-
I'm currently exploring some stuff from the hard bop era.
Theorists try to explain what composers do, right?
Check out Chromatic Thirds. It doesn't fit within the regular harmonic scheme but our ears can still hear that the chords are connected.
It opens up a lot of possibilities. Improvisation is quite a challenge for someone (like me) having his ears programmed for tonal harmony and cadence. But once you get the chromatism, it's not that difficult moving key centers in thirds. Exciting and a bit addictive I have to say.
-
03-15-2023 07:16 AM
-
Symmetrical scales. Schillinger and sequences. Non octave based scales. There're a lot of roads off the beaten track.
People love to talk about ways to explain sounds that other people find by ear. Not a bad thing, but sometimes the explanation academics use don't have the same intention or application as the users who have a system of their ears; or even the same implications of those who get paid to theorize. Sticky tricky dilemma.
That's academic jazz I guess.
It's a good thing, a fun thing...so long as it doesn't become a tool to a person who doesn't know how to use a tool. Ear first. Use and assimilate next. Explain after you own it well enough to share.
But we do what we do. Cool sounds none the less.
-
This makes my blood boil :-)
-
-
Great, let's reflect.
The common message here is
" It sounds very familiar, you've heard the progressions before in many movie themes".
"This is no secret that composers keep from the rest of the world, there are books about it."
Fine. But there are implications and that's why I think this is interesting.
In Jazz we often work with modulation; a transition of key center. People that like to use their ears when improvising then typically run into problems. Because we're leaving the diatonic scale. All of a sudden there's a non diatonic chord, that doesn't fit within the key. (A single non diatonic chord may be seen as just a "color"). But when modulating, the listener doesn't perceive the music as atonal, because we make a smooth transition from one tonal key to another tonal key. The tranistion is smooth because the chords are connected by one or more common notes (or by another principle). When writing and arranging we have to designate a key signature. If there's a change of key, sometimes it's highligted in notation, sometimes not, at the discretion of the composer/arranger.
In Jazz, many times, key changes are not highlighted. Meaning musicians often would have to analyze the score and make a note when the key centers are shifting.
When improvising we like to know when that shift of key occurs. In some tunes there are frequent modulations. The music sounds wonderfully tonal, even though there is no obvious key center. But it's no paradox, because the progression is connected by a formula different than the common tonal harmony we all practice. In this example we can call it Chromatic Thirds.
It doesn't fit very well with tonal harmony simply because of the frequent key changes. But when improvising this doesn't have to be a problem as long as one understands the principles of the chord progression.
...When reading and writing staff notation, all those key changes become somewhat uncomfortable. Maybe for this reason the concept was sometimes avoided?
But Jazz musicians always trusted their ears. There are some great jazz compositions you'll have a hard time finding any written documentation.Last edited by JCat; 05-08-2023 at 12:28 AM.
-
I suppose chromatic third chords where pretty wild back in 16th century.
Carlo be like ‘I’m an Italian Renaissance aristocrat and can do what I like.’ (Although apparently his harmony wasn’t THAT radical as far as late Renaissance Italian madrigalists go.)
These days they can sound a bit like a film composer phoning it in if used in a boring way.Last edited by Christian Miller; 03-16-2023 at 04:36 AM.
-
Just to clarify; the concept is not exclusive to the film industry and/or to languorous string ensembles. It's even used in Jazz ( and not more cliché than your regular II-V-I progression).
-
Why choose between cliches?
Originally Posted by JCat
Ab/D E/G C
-
Non diatonic chords are...non diatonic - not atonal. Originally Posted by JCat
-
Yes! and I do think this distinction is important. (I've edited my post). Originally Posted by Spirit59
Atonal harmony got specific rules.
I think "non-diatonic" is a proper attribute for a piece that doesn't cohere with tonal harmony. It could be a note, a chord, a progression or a composition.
When modulating, we don't leave tonal harmony, just move to another key. But there are many different types of modulation and I think; when modulation is used frequent in a piece, then the basic principles of tonal harmony is secondary to the fundamental principle of the modulation type.
-
quite Originally Posted by Spirit59
i think a lot of people don’t really quite get what functional harmony is. It’s not diatonic. You won’t find much diatonic common practice music.
The basic 18th century harmonisation of a scale (RO) has a modulation/secondary dominant halfway through when descending (dominant) and Bach chorales etc frequently modulate to related keys. Same is true of almost all jazz standards.
-
Please expand your thoughts. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Functional harmony is commonly also referred to as diatonic harmony, common harmony or tonal harmony.
As far as I'm concerned functional harmony builds on the idea that music is based on the diatonic scale and got a Tonic, a key. Most standards fit perfectly inside this box, but not all.
-
well the diatonic scale is not the same thing as a key. Originally Posted by JCat
Actually the more I look into this the less I see a strong relationship between the scale and what we may call tonality or key. While diatonic resources are of course omnipresent and there clearly is a relationship, the link is at least for me surprinsgly hard to define or get a fix on.
for example, Chromatic chords are used to enhance the sense of tonality as a matter of course (standards are full of this of course). Secondary dominant and augmented and Neapolitan sixth chords are class textbook examples. There’s basically no real common practice music that sticks to the diatonic notes. Sorry if that’s a bit of a literal minded strawman but that’s what ‘diatonic’ means to me… even where a melody is diatonic, such as in My Romance, the harmony is chromatically coloured as a matter of course.
Tonal music and functional harmony (in so much as that’s a thing which is debatable from a historical perspective - I prefer common practice) makes frequent use of modulation, chromatic embellishment and increasingly from the c18 modal interchange.
Take
Dm D7/F# Gm6 Eb/G G#o7 Dm/A Asus4 A7 Dm
or
C G7/B C7/Bb F/A Ab7#11 C/G
These are perfectly idiomatic common practice chord progressions which are tonal and squarely in the key of Dm and C respectively but obviously quite chromatic.
probably splitting hairs but you learn to go beyond pure diatonic scales very quickly. Looking at it historically with the c18 hexachordal system the notion of key was a bit more hazy than it would be with modern theorists even.
in fact if you define diatonic as ‘belongs to a scale’ (probably more properly modal) modern jazz harmonic practices are often more strictly diatonic - play this cycle or pattern through C melodic minor etc.
-
yes, purely diatonic passages stand out sharply in 18th-19th century music and are often used to portray folk music
check out how the purely diatonic gavotte II, subtitled 'musette' contrasts the first gavotte which is typical 18th century tonal harmony
-
Functional harmony builds on the harmonization of the diatonic scale and its modes. It also involves the circle of 5th and could include all 12 notes having different functions depending on key and context. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
A chord used out of context, a piece that's not on the map, is non-diatonic to the designated key. Most of the time it's just a color or passing chord that enhances the sense of tonality. Or it involves some of the many modulation techniques that are well documented. Of course it's been done many times before, modulation was all the hype by the end of the 19th century.
Maybe it's easier to understand the implications when we consider notation; The number of sharps and flats on the far left typically indicate the key. If a tune modulates into a different key, we would usually highlight this transition by a new corresponding set of sharps and flats at the beginning of the bar where the key change takes place.
Atonal music, by definition, doesn't have a key. But there is tonal (harmonically pleasant) music where the key is ambiguous, typically because of frequent modulations, where the composer/arranger decided not to put any sharps or flats at the far left. It doesn't mean the composition is in C-major or A-minor. But it may imply that the piece is non-diatonic of nature.
Music is just music. Notation and theory are imperfect attempts to make models of music.
The rules of atonal harmony stipulates that there must be no key, that all 12 notes are given equal value and representation. This is a different animal.
Modal harmony is arguably yet another concept of different nature, where each note within a scale is given equal value. But in practice, a lot of music that we think of as modal predominantly follow basic principles of tonal harmony, having key centers and cadences.
One could argue that the hard rules of atonal harmony (as well as modal harmony perhaps) is supposed to set the composer free from the "constraints" of functional harmony.
-
Well, that's not really the bit I was disputing. You used the term 'diatonic' as sort of interchangeable with 'functional harmony' and it isn't. So it's more a quibble about terminology. Originally Posted by JCat
Take for example pandiatonic writing (eg in some of Stravinsky and Copland's work). This is not considered functional harmony.
You can rewrite the laws of counterpoint so that thirds behave like perfect intervals and perfect fourths and whole steps are reclassified as imperfect consonances for example and have a whole new system of tonality without ever leaving the major scale.
OTOH The vanilla 'this is what you learn when you are 6 at the Naples conservatoire' harmonisation of a major scale bass features a chromatic chord in descent as a default, and it just gets more chromatically inflected from there.
So music can be highly functional but also highly chromatic - out it can be non functional and highly diatonic.
For this reason I would prefer to keep the terms diatonic and functional harmony separated in meaning. You do hear jazzers using the term 'diatonic' to refer to older jazz, but that just makes me think they haven't listened to it much TBH.
I have my problem with 'functional harmony' but it's OK. One beef I have with it is that lots of people say any chord progression that they don't understand (usually because it doesn't slot neatly into the cycle) is 'non functional' which just seems like a cop out haha
Well yes, I too have read theory books. No the point is modulation or a sort of semi-modulation is part of the basic tool kit of what we today call tonality. No one writes only diatonic chords. The only people who do that are jazz musicians and some 20th century composers and as BWV points out composers pastiching a more 'naive' style.A chord used out of context, a piece that's not on the map, is non-diatonic to the designated key. Most of the time it's just a color or passing chord that enhances the sense of tonality. Or it involves some of the many modulation techniques that are well documented. Of course it's been done many times before, modulation was all the hype by the end of the 19th century.
In fact I say modulation, but there's basic things like, is it a modulation if its not confirmed with a cadence. What's the difference between a secondary dominant and a modulation? When is a tonicisation truly a tonicisation?
And the truth is I'm not sure it's a particularly good use of one's time or energy to seek definitive answers to those questions; we all learn music thorough exposure, not ingesting harmony text books. It's kind of based around the syntax of the music. For example in standards, I know that if a tune in C goes to an F chord via a C7 or Gm7 C7, it's as likely to return via a Fm6 or a F#o7 rather than G7, which implies it's not a true modulation but rather a type of mode change (tbh I don't even think about what it is, I just play it)... So the more I learn about the tonality, the more I just think of chromatic chords like (in the key of C) D7, E7, Fm, Dm7b5 etc as sort of being native to the basic key. That's even before talking about the blues.
TBH C18 music and on is not that much different. Even in the Middle Ages people made frequent use of chromaticism.
I don't feel I have trouble understanding your point of view, as it is quite a mainstream one, I'm just pointing out where the situation is more complicated and hazy.Maybe it's easier to understand the implications when we consider notation; The number of sharps and flats on the far left typically indicate the key. If a tune modulates into a different key, we would usually highlight this transition by a new corresponding set of sharps and flats at the beginning of the bar where the key change takes place.
Re notation - even that has only been set relatively recently. For instance in the C18 it was common practice to write out minor keys as if they were Dorian, or major keys as if they were Mixolydian. For instance Bach's Urtext for the Violin Partita in G minor is written out with one flat. Later editors tidied that up. They no doubt made their decision based on identifying cadences etc.
I would advise caution on finding a neat definition and making any arguments based on it TBH.Atonal music, by definition, doesn't have a key. But there is tonal (harmonically pleasant) music where the key is ambiguous, typically because of frequent modulations, where the composer/arranger decided not to put any sharps or flats at the far left. It doesn't mean the composition is in C-major or A-minor. But it may imply that the piece is non-diatonic of nature.
So a null key signature usually means that the composer or editor thinks you'd be better off without one, usually because the music modulates or lot, or is otherwise very chromatic. For some reason the Omnibook is written out this way, and we obviously agree Anthropology is in Bb.
If you start talking about Atonality that's a whole other can of worms. It's not clear to me this term has a clear meaning. Schoenberg didn't use the term 'atonal' famously - he talk about the 'emancipation of the dissonance' so it's far from clear to me that he was deliberately avoiding tonal centres in his music. It's more complicated. For classical composers use of cadences and modulations and so on is structural; so functional harmony supports the structure of extended compositions; in this sense tonality in this narrow, specific sense and structure are intimately linked. For Schoenberg a real struggle was in finding a way to develop extended instrumental pieces without this tool set, and finally he developed the twelve tone method to do this.
Schoenberg seems to have thought about it that way, but then his freedom needed more structure, hence 12-tone.Music is just music. Notation and theory are imperfect attempts to make models of music.
The rules of atonal harmony stipulates that there must be no key, that all 12 notes are given equal value and representation. This is a different animal.
Modal harmony is arguably yet another concept of different nature, where each note within a scale is given equal value. But in practice, a lot of music that we think of as modal predominantly follow basic principles of tonal harmony, having key centers and cadences.
One could argue that the hard rules of atonal harmony (as well as modal harmony perhaps) is supposed to set the composer free from the "constraints" of functional harmony.
I tend to agree with Stravinsky that 'freedom' is a bit overrated in the arts. The difference is now that musicians need to impose their own restrictions as there isn't a predominant style that everyone writes or improvises in.
-
I guess this is to emphasize a difference in approach to modal Jazz? I can see the point, even though I don't make such distinction myself, maybe I should... There are tunes I wouldn't go near in an attempt to make a functional analysis, because (If I may) they are non-diatonic, i.e not coherent with functional harmony. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Still, a lot of music that is referred to as "modal" is usually straight forward functional, albeit modulated, i.e builds on a series of key changes. (This is where some people arrive at when having practiced patterns up and down in every key.)
-
Actually I’ve most often heard it used to separate pre and post war jazz. Which is funny because Bird, well…. As quite as it’s kept his music is no more chromatic than previous jazz. Originally Posted by JCat
Tbh I’ve come to the conclusion that functional analysis is useful mostly as a tool of labelling and mental organisation. It’s useful to know something is a ii V I or a I IV I or whatever and that it is related to other similar things in other songs. It’s less important why these things sound good than to acknowledge they are recurrent structures in songs and that there is an established lore of how to deal with them.There are tunes I wouldn't go near in an attempt to make a functional analysis, because (If I may) they are non-diatonic, i.e not coherent with functional harmony.
In terms of getting into the woods of why Em7 Cm7 Dm7 Bbm7 work in Speak no Evil I think there’s more productive ways of looking at things and the bottom line is that you still have to practice it. I’m less interested in theory than specifics because that is more useful for music making imo. You can spit out a theory that encompasses a wide range of options with little specificity or something that is limited in application but very detailed. I don’t think you can have both. I’d but playing bebop language on standards or writing idiomatic 18th century music in the latter category, and a lot of modern music theory in the former. (Probably physics envy. Again I blame Rameau haha)
That also doesn’t have to be about pastiching past music - you can develop an approach to your own music that is very specific. I think of Bill Evans as in that category.
Well this is where you can get more technical about what exactly is meant by a chord progression or key change. Modal tunes in general are treated as a series of isolated chord/scale structures which may have some common tones. This is not always how the composers treated them but it works well enough.Still, a lot of music that is referred to as "modal" is usually straight forward functional, albeit modulated, i.e builds on a series of key changes. (This is where some people arrive at when having practiced patterns up and down in every key.)
You can of course also do this with standards and substitutions of standards. Done it meself. The tune on my album ‘Mount Inari’ is a modal tune based on Out of Nowhere; a highly functional chord progression.
On the other hand you can ‘functionalise’ modal tunes by adding ii V Is
quite honestly for myself, I dislike the latter thing. It sounds clunky… there’s more in counterpoint (again I agree with Igor haha)
but none of this has much to do with diatony.
-
In reading this thread I realized that I don't know exactly what "modal" is.
So, I looked it up. It's an approach which is based on scales (modes) rather than chord sequences.
So What is given as an example, which makes sense.
But, then, All Blues is also listed as an example. But why? It's blues changes with a different approach where the V7 chord usually is. Is every Blues modal? If not, why this one?
So, I still don't know exactly what it is. Even though, I know how to approach So What with Dorian based improv (at the simplest level) and quartal chord voicings.
-
Forgive me for not having read the lengthy thread, but rp's Q caught my eye, so here's $0.02:
I have heard (somewhere on the internet, no doubt!) that modal music avoids functional resolutions. So What, Footprints and Impressions exemplify that premise.
For me, All Blues does not seem like a good example of modal harmony; yes, you could say that each main section uses modal harmony, but its blues form strongly implies the functional resolutions that we are used to hearing in typical blues progressions. I have never thought "that's a modal tune" when I heard All Blues. I've always heard All Blues as a blues in which IV in the final V IV I is replaced by a m3 sub. That is, instead of V7 IV7 I7 it has V7 bVI7 I7. So, for me, it is a more "modern" blues with a slick substitution... but still a blues.
This reminds me of when you hear Donald Fagen analyze one of his own songs as a blues and you go "whaaaat...?" There's a basic blues form, on which a variety of slick subs are hung... with the result that when you hear the song, you don't hear the blues.
-
I think it’s surprisingly difficult to get a purchase on. Like ‘diatonic’ I think it’s a bit vague. It may refer to a feeling as much as a technique. Kind of Blue has a certain feeling of course. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Even on a very modal tune like So What or New Milestones one can take a very modal approach or a much more bop influenced approach. Take for example Cannonballs use of the bop language on modal vamps. Trane on the other hand liked to explore one scale in the A of rhythm changes so he was kind of more scalic by default. As a comper you can also modalise tunes as well which was popular in the 60s… for instance take rhythm changes and sit on one chord for the A section.
For my part I prefer to have a continuity between what I play on different tunes. I’d like to be able to apply similar approaches to different tunes.
As far as what qualifies as a modal tune, there are many tunes that are a mix. Four on Six and Yes and No spring to mind for instance.
So I like to divide things into colour and motion. Colour allows you to explore the COM. Motion allows you to move dynamically through the harmony.
-
Well it’s not that unusual a sub. Night train has bVI7 to V7… it’s in the Big Book of Blues Lore. I just hear it as a half step approach to V plus the b7 of the Eb7 chord is Db which is yer b5 blue note, so melodically it’s always been a bluesy chord - check out any number of standards that have that note in the melody when the bVI7 chord shows up… Bernie’s Tune is a good example. It’s also pretty standard for minor blues (eg Equinox.) Originally Posted by starjasmine
jazz blues tunes don’t usually go to IV in bar 10 although that became more popular in the 60s
What’s more unusual is having the minor third/#9 in the melody over both chords.
So no of itself it’s not that modal. But it is a blues. (Later on you can see more non functional approaches to the blues like Isotope.)
The modal influence probably creeps in more in the move G mixo to G dorian (the bass doesn’t move to C in bar 4) giving a sense of modal interchange rather than root movement . The mood of All Blues is also very different from the usual jazz blues.
There’s definitely an important intersection with modal and blues aspects. Wayne shorter was often extremely bluesy and his use of the pentatonic scale etc is worth checking out in detail.
Steely Dans choruses are often fairly modal - they like I-bVII-I for instance. More so to my ears than their verses.This reminds me of when you hear Donald Fagen analyze one of his own songs as a blues and you go "whaaaat...?" There's a basic blues form, on which a variety of slick subs are hung... with the result that when you hear the song, you don't hear the blues.Last edited by Christian Miller; 05-10-2023 at 03:04 AM.
-
Diatonic music got a key. If it doesn't got a key, it's non-diatonic. The existence of a key is a fundamental pre-condition for functional harmony. Simple as that. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Most songs often referred to as Modal do have a key (or a group of keys) and are straight forward functional. But not all. One could argue that the creators wanted to break free from diatonic music and the constraints of keys. This gave birth to Chord Scale Theory (CST), where we don't have to bother with keys, just stick to chord symbols. Miles is associated with the Modal era, which is not to say that his music can't be interpreted by funtional harmony. Most of the time it can, even though he possibly wanted to look at it from a different perspective. I think "Four" is a great and interesting composition. It's straight forward functional, but could alternatively be interpreted as a series of key changes. It tricks the ears of most people and then CST is your friend. I would call it modal, one of the early examples.
Then there are strict modal tunes that are not coherent with tonal harmony, like Joe Henderson's "Punjab", a remarkable composition.
-
Prior to the birth of the recording industry, Notation used to be the only way to document and archive music. To this day, staff notation is the most common system for performing musicians. In addition we also have records and DAW-files (these days often seen as the "original").
When it comes to staff notation, the arranger or copyist is supposed to present work that is readable, i.e possible to interpret by musicians. Music that is hard to represent in writing is also hard to interpret. Naturally such music got less exposure which is a problem for anyone that want the music to be performed, especially for the composer. In general, music written in a key is more easy to interpret by a performing musician and this includes improvisation.
In popular jazz, lead sheets and chord charts has become the standard format to represent the fundaments of a tune and we could google chord charts for most songs in GASB. (Most of them are but poor fakes, but that's another topic). Then there are chord charts you probably won't find on-line because for one reason or another that song didn't become a standard. The harder it is to represent a song in writing, the less the probability it becomes a standard.
Some music (including such that is harmonically pleasant) was never written, because it was too hard to represent and interpret it in writing and for this reason alone it was simply avoided. Fast forward to contemporary pop and most people don't care about written notation, because now it's all in the DAW. This also means that if you have the computer play back your strings you don't have to present staff notation for a string ensemble. Basically we are no longer constrained by notation for the purpose of performing, documenting and archiving musical works. Consequently people are also rediscovering certain music concepts. This has nothing to do with the fact it's been done in the past, but all about how we embrace it today.
-
yeah I dunno really Originally Posted by JCat
GASB songs use functional harmony. But GASB songs were not by and large written by jazz musicians.
Do jazz musicians need to know functional harmony like a classical composer? Not so much. Jazz is constrained by tight, repetitive form - it comes around every 32 bars try as we might to escape it…. You don’t need to improvise or compose a symphony…. And as far as voice leading goes, that’s less important. Otoh I know a lot of excellent jazz players - most in fact - who I not would describe as having a deep understanding of western harmony. They know what they need to.
(there’s also part of me that thinks ‘functional harmony’ is a bit of fairy story invented by Germans who didn’t want to get laughed out of the academy anyway.)
Jazz players need to identify types of chord progressions so they can organise idiomatic vocabulary and material and develop a lexicon of interesting and stylish things they can sub for common progressions. Jazz theory, including CST, is geared around that which is why it doesn’t really look that much like classical theory.
Some improvisers have always taken a modal or melodic approach to soloing on changes. Prez was one; Miles another. As guitarists I think we don’t take that route because we are chord people. That’s not really how bebop language works either, but it is a rich vein of jazz improv history.
there’s also melodic pathways that are very well trodden over a given progression - not all chord tone lines are equally used. A well known example are the guide tones on a cycle4 prog. Another might be the use of the 3rds and b9s on the dominants of a VI7 ii V7 I - the ‘butter notes’ perhaps. (to be fair both examples are commonly used in classical/baroque counterpoint.)
As we go beyond GASB we encounter a new challenge. While theres a fairly narrow selection of moves that make up around 90% of GASB standards - most famously ii V and ii V I - when we start with the Joe and Wayne stuff we run into a much wider sea of possibilities for one chord to go to the next
The most commonly used of these is CST - which works best when chords stick around. Herbie does this for instance, and most jazz theorists are piano players, so they set the syllabus. This stuff is obvious on piano. You end up playing these shimmering clouds of colour.
But it seems to me Wayne had his own way of doing things which often involves paraphrasing the melody and playing blues. He used his melodies as the ‘well trodden pathways.’
If you like, Herbie played the chords (even while soloing) while Wayne played the song. Which is what you’d expect I guess… (And there’s a lot of harmony in those melodies are built; take for instance the A of speak no evil.)
As I get better I become less and less interested in the sort of typical idea of freedom and improvisation in music (expressed as a free choice from pitch sets) and more interested in uncovering and teasing things out from the tune. it’s significant that the melody on the D7 and Eb7 chords in All Blues are not the obvious night train ones for example; and that melody will inform your harmonic choices. It seems to be something I like; perhaps I’m not crazy about free choice as a representation of freedom - I think there’s a deeper meaning of freedom and improvisation.
I started hearing about this from Peter Bernstein and think Monk and Wayne are great teachers for that. Miles too. And this for me is as useful with standards as it is with Joe or Wayne’s music. Kenny Wheeler too actually. But it only works for music that has been written this way….
It is not so helpful when someone hands you four chords to solo on in the middle of a fusion chart haha. At that point you become a composer from the chords.
The thing is the way we teach people from day 1, a lot of people think that’s the only thing there is!Last edited by Christian Miller; 05-10-2023 at 04:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thomastik-Infeld Jazz Swing 112
Today, 02:35 PM in For Sale