-
It often feels like words aren't good enough to describe music. Go figure
Wiki had three definitions of "diatonic".
Apparently, no two people agree on exactly what "function harmony" encompasses. Apparently, we can agree on G7 going to Cmaj, but after that, it seems to get more contentious.
Thanks to Bako for the explanation of modal progressions, as referred to in the phrase "modal progressional language into the starting reference music?". I still don't understand the phrase as a whole. It seems like a Berklee education is necessary to fully understand this sort of language.
Somebody brought up Feynman earlier. He was an extraordinarily plain spoken man (this is intended as a high compliment). I think it stemmed partly from his personality and partly because he understood the material so well. He was a percussionist. Too bad. If he'd played a chord instrument we might have the Feynman lectures on music.
'
-
03-08-2019 10:25 PM
-
Thanks to Bako for the explanation of modal progressions, as referred to in the phrase "modal progressional language into the starting reference music?". I still don't understand the phrase as a whole. It seems like a Berklee education is necessary to fully understand this sort of language.
portray whatever is unique to that mode.
starting reference music = the basic song however we conceive it
Again my apologies, sometimes I talk funny. I'm from the Bronx but they bare no blame.
-
Originally Posted by bako
Now, can I trouble the forum for an example? How about a tune and some chords?
Forgive me for seeming dense. I'm from Brooklyn.
-
-
Joe Henderson was a Barry Harris student of course ;-)
Not sure how he came up with that tune though lol
I’m thinking that without a thorough exploration of the 60s music (for me) it’s hard to be specific about the development of modal playing and how it evolved into CST.
Time to hit the Wayne tunes......
-
Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
-
Yes... Joe was classmate of Barry... not student.
So anyway it seems that most don't get music concepts from theory etc... point of view, (reference)... so for the thick side of Brooklyn ....
Take Blue Bossa... Kenny Dorham... but almost feels as though Joe composed.....
So kennys version used basic functional harmony, right. Key of Cmin.(Ebmaj)..// I / IV-7 / II-7b5 V7 /... Then either modulate, call Eb-7 Ab7 a II V of IVmaj,(Abmaj7) or use Relative Diatonic 3rd relative and parallel relationships / then II-7b5 V7 I. All pretty maj/min functional organization.
So using modal CST possibilities... I can also call C-... a Imin7 chord.... but Dorian... not aeolian. Choosing Dorian creates a different collection of Diatonic chords to work with... and when one actually play music in a jazz style.... all the relationships... subs, chord patterns etc... can also change....
For those of you who need more... take the Cmin7 and makeup chord vamps... Chord Patterns that reflect (harmonically Imply) the C-7 as a I chord.... here are two standard vamps...
1) // C-7 C-6 (or F7) / D-7 G7b13#9 // this chord patterns implies Cmin as tonal Target... the I chord as DORIAN (use of CST)
2) // C-7 Abmaj7 / D-7b5 G7b9 // this chord pattern implies Cmin as tonal target... the I chord as AEOLIAN. Maj/Min Functional Harmony... Ionian with embellishments etc...
Just a note... most don't play the chords that vanilla etc... the bVI chord usually becomes dominant.
So take the next step... play a latin Montuno to reflect the two examples.
So each example uses a different choice for harmonically organizing the Tonal target of Cmin.
I get it.... you can also just change the notes etc... but that is very different... and musicians can hear and understand the difference...
The further one expands a REFERENCE... creating extended RELATIONSJHIPS with that TONAL TARGET of Cmin... the more the MUSICAL ORGANIZATION that controls your expanding .... improvisation changes.
The simple example using the above tune.... The basic difference in vamps is the Diatonic VI or bVI root chord... When I actually play those examples... I don't just play The VI or bVI chord... I IMPLY that chord by calling it a TONAL TARGET... and there is a big difference between implying G7 or Gb7...musically which gets back to the use of CST choices for original Cmin as I chord.
So if I continue in the same way... changing the Harmonic organization of My I chord... I could have more different results.
****This is where most of you come in.... You start with pitch collections, SCALES choices that are given for Chords in different Harmonic examples.... Chord progression, chord Patterns... Tunes.
So the scales are the results from using Modal Interchange, (Borrowing)...to create possible Functional labeling of chords.... The Scales are just horizontal versions of complete chords.
So who cares now right... the modal application is just ONE possibility... You can expand the harmonic organization... with use of Blue Notes Melodic Minor, Harmonic Maj.... whatever one chooses and can pull it off.
So with composition and arranging... it's pretty easy, slow stop time, etc... but when performing... you know at the speed of Jazz.... you need to have all the possibilities internalized,(memorization approach) or understand the concepts and apply LIVE etc... Obviously using both approaches works best.
Please don't take comments personal... rp... and Brooklyn etc... We're suppose to enjoy music ... right
-
Originally Posted by Reg
-
Originally Posted by don_oz
-
I would say that what sound a bit like tall tales from Barry tend to check out. He was a guru figure already in Detroit as a young man. It’s not always possible to understand these connections formally in the pedagogical sense, but James Jamerson credited Barry as being his teacher for instance.
-
Originally Posted by Reg
The way I learned this sort of thing, or something close to it, and just dealing with major scale harmony for the moment, is that, per Warren Nunes, Cm is either a I type or a II type. I already posted on what he meant by that.
It's a I type in the key of Eb, which makes it interchangeable with Ebmaj7 Gm7 and Bbmaj7#11.
Because in Warren's system vim is either I or II type, it could also be considered interchangeable with Fm7 and Abmaj7. The issue is mainly, do you want an A or an Ab?
It's a II type in Bb, where it's interchangeable with Ebmaj7 and Gm7.
It is also a I type in Ab, making it interchangeable with Abmaj7, Ebmaj7 and Fm7.
It can also emerge from MM or HM minor harmony and other places. In MM harmony it would be interchangeable with every chord generated, for example, by the C MM scale, per Mark Levine's theory of no avoid note in MM. So, Dsusb9, Ebmaj7#5 etc.
Which gets a little complicated. Not that complicated is bad. If you can get all that in your mind and under your fingers, that's great. We've all heard Reg play. But, Andres Varady sounds great and knows none of this, except if he knows it by sound.
What can simplify it, perhaps, it is the usual thing about minor chords, which is they're all the same except for how they handle the b2, 6s and 7s. So, in Blue Bossa the root is C. Do you want to hear a Db? And, among Ab A Bb and B, which do you want?
It strikes me that Reg's approach is better organized than just thinking about all the individual note choices. Perhaps that might tend to make a solo more cohesive if you had practiced things the way his system seems to imply. OTOH, you'd also have to be careful that it's all internalized by sound or it could be constricting.Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 03-09-2019 at 04:18 PM.
-
Also Barry is 8 years older than Joe, I am not sure how they would be classmates.
By the way Barry mentions giving lessons to Joe in this interview:
Barry Harris: Teacher Man - JazzTimes
-
yea... barry always seem to be his way or the highway. I've met and performed with Joe henderson, know many old working jazz musicians who have old dirt etc... but Henderson' arranging and compostions... tend to be very different from BH... at least after his bebop days.
I obviously don't like the BH approach or his teaching style and concepts... I do respect and appreciate his contributions... it's just a personal choice... I do like Joe Henderson's approach. Joe was also a pianist... .. remember the Joe Henderson and Jonny Griffin gigs... late 80's...
-
This thread deserves this.
Last edited by cosmic gumbo; 03-10-2019 at 08:21 PM.
-
Turn out the lights...ZZZZZZZZZZZ
-
-
I understand that some people like that this thread is dying but just wanted to share this blogpost I came across:
Where Jazz Theory Got It Wrong – Steve Treseler
And this discussion is also pretty interesting:
So I posted this as a comment to another... - Darcy James Argue | Facebook
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Where Jazz Theory Got It Wrong – Steve Treseler
Is he trying to sell his book? He takes great pains to point out how the usual scales are just a 'jumble' but doesn't give the alternative. No respect for that.
In any case, only naive beginners (or only naive non-beginners!) would actually play it like that. He's presenting a deceptive premise, presumably to sell his book. $35 with price reduction!
Even less respect for that.
-
Originally Posted by rintincop
-
The way Barry Harris has you play scales descending from the 7th sounds pretty melodic to me. And he lets 2 scales cover the 4 chords of I VI ii V, then add the extra bebop passing tone when needed, play in good time, do a bit of arpeggios that resolve into the next chord (Burt Lignon) , add some triplet turns (Barry), target some 3rds and 7ths, mess it up (Burt Lignon) , add in some blues notes (Oscar), alternate between highly chromatic phrases and sparse chord tone melodies (per Chick Corea) , etc .... A scale really is just the chord tones with the relative passing tones filled in.
||: C A7 | D-7 G7 :||
How to play scales in a way to sound melodic (per Barry)
Practice descending from the 7th of a C major scale to the tonic for bar 1
and practice descending from the 7th of a G7 scale to its root for bar 2
-
Absolutely, it's not about trying to follow some rigid set of rules.
I mean, at the very beginning of, say, maths we have to learn our numbers. Then maybe the multiplication tables, etc etc. All that's pretty mechanical, like learning to write and spell words. There's nothing wrong with learning the basics in a structured way; it helps it stick.
But after that the magic starts... Creativity and technique are different. Technique without creativity is rather pointless. And one never stops learning, of course.
-
Originally Posted by Patlotch
Can you cite any literature that claims that what you have listed above is the definition of CST?
No, and neither can anyone else, because it isn't.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
I personally do not consider chord-scales a theory. It's a pedagogical conception.
Chord-scale "theory" is a way of describing various choices of non-chord tones that can be used over a chord in various contexts. Of course chord tones will always work. They are being played anyway.
It's not a theory as it doesn't propose specific rules for making these choices. Choices of non-chord tones are stylistic and subjective.
So what's the use for chord-scales? If you have a particular set of choices in mind, you can use chord-scales to describe these choices. That's all. There are of course other ways to talk about the choices of non-chord tones. Chord-scales are just one approach.Last edited by Tal_175; 01-03-2020 at 05:07 PM.
-
The definition about is my own personal interpretation. If there is an non-controversial literature that defines chord-scale theory differently, please post. I'd be happy to read it.
Cheap floating humbuckers
Today, 09:15 PM in For Sale