Do you think vertically or tonally?

[vintagelove]

Well, knowing what the diatonic chords are is one thing, the 135 stuff is another.

Not really, in fact, it offers many advantages to thinking in notes. For instance, it allows you to instantly know where your chord tones are in any chord and any key.

There is a reason it’s been around since the 11th century and practically all music schools teach solfège (same concept with a different name) and numbers. It’s not just the west either. As an example, Indian classical music uses the same concept.


It’s incredibly useful, and it’s as easy as learning 7 number combinations.

[rpjazzguitar]

I've never thought about it in layers, but there are multiple things going on.

1. Tonal Center. That's the background.

2. Chord tones. Obviously, the chord tones will sound consonant. Often, that will be 4 notes and the tonal center gives you 3 more, all of which will sound consonant if you use them with sufficient care. In GASB, that's often paying attention to avoid notes so you don't make a Cmaj7 sound like a G7. Although, there's a nice video Jimmy Bruno did proving you can do exactly that.

If you put the chord tones on the strong beats often enough, that problem will go away.

3. Melody. You're trying to use these notes to make melody. With the chord tones and tonal center, you've accounted for 7 notes. There are only 5 more. If you're melodic statement is strong enough, any of the 5 will work. But, for mere mortals it may help to think about extensions/tensions and so forth. So for example, if the chord is G7, heading towards Cmaj7, you can alter both 5s and both 9s. The only note left is F# and you can use that too, if your line is strong.

4. Rhythm. The Bop masters made streams of 8th notes sound great. Obviously, not the only option.

5. Reharm. I believe that Reg's comments about chord sequences apply. If the chart says 8 beats of Cmaj7, Reg isn't going to play one chord for 8 beats. He has a vocabulary of ways to enhance. And, that's not just comping. You can also solo on every one of those chords if you've got the ability. Chuck Wayne taught that -- build a chord solo with lots of harmonic enhancements and try to solo over every one of them. For mere mortals it may be as simple as side slipping, or playing on one chord while the rhythm section plays a different one.

6. I'm going to add one more that really doesn't stand alone, but can get lost. Space. Put rests in your lines and be sure to play them. Sometimes readers need to be reminded to play the rests.

[ruger9]

I can see we're getting into a conversation here! Which is good, I reckon,

It's disputable whether music is a formula.

It's not disputable... you'll notice I said "for me".

Yes but, as I keep saying, where does the instinct and feel come from? Mars? Or long practice, knowledge, experience PLUS instinct and feel? You can't have one without the other.

I never implied it "just happens". I mentioned practice, time, learning everything then forgetting it...

Ear, soul, heart, anything you like. Yes, it will, but only up to a point. Otherwise we'd all sound like the famous greats just by using our ear... and we know that doesn't happen.

You act is if it's a 1:1 ratio. It is not. Again, time on the instrument, practice, etc... that's how the greats GOT great. I also believe the greats have an innate talent, or perhaps an ability to channel their muse or something... they can hear things we don't... but that is a convo for another thread.


Several pros I love are not music theory whores. Most of what they know they know from experience and playing time. Tommy Emmanuel will be the first person to tell you he doesn't really know theory, and can't read. He has just amassed so much experience on the instrument, it was never necessary for him. If you told him to play an Fm13#5, he couldn't. If you PLAYED the chord for him, he'd play it back to you. Same results. There are many paths up the mountain... you choose your own, but we all get there in the end (if we live long enough LOL).


I know this is a jazz forum, but it's actually a MUSIC forum... Steve Vai has a great take on this:

if the video doesn't, fast forward to 5:28

[gcb]

I economize on the hard work of thinking by copying the lines of the masters.

[Litterick]

It's disputable whether music is a formula. I think in many respects it is. We play 2-5-1's, there's major and minor, and so on. It's actually all formulas, isn't it? Even when they go modal there are limitations and rules otherwise it would sound ridiculous.

What a bleak thought.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

As I’m not thinking about the grips or naming the chords but thinking more about counterpoint.

So you can think of a backcycling prog as a series of chords moving in fourths, or you can think about it as two lines descending alternating by step and one voice leaping. You can then invert that counterpoint and come up with different chord names. Neither way of looking at it is wrong, but it’s a different view on the same stuff.

As I did train myself very early through this book, I always think of cycle movement as a simultaneous movement in fourths (up resp. fifths down) and halfsteps down (a.k.a. tritone sub).

I have asked because I thought you were maybe refering to playing counter melodies (which have always occurred in Jazz e.g. New Orleans / Chicago / Dixieland; Swing big band arrangements; Cool Jazz: Konitz / Marsh, Jim Hall).

[pauln]

It looks to me that your definition of tonal thinking applied to a progression determines the tonic and views the different progression harmonies as chord types all named after the tonic, their chord types manipulated to do so, inversions, rootless, etc.

Let me see if this is what you mean. A two five one like this...

D C F G
Db B F G
C A D G

10 x 10 10 8 x
9 x 9 10 8 x
8 x 7 7 8 x

...we would normally call this something like...

D7#9sus4 -> Db7#11 -> C69

...but your definition of tonal thinking would view these chords as types of C chords, rootless as needed, like this...?

Csus2sus4 -> CM11addb2omit3 -> C69

I know, I'm quoting myself; could someone clear this up?
Can't follow this thread until I know what's tonal thinking.

[ragman1]

Can't follow this thread until I know what's tonal thinking.

You've got to ask charlieparker, it's his thread. All the others are only interpreters and hence unreliable :-)

[ragman1]

What a bleak thought.

True nevertheless. If I wrote

hvyrdfrswkjnoikh ufijh pkjhuyfytr ppi ihge kjk

you wouldn't understand it. But you understand this because it's been formulated.

Same with music.

[ragman1]

ruger -

We're agreeing with each other. Goody :-)

[Litterick]

True nevertheless. If I wrote

hvyrdfrswkjnoikh ufijh pkjhuyfytr ppi ihge kjk

you wouldn't understand it. But you understand this because it's been formulated.

Same with music.

No, because the medium is not the message.

[ragman1]

No, because the medium is not the message.

Meaning what in English?

(McLuhan's quote is actually that the medium IS the message, meaning that the style of a communication is of greater import than its content. For example, the meaning of, say, a spoken phrase is determined by the tone of voice, context, and emphasis employed. But what that means here I've no idea. In any case it's not universally true).

[Christian Miller]

As I did train myself very early through this book, I always think of cycle movement as a simultaneous movement in fourths (up resp. fifths down) and halfsteps down (a.k.a. tritone sub).

That's one way of looking at it, but I'm less interested in what's happening on the bass of the chord which can be any number of things.

In fact the cycle-4 progression is just one example of a whole bunch of related progressions where the counterpoint resolves around staggered descending stepwise voice leading that goes either 3-2-3-2 or 7-6-7-6-7-6. In jazz/modern terms, that's what the guide tones are doing. I prefer to look at it intervallically rather than functionally above the 'root' (which is a slippery concept at best). Anyway this video is good. Cycle 4 to me as a glorified suspension chain...

I have asked because I thought you were maybe refering to playing counter melodies (which have always occurred in Jazz e.g. New Orleans / Chicago / Dixieland; Swing big band arrangements; Cool Jazz: Konitz / Marsh, Jim Hall).

Well the two subjects definitely overlap. What makes a strong countermelody against a tune will obviously be based on the principles of counterpoint. For instance, we notice that the melody of the first few After You've Gone is diatonic while the chords have that 6-b6-5 chromatic line. So, that would make a stronger countermelody against that tune than it would agains Just Friends. \but in practice in improvised jazz (and perhaps improved classical as well) we are less bothered about parallels and so on that a composer or arranger might take more pains to avoid.

Anyway, my understanding of counterpoint now is that an awful lot of Western tonal music is based on embellishments of standard combinations and have been used a million times wether used in contrapuntal textures like Bach, or chord progressions like in jazz or pop; this is most true of 18th century music and jazz standards.

A good example is the melody on the 5-4 over a 1-7-b7-6-b6-5 lament baseline that you can see in dozens of jazz standards and many classical works. Or the use of the (6)-5-4-3 on the IIm and then the I that you see in tunes like Alone Togethe and Night in Tunisia. These can be represented by chord symbols, but actually there's a lot of options for quite different reharms so I've come to prefer this more key centre approach that you see in Gjerdingens books, or Michael Koch's videos (En blanc et noir)

Anyway, I've got a vague idea to write a book about the application of these concepts to jazz; somewhat like Coker's 'hearin' the changes', but focussing more on the typical melodic/counterpoint frameworks that go with standard progressions which might be useful for improvisation. Some of these are well known to jazzers already, like the A7b9 Dm G7b9 C Parker licks and the guide toes around the cycle, but there's more than these out there.

[ragman1]

I've got a vague idea to write a book about the application of these concepts to jazz

Not a bad idea, Christian, you may have found some sort of métier there.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Not a bad idea, Christian, you may have found some sort of métier there.

Rather a third one. Musician, teacher, writer.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

That's one way of looking at it, but I'm less interested in what's happening on the bass of the chord which can be any number of things.

In fact the cycle-4 progression is just one example of a whole bunch of related progressions where the counterpoint resolves around staggered descending stepwise voice leading that goes either 3-2-3-2 or 7-6-7-6-7-6. In jazz/modern terms, that's what the guide tones are doing. I prefer to look at it intervallically rather than functionally above the 'root' (which is a slippery concept at best). Anyway this video is good. Cycle 4 to me as a glorified suspension chain...

Well the two subjects definitely overlap. What makes a strong countermelody against a tune will obviously be based on the principles of counterpoint. For instance, we notice that the melody of the first few After You've Gone is diatonic while the chords have that 6-b6-5 chromatic line. So, that would make a stronger countermelody against that tune than it would agains Just Friends. \but in practice in improvised jazz (and perhaps improved classical as well) we are less bothered about parallels and so on that a composer or arranger might take more pains to avoid.

Anyway, my understanding of counterpoint now is that an awful lot of Western tonal music is based on embellishments of standard combinations and have been used a million times wether used in contrapuntal textures like Bach, or chord progressions like in jazz or pop; this is most true of 18th century music and jazz standards.

A good example is the melody on the 5-4 over a 1-7-b7-6-b6-5 lament baseline that you can see in dozens of jazz standards and many classical works. Or the use of the (6)-5-4-3 on the IIm and then the I that you see in tunes like Alone Togethe and Night in Tunisia. These can be represented by chord symbols, but actually there's a lot of options for quite different reharms so I've come to prefer this more key centre approach that you see in Gjerdingens books, or Michael Koch's videos (En blanc et noir)

Anyway, I've got a vague idea to write a book about the application of these concepts to jazz; somewhat like Coker's 'hearin' the changes', but focussing more on the typical melodic/counterpoint frameworks that go with standard progressions which might be useful for improvisation. Some of these are well known to jazzers already, like the A7b9 Dm G7b9 C Parker licks and the guide toes around the cycle, but there's more than these out there.

Really interesting stuff. And somehow close to me having grown up with classical music. My parents loved Bach, Händel [sic! LOL], Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schumann, Schubert, Mendelsohn-Bartholdy etc.

By the way do you know Hindemith’s book “Exercises in Two-Part Writing”? I have not worked through it myself but a friend once recommended it to me.

[charlieparker]

Would that not make the ability of transposing to any key really hard?

No because you are still using scalar degrees to describe things but just woth respect to a key.

[Tal_175]

It's not uncommon to meet musicians especially from the more folksy musical backgrounds who have been dabbling with jazz for decades (often feeling frustrated) and still can't hold their own in an amateur jazz combo or a jazz jam but call themselves "ear players".

Ultimately musicians have to be honest with themselves about to the approach they have taken for their musical development and the progress they are making with that approach.

[charlieparker]

I know, I'm quoting myself; could someone clear this up?
Can't follow this thread until I know what's tonal thinking.

You raise an interesting question which is how to notate chords in a tonal approach.

I would still describe a 2-5-1 progression as ii7 V7 I, which is kind of a mixture of approaches. The root is still described in it's relation to the key but the quality and the seventh are vertical to the chord.

I was thinking more from a melodic and tonal standpoint, though, and in that case your strange C chords are an accurate if cumbersome way to notate them.

[mr. beaumont]

I suppose thinking for me would vary based on purpose.

In the moment, I'm not thinking about any of it. I'd be dead in the water.

When practicing, I tend to lean vertical thinking, at least when I'm learning a tune. I'm a big proponent of trying to get to the point where I can nail every change in my lines when practicing. Then, after I can do that, I try not to do it But during that process, it's very much chord to chord, what extensions sound good, what are my options...

[pauln]

You raise an interesting question which is how to notate chords in a tonal approach.

I would still describe a 2-5-1 progression as ii7 V7 I, which is kind of a mixture of approaches. The root is still described in it's relation to the key but the quality and the seventh are vertical to the chord.

I was thinking more from a melodic and tonal standpoint, though, and in that case your strange C chords are an accurate if cumbersome way to notate them.

Thanks for coming back. What I gather of it is that comprehending harmony from "key tones" and "chord tones" (tonal and vertical) at the same time is without conflict, so comprehension of harmony is more likely to be both tonal and vertical; but comprehending melody with regard to "key tones" and "chord tones" at the same time seems to conflict, so comprehension is more likely one or the other of tonal or vertical.
This appears counter intuitive because harmonies appear more complex than melodies, but bare harmonies present more information than bare melodies, so maybe the amount of information allows for this paradox?

Attempt to describe...

Harmony regarded as both tonal and vertical without conflict:
Tonal
- comprehension stemming from focus on the key (or local) tonal center
- hearing harmony with regard to the key tonic/root
- hearing the key tonic as the primary resolution center
- hearing a local tonal center as a brief local resolution
- hearing the pressure of the common harmony cadences as "strange chord types" of the tonic chord, resolving or reverting to the basic tonic chord type
- hearing progression chords in song form as "the long way" back to tonic resolution, deliberately crafted as a series of incomplete resolutions
Vertical
- comprehension stemming from focus on immediate local harmony
- hearing the direction(s) of pressure to move from the present individual harmony to the next
- hearing the pressures a particular harmony and changes in harmony apply to themselves
- hearing the pitches and intervals of local harmony with regard to its local self root/tonic

Melody regarded as either tonal or vertical to avoid conflict:
Tonal
- hearing melody with regard to the key tonic/root
- hearing the key tonic as the primary melodic center
- hearing a local tonal center as a brief local melodic resolution
- hearing the pressure of the common melodic motifs as "strange melodic lines" of the tonic chord, resolving or reverting to the line forms of the tonic
- hearing melodies within song form as "the long way" back to melodic resolution, deliberately crafted as a series of incomplete resolutions
Vertical
- hearing the direction(s) of pressure to move from the present melodic form to the next
- hearing the pressures a particular melody and changes in melody apply to themselves
- hearing the pitches and intervals of local melody with regard to its local self tonic

Overall:
- tonal thinking is more critical to comprehending coherence of progression harmony
- vertical thinking is more critical to comprehending coherence of melodic movement
- both are critical to comprehending total harmonic/melodic interaction for song form

[rpjazzguitar]

An "ear player" needs a basic skill which, perhaps, some self-identified ear-ists don't quite have. That's the ability to imagine a line and play it instantly. A player who can do that should be able to cope (not necessarily shine, but cope) in a jam session on a familiar tune.

The theorist can play something (something, not brilliance) without clams, arguably, without having that particular skill.

Of course, the reality is probably something else. The so-called ear player may look at a chord symbol, think about a grip and be able to improvise a line. Apparently, that's not so far from Joe Pass' approach.

And the theory based player, hopefully, isn't thinking about theory in the midst of a solo on a familiar tune.

I use this as part of assessing a student: pick a random string/fret/finger and play Happy Birthday without a mistake.

Overall, there is so much ambiguity in the terms and variety in the way people actually approach the instrument that the discussion is very difficult.

[pauln]

An "ear player" needs a basic skill which, perhaps, some self-identified ear-ists don't quite have. That's the ability to imagine a line and play it instantly. A player who can do that should be able to cope (not necessarily shine, but cope) in a jam session on a familiar tune.

An ear player needs more than that for jazz; what is needed is to imagine (hear in the head) both a line and the specific harmonic context (and play it instantly). What's needed most critically to be instant is the musical judgement of the line (as right, coherent, authentic, beautiful, appropriate, etc.) for the harmonic context before playing it.

For music form progressions where lines "automatically" work through the various harmonies, the ear player can play melodically without regard to hearing the harmonic context (or without that ability), and just focus on creativity and expression. Most self described ear players are at or slightly beyond this level of advancement.

[Tal_175]

An ear player needs more than that for jazz; what is needed is to imagine (hear in the head) both a line and the specific harmonic context (and play it instantly). What's needed most critically to be instant is the musical judgement of the line (as right, coherent, authentic, beautiful, appropriate, etc.) for the harmonic context before playing it.

Yes, that's true, Moreover, an ear player must be able to pre-hear the next chord change and resolve to it or play the change.

Of course, every player should be able to do that by ear regardless of how they got there. The difference is how one trains their ears and technique to get there.

Most of us, so called "theory based jazz players" learn some fretboard harmony first, then work on tunes by creating lines that outline the harmony. We also apply various harmonic, melodic or rhythmic phrase building concepts to the changes (more theory). Once you internalize a tune's harmony and melody by spending several hours working this way, then you gradually start to hear and play lines that transcend the strict patterns/concepts sometimes. Other times you have ideas to fall back on that you developed when you worked on the tune.

Sorry, maybe this discussion belongs to the other currently popular thread.

[ChazFromCali]

I understand what you mean and..... I hate to be all didactic (and shit)........ but they're ALL tones (or tonal as you say) vertically or horizontally.

Music nomenclature is confusing and contradictory and over-lapping enough already. I find it's very much worth it to try to get definitions organized and ridiculously strict.


*ferintinze:
Tonal and A-tonal music. What? Music without tones? Well....that's what A-tonal means. Without. A-theist, etc. Using the term Atonal is a verbal shortcut.
The original word was A-tonical. Tonical and A-tonical music. Atonal (Atonical) music doesn't necessarily have the V- I tonic relationship or gravitate around a "I" chord. But Atonical is too much of a mouthful to say.

I find it's well worth it to try to be precise and "get to the bottom" of the terms.

Yeah, I know. I'm a didactic mofo.