-
Does anyone get it.... eventually when you comp.... the goal isn't to become a backing tract.
-
06-27-2022 08:06 PM
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
You are technically correct, but I would say this is a level of theoretical detail that's unnecessary for the concept to be helpful, for instance, in soloing or in voicings. In fact if I was teaching it normally, I would simplify even more and simply say Cm = F7 is incredibly useful for playing changes. The important minor as Barry called it and a ii V relationship as I think it's called more commonly. It's actually meant to be a bit vague and simplified.
A separate aspect is that really, of course, the guitar in an ensemble doesn't actually have control of what the chord bass is; the bass does. If I play the second chord of Moonglow as a Cm6, and the bass plays an F, the result will be an overall F9.
This is of course the reason why similar grips often have different names. I think this is one of the hardest things for me and others to get our heads around when learning jazz guitar because in other guitar styles there a 1:1 relationship between chord name and grip. See D, play a D shape. And so on. In jazz we have to get used to the same bunch of notes having a number of different names.
For example in my other post I had x x 1 2 1 3 - this could be Cm6 or Am7b5, or F9 depending on what the bass doing. This doesn't matter that much in terms of the guitar, because the voice leading is the same.
Conversely, when reading a chart, you have to learn that these chords are more or less the same thing, and when you do it gives you more ways to apply the stuff you already know. That's one of the main themes in jazz guitar I would say - it's not about how much you know it's about how many ways you can apply what you know.
Actually this type of ambiguity is just a problem of naming and not really to do with the harmony itself - it's just an artefact of the in built clunkiness chord symbol/Roman numeral system and the need to assign a 'root' to a chord. It doesn't have so much to do with the sound or the voice leading of the chord. In fact the voicing I wrote out could be F9/Eb, Cm6/Eb or Am7b5/Eb. Or even Eb6#11 (no 5th). It does't matter beyond aiding (or complicating) comprehension of the person reading the chart because it's the same notes. The name serves no further purpose.
This is one reason why in the end I think chord symbols are a limited tool on their own and I think it's easily possible to spend too much time looking at chord charts and interpreting them somewhat mechanically. Roman numeral notation /functional analysis has similar issues - which is not to say they are not useful but they are not the be all and end all. So I think it's good to have a skepticism of chord symbol notation - it's what we use, but it's flawed. It's not always best to think 'up from the root.' In the case of the Cm6 chord (or whatever it is) above, the nature of that chord is clearly at least as much about that juicy Eb than whatever root we choose for it.
You would obviously know from your experience reading charts in ensembles that we have to learn to see what are meant by them; what the arranger or composer is implying in terms of counterpoint/voice leading and so on if playing a written chart, or the essence of the chord when improvising (either as a composer or soloist) - so the b6/borrowed parallel minor colour of the Cm6 which might suggest related sounds.
Or the fact that some apparently complex chords in standards are just diatonic chords with a chromatic bass. It took me a while to get used to the logic of traditional big band charts (Basie and so on) where the guitar pad reflects what's going on in the horns, and the typical way arrangers will add arranging details into the chord symbols. At first it's baffling heiroglyphics compared to a Real Book chart, but after a while you realise that it's just the blues or whatever.
This is especially true of things like polychords where the function of the chord is less obvious from the chord symbol; you have to know that C/D is a sus type sound and D/C is a lydian type sound, and so on
You do this by internalising the norms of the idiom, and every player has to come to this realisation through experience - playing and listening. Eventually I think I've started to see harmony for itself independent of the notation, but we'll all continue to write the chord symbols because that's what everyone uses.Last edited by Christian Miller; 06-28-2022 at 05:47 AM.
-
On a Mac, the way to get the "almost equal" sign is to hold down the "option" key and type an x.
I don't know how to type it on a PC; the easiest way to get the "almost equal to" sign is to copy and paste it to someplace on your device that you can then copy and paste into whatever you're typing. For those who want to use that method, you'll have to find it somewhere else; I can't type it into a post – it shows up as a question mark.
Here are instructions for getting to it in MS Word: ? | Almost Equal To Symbol (Meaning, How To Type on Keyboard, & More) - Symbol Hippo
-
Test
?
EDIT - OK so this symbol doesn't appear to be supported by the JGO site.
-
I tried to tell you that, Christian... I guess it got buried in the second paragraph...
I had almost immediately edited the original post in which I had tried to paste the almost equal sign because I saw that it didn't make it through to posting, but I guess you responded to the original before my edit made it through.Last edited by Ukena; 06-28-2022 at 08:47 AM.
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
If I'm playing a big band chart and the chord symbol is Cm7, I'm not going to play an F in that chord when I'm comping, unless there's something to justify it. My view would be that the arranger could have called for that F note, but didn't.
But, if I'm soloing on Cm7-F9, I might very well ignore one of those chords and just play ideas that fit the other one. Or, I might choose to make the Bb to A movement explicit. The F note will work fine.
In comping behind a soloist I might make a point of playing C Bb Eb F (which I might think of as Cm7sus or F7sus/C) to vary the harmony. Probably not in the first chorus.
In learning the instrument, it's helpful to know chords by grips as well as by notes. Grips reduce thinking time - and that can be the difference between playing in time or dragging. For each m6 grip, you also have to know the name of the same grip as a m7b5 and as a rootless 9th. There's an argument, I suppose, for additional names based on other roots but I think I'll let someone else make it.
Chord names are best when they make the flow of the harmony clearest. It might be worth noting that Brazilian composers name some chords differently. You may see, for example, a 4/7 or 7/4 chord. It's a 7sus, but the name also tells you where the 4th goes in relation to the 7.
As I understand it Hermeto Pascoal had his own system of writing out voicings by interval. That is, a root and then the interval between the root and the next higher note, and then the interval to the next, etc. That didn't make the music easy to read, but he got the exact voicings he wanted. As an aside, you might ask, why not just spell out the notes on a staff? My thought is that, if you do that, the pianist will play those notes exactly where they are written -- and not just use them to make groove.
.
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
But, if I'm soloing on Cm7-F9, I might very well ignore one of those chords and just play ideas that fit the other one. Or, I might choose to make the Bb to A movement explicit. The F note will work fine.
In comping behind a soloist I might make a point of playing C Bb Eb F (which I might think of as Cm7sus or F7sus/C) to vary the harmony. Probably not in the first chorus.
In learning the instrument, it's helpful to know chords by grips as well as by notes. Grips reduce thinking time - and that can be the difference between playing in time or dragging. For each m6 grip, you also have to know the name of the same grip as a m7b5 and as a rootless 9th. There's an argument, I suppose, for additional names based on other roots but I think I'll let someone else make it.
In Barry Harris approach we learn to play dominant on m7b5 using that relationship. It took me ages to get the point where I could do it without thinking, simple an idea though it is. That's music, I guess.
Chord names are best when they make the flow of the harmony clearest. It might be worth noting that Brazilian composers name some chords differently. You may see, for example, a 4/7 or 7/4 chord. It's a 7sus, but the name also tells you where the 4th goes in relation to the 7. [/QUOTE]
That's more like classical figured bass notation in fact...
As I understand it Hermeto Pascoal had his own system of writing out voicings by interval. That is, a root and then the interval between the root and the next higher note, and then the interval to the next, etc. That didn't make the music easy to read, but he got the exact voicings he wanted. As an aside, you might ask, why not just spell out the notes on a staff? My thought is that, if you do that, the pianist will play those notes exactly where they are written -- and not just use them to make groove.
Yeah, when people go into reading mode they read exactly what's on the page. It's basically useless to write anything else in there to encourage them to improvise on it. I suppose you could have 'freely' but seeing notation activates a different pavlovian response to a chord chart lol.
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Sometimes you'll see chords spelled out on an extra staff at the end of the tune. But, that's not a great solution either because it forces too much eye movement, unless the players can memorize all of it very quickly.
Last one I did, I used text to write out the exact notes I wanted and placed them below the staff. Since it's non standard, I expected some grousing about it, which did happen.
I've also occasionally asked players to ignore things in the chart. Should be easy, but readers like to read -- and it can stress them to omit things. Sometimes it just doesn't work. You have to make a new chart.
-
Moonglow is one of my favourite old tunes. The last phrase is syncopated so the temptation is for the whole band to play together. I’ve always seen the harmony as a progression with a G pedal. I used to play a syncopated chromatic descending double stop line D/G, Db/G, C/G, B/G. That helps get round the problem if everyone has their own idea of what chords should be played. It’s also a great opportunity for counter point.
-
I use the tilde (~) to indicate almost-equal. I've often seen it used for that purpose.
Originally Posted by Ukena
-
Originally Posted by chasranney
But it still won’t work in a post.
-
Originally Posted by Ukena
That's because the website translates from your text message into an html post (not text). Although your keyboard contains the symbol for text (alt + 247), you would need to code the translated html as html math symbols in order to capture it in the output.
?HTML CODE
≈
-
You need to use
≈ with a semi colon at the end
Will not hold through multiple posts because the code is not carried. Normally if you do math symbols in html it isolates the section for the math so it never translates back to text.
-
Originally Posted by donojazz62220
-
Good job. That's why this music theory stuff is so hard. A lot is "Lost in Translation" as these guys have been pointing out... JD
Jazz Ballads by Jeff Arnold
Today, 05:41 AM in Chord-Melody