Do you think vertically or tonally?

[charlieparker]

One thing I have been thinking about is that there are two different ways to view the notes. We can imagine their scalar degree with respect to the key. So in the key of C we would view the scalar degrees of Dm7 as 2-4-6-8.

Alternatively, we can think of those same notes vertically with respect to the Dm7 as the 1-b3-5-7 with respect to D.

The chord/scale approach or even Barry Harris' method seems to align naturally with the latter type of thinking

I haven't seen much jazz pedagogy that follows a key centered approach. However, I seem some advantages with it. For one things seem less disconnected. The second is that it simplifies things in some ways.

For instance let's say we are C and we have a turnaround, I VI7 ii7 V7. If we think of the chord degrees with respect to the key or tonality we have.

1-3-5
6-#1-3-5
2-4-6-1
5-7-2-4

The only non-diatonic note is the #1 or 3rd of the VI7 chord. So you can basically think C major for the most part but maybe highlight the #1 over the VI7 chord.

Does anyone else think this is a profitable way to view things?

[EastwoodMike]

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

[rpjazzguitar]

I learned to think chord tones overlayed on a background of tonal center.

So, yes, the C# within A7 jumps out as a note that isn't in the tonal center. At least, if you think the tonal center is C (which I do).

What I would find difficult in the system you suggest is that the same chord grip (say Dm7) could occur in different keys or tonal centers at which point, you'd have a separate spelling for every one.

The inside of my head is chaotic enough without that.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Much too complicated IMHO. D–7 in C is the chord on the second scale degree (II or ii if you want) consisting of a root, a third, a fifth and a seventh. To be aware of the relation of those notes to the key is one thing but to spell it like that?

Yet I see much sense in thinking key center related e.g. for secondary dominants,

see here

or here

[Christian Miller]

One thing I have been thinking about is that there are two different ways to view the notes. We can imagine their scalar degree with respect to the key. So in the key of C we would view the scalar degrees of Dm7 as 2-4-6-8.

Alternatively, we can think of those same notes vertically with respect to the Dm7 as the 1-b3-5-7 with respect to D.

The chord/scale approach or even Barry Harris' method seems to align naturally with the latter type of thinking

I haven't seen much jazz pedagogy that follows a key centered approach. However, I seem some advantages with it. For one things seem less disconnected. The second is that it simplifies things in some ways.

For instance let's say we are C and we have a turnaround, I VI7 ii7 V7. If we think of the chord degrees with respect to the key or tonality we have.

1-3-5
6-#1-3-5
2-4-6-1
5-7-2-4

The only non-diatonic note is the #1 or 3rd of the VI7 chord. So you can basically think C major for the most part but maybe highlight the #1 over the VI7 chord.

Does anyone else think this is a profitable way to view things?

Yes i definitely use this. It allows you to understand different progs as the same thing. For instance b6 is found in IIm7b5, IVm6, bVII7, V7b9 etc.

Otoh if you examine the same note over different chord roots you might not understand that it’s the same note right away on guitar (esp if you are a grips sort of player) while on piano it’s so obvious I don’t think pianists think to mention it - because as far as they’re concerned why wouldn’t you know that G7b9 and Fm(maj7) both contain an Ab? It’s right there in front of you!

I actually started thinking this way because I was playing things at the piano btw.

(So you learn for instance b6 is the most common chromatic note in Bird.)

If you take the example of a rhythm tune, I would think quite tonally often in the A and more vertical in the B. Actually I think this is pretty standard for swing and bop players. Lester is a good example, but Parker too often seems to be thinking mostly in Bb with some chromatic movement to spice it up; while on the B the chords are each handled as their own little dominant/Lydian dominant tonality rather than as secondary dominants within the key. This kind of thinking happens a lot with round the clock dominant progressions.

But as Barry said ‘the more ways you have of looking a tune, the more things you have to say’

So the correct response to the forum title is, YES

[Christian Miller]

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

It makes it easier ime

[Christian Miller]

Btw I think tonal thinking is pre requisite for getting away from chordal thinking and getting into contrapuntal approaches, because you start to see chords not as intervals above a bass or root note but melodies moving through a tonality and combining in various ways.

(The Barry harris 8 note scales seem more like this to me, once you get out of the beginner drop2 stuff.)

[kris]

I think totally ...

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Btw I think tonal thinking is pre requisite for getting away from chordal thinking and getting into contrapuntal approaches, because you start to see chords not as intervals above a bass or root note but melodies moving through a tonality and combining in various ways.

(The Barry harris 8 note scales seem more like this to me, once you get out of the beginner drop2 stuff.)

What exactly do you mean by contrapuntal approaches here? (I am asking in order not to get into the same mess as in the Theory vs. Ear thread — everybody uses the same terms but has a different definition. Today’s understanding of “contrapuntal” is “polyphonic”, but originally “note against note” does not exclude homophony. I am getting pedantic again LOL.)

[vintagelove]

Both. Each have their advantages, but basically.

Macro analysis, key thinking "harmonize 3/me of the key like xyz”


Micro analysis, "over the chord" thinking might be best for looking at a really dense piano chord voicing. "Ok, play the R5b7 in the left hand, then 36b79 in the right.

[ragman1]

Vertically every time. 1-b3-5-7 makes perfect sense. 2-4-6-8 means nothing to me musically, it's just a list of ascending even numbers.

Thankfully, all the musical sites I look at use the vertical references too. As far as I know.

[ruger9]

Originally I was all vertical... the pentatonic boxes (and major/minor scales). I slowly added horizontal, but before I finished that "phase" I switched over to thinking tonally. For me, thinking tonally (and actually learning that way) takes a little longer, recognizing the "new patterns" being lead by my musical brain instead of shapes and scales.

[ragman1]

ruger -

Maybe I should try it, something new is always good. Got a link for it? I'm not even sure what to look for.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

My thinking has evolved over 6+ decades of active listening and playing to the point at which I no longer even consider what “goes with” what. To be honest, even after all these years, I still don’t know in my head how every note, scale or chord will sound against every other before I play it. But much of my playing is based on those relationships I can and do hear in my head. And there are still so many lines, harmonies, etc left for me to try that I often fly by the seat of my pants in venues in which experimentation will not cause me, my bandmates, the audience or the management any problems. No one’s there to hear me cover my greatest hits

For me, the process is similar to sight reading music - be a bar or two ahead in your head. Once you start hearing what you’re going to play before you play it, you can more easily play in any key. I think of this as “sight hearing”. And I play the “shapes” rather than specific notes. The same shape fits over any key, although the exact same thing can sound quite different in different keys.

[Tal_175]

I try to cultivate layers of awareness. Not just either or.

To me, the top layer is the chord I'm on. Every note becomes a chord tone, a scale tone or a chromatic note in relation to the chord. The treatment of non-chord tones as scale tones vs chromatic tones is the tonality itself in the way I hear lines and harmony (more on this below).

The next layer is the chord I'm going to and a general sense of what the relationship between the chords are. Am I creating tension?, is it a modal moment in the tune?, is this a point of key change?, Am I going to a secondary dominant? etc. Seeing the notes I'm playing in relation to the next chord is important in many contexts when I'm outlining the changes.

Another layer is the form, Am I going to the bridge? Coming out of the bridge? Am I on the turn around etc?

I'm aware of the tonality as the general sound or mood of the section. But the awareness of tonality to me determines what I consider as scale tones vs chromatic notes over a chord. I often make this decision aurally after I establish the general blueprint of the tune with a theoretical analysis.

[Jimmy blue note]

One thing I have been thinking about is that there are two different ways to view the notes. We can imagine their scalar degree with respect to the key. So in the key of C we would view the scalar degrees of Dm7 as 2-4-6-8.

Alternatively, we can think of those same notes vertically with respect to the Dm7 as the 1-b3-5-7 with respect to D.

The chord/scale approach or even Barry Harris' method seems to align naturally with the latter type of thinking

I haven't seen much jazz pedagogy that follows a key centered approach. However, I seem some advantages with it. For one things seem less disconnected. The second is that it simplifies things in some ways.

For instance let's say we are C and we have a turnaround, I VI7 ii7 V7. If we think of the chord degrees with respect to the key or tonality we have.

1-3-5
6-#1-3-5
2-4-6-1
5-7-2-4

The only non-diatonic note is the #1 or 3rd of the VI7 chord. So you can basically think C major for the most part but maybe highlight the #1 over the VI7 chord.

Does anyone else think this is a profitable way to view things?

It's sort of like fixed DO vs movable DO. I use both. I have an awareness of my ear and the chord visualization (which seems roughly analogous to linear melodic like Lester Young and chordal, like Coleman Hawkins). I kinda have to have both awarenesses so I don't think in grid boxes or melodic patterns that come from finger habits.
Hearing and tonal awareness work together. When I developed that in my playing, it really gave me the freedom to create unexpected melodies that paid deference to the changes, but didn't merely outline them.
That's how it worked for me anyway.

[ruger9]

ruger -

Maybe I should try it, something new is always good. Got a link for it? I'm not even sure what to look for.

There is no roadmap; you just listen to your ear. Your ear tells you what note to play next. You'll need to be familiar enough with scales/steps and such to know WHERE to land... if your ear is telling you the next note needs to be a G (or whatever; maybe it's a minor 3rd up or maybe it's the minor 7th of the scale, etc), you've got to know exactly where the G's are in relation to where you are at that moment. It's just improvisation, except you are listening to your ear tell you where to go as opposed to the next scale step or arpeggio you already know. You are following, or creating, the melody as you go.

The key is melody. Which the ear drives. Ear drives melody way more musically (IMO) than scales and arpeggios do. Play what you feel.

When I used to record, and it was time for a solo, I would write it in my head. My ears would tell me what the solo's melody/motif needed to be, then I would figure that out and play it. The goal is to be able to do it instantaneously.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

When I used to record, and it was time for a solo, I would write it in my head. My ears would tell me what the solo's melody/motif needed to be, then I would figure that out and play it. The goal is to be able to do it instantaneously.

You're describing the process well! I learned it subliminally from the first time I played the first jazz album I ever bought - Dave Brubeck Quartet Newport 1958. Paul Desmond's solos sounded like he'd written them out on a score in his head and was playing each one for the first time just for us. I was so struck by this that even at 13, I knew it was how I wanted to be able to do it. So many others sounded like they were just practicing their scales and tryin to fit the same phrases into whatever tune they were playing. But Desmond (and Brubeck, although not quite to the same degree) made every single note he played sound like he'd been working on it all week.

I think Desmond's playing on Perdido is among the most beautiful and musical improvisations I've ever heard. It's still an inspiration to me today!

[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

[Christian Miller]

Yes i definitely use this. It allows you to understand different progs as the same thing. For instance b6 is found in IIm7b5, IVm6, bVII7, V7b9 etc.

Otoh if you examine the same note over different chord roots you might not understand that it’s the same note right away on guitar (esp if you are a grips sort of player) while on piano it’s so obvious I don’t think pianists think to mention it - because as far as they’re concerned why wouldn’t you know that G7b9 and Fm(maj7) both contain an Ab? It’s right there in front of you!

I actually started thinking this way because I was playing things at the piano btw.

(So you learn for instance b6 is the most common chromatic note in Bird.)

If you take the example of a rhythm tune, I would think quite tonally often in the A and more vertical in the B. Actually I think this is pretty standard for swing and bop players. Lester is a good example, but Parker too often seems to be thinking mostly in Bb with some chromatic movement to spice it up; while on the B the chords are each handled as their own little dominant/Lydian dominant tonality rather than as secondary dominants within the key. This kind of thinking happens a lot with round the clock dominant progressions.

But as Barry said ‘the more ways you have of looking a tune, the more things you have to say’

So the correct response to the forum title is, YES

What exactly do you mean by contrapuntal approaches here? (I am asking in order not to get into the same mess as in the Theory vs. Ear thread — everybody uses the same terms but has a different definition. Today’s understanding of “contrapuntal” is “polyphonic”, but originally “note against note” does not exclude homophony. I am getting pedantic again LOL.)

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.

[ragman1]

There is no roadmap; you just listen to your ear. Your ear tells you what note to play next.

Is that all? I'm doing that already, in fact, it's subconscious.

I got confused because I thought you were talking about describing things, like the formula for a m7 as i-m3-5-b7. That's old stuff, normal stuff. But I never think like that when actually playing, that's all analytical terminology.

Then you talked about 2-4-6-8. I've no idea what that is. Where I come from it's usually what a crowd shouts before it shouts 'Who do we appreciate?'!

But if you're really saying 'just follow your ear' then I'd say beware. You have be to be very, very experienced before you can do that. Which is what you said here:

You'll need to be familiar enough with scales/steps and such to know WHERE to land...

But look:

if your ear is telling you the next note needs to be a G (or whatever; maybe it's a minor 3rd up or maybe it's the minor 7th of the scale, etc),

Isn't that a contradiction? Your ear, in the sense you've been talking, will never tell you that. That's the point. Your ear says (very, very, very quickly) 'That would sound nice' so you hit the note. It never says ''That's a m3 or the b7' because there's no roadmap, right?

See, I think this whole thing is confused between analytical terminology and what your feeling is saying as you play. The two don't mix.

it was time for a solo, I would write it in my head. My ears would tell me what the solo's melody/motif needed to be, then I would figure that out and play it

Well, that's death to music. You're not playing with all your being, just with your brain, which is really just words and descriptions. .

The goal is to be able to do it instantaneously

Maybe, but only after a lot of work. Don't think it comes by magic or is only the province of talented geniuses. It becomes 'instantaneous' when you know it as well as speaking your native language. You don't think 'I'll use a noun here, an adverb there'... good lord!

So, if vertically means brain-stuff then keep it for the practice room. And if tonally means playing with everything in you, then eventually that happens. But not overnight.

The trouble is that music isn't the same as speaking our natural language. It has to be assimilated, absorbed, before it becomes anything like second-nature.

[ruger9]

Is that all? I'm doing that already, in fact, it's subconscious.

I got confused because I thought you were talking about describing things, like the formula for a m7 as i-m3-5-b7. That's old stuff, normal stuff. But I never think like that when actually playing, that's all analytical terminology.

Then you talked about 2-4-6-8. I've no idea what that is. Where I come from it's usually what a crowd shouts before it shouts 'Who do we appreciate?'!

But if you're really saying 'just follow your ear' then I'd say beware. You have be to be very, very experienced before you can do that. Which is what you said here:



But look:



Isn't that a contradiction? Your ear, in the sense you've been talking, will never tell you that. That's the point. Your ear says (very, very, very quickly) 'That would sound nice' so you hit the note. It never says ''That's a m3 or the b7' because there's no roadmap, right?

See, I think this whole thing is confused between analytical terminology and what your feeling is saying as you play. The two don't mix.



Well, that's death to music. You're not playing with all your being, just with your brain, which is really just words and descriptions. .



Maybe, but only after a lot of work. Don't think it comes by magic or is only the province of talented geniuses. It becomes 'instantaneous' when you know it as well as speaking your native language. You don't think 'I'll use a noun here, an adverb there'... good lord!

So, if vertically means brain-stuff then keep it for the practice room. And if tonally means playing with everything in you, then eventually that happens. But not overnight.

The trouble is that music isn't the same as speaking our natural language. It has to be assimilated, absorbed, before it becomes anything like second-nature.

To me, music is not math. It's not a formula. I hear music more akin to how a painter paints. It's instinct and feel. That's the goal anyway. It might be that "learn everything, then forget it ALL and JUST PLAY" thing I've heard about...

And BTW, your ear WILL "tell you." Mine does. Maybe you don't like the use of the word "ear"... maybe "soul" or "heart" would be more appropriate? It's all semantics to me, and I don't waste time on semantics anymore.

Besides, if knowledge of theory and technique have anything to do with being great, there's an awful lot of musicians out there who should suck, but they don't. Because in the end, it's not about that. It's about communication. Robert Johnson communicated beautifully, with almost none of the knowledge we speak of. BB King plays 5 notes, LOL. But he plays 'em better than anybody.

BTW, I didn't say anything about "2-4-6-8"???

Disclaimer: I have not yet achieved this "nirvana" of which I speak. It's a lifelong goal. I'm always shooting for it. And as long as I keep reaching, I'll keep getting better, which is actually the whole point of playing in the first place: being able to communicate emotion to others through music. The ONE RING to rule them all.

[vintagelove]

Is that all? I'm doing that already, in fact, it's subconscious.

I got confused because I thought you were talking about describing things, like the formula for a m7 as i-m3-5-b7. That's old stuff, normal stuff. But I never think like that when actually playing, that's all analytical terminology.

Then you talked about 2-4-6-8. I've no idea what that is. Where I come from it's usually what a crowd shouts before it shouts 'Who do we appreciate?'!

But if you're really saying 'just follow your ear' then I'd say beware. You have be to be very, very experienced before you can do that. Which is what you said here:



But look:



Isn't that a contradiction? Your ear, in the sense you've been talking, will never tell you that. That's the point. Your ear says (very, very, very quickly) 'That would sound nice' so you hit the note. It never says ''That's a m3 or the b7' because there's no roadmap, right?

See, I think this whole thing is confused between analytical terminology and what your feeling is saying as you play. The two don't mix.



Well, that's death to music. You're not playing with all your being, just with your brain, which is really just words and descriptions. .



Maybe, but only after a lot of work. Don't think it comes by magic or is only the province of talented geniuses. It becomes 'instantaneous' when you know it as well as speaking your native language. You don't think 'I'll use a noun here, an adverb there'... good lord!

So, if vertically means brain-stuff then keep it for the practice room. And if tonally means playing with everything in you, then eventually that happens. But not overnight.

The trouble is that music isn't the same as speaking our natural language. It has to be assimilated, absorbed, before it becomes anything like second-nature.

It’s extremely helpful to commit your diatonic chords (and all tbh) to memory. IMO, it’s critical for fluent improvisation.


I = 135
ii = 246
iii = 357
IV= 461
V = 572
vi = 613
vii = 724

[ragman1]

To me, music is not math. It's not a formula.

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

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.

I hear music more akin to how a painter paints. It's instinct and feel. That's the goal anyway. It might be that "learn everything, then forget it ALL and JUST PLAY" thing I've heard about...

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.

And BTW, your ear WILL "tell you." Mine does. Maybe you don't like the use of the word "ear"... maybe "soul" or "heart" would be more appropriate? It's all semantics to me, and I don't waste time on semantics anymore.

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.

It's about communication. Robert Johnson communicated beautifully, with almost none of the knowledge we speak of. BB King plays 5 notes, LOL. But he plays 'em better than anybody.

Sure, absolutely right, but I suggest that was talent. It doesn't mean he was guessing like magic when it came to songs and playing the music.

BTW, I didn't say anything about "2-4-6-8"???

Sorry, you're absolutely right. That was charlieparker in post #1:

One thing I have been thinking about is that there are two different ways to view the notes. We can imagine their scalar degree with respect to the key. So in the key of C we would view the scalar degrees of Dm7 as 2-4-6-8. Alternatively, we can think of those same notes vertically with respect to the Dm7 as the 1-b3-5-7 with respect to D.

And...

Disclaimer: I have not yet achieved this "nirvana" of which I speak. It's a lifelong goal. I'm always shooting for it. And as long as I keep reaching, I'll keep getting better, which is actually the whole point of playing in the first place

I'm totally with you there :-)

[ragman1]

It’s extremely helpful to commit your diatonic chords (and all tbh) to memory. IMO, it’s critical for fluent improvisation.


I = 135
ii = 246
iii = 357
IV= 461
V = 572
vi = 613
vii = 724

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