What makes a melodic fragment work over a chord?
Jon Slaughter
chord progression it sounds "random". This might be expected but why does it
not work as compared to a well thought out melody?
By random I do not mean just a random set of notes but generally within the
key and generally containing chord tones.
What else is going on? I know it's a broad and somewhat unanswerable
question but...
I know all the standard answers that you'll read in any music book. What
they don't address is why some melodic fragments work over some chords well
but not others. That is, they seem to come alive on some chords.
You can take a small scalar fragment and if you sequence it and the harmony
then it can work really well. If you take that same scalar fragment and
sequence it in a random way then it doesn't work.
Somehow the fragments must follow the harmony. But what makes this happen? I
know the standard and obtuse answer has to do with the chord tones in the
fragment but this is definitely not all thats going on.
I imagine it has something to do with connecting the "fragments" in a
logical way. But maybe all it really is just emphasizing chord tones? Maybe
"randomly" playing puts way to much stress on non-chord tones which not only
does not give good direction to the melody but creates a bit of a tense feel
without ever releasing it?
The problem I have is that when I improvise I can find little fragments that
work well over the current harmony by listening for the dissonance and
consonance. I tend to land on the consonant intervals when I can. But as I'm
looking for such consonant intervals I invariably play play a lot of
dissonant tones and at times probably emphasize the them too much.
When I kinda know where the progression is going then I can work with it and
generally get something decent. If I don't know where I'm at in the
progression then the melody tends to sit on top of the harmony instead of
being integrated into it. I'm just curious as to the theoretical reasons
why this happens.
Obviously if I'm randomly playing notes then it will sound random(most
likely at least)... but that isn't the reason why it sounds random. For
example, If I were to restrict myself to playing only chord tones and use
good rhythms then it would sound much better... this by itself probably says
it's almost mainy about using good chord tones and knowing when and how to
add the dissonances to make it more interesting.
Should I really be actively thinking about targeting chord tones? Is that
the most important thing to worry about?
tom_k
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hai2r3$l45$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> I imagine it has something to do with connecting the "fragments" in a
> logical way. But maybe all it really is just emphasizing chord tones?
> Maybe "randomly" playing puts way to much stress on non-chord tones which
> not only does not give good direction to the melody but creates a bit of a
> tense feel without ever releasing it?
>
Jon, if you keep in mind that you have multiple processes going on and that
their interrelationships are also important, it may help.
One group of processes includes the harmonic progression and harmonic
rhythm - that is what are the chords, how do they relate to one another and
how often do they change?
Another is the small scale formal process of presenting and developing
melodic motives (what you are terming "fragments") and the combining of
those motives into larger formal units such as phrases and periods.
Yet another is the handling local and large-scale pitch goals (for example,
should this phrase move from ^1 to ^5?, etc.)
> When I kinda know where the progression is going then I can work with it
> and generally get something decent. If I don't know where I'm at in the
> progression then the melody tends to sit on top of the harmony instead of
> being integrated into it. I'm just curious as to the theoretical reasons
> why this happens.
These processes mentioned above must come into sync at important junctures -
which are most often cadences (phrase/period endings).
> Should I really be actively thinking about targeting chord tones? Is that
> the most important thing to worry about?
If your melodic ideas are totally unrelated to the harmony (what used to be
termed "playing outside"), then it will be difficult to achieve coherence.
But if you are only using chord tones, it will be boring. So as usual, the
trick is to balance unity and variety.
Again, I'd try to make sure that the motivic stuff has it's own logic which,
in turn complements the goal directed harmonic activity.
Sorry if these comments are a bit vague, but without a specific musical
example, it's tough to respond to your questions.
Tom
Jon Slaughter
"tom_k" <tko...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B9ednSgfTJZjIVHX...@giganews.com...
Yeah... it's all the standard stuff ;/ There just seems to be something I'm
missing. That or I just can't comprehend musically how to accomplish the
stuff you mentioned. That is, I know it intellectually... but just don't
have the musical ability to apply it.
I was playing over Pachelbel's canon in D progression and if I sorta
improvise using the pentaonic it tends to sound random. If I sorta follow
the chord tones but embellish them it sounds musical. That is, I think less
in terms of scales and more in terms of chord tones. In fact I didn't think
all that much in chord tones either but sorta just embellished a descending
major scale that is suppose to fit well with the progression. (just so
happens that I probably was targeting the chord tones)
Of course when I play "randomly" I still target tones by listening to the
dissonance and stuff. Sometimes small fragments work and sometimes they
don't. It's still somewhat chord tone based since I am listening to the
consonance/dissonance and tend to rest a bit on chord tones or at least
resolve to them.
So either I'm not doing it enough with the random playing(target too much
dissonant notes and resolve into them by accident sometimes) or I'm not able
to understand the "large" scale stuff when I'm playing.
i.e., the sorta inherent direction and meaning are random because I'm
playing randomly.
While chord tones may be "boring" it could be the glue that holds it all
together? Actually chord tones don't have to be boring as they can work
quite well. Pachelbel's canon starts off by simply alterating 3rds and 5ths.
Maybe my "random" playing is using so many different intervals there is no
coherence at that level.
One thing I do not do is thinking about the coherence of the interval
relationships I'm playing which might be the problem?
Steve Latham
>
> One thing I do not do is thinking about the coherence of the interval
> relationships I'm playing which might be the problem?
Another "problem" might be in your approach. You are assuming the
"melody goes with the chords".
That's a modernistic, and especially pop and jazz approach.
Much music, historically, is about "harmonizing a melody" as opposed
to "melodizing a harmony".
You should be looking for harmonies that "go with" the melody, rather
than melodies that "go with" the harmony - at least from a traditional
historical approach. Even in Jazz, where improvisation over a chord
progression is standard fare, many original versions of songs that are
improvised over were actually melodies that were harmonized, rather
than a "chord progression to which a melody is put".
Maybe, take the original Pachelbel, and analyze it and see what
percentage of notes are consonances and dissonances, and which are
chord tones and non-chord tones. Furthermore, how those tones
interact.
Try "embellishing" the Pachelbel melody and try using different notes
and see what "works" and what doesn't - it seems like you used to do
experiments like this in the past - so maybe they'll still be useful
to you.
More specifically in answer to the question of your subject line - I
think Tom makes a good point - it's that "balance" of chord tones and
non-chord tones - in general - I won't go so far as to say chord tones
are "boring" or anything like that, but they do create a sense of
"stability" or maybe a better word is "complacency". Non Chord Tones
tend to produce a "level of activity" - again, not "interesting"
necessarily, or "unstable", but simply bustling about.
maybe a good analogy is students in a classroom sitting at their desks
(chord tones) and them getting up to leave when the bell rings - a few
will still sit there, but the more that are not at their desks and
trying to get out of the class (non chord tones), the more "active" or
"in motion" the classroom will be.
HTH,
Steve
Jon Slaughter
"Steve Latham" <lla...@odu.edu> wrote in message
news:26407328-aaab-45df...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
----
Well, maybe it is balance and I just can't recognize it. I guess I should
simply take a lot of chord progressions and play only chord tones, or even
just non-chord tones but do it structured so I develop a sense of both ends.
Maybe that will develop balance.
Jon Slaughter
The chord tones are structurally necessary to give structural integrity to
the melody. It would be analogous to a building with good internal
structure. The non-chord tones add the facade.
The way I tend to play I have a building that structurally doesn't make much
sense. (Maybe like an escher painting) Although the facade may look decent
it doesn't matter all that much because the building doesn't look like a
building.
Jon Slaughter
that it's not necessarily chord tones. I played something like 5 3 1 - - -
and then moved it up a step playing 6 #4 2 - -. Emphasizing the 2nd step. It
sounded pretty good. Moving it up again did not result in any significant
improvement.
It seems that it's not all about chord tones. Now I'm not sure about how
things exactly work in F lydian but I've noticed that many guitarists tend
to play arpeggios from other chords over some chord which is basically what
I'm doing in that example above. I tried variations of it but many didn't
work.
It seems that the melodic intervals are pretty important. Playing something
like #4 2 5 1 does not have the same effect as #4 2 3 5. I guess I expect
them to be the same but they are not. Whats going on here?
Actually other variations that produce different results are #4 5 2 3 and 2
3 #4 5.
Goetschuis talks a lot about certain no-no's with melodies that mainly
involve leaps from active tones and resolving active tones properly. Of
course there are exceptions such as in sequences. Is it possible that I'm
simply not making good melodic sense(I know it's impossible to tell without
hearing... maybe I'll try to record something tomorrow)?
Thing is, I would treat all those figures as pretty much the same. So if
they have different harmonic or melodic meanings and I'm treating them the
same then chances are I'm using them when I shouldn't.
Fiona Abrahami
"Steve Latham" <lla...@odu.edu> wrote
> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> One thing I do not do is thinking about the coherence of the interval
>> relationships I'm playing which might be the problem?
>
> Another "problem" might be in your approach. You are assuming the
> "melody goes with the chords".
>
> That's a modernistic, and especially pop and jazz approach.
>
> Much music, historically, is about "harmonizing a melody" as opposed
> to "melodizing a harmony".
>
> You should be looking for harmonies that "go with" the melody, rather
> than melodies that "go with" the harmony - at least from a traditional
> historical approach. Even in Jazz, where improvisation over a chord
> progression is standard fare, many original versions of songs that are
> improvised over were actually melodies that were harmonized, rather
> than a "chord progression to which a melody is put".
There are of course many ways to skin a cat... I'm not sure that it is
necessarily correct to say that deriving a melody from a chord-base is a
"modern" way of working, it may be a more folksy or less-academic way of
working, but even if it is, to my mind it doesn't really matter. It seems to
me that when composing/song writing you have to be open to possibilities
coming from any direction. These days I use not only both
melody-from-harmony and harmony-from-melody but also
melody-and/or-harmony-from-theory, i.e. if I reach an impasse using MfH or
HfM and I'm just not feeling a direction theory offers me a solution.
An alternative to MfH is to just write a simple bassline to map-out the root
movement, then write a melody line and harmonise the gap. When you consider
that any note can be harmonised with any other note you can get quite
extreme with this - the limiting factor is how 'out there' you want to be;
functional harmony, diatonics, modality and genre stylistics can be severely
limiting.
An academic exercise I set myself a few years ago was (using 40 odd standard
chord symbols) to list out all the chords containing each given note in the
chromatic scale by their position in the chord structure i.e. root, 2nd,
3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 11th, and 13th (including altered positions).
So using C (ignoring root position), C is:
the 2nd of Bbsus2 chords
the 3rd of A min and Ab maj chords
the 4th of Gsus4 chords
the 5th of Gbm7b5, Gbdim, F and Eaug chords
the 6th of Eb6 and D#6 chords
the 7th of Ebdim7, D#dim7, D7, Dbmaj7, C#maj7
the 9th of B7b9, Bm7b9, Bb9 and A7#9
the 11th of Gm11
the 13th of Em9(b13), Eb13 and D#13
etc, etc...
Doing this for all notes in the chromatic scale can be liberating (if not a
bit anal) in the sense that it can break the bonds of diatonics by showing
how you can harmonise any two given notes, and you don't have to use the
lower note as a root either.
Just my tu'pence worth; a different way of looking at things.
Fiona
Jon Slaughter
"Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s9lzm.32105$lI6....@newsfe04.ams2...
Once you've done it for one note you'lve done it for all. (if you change
your main note by some interval then it will change all the roots of those
chords by that same interval)
In any case it might be true that one can "harmonize" any note with any
chord I wonder how practical it really is? I imagine very few will actually
make sense in the context of the music(it being the 1,3,5, or 7 in most
cases).
Fiona Abrahami
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote
> "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote
True, but as I said it just an exercise, the idea is to familiarise oneself
with all the options, just like practicing all scales in all keys. By your
arguement, once you know all the scales in one key there would be no point
in practicing the other keys because they are just the same scales
transposed.
> In any case it might be true that one can "harmonize" any note with any
> chord I wonder how practical it really is? I imagine very few will
> actually make sense in the context of the music(it being the 1,3,5, or 7
> in most cases).
"Mak[ing] sense in the context of the music" is, to me, just a another way
of saying "conforming to the stylistic rules of a genre" - if you are happy
to conform, fine, conform, playing safe is a fair way to earn a living. But
me, I like the element of surprise; I want my music to take the neural
pathways less travelled and to forge new ones if necessary; I want it to
explore nooks and crannies of inner space that are not charted on most
people's sonic maps; as a composer I want to take my audience to aural
spaces and places they are not familiar with.
Fiona
Joey Goldstein
Hi Jon
I haven't got time right now to go into detail with you. I haven't even
had time to read this post all the way through or the follow-ups.
But it looks like you're asking about the importance of using
chord-tones melodically when improvising or creating melody over a
pre-determined chord progression. The short answer is, yes, it's real
important to be able to use the chord tones melodically.
One of the earliest goals for any novice jazz improviser is to be able
to improvise a line that clearly implies the given harmony and the
groove. One important step on the way to being able to do this is to
experiment with creating chord-tone melodies.
Start with 1 2 5 and then add the 7ths where applicable.
After you've developed the ability to make up 'decent sounding'
chord-tone melodies without struggling then it's time to start using any
available tensions (i.e. extensions that sound good on the chord
vertically and don't work against the chord's harmonic function within
the progression of chords) *as if* they too are chord tones within your
chord tone melodies.
The sum off all chord-tones and all available tensions is called
"chord-sound" in some circles.
Eg. Chord-sound on maj7 chords is 1 3 5 7 9 #11 13
But on Imaj7 chords we don't normally use #11 because it's outside of
the key, although many modern players do just that.
The chord-sounds are simply the safest notes to emphasize on any given
chord. Once you're comfortable improvising with chord-sound you can turn
your attention towards the remaining notes which are often called
"avoid-notes". Up until now, in my little process here, we've been
taking that term literally. But any melody that stays totally within
chord-sound will be fairly bland sounding and lacking in
tension-resolution. The avoid-notes are not to be avoided. they usually
work best as approach notes into the chord-sound.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
ttw...@att.net
tom_k
<ttw...@att.net> wrote in message
news:a9d8d461-cfc2-4482...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> "Mack The Knife" uses various chords to harmonize the same melody.
Which brings up a related topic -
While most melodies have a clearly defined pitch movement from beginning to
end, there are a few which simply revolve around one primary tone, often
with a few upper and lower neighbors as decorations. One Note Samba is a
good example of this "static melody".
Or there might be a combination of the two techniques, such as "How
Insensitive", where the beginning A is held (with NTs) through 3 chords
before beginning it's descent to D.
Tom
J R Laredo
case of someone like me that would be the music of western standard
practice, in which the progression of tonic, sub-dominant, dominant, tonic
is most prevalent (and, before anyone says anything, Schenker ran with that
waaaaay to far). When I noodle around, any melody that does not fit into
that framework will sound not quite right. Almost without question you have
that same kind of basis for your music, and that is why some things don't
sound quite right for you.
And I need to take a small exception to what Steve Latham says about
"harmonizing a melody." Since so much of western music follows the afore
mentioned progression, the existance of the melody presupposes the harmony.
And, in fact, there is much music that is melodizing a harmony: that is what
chaconnes are.
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hai2r3$l45$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Jon Slaughter
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:bf778$4ace0810$d15a8d6e$21...@PRIMUS.CA...
But the problem with all that is that it's too general. It allows any melody
to "work". It makes no distinction about when is the best time to use them.
It might be that the root, in some cases, is not the best choice but maybe
the 9th is. It seems to have to do with something more abstract or
subconscious than I want I can see. Similar to schrenkian analysis where
there are "hidden" lines that exist that direct the listen in a subconscious
way. Of course it could be something simple like just emphasising a chord
tone on or near the downbeat... or being consistent in the way you emphasize
intervals.
For example, A melody for some piece may emphasize the 3rd and 7th. It does
this somewhat consistently but throwing in variety. Another piece might use
more of the root and 3rd. But in my pieces I'm using all the main intervals
in a somewhat happazard way. An "internal" consistency does not exist.
I'm not saying that is necessarily true but just that there seems to be
something going on "under the hood" that I just don't get. It's nothing
complex though because it seems that most "uneducated" musicians get it.
Their music is not complex but "has it". Most likely it has to do with the
consonance and dissonance because this would be the first thing that any
starting musician would understand. Since they did not develop greatly in a
musically intellectual way I'm not sure what else they could have learned
that it might be. (i.e., they don't know all the advanced theory and melodic
techniques and don't apply them but tend to just use basic chords)
Of course most of those people tend to have a "vision" of what they want.
That could be the "special thing".
Vilen
> "Mack The Knife" uses various chords to harmonize the same melody.
Wikipedia:
“Theme and variations is a musical form in which the fundamental
musical idea, or theme is repeated in altered form or accompanied in a
different manner.”
It’s clear that harmonization is important. But who can explain what
functions it fulfils. I can no where find in literature or internet.
Yuri Vilenkin.
Jon Slaughter
in the context then even if the person reading doesn't get one or two words
they can generally figure out that meaning of the unknown word to some
degree. If all the words don't form a logical sentence then it doesn't
matter if the individual works make sense or not.
So it might be that I'm simply not forming intelligible musical sentences.
These question is, then what makes an intelligible musical sentence?
(If this analogy is more than just abstractly related then I have a serious
problem since I don't write intelligible senteces either ;/ I kinda play
music like I write ;/)
LJS
This could be true in some cases, but you are forgetting that in
music, the thing that people remember is the MELODY that people
remember and not the chords. Melodies can be written over a chord
pattern but in the purist sense, the harmony is an accompaniment to
the melody.
A good melody will sound fine when played alone with no chords. When
improvising or composing, you may want to write a melody over the
established chords (as in a jazz solo) and here is where things start
to get mixed up.
In order to be coherent, the improvisational melody would want to have
some same elements as the original. As you said, you follow the melody
and embellish and it sounds better than you random playing. Well
random is just that. But if you follow the melody and embellish you
have this relationship that was created when the chords were in sync
with the melody in the first place. As you get random, you lose this
relationship. If you want to get that "outside" (for lack of a better
term) you must create a new relationship of chord tones and non chord
tones that are pleasing and appropriate.
If you study some theme and variation compositions, this may be seen
more clearly. There is usually a statement and then it is usually
embellished and then progresses with more complicated embellishment
and then maybe by structurally altering an element of harmony or
taking a part of the melody and morphing it or some of its motifs into
something new yet related, generally through harmonic changes.
There is no way around it. They melody and harmony must be in
"harmony" (lol) with each other. Study or extensive listening with
critical thinking is the way to understand and learn how to do this.
Some have it naturally and some have to learn it. In either case, it
is the relationship that must be coherent and pleasing.
The thing to remember is that the MELODY is generally the most
important part and the harmony has to support the melody no matter if
the chicken or the egg came first.
LJS
Alain Naigeon
news: wtidnao_ruNSP1PX...@giganews.com...
> And, in fact, there is much music that is melodizing a harmony: that is
> what chaconnes are.
I'd rather say : chaconne consists in using a melodic fragment in an
harmonic way.
Joey Goldstein
Jon
The study of melody will not include just the study of the vertical
relationships between a melody's notes and the accompanying chords.
There's obviously a lot more to constructing a good, or great, melody.
The problem is that a lot of things can't be taught all that
effectively. Everybody has to learn a whole bunch of real good melodies
and try to decide for themselves what it is about them that makes them tick.
The vertical relationships *can be* taught, easily, and that's why
teachers teach them. And students have to start somewhere anyway. Think
of it more as ear training than as composing.
For a decent discussion of the other abstract qualities of good melody
check out Gordon Delamont's book about melody.
Joey Goldstein
> On 8 Okt., 20:51, "ttw6...@att.net" <ttw6...@att.net> wrote:
>> "Mack The Knife" uses various chords to harmonize the same melody.
>
> Wikipedia:
> musical idea, or theme is repeated in altered form or accompanied in a
> It�s clear that harmonization is important. But who can explain what
> functions it fulfils. I can no where find in literature or internet.
>
> Yuri Vilenkin.
It fulfils our feeling of joy when we are pleasantly surprised.
Hearing a musical passage one way, we expect to hear it the same way if
repeated. If it's changed in some way without losing its essence, we
have an "ah hah" experience.
Jon Slaughter
> The study of melody will not include just the study of the vertical
> relationships between a melody's notes and the accompanying chords.
> There's obviously a lot more to constructing a good, or great, melody.
>
> The problem is that a lot of things can't be taught all that effectively.
> Everybody has to learn a whole bunch of real good melodies and try to
> decide for themselves what it is about them that makes them tick.
>
> The vertical relationships *can be* taught, easily, and that's why
> teachers teach them. And students have to start somewhere anyway. Think of
> it more as ear training than as composing.
>
> For a decent discussion of the other abstract qualities of good melody
> check out Gordon Delamont's book about melody.
>
Yeah, I know there are many factors involved. Considering that one can just
about find any melody with any rhythm an/or pitch class I think that these
factors are not as important. There is something that makes some melodies
good and others bad. I know it depends on the whole context and there are
synergistic effects but what tends to be the underlying comonality between
them? (lets restrict ourself to a specific style)
I'll have to try to get Delamont's books... you mention him quite often.
Joey Goldstein
Delamont has some good books.
Besides note-to-chord relationships some important factors in a good
melody are:
1. rhythmic thematical development
This often takes the form of a call-response type of thing, with
variations. Also activity vs inactivity.
2. melodic contour
Good melodies usually have a climax, usually mid-tune, usually involving
a high note, that is built up to and then relaxed away from.
3. action-reaction
Things like going down after leaping up and visa versa.
4. building melodic expectations and either fulfilling them or thwarting
them with a surprise
This can be done, for example, by setting up a repeating intervallic
pattern and then varying it or switching to a new pattern/phrase. Eg.
Autumn Leaves, All The Things you Are, etc.
Etc., etc. etc.
Most of the things involved in keeping music interesting involve
contrasting events.
Chord-tones vs non-chord-tones
Soft vs loud
Busy vs inactive
High vs low
Downbeats vs upbeats
Tension vs resolution
Tonic vs non-tonic
Etc., etc., etc.
It's all a balancing act and nobody can really teach you how to do it.
Teachers can only hint at the outlines.
So, again, learn some good melodies and study them so that you can make
your own conclusions about why they "work".
Jon Slaughter
The problem is, you can easily find good melodies that do not do many of
those things you mention. You can find melodies that only use chord tones
that sound great... even ones that use only 1 note per chord. You can find
melodies over a static chord that use just arps that can sound
interesting(Although it might not is used for a long time).
You can find "melodies" that are based of the same rhythmic figure
continuously for a whole piece... but "work" because of other factors(Bach's
prelude in C for example). In fact these tend to just be arpeggiated chords
but work because of other factors. About the only thing I can think of in
these types of pieces is the harmonic tension created and the some type of
subconscious thing going on.
Many of Bach's preludes that are based on the same rhythmic figure have
something "hidden" going on. Get your average composer to try and write a
piece based on it and generally they fail. It may simply be several of the
factors you mentioned(such as tension and release and some type of inherent
subconscious rhythm) but I just can't see how it all fits together.
Anyways.. I'll work on it some more and see what I come up with. I'm
probably overanalyzing things as thats usually the case.
tom_k
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> You can find "melodies" that are based of the same rhythmic figure
> continuously for a whole piece... but "work" because of other
> factors(Bach's prelude in C for example). In fact these tend to just be
> arpeggiated chords but work because of other factors. About the only thing
> I can think of in these types of pieces is the harmonic tension created
> and the some type of subconscious thing going on.
>
There is a very interesting melody in this prelude, but it isn't the chordal
arpeggiation. You are combining all 5 voices to define the "melody" - but
the true soprano line uses E for bar 1, F for bar 2, F for bar 3, E for bar
4, etc., with the 4 supporting lower voices having their own melodies. So
the primary "melody" is rhythmically static, but it has very clearly defined
pitch movement, primarily involving descending lines. Schenker has a
wonderful analysis of it - although he fudges a bit toward the end in order
to make it conform to his "Ursatz" idea.
Tom
Joey Goldstein
Really?
> You can find melodies that only use chord tones
> that sound great...
I've never seen a melody that was all chord tones all the way through.
But if there is one then it probably has other things going on too.
Give me an example of *one* such melody.
> even ones that use only 1 note per chord.
Name one.
> You can find
> melodies over a static chord that use just arps that can sound
> interesting(Although it might not is used for a long time).
Name one.
> You can find "melodies" that are based of the same rhythmic figure
> continuously for a whole piece... but "work" because of other factors(Bach's
> prelude in C for example).
Lots of other factors in that piece.
I think you'd be hard pressed to say what the melody actually is though.
In my ear, a combination of the lowest notes of the arps and the highest
notes of the arps sort of comes together into a sort of composite
melody, but I couldn't sing it to you.
And the rhythm *does* change at the very end, which creates a sort of
release of tension IMO.
I think that if you're looking for examples of well-written melodies
that that particular piece isn't the best example.
> In fact these tend to just be arpeggiated chords
> but work because of other factors. About the only thing I can think of in
> these types of pieces is the harmonic tension created and the some type of
> subconscious thing going on.
The subconscious thing you're talking about is called Tonality, aka the
system of major and minor keys. He sets up harmonic expectations within
the maj/min key system. Sometimes he fulfils our expectations as
expected. Sometimes he fulfils them in an unexpected way.
> Many of Bach's preludes that are based on the same rhythmic figure have
> something "hidden" going on. Get your average composer to try and write a
> piece based on it and generally they fail. It may simply be several of the
> factors you mentioned(such as tension and release and some type of inherent
> subconscious rhythm) but I just can't see how it all fits together.
>
> Anyways.. I'll work on it some more and see what I come up with. I'm
> probably overanalyzing things as thats usually the case.
>
>
>
Jon Slaughter
All the way through? I generally mean a melody that is several bars long(8
is your average).
That Bach prelude "melody" is all chord tones... obviously. Many
neoclassical pieces tend to use arpeggios for some "melodies".
The several pachelbel's canon imitators use the desending major scale in
harmonization with the progression.... one note per chord. Check out the
intro to "canon rock" on youtube. Although it is a simple melody and the
next phrase is much more active.
I'm not saying these things work well for long periods of time but you do
find them all over the place. You can find many figures used very fast that
are just arpeggio's of the chord such as in van Halen's erruption and
countless other songs. Not sure if these would really be classified as
melodies though.
>> even ones that use only 1 note per chord.
>
> Name one.
>
Named a few above.
>> You can find melodies over a static chord that use just arps that can
>> sound interesting(Although it might not is used for a long time).
>
> Name one.
Named a few above.
>
>> You can find "melodies" that are based of the same rhythmic figure
>> continuously for a whole piece... but "work" because of other
>> factors(Bach's prelude in C for example).
>
> Lots of other factors in that piece.
> I think you'd be hard pressed to say what the melody actually is though.
> In my ear, a combination of the lowest notes of the arps and the highest
> notes of the arps sort of comes together into a sort of composite melody,
> but I couldn't sing it to you.
> And the rhythm *does* change at the very end, which creates a sort of
> release of tension IMO.
> I think that if you're looking for examples of well-written melodies that
> that particular piece isn't the best example.
>
If you mean a melody is something singable then it is a different definition
than what I'm using. Not that I don't agree with you to some degree what
basically what I mean by melody is the main instrument in a piece. Such as a
guitar in an instrumental. If the guitar is the main piece then anything it
does will be heard as the "top".
So while the things I'm saying may not be melodic I consider them the
melodies because they have some type of melodic significance. It might not
be singable but somehow it represents the "melody" of the song.
>> In fact these tend to just be arpeggiated chords but work because of
>> other factors. About the only thing I can think of in these types of
>> pieces is the harmonic tension created and the some type of subconscious
>> thing going on.
>
> The subconscious thing you're talking about is called Tonality, aka the
> system of major and minor keys. He sets up harmonic expectations within
> the maj/min key system. Sometimes he fulfils our expectations as expected.
> Sometimes he fulfils them in an unexpected way.
>
Maybe... I'll have to ponder it more and see if thats it...
J R Laredo
"Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:4acf2875$1$305$426a...@news.free.fr...
Well, you might rather say that. But doesn't make much sense.
J R Laredo
"tom_k" <tko...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4--dnZxPefp5F03X...@giganews.com...
Please, correct me if I am wrong, but, wasn't this prelude originally
written just as block chords, and then it was up to the performer to decide
on how to arpeggiate the chords? Seem to recall Roland Nadeau saying that.
Jon Slaughter
"J R Laredo" <jrlar...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
news:I9udnWEGCfSX60zX...@giganews.com...
yes, but it shouldn't matter if the chords are arpeggiated.
J R Laredo
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
I thought so. This was one of those many instances in the Baroque where it
was expected for the performer to improvise: arpeggiate up, or down, or
zig-zag, but, almost certainly, not block.
Alain Naigeon
>
> "Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr> wrote in message
> news:4acf2875$1$305$426a...@news.free.fr...
>> "J R Laredo" <jrlar...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> a �crit dans le message
>> de news: wtidnao_ruNSP1PX...@giganews.com...
>>> And, in fact, there is much music that is melodizing a harmony: that is
>>> what chaconnes are.
>>
>> I'd rather say : chaconne consists in using a melodic fragment in an
>> harmonic way.
Well, for me it does, but I'd be interested in reading your arguments.
What I meant is that, amongst patterns used as basses in the baroque
period, some of them were used before as melodic lines.
--
Fran�ais *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon
tom_k
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
above) consists of the top notes of the chords.
Tom
LJS
> One of the earliest goals for any novice jazz improviser is to be able
> to improvise a line that clearly implies the given harmony and the
> groove. One important step on the way to being able to do this is to
> experiment with creating chord-tone melodies.
> Start with 1 2 5 and then add the 7ths where applicable.
>
Very well put Joey. And the key to this is "earliest goals for
NOVICE". Once this step is learned, then one can (and many would
think "should") progress to (if they had not already taken this
approach) learning how to write good melodies. Knowing how to stay
within a framework is good TRAINING for writing melodies.
Since melody seems to be much more fundamental to music than harmony,
however, one should strive to come up with a strong MELODY and then
adding supporting harmony if one is composing. One may notice that as
Jazz becomes (or became) more modal in nature, that the "sticking to
the chords" becomes less important as there are less emphasis on
chords and more on the modes which are more melodic in nature.
Personally, I aver learning the principles of melody FIRST, without
the "crutch" of chords. Then as you learn harmony and what it sounds
like, if you correctly hear the implied scales by the harmony then
your ear will force you to write good melodic content in any
progression that you may run across or create.
LJS
J R Laredo
The first reason against is a matter of definition: a melody is a linear set
of pitches whose relationship plays out over time, while harmony is a
vertical set of pitches whose relationship plays out simultaneously,
arpeggiation not withstanding. Also, a melodic line can suggest a harmony
it does not necessarily absolutely determine the harmony: a famous example
of this is the "Eroica" melody which is played out in the third symphony
with two different harmonies but with no changes to the melody.
Then there are your own words: "...some of them were used before as melodic
lines." Your definition fails with bass lines which were never used before
as melodic lines: I don't believe that the bass line in Pachelbel's
notorious canon was ever used before as a melody, and I suspect the same
can be said about the bass line in Brahm's passaglia in his 4th symphony, or
the bass line in Elgar's Enigma Variations.
So, if it does for you, fine. I can't stop you from limiting your thoughts.
J R Laredo
Wait. You seem to be saying that the top notes of the chords are the
melody? Ah, no. Not necessarily. A convention of this time was the tenor
would have the melody, which would be something nearly as static as any of
the other lines.
Alain Naigeon
>
> "Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr> wrote in message
> news:4ad1e731$0$9953$426a...@news.free.fr...
>> "J R Laredo" <jrlar...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> a �crit dans le message
>> de news: F5SdnZRmTuq66UzX...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr> wrote in message
>>> news:4acf2875$1$305$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>> "J R Laredo" <jrlar...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> a �crit dans le
>>>> message de news: wtidnao_ruNSP1PX...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> harmonic way.
>>
>> Well, for me it does, but I'd be interested in reading your arguments.
>> What I meant is that, amongst patterns used as basses in the baroque
>> period, some of them were used before as melodic lines.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Fran�ais *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
>> midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
>> http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
>> Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
>> http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon
>>
>>
>
> The first reason against is a matter of definition: a melody is a linear
> set of pitches whose relationship plays out over time, while harmony is a
> vertical set of pitches whose relationship plays out simultaneously,
> arpeggiation not withstanding. Also, a melodic line can suggest a harmony
> it does not necessarily absolutely determine the harmony: a famous example
> of this is the "Eroica" melody which is played out in the third symphony
> with two different harmonies but with no changes to the melody.
>
> Then there are your own words: "...some of them were used before as
> melodic lines." Your definition fails with bass lines which were never
> used before as melodic lines: I don't believe that the bass line in
> Pachelbel's notorious canon was ever used before as a melody, and I
> suspect the same can be said about the bass line in Brahm's passaglia in
> his 4th symphony, or the bass line in Elgar's Enigma Variations.
Ok, that's right. I had written "some of them", and you point out a
contradiction
with my "chaconne *is*..." because not all patterns have been used before.
Nevertheless, some of them have been used before, that's why the above
defintion
>>>>> And, in fact, there is much music that is melodizing a harmony: that
>>>>> is what chaconnes are.
doesn't hold in every case either.
> So, if it does for you, fine. I can't stop you from limiting your
> thoughts.
I'm surprised by this remark, why do you think I'm here, if not
for exchanging ?
tom_k
"J R Laredo" <jrlar...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
>> above) consists of the top notes of the chords.
>> Tom
>>
>
> Wait. You seem to be saying that the top notes of the chords are the
> melody? Ah, no. Not necessarily. A convention of this time was the
> tenor would have the melody, which would be something nearly as static as
> any of the other lines.
Yes, I'm saying that while there are 5 voices, each with it's own melodic
line, I hear the primary melody of Bach's C Major Prelude in WTC, Book 1.
as being in the soprano.
Which of the 5 voices are you identifying as the tenor - the one immediately
above the bass, or the middle voice? And is there a "cantus firmus" or some
other pre-existing melody in that tenor?
Tom
J R Laredo
Ah, you don't go to church, do you?
Azmon
Old 113th
Duke Street
St Michael
O Store Gud
Lauda Anima
Old 100th
Nicaea
St Denio
St Anne
Hymn to Joy
Creation
Christus, der ist mein leben
Eisenach
Sandon
Wentworth
And that is out of only the first 50 hymns in my copy of the Methodist
Hymnal.
J R Laredo
>
> "J R Laredo" <jrlar...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
> news:24mdnRtESusMhk_X...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "tom_k" <tko...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:yOidnRWv56SUckzX...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> As long as the arpeggiations aren't confused with the melody - which
>>> (see above) consists of the top notes of the chords.
>>> Tom
>>>
>>
>> Wait. You seem to be saying that the top notes of the chords are the
>> melody? Ah, no. Not necessarily. A convention of this time was the
>> tenor would have the melody, which would be something nearly as static as
>> any of the other lines.
>
> Yes, I'm saying that while there are 5 voices, each with it's own melodic
> line, I
Okay, this is the part you didn't mention before. The "I" part. That would
be expected, since that is the convention, now. But, not necessarily then.
And there is the matter of Mr Gounod, who made his decision as to what the
melody should be, and that wasn't necessarily all the top notes. And also
why, many years later when I was asked to write a band arrangement, I came
up with still other choices.
J R Laredo
? Why does a ground bass having been used before as a melody negate that
chaconnes are melodizing a harmony?
>
>> So, if it does for you, fine. I can't stop you from limiting your
>> thoughts.
>
> I'm surprised by this remark, why do you think I'm here, if not
> for exchanging ?
>
The simple answer for my remark is, of course, I am a mean old man. And, I
am. But, you did make it sound rather certain on your part, and I am just
pointing out that, in my opinion, "melody used in a harmonic way" still
doesn't make much sense.
> --
Joey Goldstein
All those tunes use 1 note per chord for the entire tune?
I find that very hard to believe.
Jack Campin - bogus address
>>> I've never seen a melody that was all chord tones all the way through.
>>> But if there is one then it probably has other things going on too.
>>> Give me an example of *one* such melody.
>>>> even ones that use only 1 note per chord.
>>> Name one.
> All those tunes use 1 note per chord for the entire tune?
> I find that very hard to believe.
This is pretty common in hymn tunes, I could easily find as many
examples as quickly in other hymnbooks. You only start to find
faster-moving hymn tunes from the late 18th century.
I guess the "other things" that were going on were in the text -
the entire congregation was supposed to be paying attention to
the words as they sang them. So the every-syllable-counts style
made liturgical sense.
You sometimes find this chorale style used in other contexts as
a stylistic code for communal religiosity. Maybe the reason you
don't encounter it often is that jazz definitely does NOT want
listeners making that sort of association, most of the time.
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
****** I killfile Google posts - email me if you want to be whitelisted ******
J R Laredo
Doesn't matter if you believe it or not. Facts are facts.
Alain Naigeon
> The simple answer for my remark is, of course, I am a mean old man. And,
> I am. But, you did make it sound rather certain on your part,
I'm not sure to understand 100% what you mean here - but, you know,
I've just got 63 since a few days ;-)
> and I am just pointing out that, in my opinion, "melody used in a harmonic
> way" still doesn't make much sense.
I've read you, and nothing should make you believe that I'm discarding
your opinion without thinking about it.
Peace ;-)
tom_k
"J R Laredo" <jrlar...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
>> line, I
>
> Okay, this is the part you didn't mention before. The "I" part. That
> would be expected, since that is the convention, now. But, not
> necessarily then.
Schenker seems to agree with me - please see his analysis.
http://www.amazon.com/Graphic-Music-Analyses-Heinrich-Schenker/dp/0486222942
> And there is the matter of Mr Gounod, who made his decision as to what the
> melody should be, and that wasn't necessarily all the top notes.
Not really. He simply used the entire existing piece 137 years later to
create a new work by composing a new melody with Bach's work as an
accompaniment.
But this is a different piece - we were discussing Bach's Prelude, not
Gounod's Ave Maria.
>>
>> Which of the 5 voices are you identifying as the tenor - the one
>> immediately above the bass, or the middle voice?
Again, which voice are you calling the tenor?
Of course, the original issue was Jon's assertion that the "melody" consists
of the chordal arpeggiations. I assume you agree that the "melodies" are
the lines formed in each part of the block chords.
Tom
J R Laredo
>
> "J R Laredo" <jrlar...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
> news:ccednfEDu6nxAk_X...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "tom_k" <tko...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:eMGdndHS_-cs5E_X...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm saying that while there are 5 voices, each with it's own
>>> melodic line, I
>>
>> Okay, this is the part you didn't mention before. The "I" part. That
>> would be expected, since that is the convention, now. But, not
>> necessarily then.
>
> Schenker seems to agree with me - please see his analysis.
> http://www.amazon.com/Graphic-Music-Analyses-Heinrich-Schenker/dp/0486222942
>
I always found Schenkerian analysis amusing but limiting since it works best
with music of a certain period. It is like missing the forest for the bark.
Anyway, I will not disagree with the analysis, just the philosophy behind
it.
>> And there is the matter of Mr Gounod, who made his decision as to what
>> the melody should be, and that wasn't necessarily all the top notes.
>
> Not really. He simply used the entire existing piece 137 years later to
> create a new work by composing a new melody with Bach's work as an
> accompaniment.
>
> But this is a different piece - we were discussing Bach's Prelude, not
> Gounod's Ave Maria.
>
>>>
>>> Which of the 5 voices are you identifying as the tenor - the one
>>> immediately above the bass, or the middle voice?
>
> Again, which voice are you calling the tenor?
I am not. I am simply pointing out that conventions change, so the tenor
would be whichever voice a particular performer at a particular time would
consider the tenor.
>
> Of course, the original issue was Jon's assertion that the "melody"
> consists of the chordal arpeggiations. I assume you agree that the
> "melodies" are the lines formed in each part of the block chords.
>
> Tom
>
Actually, the original question is what makes a melodic fragment work over a
chord. In the case of the Bach, I don't quite agree that the melodies are
the individual lines. The individual lines of a piece like this are the
individual lines. A melody is something else, entirely. In the Gounod
realization of the Bach he takes the top note of the first chord, then the
top note of the second chord, but then the third note (counting up from the
bottom) of the chord , the fourth note chord, and the second note of the
chord. Likewise through the rest of the piece, using very few non-chord
tones, melodizing the existing harmonies.
I would not be surprised if Schenker thought, "Damn that Frenchman, for
ruining it!"
Steve Latham
> Also, does this make sense:
>
> The chord tones are structurally necessary to give structural integrity to
> the melody. It would be analogous to a building with good internal
> structure. The non-chord tones add the facade.
>
> The way I tend to play I have a building that structurally doesn't make much
> sense. (Maybe like an escher painting) Although the facade may look decent
> it doesn't matter all that much because the building doesn't look like a
> building.
Well, again, you're approaching it from the "I'm putting melody notes
to my harmony".
The Harmony works in tandem with the Melody, and owes its existence to
it. Harmony is derived from melody.
Think of it more like a bridge, with supports. The BRIDGE is the
important thing - it's the thing someone said "hey, we need to get to
the other side of the river, and we need a bridge".
Small enough river, you can lay a log bridge. No supports. A simple
piece of only melody can exist fine by itself - doesn't need
"supports".
But a bigger bridge, meant to carry more weight, needs support.
If you lay a bunch of pilings out in the water, chances are you can't
cross.
Unless you improvise by laying things across the pilings (which is
what we do in forms like jazz when we lay out notes on an existing
harmonic structure).
The "facade" or decoration of the bridge is in ornaments, dynamics,
articulations, figurations, and so on and so forth.
If you're trying to "melodize a harmony" and write music of a
traditional sort, you're building a bridge to nowhere. You're laying
pilings - wherever - and then trying to figure out which piling you
need to connect to get to the next so you can move on.
When you lay the bridge first on a pre-described path, you can than
support at as needed.
Key of C (building material)
Melody with direction - C c B A G (your path across the river, even if
it has turns).
Supports - need two big ones on the C and the G - Tonic and Dominant.
Supports, might want some smaller ones - maybe an Am on the C, an F on
the A, etc.
Supports - maybe you want them pretty rather than simply functional,
fine, use Alberti Bass or some accompaniment pattern.
Damn, this might be one of the best analogies I've come up with
yet :-) Dibs.
Seriously, you don't start putting out telephone poles without any
idea of where the lines are going to be heading. Unless you're
replacing old lines with new (improvising over and existing chord
progression, as in Jazz or Blues, etc.). Reharmonization - you're
replacing, or "shoring up" some of the supports.
HTH,
Steve
Vilen
>I've never seen a melody that was all chord tones all the way through.
>But if there is one then it probably has other things going on too.
>Give me an example of *one* such melody.
I like to think that in common You are wright but what is Your opinion
for following case? L.Bernstein wrote in his book "Young people's
concert" (p.303 in german translation) that coda of Beethoven's 5th
symphony(with only chord notes) is most powerful C-major which
Beethoven had ever created.
Best Regards
Yuri Vilenkin
LJS
wrote:
>
> >>> Which of the 5 voices are you identifying as the tenor - the one
> >>> immediately above the bass, or the middle voice?
>
> > Again, which voice are you calling the tenor?
>
> I am not. I am simply pointing out that conventions change, so the tenor
> would be whichever voice a particular performer at a particular time would
> consider the tenor.
Maybe this was covered in another post, (there has been quite a few!)
but I am thinking Bach, Baroque and Tenor in the old school context.
If this is the case, then the tenor would not be whichever voice a
particular performer considered the tenor. It would be a specific
voice. It would have been the original voice to which the other voices
would have had to follow the rules of consonance and dissonance.
The term "tenor" when used in the contrapuntal period refered to the
Cantus Firmus. I would assume that if one were to label one of these
voices (in the Prelude in Cmaj if I am following the thread correctly)
the tenor, then this voice would be the one that spurred the harmony
as it was "harmonized" as each voice was added in a contrapuntal
manner.
I am not saying that one of these voices SHOULD be called the TENOR,
but that is what I would consider to be what the term TENOR would be
referring to at that point in time.
It does get muddy as all of the conventional harmony did seem to
evolve from the vocal lines when thought of in a contrapuntal manner.
By Bach's time, however, it was likely that they were starting to see
the commercial possibilities of using a familiar progression and then
to write another melody that suited the framework of the harmony which
had previously been created by writing voices to go along with the
TENOR.
As to this specific piece, it makes perfect sense that it COULD be
written contrapuntally, but as it was a prelude, (and I always thought
that the WTC preludes had a bit of Etude in them) just playing them
in block chord fashion would have neither the technical motifs not the
ability to sustain the tones on the Clavier to an extent to allow the
harmonic (or contrapuntal) lines to be effective. Thus, in his true
genius spirit, I would think that he decided to use the arpeggio
pattern and both of those conditions were satisfied and an interesting
Prelude was born.
Joey Goldstein
Do you have any links either to mp3s or scores of those tunes please?
I'd like to hear what they sound like.
Meanwhile... Just looking for myself.
The first tune, Azmon, as found here:
<http://beemp3.com/download.php?file=2135875&song=Psalm+133+Azmon>
does not fit your description.
Neither does this one:
<http://beemp3.com/download.php?file=2791284&song=o-store-gud-eriksson>
Maybe I should just ignore you?
Joey Goldstein
I don't own a copy of that piece (score or audio), but I'm sure I'd
recognize the tune.
I'm also sure that if the Coda is as you describe then there's probably
something more going on.
It's possible to write a great melody and to harmonize it with great
chords on all the attacks.
But usually this is not done *for the entire duration of a piece*
because *that* would be monotonous.
J R Laredo
I'm looking at the hymnal. Each note of each tune is a chord tone. Don't
care if you ignore me or not. Facts are facts.
J R Laredo
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7afc11c0-b0cb-45aa...@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
You are presuming that if the piece was arranged for non-keyboard
instruments that lines can't cross. Which isn't necessarily true.
Joey Goldstein
I'm listening to recordings.
Facts are still facts.
Lol.
J R Laredo
So?
J R Laredo
"Steve Latham" <lla...@odu.edu> wrote in message
news:3b256d85-18ae-4dc9...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
HTH,
Steve
Oooooooookay. Are you sure you want to call dibs on an analogy which
consigns chaconnes, ground basses, quodlibets, to name a few, to being
"bridges to nowhere?"
Just checking.
J R Laredo
My teacher told me of the time he was in the music library at Indiana
University when he saw George Szell studying some music manuscripts. Szell
was bothered by something in Beethoven's 7th symphony, and he was going
through every edition he could find. Notice that he wasn't listening to
recordings, but was looking through music manuscripts.
Anyway, here is a harmonic analysis of Azmon. I've followed each word or
syllable with the chord symbol that corresponds. No notes are left out.
Each note belongs in a chord. O (V) for (I6) a (I) thousand (V) tongues (I)
to (V7) My (V) great (I) Re- (I) deem- (V6/5) er's (I) praise, (V) The (V)
glories (I) of (I) my (I6) God (IV) and (IV) King, (IV) The (IV) triumphs
(I6/4) of (I6/4) his (V7) grace! (I)
LJS
>
> Really?
>
> > You can find melodies that only use chord tones
> > that sound great...
>
> I've never seen a melody that was all chord tones all the way through.
> But if there is one then it probably has other things going on too.
> Give me an example of *one* such melody.
>
> > even ones that use only 1 note per chord.
>
> Name one.
>
By definition, you could shorten this comment to:
I never heard homophonic music,
LJS
Joey Goldstein
I did decide to ignore you btw.
LJS
I am starting to see the pattern more clearly. How does it work
again? Oh, yes.
Joey makes a stupid statement, usually when talking to a classical
theorist that knows what he is talking about, and is called on it.
Then Joey "the ostrich" G. once again puts his head in the sand! I
believe that it is part of the "ignorance is bliss philosophy". Its
also interesting how he responds to this statement even though he is
ignoring you!
If you keep correcting him, you may ascend to the honor of being "kill
filed" by Joey.
lol,
LJS
J R Laredo
lol,
LJS
Ooooooooooooooooooo. That would be so special.
I did notice I omitted the word "sing." That is a (vi).
Joey Goldstein
never does. He has a very weird lense through which he sees human
conversation.
I have made no stupid statements.
J.R. has not "called me out" about anything.
Please re-read what I actually wrote, about "other things going on" and
the rest of it, and maybe you'll both learn something about music.
LJS
Ahh...lol What happened, your kill file isn't working either?
Let me see, Someone stated that there were many melodies that had one
note per chord. You disagreed. JR called you out on this and gave you
a list of many tunes that had one note per chord. You then disagreed
that his info was correct. You then made totally unrelated comments
about truth and what you heard, he called you out again about the
validity of that statement. What part of being "called out don't you
understand"? Then you state that you are ignoring him! Talk about a
BOOB!
And then you start back with the name calling. I guess we can expect
the profanity soon.
For a while you were sticking to things you know. Now you have
regressed. I am surprised by the politeness by JR as well as myself!
with your idiotic statements about no tunes being purely homophonic
in nature.
Put you head back into the sand Joey.
On the other thread: You should be glad (in at least one way) that
your book isn't a big seller at this time. (not intended as a cut on
your book) If you had lots of customers, your use of a payment system
without spending any time to learn how to use it is outrageous. With
only one customer, it is only a lesson learned (or not as the case may
be!). If you had people wanting the book, your treatment of your
customers and negligence regarding THEIR GOOD FAITH PAYMENT is
horrendous. To me it seems to be directly related with your depth of
understanding of what people ask and of the thought that you put into
your responses. Lack of seeing the other viewpoint or of realizing the
entire context involved shows itself in many of your posts and your
concern for the truth is laughable. What you did with the PayPal is
what we call a "lick and a promise". This also sums up all of your
posts that are related to classical theory.
So, in your eyes, I am a boob. Thank you. Coming from someone that
made the statement that there are no hymns with one note per chord and
then proves it by listening? (the question is listening to what? I
suppose that you can find some arrangements that will use two chords
per note or that will use passing tones and do less chords per note
but that means that you totally exclude SO MUCH of what is actually
out there that it would be laughable if it were not so sad.
CONTEXT.)
And in the spirit of context, your calling me a boob sounds like a
compliment. After all, your validity is such that your calling me
something positive would indicate that I must be doing something wrong
or that I would be complete phony. Obviously, you can't tell the
difference.
Go to the help section of PayPal and if you can't understand it. Don't
tell unsuspecting people to give them money. Just like everything
else, you are trying to blame someone else for your mistakes. Have you
sent them the BOOB letter yet?
LJS
LJS
wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote in message
He is harmless if he sticks to basic Jazz guitar. Its when he tries to
be a 'professor' of music theory that he "puts it on the block and
chops it off himself' but he doesn't have any clue as to how he is
screwing up.
Search the archives for the threads on the Cadential 6/4 chords and
their relationship to the overtone series/suspensions etc.! Even after
I went through an intensive freshman theory course for him on it, he
still had no clue. Then Steve painstakingly explained it to him in
different words and still, no cigar. But then will go through the
process of na-na nay na nah and other school yard retorts like "so's
ya ole man" and eventually will use profanity and if you still insist
on telling it like it is, then maybe you can earn the "kill file".
As to the "kill file", he either lies about it, (his technological
skills are not A-1) or he caught my statement through a response to
your thread. Probably in your reply with my quoted text!
In any rate, welcome to the club.
LJS
LJS
Btw, this is the first one I got out of google.
<http://www.ccel.org/cceh/0000/000069a.pdf>
It looks to me as though all the melody notes are chord tones.
LJS
LJS
Joey,
I forgot. Jazz tunes. I do realize that according to some lead sheets
there may be an added tone, but I believe that Giant Steps is a tune
that has one chord per melody note and by the modern interpretation of
chords, that each melody note is a part of the chord used to harmonize
it.
If you still have not realized the "gaff" you pass off as "truth" then
there is really no help for you.
LJS
J R Laredo
> LJS is a boob who doesn't even know what the conversation is about. He
> never does. He has a very weird lense through which he sees human
> conversation.
> I have made no stupid statements.
> J.R. has not "called me out" about anything.
> Please re-read what I actually wrote, about "other things going on" and
> the rest of it, and maybe you'll both learn something about music.
Yes, I believe I did call you out. You asked for one example of homophonic
music, and I gave you several. I have seen the scores. There is nothing
else going on.
Have you been talking to Scott?
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:38c74$4ad73c6a$cf702d39$5...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> LJS is a boob who doesn't even know what the conversation is about. He
>> never does. He has a very weird lense through which he sees human
>> conversation.
>> I have made no stupid statements.
>> J.R. has not "called me out" about anything.
>> Please re-read what I actually wrote, about "other things going on" and
>> the rest of it, and maybe you'll both learn something about music.
>
> Yes, I believe I did call you out. You asked for one example of homophonic
> music, and I gave you several. I have seen the scores. There is nothing
> else going on.
>
> Have you been talking to Scott?
Yes you gave me what you think are examples of music completely written
with one note per chord from the start of the piece to the end of the piece.
That doesn't mean that it's good music.
The versions that I've heard of those same tunes did not fit that
description.
I might conclude that the arrangers of the clips I heard thought that
the scores you have are kind of boring, assuming that you have the
definitive versions of these tunes. Either that or *there's something
else going on*.
I stand by everything I've said in this thread, including what i say below.
If you're going to call someone out on something it should be something
relevant.
Over the years I've noticed your name from time to time in this
newsgroup. I've never really paid much attention to you though one way
or the other.
I never realized that you were such a wrong-headed unpleasant person,
for want of a better description. (I don't want to upset LJR with
profanity. He's too delicate for that.)
Now I know.
J R Laredo
>J R Laredo wrote:
>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:38c74$4ad73c6a$cf702d39$5...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>> LJS is a boob who doesn't even know what the conversation is about. He
>>> never does. He has a very weird lense through which he sees human
>>> conversation.
>>> I have made no stupid statements.
>>> J.R. has not "called me out" about anything.
>>> Please re-read what I actually wrote, about "other things going on" and
>>> the rest of it, and maybe you'll both learn something about music.
>>
>> Yes, I believe I did call you out. You asked for one example of
>> homophonic music, and I gave you several. I have seen the scores. There
>> is nothing else going on.
>>
>> Have you been talking to Scott?
>
> Yes you gave me what you think are examples of music completely written
> with one note per chord from the start of the piece to the end of the
> piece.
> That doesn't mean that it's good music.
That was never in the criteria.
"I've never seen a melody that was all chord tones all the way through.
But if there is one then it probably has other things going on too.
Give me an example of *one* such melody."
That is your exact quote. And I supplied several which in their original
forms were exactly that: all chord tones all the way through and absolutely
nothing else going on. You never asked for a value judgement and I didn't
give you one.
> The versions that I've heard of those same tunes did not fit that
> description.
Can't help that. They are in the hymnals. All you have to do is go look.
They are available in many religious book stores, though I got mine from
churches who were buying new versions and were getting rid of their old
ones.
> I might conclude that the arrangers of the clips I heard thought that the
> scores you have are kind of boring, assuming that you have the definitive
> versions of these tunes.
These are the source material. It goes without saying that they are subject
to embelishment, which, historically some were given very complex settings:
what Bach did with Cruger's Nun Danket comes to mind. But the originals
were homophonic with nothing else going on. And I quite doubt the arrangers
thought the originals were boring. That would be like saying "A Love
Divine" is unlistenable.
Either that or *there's something
> else going on*.
As I said: nothing else going on.
> I stand by everything I've said in this thread, including what i say
> below.
> If you're going to call someone out on something it should be something
> relevant.
I was only giving you what you asked for. Which seems to mean that you
don't ask for what is relevant. And that it wasn't a simple validation of
your opinion isn't my problem.
>
> Over the years I've noticed your name from time to time in this newsgroup.
> I've never really paid much attention to you though one way or the other.
> I never realized that you were such a wrong-headed unpleasant person, for
> want of a better description. (I don't want to upset LJR with profanity.
> He's too delicate for that.)
>
> Now I know.
I am a mean and grumpy old man, that goes without saying. Wrong-headed
would indicate that I have answered your dare ("Give me an example of *one*
such melody.") incorrectly, but, I have not. Or maybe you really didn't
want an answer. If that was the case, you should have said so.
Joey Goldstein
All I said is that I've never seen one.
I still haven't.
I suppose I could trust you, but where's the fun in that?
You didn't "call me out". You answered my query, that's all.
>> The versions that I've heard of those same tunes did not fit that
>> description.
>
> Can't help that. They are in the hymnals.
"The Hymnals"?
So every church in the world uses the same sheet music?
I find *that* hard to believe as well.
> All you have to do is go look.
> They are available in many religious book stores, though I got mine from
> churches who were buying new versions and were getting rid of their old
> ones.
All you have to do is go listen.
You don't even have to leave your house.
They're on the Internet.
>> I might conclude that the arrangers of the clips I heard thought that the
>> scores you have are kind of boring, assuming that you have the definitive
>> versions of these tunes.
>
> These are the source material.
If you say so.
Are they copyrighted?
Do the composer's estates still get the royalties?
Are there no other published scores from other publishers of the same
tunes anywhere in the World?
> It goes without saying that they are subject
> to embelishment,
I hope so, because if they're as monophonic as you say they are they're
probably pretty monotonous sounding, unless there's a whole bunch of
ancillary passing chords and approach chords for each new melody note,
or unless "there's something else going on".
> which, historically some were given very complex settings:
> what Bach did with Cruger's Nun Danket comes to mind. But the originals
> were homophonic with nothing else going on. And I quite doubt the arrangers
> thought the originals were boring. That would be like saying "A Love
> Divine" is unlistenable.
There's a difference between 'unlistenable' and boring.
> Either that or *there's something
>> else going on*.
>
> As I said: nothing else going on.
>
>> I stand by everything I've said in this thread, including what i say
>> below.
>> If you're going to call someone out on something it should be something
>> relevant.
>
> I was only giving you what you asked for.
Which is not 'calling me out'.
> Which seems to mean that you
> don't ask for what is relevant.
Touch�.
> And that it wasn't a simple validation of
> your opinion isn't my problem.
I stand by my statements.
Read them again and maybe you'll learn something.
>> Over the years I've noticed your name from time to time in this newsgroup.
>> I've never really paid much attention to you though one way or the other.
>> I never realized that you were such a wrong-headed unpleasant person, for
>> want of a better description. (I don't want to upset LJR with profanity.
>> He's too delicate for that.)
>>
>> Now I know.
>
> I am a mean and grumpy old man, that goes without saying. Wrong-headed
> would indicate that I have answered your dare ("Give me an example of *one*
> such melody.") incorrectly, but, I have not.
You're wrong-headed with regards to the way you're attempting to portray
he content and the value of the advice I was giving to Jon, which is for
the most part completely sound advice.
> Or maybe you really didn't
> want an answer. If that was the case, you should have said so.
Nope. I thank you for the answer. It's your smarmy attitude of
patronizing superiority that's not warranted.
Like I said... If that music *is* interesting then there's probably
"something else going on too".
At any rate Jon, if you're still following this nonsense ...
It would be a good exercise/experiment to try to write some pieces of
extended length that only use 1 note per chord. See how long you can
keep it up before it gets tiresome, and then perhaps contrast it by
doing something else.
One way you might be able to keep that 1-note per chord texture
interesting is by using passing chords (eg. on melodic passing tones) or
other types of approach chords (eg. on melodic approach notes), etc.
You might also keep it interesting by having an interesting rhythmic
theme, which therefore also becomes the harmonic rhythm.
But if you're in Common Time or 3/4 with chords/melody-notes on all the
strong beats, *that* will likely get pretty dull pretty fast.
Sorry, I chimed in.
Now the rest of you, enjoy your silly pissing contests.
Toodles.
LJS
Well if your head was not in the sand, (or is it UYA?) you would see
the pdf of the first one, Azmon, that is on the "boob tube" and you
can check out Giant Steps in a Jazz Fake book. It was quite a hit a
while back. Some people still like to play it. lol
LJS
J R Laredo
The more you say this the more amazed I become. I mean, after some thought
I did realize it was entirely possible you have never been in a church: you
and your parents could be agnostic or atheists, and given the evidence of
your last name you could be Jewish, and I have no knowledge of what kind of
music is usual in Temple. Those could be reasons you had never heard hymns
being sung. But, you live in Canada. You've never seen your national
anthem?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/O_Canada_Original_Lyrics.png/651px-O_Canada_Original_Lyrics.png
"God Save the Queen" is another example of a strickly homophonic song.
> I still haven't.
> I suppose I could trust you, but where's the fun in that?
> You didn't "call me out". You answered my query, that's all.
>
>>> The versions that I've heard of those same tunes did not fit that
>>> description.
>>
>> Can't help that. They are in the hymnals.
>
> "The Hymnals"?
> So every church in the world uses the same sheet music?
> I find *that* hard to believe as well.
Why did you capitalize? I wrote "hymnals." There are more than one. But,
since the Protestant faiths are based on Lutheranism, which in turn was a
split from Catholicism, so there is naturally some overlap. Like, the
Church Hymnary, which is used by several Presbyterian churches in Britain
has over 800 different hymns, while the Worshipbook used by some US
Prebyterians has only 600 or so hymns. There are hymns and tunes, like "Ein
Feste Burg," which will show up in many of the hymnals, and others, like
"Lift High the Cross" in some Lutheran hymnals, will have a smaller
presense. Anyway, I checked on Azmon. It shows up in 5 of the 6 hymnals I
have. While in differing keys, the chord structure is identical.
>
>> All you have to do is go look. They are available in many religious book
>> stores, though I got mine from churches who were buying new versions and
>> were getting rid of their old ones.
>
> All you have to do is go listen.
> You don't even have to leave your house.
> They're on the Internet.
No. If you only listen you hear someone else's interpretation. To see what
the composer was thinking you need to see the notes on the page. One of my
teachers at college admitted to not having a stereo. If he wanted to listen
to something he pulled out one of his many scores and heard the piece in his
head, the way he thought it should be heard. At least one conductor,
Michael Tilson Thomas is the same way. I listen for leisure. If I want to
study, I look at the notes on a page.
>
>>> I might conclude that the arrangers of the clips I heard thought that
>>> the scores you have are kind of boring, assuming that you have the
>>> definitive versions of these tunes.
>>
>> These are the source material.
>
> If you say so.
> Are they copyrighted?
Some are, some, since the composers died centuries ago, are not.
> Do the composer's estates still get the royalties?
Someone like Vaughn-Williams does. Martin Luther doesn't.
> Are there no other published scores from other publishers of the same
> tunes anywhere in the World?
Which is relevant in what way? Just because someone else arranges a tune in
a particular manner doesn't cause an earlier version to vanish, does it?
>
>> It goes without saying that they are subject to embelishment,
>
> I hope so, because if they're as monophonic as you say they are they're
> probably pretty monotonous sounding, unless there's a whole bunch of
> ancillary passing chords and approach chords for each new melody note, or
> unless "there's something else going on".
>
>> which, historically some were given very complex settings: what Bach did
>> with Cruger's Nun Danket comes to mind. But the originals were
>> homophonic with nothing else going on. And I quite doubt the arrangers
>> thought the originals were boring. That would be like saying "A Love
>> Divine" is unlistenable.
>
> There's a difference between 'unlistenable' and boring.
Senior moment on my part. I meant "A Love Supreme."
>
>> Either that or *there's something
>>> else going on*.
>>
>> As I said: nothing else going on.
>>
>>> I stand by everything I've said in this thread, including what i say
>>> below.
>>> If you're going to call someone out on something it should be something
>>> relevant.
>>
>> I was only giving you what you asked for.
>
> Which is not 'calling me out'.
>
>> Which seems to mean that you don't ask for what is relevant.
>
> Touch�.
>
>> And that it wasn't a simple validation of your opinion isn't my problem.
>
> I stand by my statements.
> Read them again and maybe you'll learn something.
Why? Outside of jazz, you have nothing to add to what I already know. And
since you stand by your statements, especially since you've never heard "O
Canada," that is kinda sad.
>
>>> Over the years I've noticed your name from time to time in this
>>> newsgroup. I've never really paid much attention to you though one way
>>> or the other.
>>> I never realized that you were such a wrong-headed unpleasant person,
>>> for want of a better description. (I don't want to upset LJR with
>>> profanity. He's too delicate for that.)
>>>
>>> Now I know.
>>
>> I am a mean and grumpy old man, that goes without saying. Wrong-headed
>> would indicate that I have answered your dare ("Give me an example of
>> *one* such melody.") incorrectly, but, I have not.
>
> You're wrong-headed with regards to the way you're attempting to portray
> he content and the value of the advice I was giving to Jon, which is for
> the most part completely sound advice.
>
>> Or maybe you really didn't want an answer. If that was the case, you
>> should have said so.
>
> Nope. I thank you for the answer. It's your smarmy attitude of patronizing
> superiority that's not warranted.
Many years ago there was a short-lived television series called, "The Guns
of Will Sonnett." Walter Brennan was in the starring role, and there was
always a variation of this passage in every episode where someone would say,
"I hear that Jim Sonnett is the fastest gun in the west." Brennan's
character would reply, "Jim Sonnett is my son, and I taught him everything
he knows about shooting. Jeff, here, is his son, and he's faster. And I'm
faster than both. No brag, just fact." With some areas of music I know
more than you do. No brag. Just fact. And if you think I'm bad, I can
tell you that I'm a cupcake compared to some I have met.
Joey Goldstein
The more you continue this ridiculous discussion the more *I'm* amazed.
What do you hope to prove?
> I mean, after some thought
> I did realize it was entirely possible you have never been in a church: you
> and your parents could be agnostic or atheists, and given the evidence of
> your last name you could be Jewish, and I have no knowledge of what kind of
> music is usual in Temple.
It's about time you admitted what you don't know.
Trust me, there's more.
How could you live so long and stay so ignorant?
> Those could be reasons you had never heard hymns
> being sung. But, you live in Canada. You've never seen your national
> anthem?
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/O_Canada_Original_Lyrics.png/651px-O_Canada_Original_Lyrics.png
I've seen sheet music for Oh Canada and I've heard it a zillion times
and I've also played it a zillion times.
It has several instances of more than one note per chord in every
arrangement I've ever heard or seen. Eg. Bar 2.
The fact that you chose that stupid little incomplete and badly written
piece of sheet music to prove your point only proves to me that you
don't know what you're talking about.
If the scores for the hymns you cited are as bad as this then I'd
conclude that you know next to nothing about music, period. Classical,
jazz, or whatever.
> "God Save the Queen" is another example of a strickly homophonic song.
It may be homophonic, but it has sections with more than one note per
chord.
Bar 2. The chord is the dominant. The melody is the leading tone
followed by the tonic as a passing tone to the supertonic, all on the
same chord... You boob.
A discussion of homophonic music is another topic.
>> I still haven't.
>> I suppose I could trust you, but where's the fun in that?
>> You didn't "call me out". You answered my query, that's all.
>>
>>>> The versions that I've heard of those same tunes did not fit that
>>>> description.
>>> Can't help that. They are in the hymnals.
>> "The Hymnals"?
>> So every church in the world uses the same sheet music?
>> I find *that* hard to believe as well.
>
> Why did you capitalize?
Because you're going on as if the arrangements you have are the
definitive versions of these tunes, and I doubt that you can back that
up. If they are the definitive original versions, penned exactly as the
original composers wrote them down, then thank God that future musicians
decided to spruce them up a bit.
> I wrote "hymnals." There are more than one. But,
> since the Protestant faiths are based on Lutheranism, which in turn was a
> split from Catholicism, so there is naturally some overlap. Like, the
> Church Hymnary, which is used by several Presbyterian churches in Britain
> has over 800 different hymns, while the Worshipbook used by some US
> Prebyterians has only 600 or so hymns.
And all these texts use the exact same notation for every hymn?
Never a single chord with more than one note attacked throughout its
duration?
I think you're full of it, and by "it" I think you know what I mean.
> There are hymns and tunes, like "Ein
> Feste Burg," which will show up in many of the hymnals, and others, like
> "Lift High the Cross" in some Lutheran hymnals, will have a smaller
> presense. Anyway, I checked on Azmon. It shows up in 5 of the 6 hymnals I
> have. While in differing keys, the chord structure is identical.
Absolutely fascinating.... Yawn....
>>> All you have to do is go look. They are available in many religious book
>>> stores, though I got mine from churches who were buying new versions and
>>> were getting rid of their old ones.
>> All you have to do is go listen.
>> You don't even have to leave your house.
>> They're on the Internet.
>
> No. If you only listen you hear someone else's interpretation.
Dude. Music is sound.
> To see what
> the composer was thinking you need to see the notes on the page.
What bullshit.
To hear what a composer was making you need to hear it being made.
> One of my
> teachers at college admitted to not having a stereo. If he wanted to listen
> to something he pulled out one of his many scores and heard the piece in his
> head, the way he thought it should be heard.
He was wrong.
> At least one conductor,
> Michael Tilson Thomas is the same way.
That's too bad.
MTT has no record collection?
I can understand him not wanting to be influenced by someone else's
interpretation as he gets ready to conduct a score. But to prefer
listening to music in his head while looking at a score rather than
going out and hearing a good orchestra or listening to his stereo seems
pretty dumb to me. My guess is that *you* are misinterpreting something
that *you* read somewhere about MTT.
Wouldn't be the first time that you've misinterpreted something, like
this thread.
> I listen for leisure. If I want to
> study, I look at the notes on a page.
Well at least you listen, sometimes.
That puts you miles ahead of your friend and MTT. lol
>>>> I might conclude that the arrangers of the clips I heard thought that
>>>> the scores you have are kind of boring, assuming that you have the
>>>> definitive versions of these tunes.
>>> These are the source material.
>> If you say so.
>> Are they copyrighted?
>
> Some are, some, since the composers died centuries ago, are not.
>
>> Do the composer's estates still get the royalties?
>
> Someone like Vaughn-Williams does. Martin Luther doesn't.
>
>> Are there no other published scores from other publishers of the same
>> tunes anywhere in the World?
>
> Which is relevant in what way?
Duh.
> Just because someone else arranges a tune in
> a particular manner doesn't cause an earlier version to vanish, does it?
To vanish? No.
But it does mean that the earlier version is not sacrosanct.
>>> It goes without saying that they are subject to embelishment,
>> I hope so, because if they're as monophonic as you say they are they're
>> probably pretty monotonous sounding, unless there's a whole bunch of
>> ancillary passing chords and approach chords for each new melody note, or
>> unless "there's something else going on".
>>
>>> which, historically some were given very complex settings: what Bach did
>>> with Cruger's Nun Danket comes to mind. But the originals were
>>> homophonic with nothing else going on. And I quite doubt the arrangers
>>> thought the originals were boring. That would be like saying "A Love
>>> Divine" is unlistenable.
>> There's a difference between 'unlistenable' and boring.
>
> Senior moment on my part. I meant "A Love Supreme."
Ah.
It's still irrelevant.
I actually had a hard time listening to ALS when I first heard when I
was 16. But that's irrelevant too.
>>> Either that or *there's something
>>>> else going on*.
>>> As I said: nothing else going on.
Then you don't know what "something else" means.
Go back and re-read my initial posts in this thread that you've
hi-jacked with this nonsense and you might learn something about music.
>>>> I stand by everything I've said in this thread, including what i say
>>>> below.
>>>> If you're going to call someone out on something it should be something
>>>> relevant.
>>> I was only giving you what you asked for.
>> Which is not 'calling me out'.
>>
>>> Which seems to mean that you don't ask for what is relevant.
>> Touch�.
>>
>>> And that it wasn't a simple validation of your opinion isn't my problem.
>> I stand by my statements.
>> Read them again and maybe you'll learn something.
>
> Why? Outside of jazz, you have nothing to add to what I already know.
Evidently, that's not the case.
> And
> since you stand by your statements, especially since you've never heard "O
> Canada," that is kinda sad.
Actually, it's *you* who's never heard Oh Canada or you would not have
made your ridiculous claims and you would not have attempted to use that
stupid score to back them up. Seems to me like all you did was search
the Internet for that score.
I'm sure you do know some things about classical music and about
classical-music-oriented theory that I might not know.
But, evidently, I know much more about music (as a whole) than you do.
I'm also better at posting on Usenet and staying on topic.
LJS
>
> >>> And that it wasn't a simple validation of your opinion isn't my problem.
> >> I stand by my statements.
> >> Read them again and maybe you'll learn something.
>
> > Why? Outside of jazz, you have nothing to add to what I already know.
>
> Evidently, that's not the case.
>
> > And
> > since you stand by your statements, especially since you've never heard "O
> > Canada," that is kinda sad.
>
> Actually, it's *you* who's never heard Oh Canada or you would not have
> made your ridiculous claims and you would not have attempted to use that
> stupid score to back them up. Seems to me like all you did was search
> the Internet for that score.
>
> >>>> Over the years I've noticed your name from time to time in this
> >>>> newsgroup. I've never really paid much attention to you though one way
>
>
> read more »
Its the cadential 6/4 chord thing all over again. Joey, the hymns and
the original Gregorian Chants and many other old and fairly universal
sources produce a body of standard and universally accepted material
that is considered source material. It is the simplest essence of the
song. Homophonic writing. You are going on and on about details and
you are off on a Rosanna Danna trip! It is a defined given in the
musical world! It is the simplest framework that you can have for a
hymn or song. It is not possible that you have not run into something
like this before. I am an American and I have heard choirs and I think
even a quartet open up a hockey game with pure version but to insist
on finding "pure" versions shows that you have no idea of what you
have said and how this shows that you went off track someplace and you
are now saying some very foolish things. Step back and try to look at
the larger picture. You have been shown the pure examples if you care
to look. They are there. Believe it. Now try to see what JR is talking
about. Its really distracting and there are some good things to be
discussed that are being missed with this foolishness about there not
being the hymns as described. Not to mention my Real Book copy of
Giant Steps.
Coltrane doesn't follow the homophonic style throughout the entire
solo! but the source is a homophonic, one note per chord, framework
that fits the description perfectly.
Now you have seen it in the classical world through the hymnals, you
have seen it in the jazz fake books and exemplified by the Coltrane
solo which not only changed the direction of Jazz to a great extent,
but illustrates perfectly what this thread is about. There is the
framework and then there is the created music. The source is the
framework. Its realization is Art.
So accept that it is so and try to move on. Hymns have One note per
Chord in Many, many instances. They sing them this way in church
because they are pure and simple. They provide the "framework" for
religious meditation. Some meditate better than others. Some realize
the music in better ways than others. Coltrane did a nice one in Giant
Steps. That is another kind of meditation, but the process is still
the same in both cases. Only the context has been changed. They will
both have the same meditative effect on the listeners that can
recreate the original framework as they hear the new music over it.
So "melodic fragment over a chord" can be in the one note version as
in the basic hymns or can be more extended as in a Coltrane solo and
to any degree in between. Its really not that difficult of a concept
Joey. Give it some thought.
LJS
J R Laredo
> What do you hope to prove?
Nothing. I have nothing to prove. You keep asking questions, or making
comments that beg for reply. How can I not respond? That you don't like
the answers is not my problem.
>
>> I mean, after some thought I did realize it was entirely possible you
>> have never been in a church: you and your parents could be agnostic or
>> atheists, and given the evidence of your last name you could be Jewish,
>> and I have no knowledge of what kind of music is usual in Temple.
>
> It's about time you admitted what you don't know.
> Trust me, there's more.
> How could you live so long and stay so ignorant?
>
>> Those could be reasons you had never heard hymns being sung. But, you
>> live in Canada. You've never seen your national anthem?
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/O_Canada_Original_Lyrics.png/651px-O_Canada_Original_Lyrics.png
>
> I've seen sheet music for Oh Canada and I've heard it a zillion times and
> I've also played it a zillion times.
> It has several instances of more than one note per chord in every
> arrangement I've ever heard or seen. Eg. Bar 2.
Um, no. There is only one note in the melody, and it fits into the chords.
Every other note in the melody fits into the harmony. There are no passing
notes in the melody. There are no appogiotures in the melody. There are no
melismas or anticipatory tones, or anything else that isn't a part of the
harmony.
> The fact that you chose that stupid little incomplete and badly written
> piece of sheet music to prove your point only proves to me that you don't
> know what you're talking about.
> If the scores for the hymns you cited are as bad as this then I'd conclude
> that you know next to nothing about music, period. Classical, jazz, or
> whatever.
Your comment makes no sense. I only found the sheet music that fits the
criteria. That you don't like the music is of no consequence.
>
>> "God Save the Queen" is another example of a strickly homophonic song.
>
> It may be homophonic, but it has sections with more than one note per
> chord.
> Bar 2. The chord is the dominant. The melody is the leading tone followed
> by the tonic as a passing tone to the supertonic, all on the same chord...
> You boob.
Um, no. In bar 2 the first chord is a V, second chord is a V4-3/V, third
chord is a V6.
Here is an oddity: when we yanks appropriated this melody for a patriotic
song, the harmony was changed. No idea why. Here it is V to a ii4-2 to a
V.
At any rate, this is all theory 101 stuff. If you were taking a test in my
class you wouldn't do so well.
>>>>> The versions that I've heard of those same tunes did not fit that
>>>>> description.
>>>> Can't help that. They are in the hymnals.
>>> "The Hymnals"?
>>> So every church in the world uses the same sheet music?
>>> I find *that* hard to believe as well.
>>
>> Why did you capitalize?
>
> Because you're going on as if the arrangements you have are the definitive
> versions of these tunes, and I doubt that you can back that up. If they
> are the definitive original versions, penned exactly as the original
> composers wrote them down, then thank God that future musicians decided to
> spruce them up a bit.
You didn't ask for definitive versions, these are just the originals, in
some cases. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them not exist
>
>> I wrote "hymnals." There are more than one. But, since the Protestant
>> faiths are based on Lutheranism, which in turn was a split from
>> Catholicism, so there is naturally some overlap. Like, the Church
>> Hymnary, which is used by several Presbyterian churches in Britain has
>> over 800 different hymns, while the Worshipbook used by some US
>> Prebyterians has only 600 or so hymns.
>
> And all these texts use the exact same notation for every hymn?
Notation has been standardized for quite a while. The British like to use
meters where a half note is the beat, the US hymnals have quarter the beat.
British has the music seperate from the text, US tries to put the text
between the staves. Is that what you are asking?
> Never a single chord with more than one note attacked throughout its
> duration?
There are hymn tunes where each note of the melody is a part of the chord,
and there are tunes where there are the various kinds of melodic dissonances
used. Is that what you are asking?
> I think you're full of it, and by "it" I think you know what I mean.
>
>> There are hymns and tunes, like "Ein Feste Burg," which will show up in
>> many of the hymnals, and others, like "Lift High the Cross" in some
>> Lutheran hymnals, will have a smaller presense. Anyway, I checked on
>> Azmon. It shows up in 5 of the 6 hymnals I have. While in differing
>> keys, the chord structure is identical.
>
> Absolutely fascinating.... Yawn....
If you didn't want to know, why did you ask?
>
>>>> All you have to do is go look. They are available in many religious
>>>> book stores, though I got mine from churches who were buying new
>>>> versions and were getting rid of their old ones.
>>> All you have to do is go listen.
>>> You don't even have to leave your house.
>>> They're on the Internet.
>>
>> No. If you only listen you hear someone else's interpretation.
>
> Dude. Music is sound.
Um, no. Sound is a vibration in a medium. Music is an interpretation of
that vibration made by a mind capable of that interpretive process.
>
>> To see what the composer was thinking you need to see the notes on the
>> page.
>
> What bullshit.
> To hear what a composer was making you need to hear it being made.
>
So, you are saying, that if you want to hear what Coltrane was making in "A
Love Supreme" you need only to hear me play it? Not a good idea.
>> One of my teachers at college admitted to not having a stereo. If he
>> wanted to listen to something he pulled out one of his many scores and
>> heard the piece in his head, the way he thought it should be heard.
>
> He was wrong.
About what? It is no different than choosing a recording of a particular
song performed in the way you think best.
>
>> At least one conductor, Michael Tilson Thomas is the same way.
>
> That's too bad.
> MTT has no record collection?
At the time of the interview he said that was the case.
> I can understand him not wanting to be influenced by someone else's
> interpretation as he gets ready to conduct a score. But to prefer
> listening to music in his head while looking at a score rather than going
> out and hearing a good orchestra or listening to his stereo seems pretty
> dumb to me. My guess is that *you* are misinterpreting something that
> *you* read somewhere about MTT.
> Wouldn't be the first time that you've misinterpreted something, like this
> thread.
>
>> I listen for leisure. If I want to study, I look at the notes on a page.
>
> Well at least you listen, sometimes.
> That puts you miles ahead of your friend and MTT. lol
>
>>>>> I might conclude that the arrangers of the clips I heard thought that
>>>>> the scores you have are kind of boring, assuming that you have the
>>>>> definitive versions of these tunes.
>>>> These are the source material.
>>> If you say so.
>>> Are they copyrighted?
>>
>> Some are, some, since the composers died centuries ago, are not.
>>
>>> Do the composer's estates still get the royalties?
>>
>> Someone like Vaughn-Williams does. Martin Luther doesn't.
>>
>>> Are there no other published scores from other publishers of the same
>>> tunes anywhere in the World?
>>
>> Which is relevant in what way?
>
> Duh.
Still. How is it relevant? A second publication does not negate the
previous one.
>
>> Just because someone else arranges a tune in a particular manner doesn't
>> cause an earlier version to vanish, does it?
>
> To vanish? No.
> But it does mean that the earlier version is not sacrosanct.
>
Whether it is sacrosanct or not doesn't matter. If a tune is written so
that each and every note has been accomodated in the harmony then a tune has
been written so that each and every note is accomodated in the harmony.
That you don't like it will never matter.
>>>> It goes without saying that they are subject to embelishment,
>>> I hope so, because if they're as monophonic as you say they are they're
>>> probably pretty monotonous sounding, unless there's a whole bunch of
>>> ancillary passing chords and approach chords for each new melody note,
>>> or unless "there's something else going on".
>>>
>>>> which, historically some were given very complex settings: what Bach
>>>> did with Cruger's Nun Danket comes to mind. But the originals were
>>>> homophonic with nothing else going on. And I quite doubt the arrangers
>>>> thought the originals were boring. That would be like saying "A Love
>>>> Divine" is unlistenable.
>>> There's a difference between 'unlistenable' and boring.
>>
>> Senior moment on my part. I meant "A Love Supreme."
>
> Ah.
> It's still irrelevant.
> I actually had a hard time listening to ALS when I first heard when I was
> 16. But that's irrelevant too.
>
>>>> Either that or *there's something
>>>>> else going on*.
>>>> As I said: nothing else going on.
>
> Then you don't know what "something else" means.
> Go back and re-read my initial posts in this thread that you've hi-jacked
> with this nonsense and you might learn something about music.
Then, I guess you will have to show me. Here is a typical version of Azmon
http://www.ccel.org/cceh/0000/000069a.pdf Without adding anything, show me
the "something else" that is going on.
>>
>> Why? Outside of jazz, you have nothing to add to what I already know.
>
> Evidently, that's not the case.
With what evidence?
>
>> And since you stand by your statements, especially since you've never
>> heard "O Canada," that is kinda sad.
>
> Actually, it's *you* who's never heard Oh Canada or you would not have
> made your ridiculous claims and you would not have attempted to use that
> stupid score to back them up. Seems to me like all you did was search the
> Internet for that score.
In learning about homophonic music, examples given were hymn tunes and many
national anthems. Knowing that I took the chance that the standard version
of "O Canada" would be typical for a homophonic piece of music, and would be
a tune where most notes in the melody were accodated by the harmony. And, it
was close to one, with by my count only 7 notes being melodic dissonances,
the refrain is exactly homophonic. By the way, the scan is from a hymnal,
though I don't know which one.
Joey Goldstein
I think you should talk to LBS. You two are made for each other.
I'm done with you.
J R Laredo
Oh, sob, bahoodledoodle, sob. Whatever shall I do?
Anyway. I called him to put up, and he decided to shut up. Sounds like
"win-win." to me.
LJS
wrote:
> > What do you hope to prove?
>
> Nothing. I have nothing to prove. You keep asking questions, or making
> comments that beg for reply. How can I not respond? That you don't like
> the answers is not my problem.
>
>
>
> >> I mean, after some thought I did realize it was entirely possible you
> >> have never been in a church: you and your parents could be agnostic or
> >> atheists, and given the evidence of your last name you could be Jewish,
> >> and I have no knowledge of what kind of music is usual in Temple.
>
> > It's about time you admitted what you don't know.
> > Trust me, there's more.
> > How could you live so long and stay so ignorant?
>
> >> Those could be reasons you had never heard hymns being sung. But, you
> >> live in Canada. You've never seen your national anthem?
> the "something else" that is going on.
>
>
>
> >> Why? Outside of jazz, you have nothing to add to what I already know.
>
> > Evidently, that's not the case.
>
> With what evidence?
>
>
>
> >> And since you stand by your statements, especially since you've never
> >> heard "O Canada," that is kinda sad.
>
> > Actually, it's *you* who's never heard Oh Canada or you would not have
> > made your ridiculous claims and you would not have attempted to use that
> > stupid score to back them up. Seems to me like all you did was search the
> > Internet for that score.
>
> In learning about homophonic music, examples given were hymn tunes and many
> national anthems. Knowing that I took the chance that the standard version
> of "O Canada" would be typical for a homophonic piece of music, and would be
> a tune where most notes in the melody were accodated by the harmony. And, it
> was close to one, with by my count only 7 notes being melodic dissonances,
> the refrain is exactly homophonic. By the way, the scan is from a hymnal,
> though I don't know which one.
I have heard arrangements of it where the "passing tones" were
harmonized. By definition, these arrangements would still fit the
definition under discussion. (stupid though this distinction might
be!) and thus it certainly could be (and has been) one note per
chord.
Another consideration is that Oh Canada might be based upon another
song that would be the real source material instead of Oh Canada. IF
this is the case, THEN the source could be even a more pure homophonic
framework that resulted in Oh Canada.
The USA National Anthem is an old drinking song used as a framework
and it is likely that the drinking song has a source and the same
could of course be true for Canada.
The point is that Joey has no idea what he claimed. That is sad, but
it is the way it is. He tried to change the context of the argument
and this is what happens when you call him on that. More stupid
"attempts to cover up". What can anyone say.
LJS
J R Laredo
>
> In learning about homophonic music, examples given were hymn tunes and
> many
> national anthems. Knowing that I took the chance that the standard version
> of "O Canada" would be typical for a homophonic piece of music, and would
> be
> a tune where most notes in the melody were accodated by the harmony. And,
> it
> was close to one, with by my count only 7 notes being melodic dissonances,
> the refrain is exactly homophonic. By the way, the scan is from a hymnal,
> though I don't know which one.
I have heard arrangements of it where the "passing tones" were
harmonized. By definition, these arrangements would still fit the
definition under discussion. (stupid though this distinction might
be!) and thus it certainly could be (and has been) one note per
chord.
A little off topic, but, there is a fine line to where you stop harmonizing
the melody. "How Great Thou Art" is one where every siingle pitch, if
memory serves, is harmonized, yielding, among other beasts, the odd fully
diminished 7th, and is a little much. Not my favorite hymn, but, what can
you do? Can't go back in time and choke the original arranger, can you?
But, as much as it makes me wince to sing it, I would be sorely pressed to
arrange it without all the block chords since the existing version is so
prevalent in my head.
LJS
>
> >> At least one conductor, Michael Tilson Thomas is the same way.
>
> > That's too bad.
> > MTT has no record collection?
>
> At the time of the interview he said that was the case.
>
>
>
> > I can understand him not wanting to be influenced by someone else's
> > interpretation as he gets ready to conduct a score. But to prefer
> > listening to music in his head while looking at a score rather than going
> > out and hearing a good orchestra or listening to his stereo seems pretty
> > dumb to me. My guess is that *you* are misinterpreting something that
> > *you* read somewhere about MTT.
> > Wouldn't be the first time that you've misinterpreted something, like this
> > thread.
>
Joey calling Michael Thomas dumb. Am I the only one that finds that a
bit strange?
No Joey that is the case of many conductors. It is all in the score
and many consider it better to have their own "hearing" of a piece
rather than the necessity to "follow in someone's footsteps". This is
another example of how you are really out of touch with true artists.
This comment of yours is what gamblers call a "tell". When you say
this, you are indicating that you feel the need to copy what someone
else thinks and you do not have confidence in your own opinion and
knowledge to rely on your own work. You have to copy someone else and
how they think something should go.
Sorry Joey. You have the right to do this, but that does not diminish
the fact that a lot of artists would rather rely on their
interpretation than that of someone else.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
> that sound great... even ones that use only 1 note per chord. You can find
> melodies over a static chord that use just arps that can sound
> interesting(Although it might not is used for a long time).
>
> You can find "melodies" that are based of the same rhythmic figure
> continuously for a whole piece... but "work" because of other factors(Bach's
> prelude in C for example). In fact these tend to just be arpeggiated chords
> but work because of other factors. About the only thing I can think of in
> these types of pieces is the harmonic tension created and the some type of
> subconscious thing going on.
>
> Many of Bach's preludes that are based on the same rhythmic figure have
> something "hidden" going on. Get your average composer to try and write a
> piece based on it and generally they fail. It may simply be several of the
> factors you mentioned(such as tension and release and some type of inherent
> subconscious rhythm) but I just can't see how it all fits together.
>
> Anyways.. I'll work on it some more and see what I come up with. I'm
> probably overanalyzing things as thats usually the case.
An even better argument against my criteria is that a melody might
possess all sorts of the qualities of contrast that I mention above, and
still suck.
A good melody has a certain je ne sais quoi, literally "I don't know
what". The "good" part of it is highly subjective anyway.
Still, I think that most highly regarded melodies and most highly
regarded music will have some of those types of contrasts at work.
Jon Slaughter
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm simply saying that there are counter
examples to your claims. You are right in that most melodies(good and bad)
follow what you say but there are good melodies that do not. Hence there is
something else.
For example: Suppose you said "All good melodies must start and stop on the
tonic" and lets suppose that 99.9% of all good melodies do this. This is
great. It means if I wanted to create a good melody I should probably start
and stop on the tonic.
BUT, if there is even only one melody that does not do this then what you
have said is not a "law" but simply an observation. It doesn't show any true
understanding of the inherent nature of what a good melody is.
Now, your observation may be close to the "law" but it means there is
something missing. It might be "All melodies must start and stop on the
octave unlesst he climax note is the tonic and then the first note may be
the 5th". If this were the case then it could be considered a "law" if no
melody did not contradict it.
(I'm just making up rules to make it simple and they have no relation to
reality(it is the logical argument I'm trying to get you to understand))
Luckily music is not so critical and the "laws" are not like laws of
physics. I'm more talking about "general principles" and these are pretty
much what you have listed. I just feel that there is something else to be
added. Something more inherent. It may be just all the things you mentioned
working in some synergistic way.
Joey Goldstein
> not a "law" but simply an observation. It doesn't show
> any true understanding of the inherent nature of what a good melody is.
I thought I'd just said that, in so many words.