Music Theory vs Harmony

[Jonah]

I cannot relate to the article in the link.. to me it is rather a very speculative statement than really an article.

But I consider '‘Harmony is a fairy story told about counterpoint’ quote from Nadia Boulanger provided byt Christian is very good description, only I would substitute 'about' to 'through' counterpoint.
(By the way I wonder what is the original quote - was it in French or in English? Maybe there was misinterpretation? Whatever...)

For me it is mostly traditional functional harmony and whether we (or composer) used counterpoint as a technical vehicle 'the story' in this type of music is built on harmonic events.

Counterpoint is the relation between melodies. Harmony is their vertical union. We cannot but hear both.
Obviously in some music counterpoint relationships can be more transparent and important in some they can be totally consumed by resaltative harmonic movement. It depends on style, period - in a word - on aesthetics in the broad sense.

Playing Bach it is important to hear and show counterpoint (not only in fugues) for the purposes of of keeping up texture, outlining the nuances... but even more important to hear and highlight the harmonic pivots.
If I had to choose between very clearly played counterpoint in his music but ignoring harmonic changes of functions and modulations and performance with obscure voice leading but clear harmonic fundament.
I would definitely vote for the second.
But of course the best case is when both are present.

Besides in my opinion - good counterpoint (at least from early baroque) is not possible without good hearing of harmony.
They are strongly connected.

The process in my opinion is very ambiguous and it is impossible to say what goes first when we have to deal with mature work at the peak of the the development of musical language.
I am sure that real composers do not 'think' in either, they think with meanings/images/dramaturgy. And generally the integrity comes from harmony in that kind of music.

As for theory - in music it is usually post-production. It is descriptive. Traditional theories analaze already composed music restrospecitvely. Besides we should not forget that there were days when making theories was an art per se. And to create 'perfect' theory was more important than its actual realtion to real practice (renaissance treatisies are often good confirmation to that)

Dealing with jazz we are used that the term 'theory' is often applied to practical tips how to improvize. But generally speaking it is not a theory.
A set of chapters like 'how to use triad pairs' or 'supreimposition of triads' is not theory, it is a practical guide.

Barry Harris or Mark Levine - they have a mix of both I think - which is probably good for jazz.

Also - the most geniuine classical teachers I know do not know theory in conventional sense - they just know and understand a lot of music on which those theories are built.
They usually do not use books or ready methods.
Of course they know conventional terminology but they usually do not insist it is important to know all the terms, rather to hear and understand how it works and can be used in music.

I recently recorded very simple calssical piece on lute and sent it to my friend whose opinion I respect very much. He immidiately answered something like 'all good but I would continue second interrupted cadence - it is the same chord as in the first time but the function changed and it belongs already to both old and new key and music should move on there, you kind of hold it and iterrupt it there'
I re-listned and understood immidiately what he meant - and funny thing when I played I felt something was wrong there and did not give it a second thought.
This is what the harmony is to me.

[jazzkritter]

Might be me, but giving cred to a site called ‘tabs4…..’ does seem to fly in the face of either music theory or harmony. Sophomoric sophistry.
Anyway my votes with harmony being a subset of a larger category.
You can make very nice music without it having a harmonic component.

[MrCoconut]

Might be me, but giving cred to a site called ‘tabs4…..’ does seem to fly in the face of either music theory or harmony. Sophomoric sophistry.

Good point. I should have considered the source more carefully.

[MrCoconut]

Copy of Leon Dallin's Techniques of Twentieth-Century Composition: A Guide to the Materials of Modern Music
on it's way.
Also a book on counterpoint. (Seemed like a good idea for some reason.)

[Christian Miller]

I should say through the years of following the forum - you are extremly good at supporting the point of view you are holding to at the current period of time)

Thanks... Does this count as evolution or serial pig-headedness? Probably the latter.

That said, apart from being a little less down on CST and functional harmony, I don't think my position has moved massively. Barry Harris is very much about the counterpoint and so on. 'I play movement not chords' (quoting Coleman Hawkins)

The main shift I've had recently if got less interested in line construction and more interested in solo playing.

[Jonah]

Thanks... Does this count as evolution or serial pig-headedness? Probably the latter

For me it's the sign of true passion, dedication and involvement

[Reg]

Copy of Leon Dallin's Techniques of Twentieth-Century Composition: A Guide to the Materials of Modern Music
on it's way.
Also a book on counterpoint. (Seemed like a good idea for some reason.)

Cool, when it shows up.... I'll gladly help you get through. I'll also add that for many jazz players or just performing in a jazz style... counterpoint is basically useless. I guess it could be used to know what Not To Do.. LOL

I've composed a few orchestral pieces, Fugal fantasies, quartets both traditional and contemporary.... I understand counterpoint. Not much to do with performing in a jazz style... Dallin's book will help you be aware and use traditional melodic practice, Harmonic understandings, rhythmic and meter organization... and standard Use of Forms. He'll also help you be aware of Tonal and Modal organization... and get you to the 20th century.

Still not jazz musical common practice... but will breakdown or at least expand traditional Functional understandings and melodic practice which can help with learning how Jazz works.

None of this will help you be able to play in a Jazz style, but at least you'll be able to talk about it...

[MrCoconut]

Cool, when it shows up.... I'll gladly help you get through. I'll also add that for many jazz players or just performing in a jazz style... counterpoint is basically useless. I guess it could be used to know what Not To Do.. LOL

I've composed a few orchestral pieces, Fugal fantasies, quartets both traditional and contemporary.... I understand counterpoint. Not much to do with performing in a jazz style... Dallin's book will help you be aware and use traditional melodic practice, Harmonic understandings, rhythmic and meter organization... and standard Use of Forms. He'll also help you be aware of Tonal and Modal organization... and get you to the 20th century.

Still not jazz musical common practice... but will breakdown or at least expand traditional Functional understandings and melodic practice which can help with learning how Jazz works.

None of this will help you be able to play in a Jazz style, but at least you'll be able to talk about it...

Thanks Reg!

Looks like delivery could take10 days and I want to get into it a little so I can ask intelligent questions.
But I will definitely be in touch.
I know I have a very a long way to go but I am committed and I would like to compose eventually.
Not necessarily jazz.

Joe

[Litterick]

But I consider '‘Harmony is a fairy story told about counterpoint’ quote from Nadia Boulanger provided byt Christian is very good description, only I would substitute 'about' to 'through' counterpoint.
(By the way I wonder what is the original quote - was it in French or in English? Maybe there was misinterpretation? Whatever...)

Did she say it? The only references I can find attribute the words to 'a Paris Conservatory professor' or describe them as a saying.

[Christian Miller]

Did she say it? The only references I can find attribute the words to 'a Paris Conservatory professor' or describe them as a saying.

maybe not! I have had trouble tracking that down too.

but it does encapsulate the ethos of the Paris Conservatoire very nicely. Boulanger was very much part of that tradition.

Like the partimento tradition before it you could argue that the PC approach to teaching music was necessarily musically conservative in the extreme, and while the Italian tradition could be said to be providing training in the then current style, by the time of Debussy the teaching in Paris was based on codified cliches from the previous centuries rather than providing resources for progressive music making.

Dry and dusty! But then think of who came out of that institution…

Debussy certainly felt the need to rebel against the institution. But not until he had excelled. (He won the prix de Rome for fugue, so was no slouch at what the school was teaching despite some popular stories you hear about him.)

The crazy thing for me is the way the formal exercises and schemata from these old ways of teaching keep popping up in jazz. What Parker does on a VI II V I mirrors what an 18th century composer would write in the B section of a minuet for instance; the same underlying counterpoint. ‘Guide tones’ through a backcycling progression is another way of discussing the old counterpoint scheme on a bass moving in fourths. Barry Harris’s exercises mirror some of those taught in the old Italian schools, and so on.

ultimately stuff that sounds right, the ‘butter notes’ if you will, get used a lot, and repeated from musician to musician over the generations with new things added as the style shifts. Romantic music adds chromaticism and relaxes some of the constraints of dissonance, Jazz introduces a more layered approach to harmony, Bebop adds more chromatic ii V’s and so on.

But looking at the counterpoint there’s fewer effective options for a given functional chord progression than harmonic theory suggests and I find this paradoxically freeing; too much choice can be paralysing. Often the most effective solutions are encoded into the melody. Improvising becomes more a matter of ornamentation than invention from whole cloth. ‘Jazz is a decorative art’ as Peter Bernstein put it. The terms we may associate with counterpoint - baroque and beaux arts also refer to decoration.

Anyway that all sounds a bit fancy, but I think there’s a way you could harness this to actually teach jazz improv. someone’s already done it no doubt. Bert Ligon?

[Jonah]

The crazy thing for me is the way the formal exercises and schemata from these old ways of teaching keep popping up in jazz. What Parker does on a VI II V I mirrors what an 18th century composer would write in the B section of a minuet for instance; the same underlying counterpoint. ‘Guide tones’ through a backcycling progression is another way of discussing the old counterpoint scheme on a bass moving in fourths. Barry Harris’s exercises mirror some of those taught in the old Italian schools, and so on.

ultimately stuff that sounds right, the ‘butter notes’ if you will, get used a lot, and repeated from musician to musician over the generations with new things added as the style shifts. Romantic music adds chromaticism and relaxes some of the constraints of dissonance, Jazz introduces a more layered approach to harmony, Bebop adds more chromatic ii V’s and so on.

By the way I think one of the reasons that these things pop up in jazz lines is underlying harmony.
That is the jazz players of the still hear the functional harmony as the main vehicle and they use linear melody (including hidden counterpoints) as a practical realization of this harmony.

I think also I would note the differences - I agree with you in general but I think it is important to note that though we can analitically track the hidden counterpoint in Bird's lines (as an example) I still hear the difference with baroque composers using even maybe exactly the same line that the thinking of bird in this line is still much more like 'one melodic line'.
I think actual texture of music is very important too.

To me the differences often can be more definitive than similarities. After all we recognize things because they are different in some features. The person is interesting because it is different from other persons.

Good comparison could be using examples like some baroque operatic aria or solo + B.C. piece of music where the melodic thinking can be much closer to that of Bird.
It still does outline harmony of course and is integrated with B.C. but the texture clearly shows the melody as - if I may say - individuality, a soloist on the foreground.
In that case soloist shows the harmony not through the couterpoint but mostly through tension/release of the melody in realtion ot B.C. part (or even imagined background harmony that could be heard metally by anyone grown up in that culture).
Though counterpoint texture can be also realized in B.C. group (Bach was mentioned as the one who improvized extremely dense and complex B.C. texture - that could be seen of course in his sonatas with obligato harpsichord accompaniment. I think Bach in general is very special case anyway).

And if we take some solo keyboard or lute piece on the other side we can see the texture much more perplexed - like famous BWV998 for example.
I heard performances where all the line is played as if it is just a melody though I think the correct way to play it as a hidden couterpoint to show the harmony in a more solid way.
We can take even simpler pieces with more transparent texture - like Handel's keyboard works. And mostly it is the same thing there - melody is not totally separated, and has (often not immidiately noticeable) shiftes from linear movement to hidden counterpoint that affirm harmony and its movement.

In jazz - due to its soloist nature - linear thinking for me prevails.
As I said we can analyticaly find hidden couterpoint there but the phrasing and articulation of actual playing mostly melodic based on tension/release to harmonic pivots even when it outlines harmony directly like arpeggios.

[Christian Miller]

By the way I think one of the reasons that these things pop up in jazz lines is underlying harmony.
That is the jazz players of the still hear the functional harmony as the main vehicle and they use linear melody (including hidden counterpoints) as a practical realization of this harmony.

I think also I would note the differences - I agree with you in general but I think it is important to note that though we can analitically track the hidden counterpoint in Bird's lines (as an example) I still hear the difference with baroque composers using even maybe exactly the same line that the thinking of bird in this line is still much more like 'one melodic line'.
I think actual texture of music is very important too.

To me the differences often can be more definitive than similarities. After all we recognize things because they are different in some features. The person is interesting because it is different from other persons.

Good comparison could be using examples like some baroque operatic aria or solo + B.C. piece of music where the melodic thinking can be much closer to that of Bird.
It still does outline harmony of course and is integrated with B.C. but the texture clearly shows the melody as - if I may say - individuality, a soloist on the foreground.
In that case soloist shows the harmony not through the couterpoint but mostly through tension/release of the melody in realtion ot B.C. part (or even imagined background harmony that could be heard metally by anyone grown up in that culture).
Though counterpoint texture can be also realized in B.C. group (Bach was mentioned as the one who improvized extremely dense and complex B.C. texture - that could be seen of course in his sonatas with obligato harpsichord accompaniment. I think Bach in general is very special case anyway).

And if we take some solo keyboard or lute piece on the other side we can see the texture much more perplexed - like famous BWV998 for example.
I heard performances where all the line is played as if it is just a melody though I think the correct way to play it as a hidden couterpoint to show the harmony in a more solid way.
We can take even simpler pieces with more transparent texture - like Handel's keyboard works. And mostly it is the same thing there - melody is not totally separated, and has (often not immidiately noticeable) shiftes from linear movement to hidden counterpoint that affirm harmony and its movement.

In jazz - due to its soloist nature - linear thinking for me prevails.

As I said we can analyticaly find hidden couterpoint there but the phrasing and articulation of actual playing mostly melodic based on tension/release to harmonic pivots even when it outlines harmony directly like arpeggios.

I not sure if I really understand what this means. Well sort of. Maybe….

I think the way the improvisation is organised does have a big bearing on the way the music is obviously; which parameters are fixed and which are not. However I’m not sure thinking about creating harmonic improv is necessarily the way to think about jazz - that leads to the problem of too many choices I mentioned above.

Ornamenting a melody or a sort of melodic/contrapuntal skeleton is a very powerful technique that often gets completely overlooked and actually has a far deeper tradition within jazz than ‘harmonic pitch choices over chords’. Improvisations often crystallise around a basic template rather than being reinvented in each performance.

In terms of gallant/18th century on improvisation on basses I am finding I tend to stick to one basic contrapuntal realisation and run variations on that using different diminutions etc. (This may of course be down to my limitations in this area.)

for example E and D against an A G# G F# F E bass in the first few bars of Fenaroli book IV, 2. Ewald Demeyere has a series of different realisations of this Fenaroli bass with the same basic conterpoint on his YouTube channel for instance. (And there are obviously alternative counterpoints you can use.)

Then I think of about 15 jazz standards that use the same schema, including It Don’t Mean a Thing, No Moon at All, In Walked Bud and Insensatez. The process for improvising on that scheme in jazz would be basically the same for these though the details of style and idiom are obviously different. Note that the lead sheet chords of these tunes are also different even thought the counterpoint scheme is the same; I think of this as choosing a third voice by and large. In the Jobim it’s a parallel chromatic line in minor thirds against the bass for instance, while in the Monk and Ellington it’s a pedal. These can also be used as a basis for improv (esp in trios where we are very free)

in a sense it’s like expanding the well known ‘modules’ (Conrad Cork, Jerry Coker) approach to jazz standards but instead of just referring to chords, include a typical set of skeleton melody lines and basses with common variations used through such progressions. It would sometimes often be pretty obvious stuff but also sometimes not I think. (One day I might write something like this.)

tl;dr shit that works gets used to death. i V VIm IV ad nauseum.

on a cave man level I do find that arpeggiating chordal textures directly is incredibly useful for jazz guitar, esp in solo or duo situations. Bach is teaching me this atm.

As I say I’m less interested in the linear side now after a long while of focussing on that via Barry’s improvisation workshop material. (It’s interesting Barry separated the two things.)

They are two sides of the same coin anyway. Do you proceed by linearising harmonies or combining lines? The answer is eventually - YES.

[Litterick]

The crazy thing for me is the way the formal exercises and schemata from these old ways of teaching keep popping up in jazz.

Yes.

[Jonah]

I not sure if I really understand what this means. Well sort of. Maybe….

I think I mostly make judgement on music (as a language) from aural experience.
That is I do not think (at the moment) of practical tools that could have been used by the improvizer/composer.

It does not mean I totally disregard those tools but when I 'analyze' music or try to make description of wht it means and how it is organized as a piece of art - my approach is just how hear what is going there from point of view of language, semantical structure etc.

It is quite possible that in direct practical sense composer/improvizer used some methods that are different but in that case it does not matter - I judge by the result.

And when I say 'Bach or Bird thought etc' it does not mean litteral thinking 'I do this here and that here' but rather thinking in artistic sense; sematics, images - one can think directly in music in my opinion and of course whenver we transfer it to words we just create at best a guideline how to tune one's mind and ear to perception that non-verbal thinking.

[Jonah]

for example E and D against an A G# G F# F E bass in the first few bars of Fenaroli book IV, 2. Ewald Demeyere has a series of different realisations of this Fenaroli bass with the same basic conterpoint on his YouTube channel for instance. (And there are obviously alternative counterpoints you can use.)

I listened to it...
There is harmony behind it and there is counterpoint as realization.

Counterpoint in its nature is melody and melody in this music is the individualization of harmony, its unique expression in context.
(In broader sense harmony can be also very individual but it shows on the level of form usually)

In other words: in this music counterpoint works effectively only because there are harmonic relations built and represented through it.

[Reg]

Hey Jonah... I always enjoy and like your posts. thanks

So if counterpoint is the true musical language... and as you said...."Counterpoint is the relationship between Melodies". What is the relationship(s) and what is or what makes a Melody.

I obviously have different opinions about theory, harmony etc... with relationships to Jazz, but Relationships can have implications, even if we aren't aware of them.

I'm not trying to push any buttons. I just find that many musicians on this forum talk about melody as the true or best vehicle to take on the road to playing Jazz. And I don't agree.

[BWV]

harmony has always been a subset of western theory, going back to medieval treatises

Copy of Leon Dallin's Techniques of Twentieth-Century Composition: A Guide to the Materials of Modern Music
on it's way.
Also a book on counterpoint. (Seemed like a good idea for some reason.)

The Dallin book is as good as any theory book on 20th cent classical music, but that is faint praise. I have found the most productive route is to find books specifically about the techniques of composers I am interested in. David Schiff's Music of Elliott Carter, for example, is a better treatise on pc-set composing than Allan Forte's book.

[Christian Miller]

I listened to it...
There is harmony behind it and there is counterpoint as realization.

Counterpoint in its nature is melody and melody in this music is the individualization of harmony, its unique expression in context.
(In broader sense harmony can be also very individual but it shows on the level of form usually)

In other words: in this music counterpoint works effectively only because there are harmonic relations built and represented through it.

I would talk about Schenker but I’m a simple man, I see a syncopated descending bassline I do a 2 6 suspension chain. Bosh. Job done.

In so much as I understand what you saying (which is not hugely) I think we may be using the terms harmony and counterpoint slightly differently; I’m looking at structural counterpoint I think as the same sort of thing as you are talking about with harmony. You are talking about counterpoint as an embellishing thing maybe?

The distinction I’m seeing as that in harmony (I’m a simple jazzer) as being like ‘this chord this chord this chord’ and in my example the bass and the melody are constant and whatever goes in the middle is merely the sandwich filling. It may be that we are talking about the same thing in different ways because classical harmony is not something I ever studied formally, so ….

Dm A/C# Am/C G/B Gm/Bb
Dm C#+ Dm7/C G7/B Bb
Dm C#o7(addb13) Cm6 G7/B Bbmaj7
Dm A7/C# D7/C G7/B Gm/Bb
All on what’s in the middle. Fairy story? It’s like bloody Tolkien.

So harmony to me is like realising that the 2-6 suspensions, and the fourthwise bass in 7s are kind of the same thing, and then that’s the movement of theoretical roots in fourths (Autumn Leaves to jazzers) which was Rameau’s Big Idea while in the prior days they are dealt with separately in treatises as separate cases of counterpoint (even after). Which is to say that the now very obvious idea of naming a chord after its root and not the bass note is a massive jump forward in music theory that Bach did not take seriously AT ALL (because actually it’s quite an abstract concept just one we take for granted.)

But as Michael Koch points out, obviously people before Rameau were not dunderheads and knew that one thing could be inverted into the other. I mean Bach obviously used this.

So anyway the most useful combinations (like the invertible suspension chains) were I think learned by rote and then students composers found infinite ways to vary them using diminutions. That’s not theory in any sense, it’s practical.

Maybe there’s not really that much in it in the modern and old ways to look at harmony.
The important thing is practical experience not what you call a chord. No one thinks a 6 4 is the same as 5 3 chord even today.

[Christian Miller]

harmony has always been a subset of western theory, going back to medieval treatises .

Correct me if I’m wrong but afaik there are no medieval treatises on counterpoint or harmony? By which I mean from the Ars Nova period (14th cent) or earlier.

I’m not sure when they start appearing, but iirc there are treatises on counterpoint during the Renaissance.

Harmony in the modern sense is a conception of the mid 18th century and many concepts - such as functional harmony - were developed only in the later 19th and 20th century; by which time tonality was thought to be on its way out, funnily enough.

[BWV]

afaik there are no medieval treatises on counterpoint or harmony? By which I mean from the Ars Nova period (14th cent) or earlier.

I’m not sure when they start appearing, but iirc there are treatises on counterpoint during the Renaissance.

Harmony in the modern sense is a conception of the mid 18th century and many concepts were developed only in the later 19th and 20th century; by which time tonality was thought to be on its way out, funnily enough.

I though Boethius described the characteristics of various intervals, but maybe wrong there. Did find 9th century treatise though:

Musica enchiriadis - Wikipedia

[Christian Miller]

I though Boethius described the characteristics of various intervals, but maybe wrong there. Did find 9th century treatise though:

Musica enchiriadis - Wikipedia

Ah, the Daisien super ultra hyper Lydian

how could I forget!

What we are lacking iirc is the type of ‘how to’ manual we get later on for Renaissance polyphony* for composing Ars Nova harmony etc

[Reg]

So yea Christian isn't the harmony thing... about the musical connections between the Chord Chord Chord etc... and then how they related to the basic Reference... or context.

BWV... really we're now going into Carter's Harmony Book. And Dr Schiff's views... While great and very interesting.... might be wrong direction for understanding Jazz. I do remember the classical jazz thing...LOL

[BWV]

So yea

BWV... really we're now going into Carter's Harmony Book. And Dr Schiff's views... While great and very interesting.... might be wrong direction for understanding Jazz. I do remember the classical jazz thing...LOL

true, but a study of Debussy or Ravel or Stravinsky would be more productive than a theory textbook,

[Jonah]

I would talk about Schenker but I’m a simple man, I see a syncopated descending bassline I do a 2 6 suspension chain. Bosh. Job done....

Not done)))

I think we really see it in different perspectives.
And no, I do not see counterpoint as an embelishment.

Counterpoint is melody (a few melodies together). And melody is expression of harmony like there is an idea or a plot in a novel but to be a real piece of art it should be realized through vivid recognizeable characters, one should feel and live the plot following their lives.
It is a great approximation.

And yes, I think of it from point of view of classical music and it seems obvious that one cannot compose 1 hour symphony or late Schubert sonatas or Beethoven quartets out of short segments or chords... it is much bigger thinking, and the contents is much bigger.

You know Shostakovich used to draft tonality plan for his works. It is an academical feature of course - I do not think Beethoven did so. But still it shows the crucial importance of harmony for that music.

I think Harmony for me is relations of function on all levels within a key and even more between the keys.

I am also simple actually - it is just my simpilicity looks complex sometimes, can't help it.

I notice that once I get into things I deeply care of here people seem to loose interest... I lnow it is a jazz forum and many guys look for practical solutions and I begin discussions on symphonies and all.

Nevertheless one example.
The way Mozart uses so cold 'golden' sequences (like vi-VI-III-ii-V in minor - Autumn Leaves right? I guess a first peice almost totally built out of it) is very good example of relation between melody and harmony.
Usually in his music they show up in development section and they signify the most dramatic moment and to me they have almost scaring effect.
I will explain why - Mozart is usually very prolific melodically, he often compoese a new melodic material where another composer would develope the older one... and usually we clearly hear in his music the shifting of melody agains the harmony like melody may have more spacious breath or a little bit different rhythmic structure against harmonic rhythm - it creates complexity out of nothing. He does not make complex things formally but he creates complex meanings and complex dramatic charaters with very illusive escaping meands - you can look in the score and cannot figure out it works that things so simple create contents so complex.

But when it comes to that sequens - everything coincides, melodic individuality is reduced to minimum, its rhythm goes together with harmony, harmony itself also becomes very symmetric.
Seem like all the versatality of life and chracters that he showed us suddenly drops down the curtain and shows us something irrational behind it, something unknown. Suddenly through casualities, jokes and tricks we see the features of unknownm and it impersonal.
And it is the feeling like you just look at it right face to face - no escape.

Here are two examples but to really understand what I mean you should take your time to listen to the whole movement

at 8:20 comes the sequence

at 5:45

[Jonah]

Hey Jonah... I always enjoy and like your posts. thanks

So if counterpoint is the true musical language... and as you said...."Counterpoint is the relationship between Melodies". What is the relationship(s) and what is or what makes a Melody.

I obviously have different opinions about theory, harmony etc... with relationships to Jazz, but Relationships can have implications, even if we aren't aware of them.

I'm not trying to push any buttons. I just find that many musicians on this forum talk about melody as the true or best vehicle to take on the road to playing Jazz. And I don't agree.

Hi Reg,

from your question it seems like either I put not coherently or you misunderstood me... I will try to explain. But I partly also showed in previous post to Christian