The Harmonic Language Of Jazz Standards
Marc Sabatella
working on a book to explain harmony - specifically, the types of chord
progressions found in standards such as the songs of Gershwin and
Porter. It has been my experience that an understanding of harmony is a
key to being able to play these tunes by ear, and to tranpose or
reharmonize them on the fly. Since I could not find a book that taught
these skills in a way I found suitable, I decided to write my own. I am
happy to report that the book is completed and is now available directly
from my web site.
http://www.outsideshore.com/school/music/harmonic/index.htm
There, you will find more information on the book, including ordering
information as well as a detailed chapter-by-chapter summary along with
the table of contents and excerpts from the book itself.
I apologize for the commercial nature of this announcement, but I truly
hope this information will be of considerable value to some of you.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Oona
nature in this group, via quanitity as well as quality of previous
non-commercial postings, it's you, Marc.
I took a quick look; nicely done. The language is clear, structure (at
least the bits that I saw) logical, tone is, like your posting here, helpful
and open rather than authoritarian.
Bob Agnew
on Minor Plagal Cadences is very interesting. I've just been playing around
with backdoor progressions from Jerry Coker's book, especially the IV9 /
IVm9 / bVII7 / I sequence. The chapter on modulations is most welcome. I
haven't seen anything about the subject since the old Mel Bay series.
Thanks.
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:BH0Ta.147$R27...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
Safir
I have ordered the book but won't have it during my hollidays ;-)
(leaving tomorrow)
How do you compare it to Mark Levine's Jazz Theory Book ?
S.
Marc Sabatella
> How do you compare it to Mark Levine's Jazz Theory Book ?
I would say they are complementary. He covers a lot of topics, and does
so well, but he does not give much attention to what is the single topic
covered in my book - understanding how chord progressions work. Levine
deals with a few individual harmonic devices - tritone substitution,
passing diminished chords, etc - and goes into a few chord-for-chord
substitutions, but does not provide the same "big picture" look at chord
progressions that I build from these the same devices. To my mind, it
is this big picture view enables the benefits I stress - ease in
memorization, playing by ear, transposing and reharmonizing on the fly.
On the other hand, I don't spend time in my book talking about the kinds
of things Levine spends the bulk of his time talking about. There is
actually very little overlap.
Jacques
While we're comparing -- Marc, how would you compare it to Coker, Knapp
and Vincent, "Hearin' the Changes"? From what you say, it sounds very
similar.
Jacques
Oona
"Jacques" <po...@jacques.deletethisword.vispa.com> wrote in message > While
Marc Sabatella
> While we're comparing -- Marc, how would you compare it to Coker,
Knapp
> and Vincent, "Hearin' the Changes"? From what you say, it sounds very
> similar.
My book is indeed similar to this in terms of what we are trying to
accomplish. I no longer have access to the book, so I can't do a
detailed analysis of similarities and differences, but all I can say is
when I was perusing Coker's book after I started mine, I saw that he was
trying to do the same thing I was, but didn't cover a lot of things I
considered important, so I still thought it worthwhile to continue
working. I'll try to pick up a copy soon so I can write something up
for next time someone asks...
Safir
Back from vacations and got the book.
Very nice book but the goal ( playing from memory many tunes in many
keys)
seems so far for an amateur with few time to practice (one hour a day)
and poor ears ...
Just a question Marc. In your book you say that often you know a tune
but don't remember in which key you have learnt it.
So *what* do you remember exactly ? The sound of the progression ?
(plus the melody of course)
It seems out of reach to me..
Safir
Jim Kangas
that this will vary for everyone depending on their experience. On the
one hand, I have not found too much that I didn't know already in some
shape or form, *but* on the other hand, the introduction was nearly
worth the price alone, i.e., why this stuff is important. I'm at a
point now, where I'm coming to realize that the "any tune, any key"
thing is indeed possible, and at this point I'm also embarassed at the
number of fake books that I tote around (probably a reaction to the
perception that guitarists can't read music). So even though I'm
"revisting" this topic of functional harmony, I'm seeing it in a new
light.
Like a lot of players, I've got a bookshelf full of books, but there
aren't very many that really address this topic, and I've always felt
at a bit of a disadvantage from guys that went through formal jazz
training because I've always had the impression that they spent a fair
amount of time analyzing tunes in this way. Coker's book is a gem
because he categorizes a lot of tunes into some harmonic categories,
but I think Marc's is complementary. For me, the key is getting the
sounds into your head, whatever that takes.
-Jim
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message news:<vBYTa.1596$jW....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>...
marc_sa...@highstream.net
> that this will vary for everyone depending on their experience. On the
> one hand, I have not found too much that I didn't know already in some
> shape or form, *but* on the other hand, the introduction was nearly
> worth the price alone, i.e., why this stuff is important.
Thanks! I would agree that most of the individual pieces of information
in the book will not come as a major surprise to anyone with decent
theory training. Indeed, as explained in the preface, that was me a few
years ago. But getting from understanding the idea behind secondary
dominants and tritone substitutions, to being able to play by ear in any
key - now *that* was a journey. The book is largely about that journey.
It's about how you organize and use the information that at some level,
you may already know (although a lot of it is not as widely known as it
could be).
marc_sa...@highstream.net
> keys)
> seems so far for an amateur with few time to practice (one hour a day)
> and poor ears ...
Pay attention to the last chapter where I discuss how to practice the
skills explained earlier in the book. An hour a day is fine, in my
opinion, if you can devote most of it to this practice. If you also
want to practice technique, voicings, or whatever else, try to ration
your time so you get at least a half hour of tune practice as described
in the book per practice session. I suspect you're better off with 45
minutes of this practice twice a week than only 10-15 minutes every day.
Although, actually, running through the tunes learned at a previous
session should probably be a daily or almost daily thing to help cement
the tunes in your head.
> Just a question Marc. In your book you say that often you know a tune
> but don't remember in which key you have learnt it.
>
> So *what* do you remember exactly ? The sound of the progression ?
>
> (plus the melody of course)
Yes, pretty much as described in the book. I remember the sound of the
progression and am able to break it down into its component cadences,
precadences, static and transitional progressions on the fly. But take
heart - as explained in the preface, it took me years to get to this
point, and that was starting from a point of already knowing a lot of
theory. Still, within just a few months, there was signficant
improvement.
Anyhow, I'm happy to continue discussing this either here or in private
email. I recognize those of you who have bought the book are taking a
risk, as it is a new way of looking at things that you can only hope
will work for you as it has for me and for my students. I am most
interested in hearing real-life experiences with learning these methods
from my book.
Orlando Fiol
>Just a question Marc. In your book you say that often you know a tune
>but don't remember in which key you have learnt it.
>So *what* do you remember exactly ? The sound of the progression ?
>(plus the melody of course)
and the chords and the chords themselves. All these relationships are
the same no matter what key I'm playing in. So, once I know the
relationships, I can transpose to any key.
Orlando
Orlando Fiol
>Like a lot of players, I've got a bookshelf full of books, but there
>aren't very many that really address this topic, and I've always felt
>at a bit of a disadvantage from guys that went through formal jazz
>training because I've always had the impression that they spent a fair
>amount of time analyzing tunes in this way.
Most of the great jazz players never studied jazz formally; they studied
classical music and played jazz. They learned the functional tonal
language from analyzing classical pieces and learned jazz harmony on
gigs. Nowadays, because it's more difficult for young players to find
jazz mentors, there is a pseudo pedagogical system that attempts to
teach them what used to be taught directly from seasoned player to
novice on gigs, at jam sessions and during informal coaching sessions.
Orlando
Safir
> classical music and played jazz. They learned the functional tonal
> language from analyzing classical pieces and learned jazz harmony on
> gigs. Nowadays, because it's more difficult for young players to find
> jazz mentors, there is a pseudo pedagogical system that attempts to
> teach them what used to be taught directly from seasoned player to
> novice on gigs, at jam sessions and during informal coaching sessions.
>
May be but books are very useful for amateur players who don't pretend
becoming great players and who can just spent one or 2 hours a day
on piano after their day's job.
Paul Rinzler
that it's different from the old system? I've heard a lot of great
musicians come out of school jazz programs. Granted, they were talented
without the school program, but that was true back in the old jam
session system, too. So what's the problem? I'm skeptical.
Paul Rinzler
thomas
>
> Most of the great jazz players never studied jazz formally;
This was true a long time ago, but "most" jazz players who came
of age in the 1960s and since have studied jazz and are well aware
of everything contained in the formal pedagogy.
I have some serious criticisms of jazz pedagogy, especially in
the overemphasis on chord/scale matching. But the state of the
art in jazz pedagogy is not "pseudo" at all. It works, and
most of the guys playing on records today have been through it.
Orlando Fiol
>What's exactly the problem with the current pedagogical system besides
>that it's different from the old system? I've heard a lot of great
>musicians come out of school jazz programs. Granted, they were talented
>without the school program, but that was true back in the old jam
>session system, too. So what's the problem? I'm skeptical.
been replaced with hackneyed stereotypical concepts of what sounds
"modern". So, the stylistic and esthetic elements of jazz have been
sidelined to create a generic playing style that sounds like nothing in
particular, doesn't contain enough bebop vocabulary to be bebop or swing
stylings to be swing, etc. You get a bunch of young players playing in
a vacuum without a clear sense of style, unlike say Pops, Monk, Bird,
Ornette, Bud Powell, Cecil Taylor or others. These are clearly masters
of their respective vocabularies and eras. People are so afraid of
sounding like someone else that they sound like no one in particular,
not even themselves.
Musically, harmony has become generic. People add chord extensions when
not required, even when they're detrimental to voice leading. I could
go on, but that's enough for now.
Orlando
Paul Rinzler
early in one's development. Doesn't it make sense to start with the
general and move to the specific, especially within the confines of a
bachelor's degree?
Also, a generic approach is even more necessary when it reaches large
numbers of people (each of which may have slightly different off-center
tastes). So the good news is that many people are playing jazz to some
extent. The bad news may be that many sound generic, but isn't that an
OK trade-off, considering that the few who are really dedicated will
specialize their sound anyway?
Paul Rinzler