-
In a less ‘Galaxy brained’ vein, people sometimes call Jobim ‘non functional’
i don’t think there’s a formal distinction made by jazz players beyond ‘these chords are weird.’ Which ACTUALLY means, ‘I don’t recognise this sequence of chords and I haven’t practiced it.’
Which is a purely practical thing couched in pseudo-theory terms.
How weird those chords seem probably depends on your background too. If you play a lot of Jobim or even Wayne, certain patterns crop up again and again. But less so in the latter case for sure
… which of course is one reason why chord scale improv becomes a common strategy for these ‘non functional tunes’ rather than vocab based approaches. One feature of which is to start viewing each chord as separate rather than part of an overall movement or ‘chord pattern’ (to use Reg’s term) like a ii V I or turnaround.
-
10-29-2023 05:46 AM
-
Don't know what you're talking about, mate. It's just music. It sounds good or it doesn't. Finito.
-
Maybe because you haven’t practiced any chord patterns enough to get familiar with them? ;-)
Originally Posted by ragman1
I don’t think my line of argument is too hard to follow - essentially jazzers today talk about very practical things in theoretical terms. It boils down to ‘learn lots of songs’ really. Unless you are terminally dense, you’ll see patterns.
-
Obviously we read write chord symbols so there is that… we have to call whether the chord is, for example,
Am7b5/Eb Cm6/Eb Ebmaj6b5…
I’d argue that the main consideration here is readability to theoretical correctness (if there be such a thing).
Though what is most readable is not always a simple thing to work out… but that’s a separate convo. I’d prefer Cm6/Eb but not everyone might…
Id argue all reading of chord symbols requires the ability to see through the chord symbols to the core of what it is the chart is trying to communicate.
We might understand a Dm7 is somewhat loose in a modal tune, while we might be more specific in a trad or swing style chart where the prog C Dm7 Dbo7 C/E suggests very specific stylistic voice leading. That’s all practical experience stuff…
-
You're right there, I don't practice chord patterns at all! Originally Posted by Christian Miller
I've been known to make some up, though...
-
Anyway, good music and bad music. And the second bit isn't 'jazz'. But it is definitely not functional :-)
-
OK, I'll take the bait, lol. If there is key, then there is functional harmony. Clearly listeners, even the untrained ones, have a sense of key (or they don't relate to 99% of music at all). As a result, each note that doesn't belong to the tonic triad has tonal gravity. This happens even at the melodic level, nevermind the chords. I'm sure you hear tonal gravity in melody notes as well. So, I don't know what do you mean by "no such thing as functional harmony.". Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
…and all I wanted was the name of a simple chord ;-)
Is it bad if I’m not fully sure what you two are on about? It has overtones of the old debate over music being cerebral (knowledge, skill, technique) or spiritual (being truly creative, tapping into the divine, not just pulling patterns out of your database)… or both. I’d say someone like Vai answered that quite definitively.
-
This is for Christian. It's neither functional nor non-functional. It's just there, like the breeze.
-
Certainly one way to describe it. Originally Posted by ragman1
-
This is a theory I can agree with. Myself, I hear (or maybe more like feel) functions in a lot of so-called non-functional music. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
I've never understood why it's so important to name a chord 'correctly'. To me, the only thing that matters is what it sounds like. I get that a 'correct name' might help us design a 'strategy' for improvisation. Or it might not.
It's like a system for naming fruit in which an apple is sometimes an orange, and at other times a pomegranate. Lemons are always lemons though.
It does seem like endless entertainment to argue about why the orange is actually a pomegranate though. I love it when you guys get all worked up about it. That's entertainment!
-
G/C Originally Posted by Oscar67
-
How something sounds is everything to me. It’s what kept me playing since 1984 and loving it. I’ve been drawn to Phrygian like a magnet long before knowing what it is. To me theory is a tool that helps me unlock music. Knowing chord names allows me to read chord charts and learn songs. That matters. When someone talks about Phrygian in an interview or YT vid, I know what it is and how to play it and I can follow what’s being said. Might learn something new from that. Just as a side note, I’m intrigued by music theory on an intellectual level. Having a mathematical background I thought it would come easy to me, but it didn’t. It’s riddled with idiosyncrasies. I’ve learned that ‘my’ chord can be a G/C as well as CM7sus2 (among other things), and now I understand why. At the same time I’m now wondering why we deal with chord names at all and why we’re teaching kids that x0221x is Am. But I’m not spending a lot of time on it, I’d rather work up a tune. I’m not Steve Vai, I can’t do both. Originally Posted by ccroft
-
Why might it be important to name a chord "correctly"?
1. The bassist is likely to play whatever is indicated as the root. So if it's a Csomething or something/C, the bass is likely to play a C.
2. The rest of the chord symbol is supposed to make the desired sound clear, including the voice leading. So, the correct name gets the bass note in the ballpark and gives the chord player an idea of the moving harmony. An incorrect name would be one that points to the same notes but is unnecessarily difficult to decode/read. Or one that makes it more difficult to figure out how the harmony is supposed to be moving/sounding.
In Days of Wine and Roses, you have F^7 moving to Eb7#11 (which unlike Christian, works for me, although I think I usually omit the A on top) to Am7 and D7. So, I see a guide tone line G F E Eb, which makes the chords I play F^9, Eb7 (omit the Bb, let the melody make the #11), D9 and D7b9. It could continue Gm7, Eb7, Am7, with the guide line going D Db C, but enough is sometimes enough. Other choices are available.
Of course, it's a different if you're playing an unfamiliar tune for the first time vs playing one you've played many times before.
And, if you have something relatively simple except that you're applying it in an unusual harmonic context I guess there might be a decision to be made -- familiar chord symbol or one that's consistent with the harmonic theory being applied. Speaking as a player who often feels he has enough on his mind while reading a new chart -- just give me a symbol I can interpret quickly and let me worry about the harmonic movement on the next chorus.
-
Becsuae it hples if yuo wnat to paly misuc nlciey. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
That’s not functional harmony you’re talking about there - that’s a sense of tonal centre. Originally Posted by Tal_175
this is a reasonable definition of functional harmony
Function (music) - Wikipedia
It’s an all the Roman numeral stuff and ‘dominant tonic’ type language we are I think mostly familiar with.
It was mostly developed to analyse common practice (c18) music and while we’ve adopted it in jazz it’s widely understood to be incomplete or limited with reference to that music.
As a few people have pointed out even Mozart breaks the guidelines of functional harmony quite often. Also it’s basically a simplification of the rhetorical and contrapuntal elements of that music. There’s a lot of V-I in Mozart, but only very specific versions of V I used in the correct context give the classical style.
Furthermore while M did grow up with the concept of fundamental bass, the language of functional analysis had not been developed. So to describe Mozarts music for instance as ‘functional’ seems an exercise in metaphysics. To me…
In jazz, we use the language of functions mostly to label Schemata. Ii v I being the obvious example.
-
The link you posted I think defines it very similarly to my post: Originally Posted by Christian Miller
In music, function (also referred to as harmonic function[1]) is a term used to denote the relationship of a chord[2] or a scale degree[3] to a tonal centre.
Unless of course you don't think "tonal gravity" is a reasonable notion to describe the "relationship" of a chord or a scale degree to a tonal centre.
-
Nothing spiritual on this side. I’m discussing the difference between practical know how and theoretical abstraction. Originally Posted by Oscar67
Practical know how is most relevant to music. The latter is more a matter for musicologist and theorists.
Where you put the line between practical know how and theoretical abstraction is not always easy to judge. Worrying a lot about what to call something or how something works can be more a path for the music theorist.
It’s kind of funny/fascinating to note that JS Bach (a practical musician highly sceptical of theory) regarded something we’d think of as fundamental today to learning chords on the guitar - the idea of a root note - as a theoretical abstraction (he was raised on practical counterpoint which is based on intervals.) when we name a chord in the chord chart to Dylan song as a D/F# for instance (as opposed to F# 6 3, naming the intervals from the bass) we are making a theoretical connection that Bach wouldn’t have accepted lol.
Part of me wonders if he was right several centuries on haha.
-
Sorry... I didn't mean I'm anti-theory. I just found what Christian was saying struck a chord with me. Most of what I've been interested in working on isn't like Days of Wine for EG.
I shoulda left out the part about naming. Not so much on this particular thread, but sometimes we have threads that get a bit over-worked on the minutia of some particular chord name. And that's fine if that's what we want to do!
-
Wagner wrote one chord in 1859 and people still argue about it Tristan chord - Wikipedia Originally Posted by ccroft
tbf naming that one on a chart is fairly easy - it’s just an Fm7b5 haha.
-
Yikes! I did some work with a classically trained composer who thought the naming system was a waste of time. Why not just notate it and be done? I wonder if Wagner agreed. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
For us I guess it's mostly about being able to play and improvise from the Real Book and such. Like RP said, it certainly helps the bass player if it's named right.
And there's the rub: seems the main arguing point of the Tristan chord is it's root? (thanks for the link)
-
Yes, Wagner wrote what he wanted to hear. It’s possible he might not have been interested in any further naming. Originally Posted by ccroft
FWIW i think it’s actually a French sixth chord (F7b5) with an accented lower neighbour tone on the third. But really it’s chromatic counterpoint.
Jazzers could view it as a the first chord in a ii v I sub lol. It’s not that unlike Days of Wine and roses haha.
Chord charts are certainly the basis of most jazz improvisation for sure and chords are named after the root. Jazz and pop is built from the root. The bass player may invert some of the chords.For us I guess it's mostly about being able to play and improvise from the Real Book and such. Like RP said, it certainly helps the bass player if it's named right.
otoh baroque improv was built on bass lines (largely.)
it’s a different emphasis, interesting to compare. It’s not THAT set in stone though as I see it - Metheny’s or Steve Swallow tunes might be very specific about bass line for instance.
yes, because root is not really an objective concept, but a matter of interpretation. One person’s Fm7b5 is another persons inverted Abm6, and so on.And there's the rub: seems the main arguing point of the Tristan chord is it's root? (thanks for the link)
As a result there are sometimes multiple name for chords. This is not an issue you have if you simply name the chord after its intervals which was the old way of doing it (figured bass). Bearing in mind that Tchaikovsky and Hindemith’s harmony books both concentrate on figured bass even where they pay lip service to Roman numerals or inversions… it’s interesting. (Schoenberg wrote off figured bass as outdated otoh.)
The intervallic approach gives a different perspective too… For example, C/G is a DISSONANT chord really
-
Thelonious Monk would have called it Abm6/F. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
No, it’s not exactly the same thing. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Music doesn’t need to have western style chord progressions to have a sense of tonal centre. Most world musics have a sense of tonal centre to them. Functional harmony is traditionally specifically the study of western style chord progressions.
in jazz music we can say Wayne shorter tunes have a sense of tonal centre even when they lack clearly recognisable functional progressions… and so on
the language of ‘tonal gravity’ makes me think of Rameau who was styled the ‘Newton of music’. His project was to understand something fundamental about harmony and how it connected to nature. Most of the thinkers who followed his lead were interested in this. (As I’ve discussed elsewhere I think this idea is rather outdated and philosophically questionable.)
-
That's what I do when I come across an unusual group of notes that I like the sound of - clear as crystal for the pianist. Single note improvisers don't seem to get too exercised about what that group of notes might be called by guitarists - but where's the fun in that? Originally Posted by ccroft
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale