-
It may surprise people here when I say I don’t really have a problem with it. It’s another way of looking at and hearing the same stuff. The diatonic chords have a modal implication. My favourite example is G/F in C major. Is that a V function or a a IV lydian tonality?
Originally Posted by rodolfoguitarra
The answer is or that question imo is yes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
03-17-2024 02:35 PM
-
To my very simplistic way of thinking, Em sounds phrygian if you improvise over it using the notes of C major scale starting on E (the E has to sound tonic-y), and making sure you include an F. Sounds like Flamenco to my ear.
On the other hand, if you play an Em in a iii VI ii V in C, it probably won't sound like Flamenco.
-
If you play a minor 7th chord without any context, it can be used as Dorian, Phrygian and Aeolian since it is found on more than one scale. Originally Posted by Mick-7
On the other hand, a truly modal chord forces you to play only one scale over it. The chord that best represents the Phrygian mode is the sub9 since you ´´can´t´´ play any other scale choice.
-
I could totally play Dorian b2 on that bad boy. In fact I would! Bwhahaha (that’s been a thing since the 40s). Originally Posted by rodolfoguitarra
Or Phrygian Dom (or mixo b9 b13 whatever stupid name you prefer). Major 3rds on sus chords are big and clever. Ask Herbie.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Bert Ligon´s Jazz Theory Resources pag.312
WHEN is it MODAL & WHEN is it FUNCTIONAL HARMONY?
A piece that begins with the progression Dm7 - G7 - C is in the key of no sharps and flats. It cannot be D
dorian as C is the tonic indicated by the traditional harmonic progression. It is terribly misleading
when the Dm7 is labeled as dorian. D dorian indicates D is the tonic and D would never sound like the
tonic in this setting. The proof is in the hearing, but it might be helpful to think of the mathematics.
Tonic is 1 and supertonic is 2; and 2 cannot be 1. The tonic is the primary pitch; there cannot be two
primary pitches. Labeling the passage as D dorian, G mixolydian followed by C ionian produces more
confusion. Does anyone hear this passage with three different tonics? C is the tonic, and clearly the passage
reflects the major/minor system with the functional ii7 - V7 - I progression. Using the same logic, it
would be misleading to suggest that a modal piece in D dorian is really in the key of C, with just the ii7
chord sounding. However, in contemporary compositions that have mixtures of modal and functional
harmony, it is helpful to describe certain chords and sounds by their modal names so that an Fmaj7
(IV) may be described as a lydian sound to distinguish it from a major scale sound (I).
-
^ I don't see what's so confusing about that. What I don't get is why people want to follow books so vehemently.
I like mix flat 6. Been using it for my organ weird flatted notes sounds. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Wouldn't be a susb9 choice though. Or maybe it could. But Berklee abhors a false relation... Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
You would rather be playing the b2 as a chromatic neighbor, and not as the dorian b2 mode as such. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Would I now? Originally Posted by rodolfoguitarra
My go to move would probably to base my lines around a minor framework, so Fm on G7sus4b9, say. That could by Phrygian or Dorian b2 depending on what I do with the other notes. Fm(maj7) for the latter, or a cheeky Caddb6 quadrad.
So F melodic minor or C mixo b6 in fact, on G7sus4b9.
If you really want to play a "modal" sound you want to go straight for the colour tones. Otherwise you are sitting on the chord tones and playing passing tones. You can calibrate how high you want to go into the upper structure depending on how you sub it. Many classic jazz subs work on this principle...
If you aren't careful the tendency with chord scales based on the chord root is to sit on the base chord tones which sort of defeats the point. Maybe this is what you meant.
-
Everytime a thread topic remotely involves the concept of an "avoid note", the discussion derails into the meaning of the term "avoid". This happens because extremely shortly after the thread is posted, we inevitably get posts that impart deep wisdom about music with statements such as "There are no avoid notes in jazz.". Well, this sounds like wisdom but it actually misses the point of a theoretical musical organization.
Berklee faculty aren't musical idiots. I'm sure their grasp of jazz and music is as good as any member here. The term "avoid note" is part of the chord-scale system.
Suppose you got a tonic major chord, CMaj7. The chord scale of this chord is C major scale. What that means is that your voicings come from notes of this scale. These notes are organized into three groups in this system:
Chord tones: C E G B
Available tensions: D A (9 and 13)
Avoid note (or unavailable tension): F (11)
D and A are upper extensions and can almost be freely used in the chord. The note F on the other hand will make the function of the chord more ambiguous. It may also be an unusual choice in some styles unless it's used as suspension. It does not as seamless fit in the tonic chord as the other notes in the scale in the way that most people hear music.
That is a framework of hierarchical organization of the notes. Not every note is the same in a given context. It says nothing about what actually "can or cannot be used" artistically.Last edited by Tal_175; 03-17-2024 at 06:56 PM.
-
yes Originally Posted by rodolfoguitarra
-
If I dislike the term "avoid note"., The term "available tensions" makes me see red haha. Originally Posted by Tal_175
This hierarchy is exactly upside down unless you are a bass player, or the piano's left hand.
They are not tensions. They are extensions. Or colours.
What changed my life is when Jordan pointed out (after Stephon Harris) that the 'available tensions' in an extended chord are actually often the most resolved sounding notes for a solo line, while the base chord tones are often dissonant. This is why we tend to avoid harmonising a C melody note with a Cmaj7 chord - we hear the Em triad in the Cmaj7 chord in this case as the resolved notes and the C as a mild dissonance. An avoid note even.
This probably sounds completely nuts, but to my ears at least it seems to accord with what I actually hear. It's also a much more nuanced system that covers the same ground in more detail... Anyway...
-
If use of diatonic modes freaks you out, I don't think you get jazz. Using pentatonic is basically trying whatever flipping pent scale you want on a given chord to see what it sounds like, including pents that have none of the same notes as the chord scale. But a b6 will make ur guitar blow up.
-
The thing is: I don't think the great ´´tonal players´´ thought about modes. Of course, we can open the Omnibook for example and say: Parker has played the Dorian mode on this IIm7 chord. I'm sure he didn't think this way. In my opinion the modes have much more to do with the harmony generated than with the scale played in a linear way. We may be playing #4 over the IIm7 as a lower chromatic neighbor, but it does not mean that we are playing the Dorian #4 from the harmonic minor scale. For me the word modal in jazz refers more to a harmonic atmosphere than a mere scale played linearly. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Did you just disregard my clip? BH talking about using phrygian, linearly or harmonically I gather, over the iii on ATTYA. I'm not sure how common this use of the modes in tonal harmony was among the greats, but I'm sure it existed. Originally Posted by rodolfoguitarra
Although I agree with this.
For me the word modal in jazz refers more to a harmonic atmosphere than a mere scale played linearly.
-
I don't disagree with this but I think the Berklee chord-scale terminology is based on harmonic realizations, rather than melodic. In fact, this seems to be one area of agreement between Barry Harris and the Berklee organisation (I think BH's ghost will haunt me tonight for saying that.). The borrowed diminished notes correspond to the available tensions and avoid notes. The borrowed diminished notes were resolved back to the 6th chords in some of the movement examples. This implies that a tension resolution view of the "extensions" is one aspect of the 6h diminished organization. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Depends on the perspective. Originally Posted by rodolfoguitarra
Musicologically/historically - in truth, there's no clear divide.
(Functional harmony itself is just a theoretical construct that is used to describe aspects of 'tonal' music.)
Jazz harmony has always had a slight chord scale or colouristic flavour going right back to the 20s; it was never strictly functional or Western harmonically. (I view it as 'layered harmony') It seems to me very the nature of improvisation on changes invites 'colour' notes that fall between the simple categories of dissonance and consonance used in Western harmony.
However this stuff wasn't systematised until quite late (50s and 60s AFAIK)
However, in the case of the learner looking to get it together, I'd give this advice for the first few years - standards and bop and so on is all functional, post-bop and fusion is modal.
It's not the exact truth, but it's a helpful pedagogical simplification.
I think Ligon is stating things in quite absolute terms that I might tend to shy away away from these days (no really, don't laugh JGO), but that maybe helpful for the learner. So I would tend to agree.A piece that begins with the progression Dm7 - G7 - C is in the key of no sharps and flats. It cannot be D
dorian as C is the tonic indicated by the traditional harmonic progression. It is terribly misleading
when the Dm7 is labeled as dorian. D dorian indicates D is the tonic and D would never sound like the
tonic in this setting. The proof is in the hearing, but it might be helpful to think of the mathematics.
Tonic is 1 and supertonic is 2; and 2 cannot be 1. The tonic is the primary pitch; there cannot be two
primary pitches. Labeling the passage as D dorian, G mixolydian followed by C ionian produces more
confusion. Does anyone hear this passage with three different tonics? C is the tonic, and clearly the passage
reflects the major/minor system with the functional ii7 - V7 - I progression. Using the same logic, it
would be misleading to suggest that a modal piece in D dorian is really in the key of C, with just the ii7
chord sounding. However, in contemporary compositions that have mixtures of modal and functional
harmony, it is helpful to describe certain chords and sounds by their modal names so that an Fmaj7
(IV) may be described as a lydian sound to distinguish it from a major scale sound (I).
It gets worse when they start talking about 'giving away the sound of the dominant' and how the 13 is an avoid note on the II Dorian etc etc. Confusing as all hell. I think methods where you start by telling people what not to do are pedagogically flawed from the start tbh,
When it comes down to learning music, you have to fit the tool to the job. If your aim is to play GASB tunes, get appropriate tools. If you want to wail on Inner urge, use an approach that's well matched.
How do you know the right tools? Well you'll know the wrong tools at least because they won't work. To get a clue, you listen to the records and work out what is going on by applying your knowledge. Get advice from others. Take lessons.
Generations of players learned jazz by learning a bunch of songs, transcribing their favourite players, spotting the patterns (there aren't too many of them in the old standards) and putting it togheter in their way. There wasn't AFAIK so much of a need for a book or theory on how to play that stuff, but there was a lot of street knowledge and learning through cultural immersion and apprenticeship. By the time we get to Joe Henderson, he is definitely playing chord scales, whatever he might have called them. (Actually post-bops a really interesting era for diverse approaches. Wayne for example isn't really a chord scale guy in that way... anyway.)
I found learning functional harmony helped me play tunes based on functional harmony. Funny that. Cycle of fifths, cadences, leading tone dominants, chord tones, passing tones, neighbour tones etc, etc. Classical theory actually.
Later on you may find more ways to apply your knowledge in different ways, but I don't think I'd ever have got to where I am with changes playing if I'd carried on with CST instead of changing my arppaoch to chord tones and embellishments, lick learning form records and eventually the Barry Harris approach. Now I can slot in CST with my other knowledge.
BTW the way someone like Barry Harris approaches it is a little different but covers the same ground. In this understanding we are still using scales, but instead of using two separate scales for we use one scale - the G dominant (mixolydian for you nerds) for the II V, and concentrate on cool stuff we can play on that scale, before reoslving into C major.
-
I saw the clip 2x. He does not say C phrygian scale anytime. Technically yes, we could say that he played the Phrygian mode. My problem is with the nomenclature and the context. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
Guys, let's be clear: I completely understand all of this. My problem (and the reason for opening this discussion) is that this nomeclature has been causing confusion for a long time, both among students and professional musicians.
-
Is it causing you confusion? Originally Posted by rodolfoguitarra
If not, who is it causing confusion?
I mean, I'm not a fan of the Berklee approach. A couple of years ago I would have said 'HELL YEAH.' I can certainly see things I would fix in terms of the syllabus in mainstream jazz education. From convos with Berklee grads I'm surprised at a lot of stuff I think of as basic that apparently isn't in the syllabus.
And yet people come out of Berklee every year sounding amazing. Funny that. It's almost as if there's more to that place than the syllabus. Surely not!
I think for me the main problem is that students try to learn jazz from a book, and try to master improvisation by applying theory and rules from books. An already great musician will sound good doing that and most us starting out will sound terrible.
I don't actually think changing the book for a better one fixes that.
-
What difference does nomenclature make? Do you work for Abersold? As far as context, that's pretty basic knowledge to know that it can always be a choice to use the corresponding modes to the diatonic chords in tonal harmony.. and other applications of modes of other scales. I don't understand what you think is so disruptive.
-
I know you weren't asking me, but FWIW as you know I would advocate for simple nomenclature always. So for instance, rejecting the mode names and equating mode names with chord symbols and so on. I think a lot of what seems like music theory on further analysis is just busy work and learning names. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
The guts of CST isn't in knowing a C lydian goes on a Cmaj13#11 - it's the same pitch set by two different names lol - it's the stuff about avoid notes and modal interchange and so on and so forth.
However, here we are. I think every field has nonsense like this.
So we use the terms in current use. This creates an interesting dilemma with trying to communicate stuff like Barry Harris which has a consistent and well thought out terminology that means NOTHING to the uninitiated - even they are already a professional jazz musician with a jazz degree etc.
It's also perhaps a little sketchy to talk about 'mainstream jazz education' as a monolith. (The jazz industrial complex as Jordan calls it haha.) Tbh this is where my knowledge fails me - UNT and Berklee for instance have different approaches that I tend to conflate in my head having seen them all jumbled up over the years. That stuff is VERY interesting to me as an educator, and I always love to learn more.
-
One thing I think is absolutely dreadful and turning a lot of people off jazz is the way that improvisation is typically taught to beginners. We teach it like engineering and then jazz ends up full of people with engineering brains. Nothing wrong with STEM geeks (I am one) but this is a problem for diversity of approach IMO.
I think we can do better here.
-
Thanks, I was just thinking the same thing. Beyond passing notes there’s the question of sustain notes. Originally Posted by rodolfoguitarra
Last edited by JazzPadd; 03-18-2024 at 03:01 AM.
-
I think nomenclature is important. I feel like the terms a person uses should match the utility of the concept. So talking about a iii chord as being “Phrygian” implies pretty strongly that the approach is meaningfully modal, or scalar. Which it isn’t. If you talk about a major triad a half step up being available over that chord, that would be maybe more useful to me, even though the end result is still sort of “Phrygian” or whatever. Because I think it illustrates the melodic effect of what’s going on a little better. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
I sort of imagine saying “oh you use your Phrygian mode.” And then someone saying “oh so like C major scale still?” And then I’d say “yes, but … also don’t just run scale stuff and some notes will hit better than others depending.” And then I would need to explain what sorts of things work in what ways anyway …
At which point I wonder whether there isn’t a better name (or more specific name) than “Phrygian” for what should be happening there.
Reply With Quote
Autumn Leaves (Fingerstyle Chord Melody)
Yesterday, 11:56 PM in Improvisation