbies, take the key of C again: 2 -5 - 1. OK, so lets say you want to play Dominant for the Dm7 as well as the G, infact, lets take the notes b d f a (essentially rootless G9- very common note group for Dom). There's a "c" missing against Dm7 - oh no! we can't have that!! But you can, it just creates a "suspended" kind of sound which gets absorbed into the G7. Even if you never play the c note against a Dm7, you can still be a legit Jazz player! It's just a question of style, or even "taste"... Of course, for a 2-5-1 in minor, it's a different story - e.g. might work better to play the iim7b5 over the V7b9 instead of the other way around, but you might miss the more compelling voice leading if you don't address the a to g#.
In fact in minor keys you really have to rethink the T/D thing because the b9 Dom is a different class again, closer to a Diminished class. Add to that the fact that the minor i is more often than not a m6 (actually half dim in quality so Dom essentially), then, you have D/D/D or maybe Dom/Dim/Dom. So if you didn't employ b9 against V, you don't really get any tensional flux, just D/D/D. Well you do, sorta, because the first Dom PC resolves to a Dom PC a P4th lower, so you still get resolution to a different PC. But no "Tonic" class (relative maj-min).
Curious, innit??
I'm not sure if I use the T/D thang the way everyone else does, but this is the sort of thing I normally do.
On a Dm7 G7 C
Fmaj7 or F6 (Dm7) - flat some notes if I want - C
So, some ideas
Fmaj7 - Fm(maj7) - C
Fmaj7 - Fo(maj7) - C
F6 (Dm7) - Fm6 (Dm7b5) - C
F6 (Dm7) - Fo7 - C
Well here's the thing....
All of this sounds sounds great on an Am II-V-I. If you want to be extra fancy add in an F# or a G# over the Am. Come to think of it you can do that on the C too YOU FILTHY MODERNIST.
There's also the Barry Harris thing
Bm7b5 E7(b9) Am
G7 - (G goes to G#) - Am
But - as we know we can also pretend the G# is an Ab and use it on Dm7 G7 Cmaj7.
Job done
-
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
also doesn't mean you're not implying other chords and sounds. It's a how some chords are functioning and you can play whatever sounds you like over it.
-
Could you elaborate? What are you doing in the grey area between V and I, then, and what defines that grey area? Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Play any diatonic 13th arp over any diatonic progression. The context (underlying harmony) makes you sound like you're making the changes. Heck, sometimes just playing one note throughout can make you sound like you're making the changes! I wouldn't suggest you play like this always, but shifting into this "gray" zone can be cool from time to time.....
-
I agree with this. I say let the background do the work!
CM7/Am7 - Dm7/G7
CM7/Am9 - Dm11/G13
CM7/A7b9 - Dm7/Db7b5
CM7/A7b13 - D9/G7b13
CM7/Eo - Dm7/G7#5b9
even the backdoor...
CM7/Dm7 - Fm7/Bb7
etc etc
can be reduced to C - G7 - and it works.
-
Mature jazz changes playing seems to kind of sits on the fence between tone center oriented playing and expressing the chords, at least that's what I hear
Too much of the former and lines lack definition
Too much of the latter and lines lack space and melody
-
I'm not, of course, suggesting that everything be reduced to C and G7 or their equivalent. As Christian says, that would not be developed, mature, or even modern playing. But it can make things a lot easier in tricky progressions especially at speed.
Also for beginners to jazz, although the temptation to play easy lines may impede progress into better things.
-
the simple reductionist thinking opens up tons of possibilities for lines-chords.
V7-IM7
I just think of V7 as the tension that needs to be built up and released.
In addition to the Barry Harris stuff, I also have tried to internalize this:
Let's just say key of F. So, C7.
Lines? In addition to the basic C mixo, and in lieu of trying to memorize all the modes of melodic minor, just Play melodic minor (that's one frickin scale to learn) a half step above C7 (Db melodic minor), a full step below C7 (Bb melodic minor), a P4 above C7 (F melodic minor) and a P5 above C7 (G melodic minor). Mix and match all these melodic minor with C mixo. Use your ear to be the judge.
Chords? In addition to C7:
Just take the 4 melodic minor intervals above and make them all minor 6 chords: I.e.,
Bb m6
Dbm6
Fm6
Gm6
Instead of moving up and down the neck using the same shape/voicing, voice lead from one to the other. Mix and match. See what you come up with.
I mean, that's a few simple concepts that are really really powerful and creates lots of avenues to explore right there.
And that's not even the Barry Harris stuff!
Also: I admit I don't know the theory behind this very well at all. I just use it and try to make it sound good.
-
I've looked into it a bit and boiled it down to m3rd symmetry, but more importantly (and more interestingly) m3rd near symmetry. Originally Posted by NSJ
Using your example of subs for C7, instead of thinking MM and the attendant m6 chords, I prefer to think of an E diminished 7th chord with an extra note. Not to create a chord, but a kind of Pentatonic (5 note) scale.
So Em7b5 plus a lowered note (Eb, Gb, A or C) transposed by m3rds yields : C7b9#9, C7b9b5, C13b9 or C7b9. Adding a raised note (F, Ab, B or D) creates: C7b9(11), C7b9b13, C7b9#7 (don't knock it till you try it!) and C7b9(nat9). This gives you all the altered "food groups" without the headache of calculating all the usual stuff (MM modes etc). If it sounds complicated, it isn't. Play an Edim arp (2 or 3 octaves), now add a note (C) , now play the exact same pattern up a m3rd, then another, then another. Bam!, you just played C7b9#9, C7b9b5, C13b9 and C7b9!. Now add different note instead (D), transpose by m3rd again 3 times, hey presto - C7b9(11), C7b9b13, C7b9#7 and C7b9(nat9)...
All that with just 2 different patterns! Learn all 4 inversions of each and you got enough alt dom ammo to last you a life time, especially if you work up embellished devices around them. Remember that alt doms work in minor keys too (naturally), so the above 8 "alt pentatonics" will also sub for E7b9 going to Am.
And just because you won't find this in Levine, Aebersold, Baker, Bergonzi etc , it doesn't mean it's not worth exploiting!
If you think about it, it's a very guitaristic weapon. Min 3rd symmetry is easier to "see" on guitar than any other instrument, we should take advantage of all the ways we can conceive it. My way is just one way.....
-
Somewhat similar to Princeplanet, I also like to use colour changes on subdominant stuff, but which I mean this relationship:
Cmaj7 --> Cmin7 --> Cm7b5
Can be though of as this
Cmaj7 --> Ebmaj7 --> F#maj7
You can apply this to any IVmajor7th to drive a cadence either modally or just flattening or 'darkening' the subdominant chord.
Furthermore the progression
IIm7 --> IVm6 very common in standards can be thought
IIm7-->IIm7b5
And if we go one further we get
IIm7 --> IVm6 --> bVIm6
IIm7 --> IIm7b5 --> IVm7b5
IVmaj7 --> IVm6 --> IVm7b5
Modally we could use dorian or melodic minor. Let's go with the latter
II melodic minor --> IV mm --> bVI mm
Or
II mm --> II locrian #2 --> V altered
This just leaves the 'odd one' out VII melodic minor but that can also be used.
Now try mapping out tunes using this type of minor 3rd movement and see what you see.
Note for minor keys, the V altered scale is only one minor third step away from the subdominant.... e.g
Bm7b5 E7b9 Am(maj7)
D melodic minor --> F melodic minor --> A min
IVm --> bIVm --> I
While for major it's two.
Dm7 G7 Cmaj
D dorian --> Ab melodic minor (tritone!) --> C
The IV minor sound is equally commonly used if not more so, and yet is passed over by most theory books.
-
Great stuff Christian, and related to both our posts, here's Bobby Stern's take on things:
F#-7b5 = A Melodic Minor = E Penta b6 (E-F#-G#-B-C) - 1 2 4 b5 7
B7alt = C Melodic Minor = G Penta b6 (G-A-B-D-Eb) - 1 b3 3 b13 b7
E- = E Melodic Minor = B Penta b6 (B-C#-D#-F#-G) - 2 b3 5 6 #7
... Lotsa ways to skin a cat eh? ....
Reply With Quote
Why in jazz are the raised 6th and 7th notes...
Today, 03:53 PM in Theory