New podcasts explaining the LEGO bricks system
Keith Freeman
(used in his Insights in Jazz book) works:
http://www.dropback.co.uk/Podcasts.html
-Keith
Clips, Portable Changes, tips etc.: www.keithfreemantrio.nl
e-mail: info AT keithfreemantrio DOT nl
andy-uk
what are the brick things for Em7 F7 Bbmaj7 and A7 on tune up?
andy-uk
as the 2 5 1s are Cm F7 Bbmajor going to Em A7 Dmajor .....is a major
third keywise..
Im not having a go or anything! I can see how it can be useful , but
does it remain usefull if the songs chords are very complex?
Keith Freeman
from the current tonality towards somewhere else. The Bauble is so called
because it features prominently in Baubles, Bangles and Beads.
> as the 2 5 1s are Cm F7 Bbmajor going to Em A7 Dmajor .....is a major
> third keywise..
The reason Conrad Cork developed the concept of joins was to enable you to
find the next chord more quickly. Supposing you're on Bb major, knowing
that your next cadence is in D major means that you have to calculate back
to the Em - possibly via the A7! - in order to know what the next chord is.
Knowing that the next thing is a Bauble join tells you immediately that
your next chord is a m7 a #4th away.
> does it remain usefull if the songs chords are very complex?
All systems for analysing changes get less useful the more complex the
chords. The Lego Bricks system - as developed by John - is the most
comprehensive I've seen so far.
Keith Freeman
Joey Goldstein
Wow. Briefly looking through his stuff and the stuff from the guy that
invented the system, Conrad Cork, I disagree strongly with almost
everything coming out of either of their mouths.
The Lego system, if I understand its outlines correctly, appears to be
much more complicated than standard harmonic analysis practises.
I can't really see the need for it or all its little terms and mnemonics.
If you understand harmonic analysis and you learn lots of tunes, you can
make up your own mnemonics that help you to learn more tunes much more
coherently.
IMHO.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Keith Freeman
> much more complicated than standard harmonic analysis practises.
I disagree. John especially aims to break songs down into the largest
possible reusable harmonic units ('bricks'), so as to have the smallest
number of bricks per song - fewer to memorize!
> I can't really see the need for it or all its little terms and mnemonics.
> If you understand harmonic analysis and you learn lots of tunes, you can
> make up your own mnemonics that help you to learn more tunes much more
> coherently.
Sure, if you already have your own mnemonic system you won't want this. If
you don't, and you don't want to spend a lot of time reinventing your own
wheel, it's the best system I've seen so far, covering far more 'bricks'
than Hearin' The Changes and the Aebersold playalong. I haven't found any
incoherence in the system. If I have a criticism, it's that the system is
designed to pin down changes precisely, so that you can reproduce them in
any key in every detail. But of course once you've Lego-ized a song you're
free to memorize as much or as little of the structure as you want.
Also, where else can you find a ready-made systematic analysis of 200+
standards to get you started and/or refer to if you get stuck?
John's development of the system benefits from having analysed those 200+
standards (some of which we've discussed on the google group). I think he's
done a fantastic job transforming a great, practical but occasionally
flawed idea into a really useful tool.
I say this based on having worked with the system for some time now, having
read the whole of Conrad's original book and most of the general section of
John's book (and contributing to the discussions on the google group).
Joey Goldstein
I'm sure the system has its merits for those who have studied it intently.
I just don't see the *need* for that system.
335
I checked this out briefly one time when you posted about it. Since I
already know something about functional harmony and roman numeral
analysis, I didn't find it useful. I was expecting a system that would
explain song structures in an intuitive way. But it appears the method
requires you to relearn what you already know according to its own
terms, which are highly specific to that method. I'm wondering why it
would be easier to bypass widely accepted tools like functional
harmony and roman numerals to rely on this highly specific system.
Joey Goldstein
+1
Joey Goldstein
>
> I'm sure the system has its merits for those who have studied it intently.
> I just don't see the *need* for that system.
>
FWIW
Someone who learned how play prior to the introduction of, or without
the aid of, the whole chord-scale theory paradigm (that I always seem to
be going on-and-on about here as if it's Gospel) might say the same
thing about that approach.
Keith Freeman
> would be easier to bypass widely accepted tools like functional
> harmony and roman numerals to rely on this highly specific system.
The problem with roman numerals is that they get complex when the tune
modulates, and especially when the tune passes through chords in another
key without actually modulating to that key. Conrad's 'join' concept deals
with that problem directly.
Keith Freeman
> requires you to relearn what you already know according to its own
> terms, which are highly specific to that method.
The reason that the terms are specific to the method is that functional
harmony doesn't include the harmonic bricks and joins that Lego identifies.
In other words, no-one had come up with names for them before (except the
Back Door, which Conrad in the UK was unaware of when he originally devised
the system, hence his different name Yardbird). If what you checked out was
Conrad's system rather than John Elliott's updated version, you may have
baulked at Conrad's 'straight' and 'sad' for 'major' and 'minor', as I did.
Happily John has abandoned that in his book.
Building on Conrad's system, John has developed a way of analysing
jazz standards that deals directly with the way those composers use
harmony.
Keith Freeman
> requires you to relearn what you already know according to its own
> terms, which are highly specific to that method.
There _is_ a lot of new terminology to learn, agreed, but John's book
provides a sequence in which to learn the bricks/joins coupled to a list of
standards that makes the task manageable. And having analysed a few hundred
standard he also tells you which bricks/joins are the more common ones, so
you don't have to waste time learning ones that don't occur so often.
Joey Goldstein
>> I'm wondering why it
>> would be easier to bypass widely accepted tools like functional
>> harmony and roman numerals to rely on this highly specific system.
>
> The problem with roman numerals is that they get complex when the tune
> modulates, and especially when the tune passes through chords in another
> key without actually modulating to that key. Conrad's 'join' concept deals
> with that problem directly.
To me, the Lego system seems *more* complicated than functional harmony
and RN analysis.
Complex ambiguous exotic progressions are going to be complex and
ambiguous in any system.
Simple unambiguous familiar progressions will be simple in any system too.
Just for curiosity's sake...
Could yopu please take the progression for Steve Swallow's tune, Falling
Grace (which is kind of a bitch to represent in RN analysis) and show me
how it would be represented with the Lego system?
Thanks in advance.
andy-uk
but it is not good as a model in on its own , it all seems a bit
bloated...if we look here on page 3.....(what tune is this)
http://www.dropback.co.uk/files/JE%20LIJC%202010%20slides.pdf
For SOLOING...I would go for key of F major 7 bars (then VI7) rather
than..hover,cadence raney drop....
also not impressed with "rhythm bridge" on page 4 ....looks like he
has made a mistake.
however I am interested in the fact that memonics could aid chord
memorisation....you couldn't tell me the names of the bricks and joins
could you!!
335
apparently you've immersed yourself in this system and have been able
to derive some benefit from it. One criteria for me would be: "can I
use it to communicate with other musicians?" In other words: if I used
this system on the bandstand to tell the bass player what changes I
was about to play for an intro, would he understand what I was asking
him to play? If I started throwing around terms like "bauble" on the
bandstand, people would be clueless.
Keith Freeman
> bandstand, people would be clueless.
Of course. It will need to catch on among musicians first. But it doesn't
take long to explain what a Bauble is. Anyone who knows the changes of that
tune should be able to understand it instanteously, once he knows it's a
root movement up an augmented 4th to a m7.
Phil
I bought a copy of John's eBook a few months ago. I think its an
interesting idea -- to classify/abstract chord sequences and their
connecting pieces based on the practice of actual tunes -- but I
wonder why just learning a zillion tunes (which, as musicians, we have
to do anyway -- right?) wouldn't achieve the same end result. After
learning 20-30 tunes, you start seeing the patterns and relating 'this
to that' anyway.
As a related aside, I've lately been on a Django/early jazz kick and
have been learning and working on lots of those kinds of tunes
('Nuages', 'Limehouse Blues', 'Djangology', 'Lady be Good' September
Song', etc.) . These tunes are simple enough to digest quickly, and
often feature one or two unique harmonic 'moves'. If I'd have leaned
these tunes years ago, instead of trying to jump into more complex,
modern stuff like 'ATTYA', 'Nardis', etc., I think I'd have laid a
much better foundation for the exact kind of structural tune learning
and association we're disussing here.
Keith Freeman
information you need to reconstruct the changes _precisely_ in any key. In
practice all you need to memorize is the bits you can't hear/recognize/play
automatically. And anyone who takes the time out to learn the system will
find that he can hear/recognize/play more and more bits.
> also not impressed with "rhythm bridge" on page 4 ....looks like he
has made a mistake.
Yes, the D7 should be A7. So John made a mistake. Could _you_ write out
changes for 200+ standards without making a single mistake? ;-}
Keith Freeman
> wonder why just learning a zillion tunes (which, as musicians, we have
> to do anyway -- right?) wouldn't achieve the same end result.
Well, I can play quite a few tunes by heart, but most of them only in one
key. I once asked pianist and teacher Garry Dial about this, as he often
has to transpose for singers, and he said he always did a quick harmonic
analysis of the tune first and memorized it, then reproduced the tune in
the new key using that analysis. As an amateur who doesn't play every day I
need something like Lego if I'm ever going to be able to 'transpose' on the
spot.
As John has said to me, the method is not aimed at people who already know
a lot (though they might well spot some useful things if they took the time
to look at it properly).
Keith Freeman
> Could yopu please take the progression for Steve Swallow's tune, Falling
> Grace (which is kind of a bitch to represent in RN analysis) and show me
> how it would be represented with the Lego system?
Here's my take on the first 14 (from the Vocal Real Book):
(FT = followthru)
| Ab | | D7 | G- | F- Bb7 | Eb D7 |
On Downwinder FT Long cadence.......... Bauble FT
| G- | C(7) |
cadence............
| F | F#- | B7 | E-7 | A- D7 | G ||
.. Downwinder ii-V cycle........................ FT
To be absolutely precise you would need to know to omit the first V7 in the
Long cadence and not to 'break down' the first Downwinder and the Bauble
(into a ii-V).
Keith Freeman
spaces I put in to align the analysis with the chords.
Here's another attempt. The dots are merely to ensure that things are
spaced correctly. I've used underscores to replace the continuation dots.
(FT = followthru)
|.Ab...|....|...D7...|..G-...|.F-..Bb7...|..Eb.......D7....|
.On....Downwinder...FT.Long cadence__________..Bauble.... FT
|..G-...|..C(7)..|
cadence____________
|.F...........|..F#-..|..B7....|..E-7...|...A-..D7...|....G ||
__....Downwinder..ii-V cycle________________________..FT
Keith Freeman
not even with Fixed Font selected.
If it doesn't line up, copy and paste the original version into your word
processor and set the font to Courier or another fixed-width font.
Dr Jazz
On Apr 8, 5:39 pm, andy-uk <andy.uk.j...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I think this could be a useful addition to the more traditional way,
> but it is not good as a model in on its own , it all seems a bit
> bloated...if we look here on page 3.....(what tune is this)
That song is Bye Bye Blackbird. I deliberately chose a busy example to
show how the notation can work. There are many simpler songs, such as
the ones that follow.
>
> http://www.dropback.co.uk/files/JE%20LIJC%202010%20slides.pdf
>
> For SOLOING...I would go for key of F major 7 bars (then VI7) rather
> than..hover,cadence raney drop....
Indeed, This is aimed at beginners that want to learn specific
changes. Clearly, once you undertand which bricks are interchangeable
then you can just think in key centres (turnaround, cadence, its all
the same thing), but that is advanced playing. Also, as a chordal
instrument, you need to know the agreed changes, not just key centres.
>
> also not impressed with "rhythm bridge" on page 4 ....looks like he
> has made a mistake.
>
I am so glad I made that mistake! It shows the power of the system.
Once I have labelled the bridge as the Rhythm Bridge, I am not
interested in writing down the chords, since I know how to play it in
any key! Start on III7 and cycle dominants till I get home. Or (with
breakdown) start on VII-7 and "dogleg" all the way home.
> however I am interested in the fact that memonics could aid chord
> memorisation....you couldn't tell me the names of the bricks and joins
> could you!!
Sure, they are all in Appendix A.
Best,
John
paul
> him to play? If I started throwing around terms like "bauble" on the
> bandstand, people would be clueless.
right, no one is going to know wtf that is, unless they start teaching
this stuff at colleges. additionally, many people just don't remember
tunes using mnemonic devices at all. when I studied with joann
brackeen, she would often have to stop and think about the name of a
chord she was playing. learning tunes by learning to hear where they
are going is a completely different approach, but one that many
musicians take.
--paul
Joey Goldstein
>> Just for curiosity's sake...
>> Could yopu please take the progression for Steve Swallow's tune, Falling
>> Grace (which is kind of a bitch to represent in RN analysis) and show me
>> how it would be represented with the Lego system?
>
> Here's my take on the first 14 (from the Vocal Real Book):
>
> (FT = followthru)
>
> | Ab | | D7 | G- | F- Bb7 | Eb D7 |
> On Downwinder FT Long cadence.......... Bauble FT
>
> | G- | C(7) |
> cadence............
>
> | F | F#- | B7 | E-7 | A- D7 | G ||
> .. Downwinder ii-V cycle........................ FT
OK. Thanks.
I think I can see where some of that is coming from.
It appears to not take keys or tonal centres as being the main focus.
The main focus appears to be root relationships from one chord to the next.
I suppose that can be helpful in some ways for some people at certain
points in their development.
But for me, I like to be aware of the keys too.
Would you mind defining some of the terms for me?
• "Followthru"?
• "Downwinder"? - Is this a root movement up/down a tritone to a dom7
chord? Does it matter what type of chord the one you're departing from is?
• "Long Cadence"? - Is this just a IIIm VIm IIm V7 I cadence?
• "Bauble"? - I thought that this was a movement up/down a tritone to a
min7 chord, based on your comments in another post. Evidently it also
involves that min7 chord being paired with a dom7 chord a P4th
above/P5th below the min7 chord and evidently it also involves the
potential omission of the min7 chord. Y/N? Is there any way to specify a
min7b5 rather than a min7 chord within a "bauble"?
> To be absolutely precise you would need to know to omit the first V7 in the
> Long cadence and not to 'break down' the first Downwinder and the Bauble
> (into a ii-V).
And how would someone know to do that?
Can it be indicated within the labelling system?
Sometimes I play the C/E in bar 8 as a C ionian sound rather than as C7.
How would that affect your labelling? Would it still be a "cadence"?
How 'bout the changes to Maiden Voyage? How would they look in this system?
Inner Urge?
Hope you don't all the homework!
Joey Goldstein
You need to use a mono-spaced font (like Courier) both when composing a
post like this and when reading it.
Jens W
"Keith Freeman" <x...@x.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9D54CCD9475C3k...@212.54.40.12...
> the new key using that analysis. As an amateur who doesn't play every day
> I
> need something like Lego if I'm ever going to be able to 'transpose' on
> the
> spot.
>
> As John has said to me, the method is not aimed at people who already know
> a lot (though they might well spot some useful things if they took the
> time
> to look at it properly).
I do think that the system is somewhat of a crutch, but if I can walk the
distance quicker with a crutch, maybe it's useful. I am trying to give you a
perspective that is my own, not a general judgment if it is useful for you
or overall.:
* Lego for me is not a replacement for functional harmonic analysis -
instead it identifies and names certain building blocks on the basis of
functional harmonic analysis. We all do the same thing by using terms like
"cadence", "turnaround" etc., but this system extends the terms and
differentiates them, based on empirical findings in standard tunes by naming
different types of cadences and turnarounds (and also the "joins" between
them). So it is complementary to functional harmony.
* I think as always the most important point is "am I able to hear what's
going on?"
Let me please briefly explain how the book helps me to make some progress
currently - we'll see for how long:
* I have a catalog of typical building blocks that I can use to analyze
"American songbook" type of standards. (By the way, I am far from being able
to name all the bricks.)
* I can use these building blocks to pratice improvisation more
systematically. e.g. it's easy for me to play guide tone lines on 2-5-1's,
but when I am confronted with #IVm7b5 VII7/ IIIm7 VI7/IIm7 V7/Imaj7 - what
then? I know that to you pros out there it doesn't represent a problem, and
you can identify it in any key, on the spot. But before recognizing this as
a building block I can take and practice, I would have struggled to identify
it as one in my analysis.
* By looking at these larger entities and learning to hear and play them, I
hope to be able to remember tunes more easily (but frankly, it will never be
easy for me, so I need all the menmonic aids there are).
Keith Freeman
> post like this and when reading it.
I did. It looked fine in Xnews when I posted it.
Keith Freeman
> • "Followthru"?
I think I used that wrongly, it should have been 'Cadence' or just nothing.
In John's charts the chord resolves normally if there is no join shown.
Followthru refers to following through round the cycle.
Now the joins (Downwinder and Bauble in this case). A join goes from a
resolved chord (major or minor, or it could be a 'tension' dominant) to a
ii-V a particular distance away. The ii-V can be broken down (into ii-V) or
not (just the ii, or just the V).
So a Downwinder is a movement a semitone up to a m7 (or up/down a tritone
to the associated V7). (The name refers to the fact that if the cadence
completes it takes you from e.g. C to B).
A Bauble goes to a m7 root a tritone away (or a V7 a semitone down).
> • "Long Cadence"? - Is this just a IIIm VIm IIm V7 I cadence?
Yup.
> Is there any way to specify
> a min7b5 rather than a min7 chord within a "bauble"?
Conrad would have called it a 'sad Bauble', but I've been campaigning to
abandon 'sad' and 'straight' and go back to minor and major, as they just
involve an additional translation step into normal musical terminology.
John indicates this using colour-coding in his charts, blue for minor.
> And how would someone know to do that?
> Can it be indicated within the labelling system?
If you wanted to do that you would just use standard musical terminology or
symbols at the moment.
> Sometimes I play the C/E in bar 8 as a C ionian sound rather than as C7.
> How would that affect your labelling? Would it still be a "cadence"?
I guess that's in the ear of the beholder. I would call it a 'modal
cadence' (in F Lydian).
> The main focus appears to be root relationships from one chord to the
next.
Yes. The reasoning is that it's usually easier to follow directions in the
form of 'drive two blocks, turn right, then turn left and right again' than
'go to the junction of 2nd Ave. and 4th St., then the junction of 6th St.
and 1st Ave.'
> But for me, I like to be aware of the keys too.
Sure, if you know both the root movement and the key relationships
you're very unlikely to come unstuck. Indeed, there are tunes where it's
easier to memorize the key relationships than the root movement. And tunes
where a combination of the two approaches works best.
> How 'bout the changes to Maiden Voyage? How would they look in this
system?
If you wanted to do it with joins you would get:
A section:
A-/D
Cherokee to C-/F
Bridge:
Half Nelson to Bb-/Eb
Cherokee to Db- (minor, no BD*) * BD=Breakdown
(Stella to:)
repeat A section
In this case it's probably easier just to memorize the root movement. If I
used the Lego join names it would be to help me learn them (especially
since the Stella join is very rare)!
> Inner Urge?
I'd say that's too far removed from 'standards' harmony for Lego to make
much sense of. You could devise new joins or bricks (for the Lydian down a
m3, used twice in the penultimate 4, for instance) but that would only be
worthwhile if they occurred in a few other tunes as well.
Keith Freeman
Keith Freeman
> system?
two modal minors a 3rd apart (the A section). Whether that would be
worthwhile would depend on how many other songs it could be reused in.
Joey Goldstein
From what I've seen of this system, which isn't very much - so I may be
talking out of my ass - it looks like it would take just about as long
to learn as it would take to learn harmonic analysis.
Joey Goldstein
Thanks.
Jonathan (not from Cleveland)
Isn't "Harmonic Analysis" of standards sort of a vague term...
Doesn't everyone do it a little bit differently?
Do you know of any other resources that apply a system of harmonic
analysis (any system) to 200 standards?
southtexasguitarist
> John Elliott has posted some podcasts explaining how the Lego Bricks system
> (used in his Insights in Jazz book) works:
>
> http://www.dropback.co.uk/Podcasts.html
>
> -Keith
>
> Clips, Portable Changes, tips etc.:www.keithfreemantrio.nl
> e-mail: info AT keithfreemantrio DOT nl
Given all the discussion on the practicality of this system vs others
I thought I might chime in. I bought John's book and read through it.
Obviously just reading through something isn't going to yield any
depth of understanding, but I think I saw enough to realize I wasn't
going to convert over to this way of thinking. I'm not saying it's not
useful, but probably not useful to me. At this stage of my life
knowing tunes isn't a problem for me, and it didn't seem simple enough
to recommend to my college students who are already overwhelmed with
what they have to learn. Here are a couple more observations.
Because I deal daily with jazz "newbies" who are heavily involved in
studying classical guitar I've tried to strip out things I don't think
will be useful and focus on very simple drills and concepts. We learn
a major scale in position with the root on the 6th string, then the 7
diatonic chords in the key, all in that position. My hope is with this
very visual and muscle memory system they can learn to associate the
chords, scales, and arpeggios without going into extensive theoretical
detail. They already know traditional theory, so they understand chord
construction, keys, etc. Then we learn tunes. Since they all read
pretty well it's not that difficult to get them playing through them.
We've been doing this for a while. However, even with their excellent
classical training and what I think is clear instruction for beginning
improvising there are some who basically lose it when they go to solo.
They can play the drills just fine, but to abandon that results in
chaos. Why? Drum roll, please. They don't spend enough time outside of
class practicing what I'm teaching them. The conclusion is no matter
how good a system is there has to be work, and usually a lot of it, to
become functional at something. Getting good takes even more work.
Second, while I don't live in a major jazz center I've been fortunate
enough over the last few decades to have been around and worked with
some very high level jazz players, some of which are household names.
Before I discuss this, however, I'd like to discuss some gigs I did a
few years ago with two different bandleaders who played a very similar
bag, which I'm going to label the human jukebox. Both these guys
(melody players) prided themselves on their vast repertoires, and my
job was to divine the changes from their melody and the bass notes.
Charts weren't allowed for reasons I'd rather not discuss. This was
exhausting work and I quickly began to dread these gigs though they
usually paid well. The punch line is both these guys had to hustle
constantly to get gigs and AFAIK no one hired them for other gigs.
They were persona non grata in the jazz community. Truth be told they
weren't that good.
Back to the great jazz players I've been lucky enough to know. Some of
them know zillions of tunes, some do not. It's simply no guarantor of
success in the jazz world. I've witnessed a number of "jam session"
type gigs with heavyweights when one or more of the players didn't
know a tune very well. To the untrained everything seems fine but
someone with jazz ears can tell when someone is scuffling. I think the
very best know some common standards but focus on the repertoire they
are playing for their active gigs, which may be originals that they'll
never need to transpose into other keys. And, I night add, the smart
ones don't put themselves in situations where they would scuffle on
tunes they don't know well and look bad. The bottom line is it's
crucial to know *your* repertoire, and be careful about budgeting your
time on knowing every tune in every key.
paul
lot of tunes and transposing on the fly and all that, and I have
definitely done singer gigs where that kind of thing is required, but
the vast majority of the gigs I do these days are with a specific
repotoire.
I think it's easy for younger players, myself included, to mistake
having the skills to hear changes and tunes and be able to follow what
you're hearing in any key, with using mnemonic devices to be able to
memorize hundreds of tunes. both result in being able to play many
standards in any key, but the paths are pretty different, IMO. I know
that body and soul goes up a half step on the bridge, but I don't need
to "remember" that explicitly or think about it prior to playing the
tune, because I can hear that tune in my head and I know what a half
step modulation sounds like.
there is a big difference between hearing something in your head and
knowing what it is you're hearing, than remembering a string of words
associated with "Body and Soul" that allows you to remember it
modulates up a half step. the former approach is an aural association,
the latter is not.
--paul
Joey Goldstein
Differences between harmonic analysis methodologies are slight.
> Do you know of any other resources that apply a system of harmonic
> analysis (any system) to 200 standards?
Harmonic analysis techniques can be applied to a potentially infinite
number of standards.
Keith Freeman
> knowing what it is you're hearing, than remembering a string of words
> associated with "Body and Soul" that allows you to remember it
> modulates up a half step.
Lego is not just a mnemonic system, the idea is to practise the bricks and
joins in all keys so that you can hear and play them without thinking.
Playalong mp3s are provided for the purpose. I've always regarded it as an
ear training system. The point of analysing standards is to be able to hear
and play the bricks in the context of tunes.
Dan Adler
> Keith Freeman wrote:
> > John Elliott has posted some podcasts explaining how the Lego Bricks system
> > (used in his Insights in Jazz book) works:
>
> >http://www.dropback.co.uk/Podcasts.html
>
>
> > Clips, Portable Changes, tips etc.:www.keithfreemantrio.nl
> > e-mail: info AT keithfreemantrio DOT nl
>
> invented the system, Conrad Cork, I disagree strongly with almost
> everything coming out of either of their mouths.
>
> The Lego system, if I understand its outlines correctly, appears to be
> much more complicated than standard harmonic analysis practises.
> I can't really see the need for it or all its little terms and mnemonics.
> If you understand harmonic analysis and you learn lots of tunes, you can
> make up your own mnemonics that help you to learn more tunes much more
> coherently.
> IMHO.
>
Joey,
From the two sample chapters I read, I agree that his writing is very
incoherent and "markety" rather than academic. Looks like his idol is
David L. Burge, as his writing seem to have that "this will change
your life" flavor in every bite.
However, I see no problem with the concept itself. It takes over where
standard functional harmony leaves off. In that way, its relationship
to functional harmony is like Schenkerian analysis (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenkerian_analysis) is to classical harmony.
It deals in larger scale units and with prolongation and macro
patterns of reuse.
It would be an interesting weekend project to see if "longest common
subsequence" analysis of standards could be done effectively by a
computer program if it were fed hundreds of standards chord
progressions and taught just to abstract out relative key center
relations.
Keith Freeman
Of which book, Conrad's or John's?
Bryce
Hi --
I read some of this lego stuff and it just seems like over complicated
analysis; why?. Ralph covers the tonal shifts very well and he
provides the standards in which they occur via links to the song
changes and highlights of the patterns. For me it's more fun to
actually play then it is to analyze it to death. IMO the legos are the
chords, arpeggios, and scales. We're so fortunate to have the guitar
because it is so rich and mysterious. Mozart tried for years to
compose counterpoint and he couldn't do it, mostly because the piano
is linear (he later proved he could do it after dozens compositions).
Jazz guitar players can play counterpoint off the top of their heads
in real time by just changing chords with notes moving in opposite
directions. For those who want to see the tonal shifts in the
standards, check out Ralph's page on tonal shifts:
http://ralphpatt.com/Tonal.html
Thanks Ralph.... svaha,
Bryce
Jonathan (not from Cleveland)
I agree with you in theory.
However, if what you say were true in practice, wouldn't somebody have
already demonstrated the robustness and practicality of one of these
harmonic analysis methodologies by applying it to a few hundred
standards?
It is my opinion that the best pedagogical resources teach by
example...the more examples the better.
Thus, I wonder why "Insights in Jazz" appears to be the first book
that has actually done this.
Most other books that purport to address the task of recognizing
harmonic trends in standards show a few isolated examples, but to my
knowledge, none of them actually treats more than a few songs all the
way through.
Joey Goldstein
Anybody who understands harmonic analysis could decide to create a
resource like the one you're asking for.
I, for one, choose not to do so because:
1. I don't have the time.
and
2. I don't see the need for it.
[Evidently Ralph Patt has something similar posted on his web site though.]
I don't have any trouble memorizing tunes, especially of the Great
American Songbook variety, and I don't have any trouble hearing tunes
that I don't already know mostly because I understand harmonic analysis
and also because I've played and learned a lot of tunes.
IMO Anybody who simply learns a lot of tunes will acquire the skills
that this Lego system appears to be trying to help its adherents acquire.
But if it helps you other folks then please go ahead and use whatever
you think is helping you.
Just don't be calling out "Joins" and/or "Baubles" to me on the
bandstand, please.
Keith Freeman
> you think is helping you.
I'm not gonna stay around here and be patronized. Bye folks.
Joey Goldstein
I'm sorry if you feel you're being patronized by my comments.
That's really not been my intent.
If something helps you to play better, use it.
That's all I'm saying.
The way *I* happen to see things is not necessarily the "right" way to
see things. It's just the way that I happen to see them.
Jonathan (not from Cleveland)
Ralph's site is a great resource.
I wonder who is maintaining it and paying the hosting fees...
It would be a shame if it went offline.
Rick Stone
Good post Clay!
--
Rick Stone
website: www.rickstone.com
Some of My Other sites: www.myspace.com/rickstonemusic
www.facebook.com/rickstonemusic www.sonicbids.com/rickstone
www.reverbnation.com/rickstone www.youtube.com/jazzand
www.cdbaby.com/all/jazzand http://jazzguitarny.ning.com
Joe Finn
"southtexasguitarist" <cl...@claymoore.com> wrote
>Back to the great jazz players I've been lucky enough to know. Some of
>them know zillions of tunes, some do not. It's simply no guarantor of
>success in the jazz world. I've witnessed a number of "jam session"
>type gigs with heavyweights when one or more of the players didn't
>know a tune very well. To the untrained everything seems fine but
>someone with jazz ears can tell when someone is scuffling. I think the
>very best know some common standards but focus on the repertoire they
>are playing for their active gigs, which may be originals that they'll
>never need to transpose into other keys. And, I night add, the smart
>ones don't put themselves in situations where they would scuffle on
>tunes they don't know well and look bad. The bottom line is it's
>crucial to know *your* repertoire, and be careful about budgeting your
>time on knowing every tune in every key.
Good point. Life is short so knowing what to focus on is crucial. ...joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
Dr Jazz
> "southtexasguitarist" <c...@claymoore.com> wrote
I agree completely. The point of the LEGO approach was to tell the
student what to focus on in order to master the American Songbook
standards as quickly as possible.
It is then up to you how much effort you put in in order to learn to
play in many keys. But at least it tells you what the essential
harmonic moves are that you need to know.
J
Dr Jazz
> Keith Freeman wrote:
> >> The Lego system, if I understand its outlines correctly, appears to be
> >> much more complicated than standard harmonic analysis practises.
>
> > possible reusable harmonic units ('bricks'), so as to have the smallest
> > number of bricks per song - fewer to memorize!
>
> >> I can't really see the need for it or all its little terms and mnemonics.
> >> If you understand harmonic analysis and you learn lots of tunes, you can
> >> make up your own mnemonics that help you to learn more tunes much more
> >> coherently.
>
> > you don't, and you don't want to spend a lot of time reinventing your own
> > wheel, it's the best system I've seen so far, covering far more 'bricks'
> > than Hearin' The Changes and the Aebersold playalong. I haven't found any
> > incoherence in the system. If I have a criticism, it's that the system is
> > designed to pin down changes precisely, so that you can reproduce them in
> > any key in every detail. But of course once you've Lego-ized a song you're
> > free to memorize as much or as little of the structure as you want.
>
> > Also, where else can you find a ready-made systematic analysis of 200+
> > standards to get you started and/or refer to if you get stuck?
>
> > John's development of the system benefits from having analysed those 200+
> > standards (some of which we've discussed on the google group). I think he's
> > done a fantastic job transforming a great, practical but occasionally
> > flawed idea into a really useful tool.
>
> > I say this based on having worked with the system for some time now, having
> > read the whole of Conrad's original book and most of the general section of
> > John's book (and contributing to the discussions on the google group).
>
> > -Keith
>
> > Clips, Portable Changes, tips etc.:www.keithfreemantrio.nl
> > e-mail: info AT keithfreemantrio DOT nl
>
> I just don't see the *need* for that system.
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT primus DOT ca
Joey
I'd be very interested in comparing RN analysis or anything else that
you know of with the LEGO approach on, say, three songs of different
types:
1) Simple song such as I Can't Believe You're In Love With Me
2) More complex song such as Nobody Else But Me
3) Modern non-American Songbook song such as Falling Grace.
Then I think we could fairly openly compare the merits of the systems.
Would you be up for it?
I'd supply the LEGO analysis if you'd supply the other. I'd be happy
to also supply the chords so that we are certain that we are analysing
the same progressions.
John
Dr Jazz
> > however I am interested in the fact that memonics could aid chord
> > memorisation....you couldn't tell me the names of the bricks and joins
> > could you!!
>
> Sure, they are all in Appendix A.
>
> Best,
>
> John
>
> www.dropback.co.uk
If you join the Google Group dedicated to the LEGO method, you can
donwload lots of resources for free, including a summary of all the
bricks from the Insights In Jazz book.
http://groups.google.com/group/LEGO-bricks?hl=en
J
Joey Goldstein
> Joey
>
> I'd be very interested in comparing RN analysis or anything else that
> you know of with the LEGO approach on, say, three songs of different
> types:
Not sure why you'd want to do this. I've already made up my mind about
the utility of the Lego system for myself and for my lessons with my
students.
As to whether or not other people use the Lego system...More power to them.
But if you insist...
> 1) Simple song such as I Can't Believe You're In Love With Me
I don't know this tune and I don't appear to have a lead sheet for it.
But I did find a clip at youtube:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykP8Wtcg86w>
Assuming that this is the tune that you are talking about, with the
changes you're interested in, then here's the harmonic analysis:
(Be sure to view this with a mono-spaced, aka "fixed", font.)
F:
IV IVm I V7/V
Bb / / / |Bbm / / / |F / / / |G7 / / / |
V7 \IIm7_V7/ I #Idim7 V7 \IIm7_V7/IV
C7 / / / |Gm7 / C7 / |F / F#dim7 / |C7/G / Cm7 F7 ||
IV IVm I V7-of-V
Bb / / / |Bbm / / / |F / / / |G7 / / / |
\IIm7__V7/ I IVm I
Gm7 / C7 / |Gm7 / C7 / |F / Bbm / |F / / / ||
\IIm7__V7/VI \IIm7__V7/VI V7/II
Em7 / A7 / |Em7 / A7 /|D7 / / / | / / / / |
\IIm7__V7/V V7 bV7 V7 V7/IV
Dm7 / G7 / |Dm7 / G7 / |C7 / B7 / |C7 / F7 / ||
IV IVm I V7/V
Bb / / / |Bbm / / / |F / / / |G7 / / / |
\IIm7__V7/ I IV IVm I V7/IV
Gm7 / C7 / |Gm7 / C7 / |F / Bb Bbm |F / (F7 / )||
I may be missing a few incidental passing/approach chords, but that's
basically the gist of it.
BTW I only had to pick up my guitar to check a few bass notes here and
there, but for the most part I could hear all that before I even knew
what the key was.
> 2) More complex song such as Nobody Else But Me
Changes via the RBIII:
Eb:
I IV7 \IIm7__V7/II \IIm7__V7/
Ebmaj7 / Ab7 / |Gm7 / C7 / |Fm7 / C7 / |Fm7 / Bb7 / |
D(aka: the key of VII):
\IIm7__V7/ I \IIm7__V7/IV
Fm7 / Bb7 / |Em7 / A7 / |Dmaj7 / / / |Am7 / D7 / |
IV #IVdim7 I V7/VI VIm V7/IV
Gmaj7 / / / |G#dim7 / / / / |D/A / F#7/A# / |Bm7 / D7/A / |
Eb(aka: the original key):
\IVm7_______bVII7/ \IIm7_______V7/
Gm7 / / / |C7 / / / |Fm7 / / / |Bb7 / / / ||
I IV7 \IIm7__V7/II \IIm7__V7/
Ebmaj7 / Ab7 / |Gm7 / C7 / |Fm7 / C7 / |Fm7 / Bb7 / |
\IIm7___V7/IV
Fm7 / Bb7 / |Bbm7 / Eb7 / |Bbm7 / / / |Eb7 / / / |
IV bVII7 \IIm7_______V7/II
Abmaj7 / / / |Db7 / / / |Gm7 / / / |C7 / / / |
\IIm7__V7/ \IIm7__V7/II \IIm7__V7/ \IIm7__V7/II
Fm7 / Bb7 / |Gm7 / C7 / |Fm7 / Bb7 / |Gm7 / C7 / |
V7/V V7 I
F7 / / / |Bb7 / / / |Eb / / / | / / / / ||
> 3) Modern non-American Songbook song such as Falling Grace.
Bb:
bVII V7/VI VIm
Abmaj7 / / / | / / / / |D7/F# / / / |Gm7 / / / |
F(aka: the key of V):
\IIm7__V7/IV IV V7/VI \IIm7________V/
Fm7 / Bb7 / |Eb6/G / D7/F# / |Gm7/F / / / |C/E / / / |
Em(aka: the of VIIm-relative to preceding key):
I \IIm7b5________V7/ Im
Fmaj7 / / / |F#m7b5 / / / |B7 / / / |Em7 / / / |
G(aka: relative major of preceding key):
\IIm7__V7/ I
Am7 / D7 / |Gmaj7 / / / ||
Bb(aka: the key of bIII, aka: the orig key)
IIm7 #IIdim7 I IV
Cm7 / / / |C#dim7 / / / |Bbmaj7/D / / / |Ebmaj7 / / / |
\IIm7b5_______V7/III \IIm7__SubV7/II \IIm7__V7/
Em7b5 / / / |A7 / / / |Dm7 / Db7 / |Cm7 / F7 / |
I IV
Bbmaj7 / / / |Ebmaj7 / / / || Repeat
TAG
bVII bIII
Abmaj7 / / / |Dbmaj7 / / / ||
Fine
> Then I think we could fairly openly compare the merits of the systems.
Knock yourself out.
> Would you be up for it?
>
> I'd supply the LEGO analysis if you'd supply the other. I'd be happy
> to also supply the chords so that we are certain that we are analysing
> the same progressions.
Too late. Please use the same changes I used.
> John
>
> www.dropnack.co.uk
Joe Finn
news:a9356500-e4f2-424c...@i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>J
I grew up listening to my Dad's record collection which he played more or
less non-stop when he wasn't at the piano. For me that music [the great
American Songbook] is second nature. Many of my students are having a harder
time with it due to a pop music listening history which is antithetical to
the greater tradition. ......joe
Tim Berens
> If you understand harmonic analysis and you learn lots of tunes, you can
> make up your own mnemonics that help you to learn more tunes much more
> coherently.
> IMHO.
I completely agree with Joey on this. Standard music theory is simple
to learn. If you know the letters from A to G and can count up to 13,
you can learn the music theory sufficient to playing jazz.
Dr Jazz
> On Apr 11, 1:40 pm, Dr Jazz <john.elliot...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > It is then up to you how much effort you put in in order to learn to
> > play in many keys. But at least it tells you what the essential
> > harmonic moves are that you need to know.
>
> the best way to learn tunes. It can help, and it's important to know
> the framework of a tune, but in my own experience, learning to play
> the melody in time is the most important part of really learning a
> tune. Anything that tries to shortcut that process is probably
> detrimental.
I can't tell whether you guys are joking around or not. But I'll
assume you are not.
Clearly, knowing the essential harmonic moves is the *only* way to
learn hundreds of standards. There are too many of them not to
categorise the moves and spot where they are re-used. We all do it
this way. You can do it the slow way by analysing hundreds of tunes
yourself until you finally discover and absorb them all. Or you can do
it the quick way, by letting LEGO Harmony tell you what the moves
are.
The LEGO Harmony approach is not an alternative to functional
analysis, it is the step beyond it that many never get to.
If you are worried about the legitimacy of this approach, there are
others who have dabbled in this sort of approach. E.g. Jerry Coker's
book "Hearin' the Changes" has a stab at analysing 500 standards and
deciding what the bricks (they call them "cells") are. But they miss
the value of naming the cells so that they cannot cross-refer to them
in other songs. And they do not show many complete songs, so the
student is left having to re-do all the research again for themselves.
But as the years roll by, jazz tradition still demands that we learn
to play over standards (in all keys if we want to play with the pros).
Meanwhile, each generation lays down a bunch of new stuff we are also
expected to learn. The point is that we only have limited time in very
busy lives, We want to clear the decks to concentrate on what we each
care about. So, any shortcuts are useful to consider.
I'll repeat, this method is not aimed at folks who already know
hundreds of standards.
Learning the *melodies* is something else and is important too. But
that is *not* what this thread is about. David Baker has an Aebersold
book dedicated to that problem.
J
Joey Goldstein
WTF man.
Where's your response to all that harmonic analysis you had me write out?
andy-uk
> WTF man.
> Where's your response to all that harmonic analysis you had me write out?
>
Dr Jazz
As I just said, the harmonic analysis is the starting point for LEGO
and the Coker stuff that we all actually do automatically when when we
have loads of experience. Harmonic analysis does nothing to tell you
what the common bricks of chords are.
Having identified the roman numerals you can then spot the bricks. But
only if you are not a novice. Harmonic analysis on its own does not
teach beginners how to fly on their solos. And their solos will sound
like they are fitting notes to each chord, rather than playing across
whole bricks.
Some of us do this automatically because we have done so much of it.
But, as I keep saying, this is not aimed at those who already know how
to play well over changes.
I will respond to your analysis post when I have more time. I am on
holidays with my kids this week.
J
Dr Jazz
> progressions that are used in standards, and we all need to know these
> and be able to play them in different keys.
>
> But my point is that you don't really learn tunes that way, you learn
> formulas for tunes but not the tunes themselves. Anyone can say the
> first four bars of I Can't Get Started is based on I vi II V iii vi
> ii7 V. and they would be right, but without knowing the melody and the
> harmonic rhythm you probably won't be able to play that tune very
> well.
>
> Try getting up on the bandstand when someone calls I Can't Get
> Started but all you know is roman numerals or a mnemonic. We've all
> been in a similar situation. You would have to defer on the melody
> when asked to play it because you don't really know it. Your soloing
> would not be informed by the melody because you've convinced yourself
> that memorizing a formula is the same thing as knowing the tune. You
> might be able to accompany someone by knowing just the chord sequence
> which is useful but that's not the same thing as knowing the tune. The
> best players in jazz know tunes really really well, maybe not in every
> case, but in most cases they know them well, they aren't just relying
> on formulas although they may use formulas at times.
>
> Learning one tune at a time with chords and melody, playing it through
> a few keys etc. is a good way to learn. After some time is spent
> developing a repertiore, the common progressions emerge as sounds not
> just as technical formulas, and then you can give them whatever names
> you want, roman numerals or lego names or whatever, and it gets easier
> to relate them to other tunes. But to give them names as a starting
> point for learning without really knowing the melody imo is mixing up
> the priorities. It's a shortcut that gives short shrift to learning
> melodies which imo is not a good thing for developing musicianship.
> ymmv.
This thread is not about melody. Melody is important and not to be
neglected. Learning the melodies on their own will not teach you what
you need to know about chords.
J
Joey Goldstein
>
> As I just said, the harmonic analysis is the starting point for LEGO
> and the Coker stuff that we all actually do automatically when when we
> have loads of experience. Harmonic analysis does nothing to tell you
> what the common bricks of chords are.
Off course it does.
How many times do you have to look at a iii vi ii V progression in tune
after tune after tune before you recognize it as "one of those"?
> Having identified the roman numerals you can then spot the bricks.
So you're saying that in order to understand your Lego system the
student has to have previous knowledge of RN harmonic analysis?
The Lego system is an adjunct ot harmonic analysis?
> But
> only if you are not a novice.
Now you're confusing me.
> Harmonic analysis on its own does not
> teach beginners how to fly on their solos.
It's not supposed to.
I don't know of any abstract concept that is supposed to "teach
beginners how to fly".
If you think you've got one of those, you're gonna have to prove it.
> And their solos will sound
> like they are fitting notes to each chord, rather than playing across
> whole bricks.
So this Lego concept, in and of itself, somehow teaches beginners how to
play through changes better than an understanding of the keys involved
in the music?
Prove it.
> Some of us do this automatically because we have done so much of it.
> But, as I keep saying, this is not aimed at those who already know how
> to play well over changes.
It appears to be aimed at people who are averse to harmonic analysis for
some strange reason.
Like I said before... Whatever helps you to learn how to play what you
hear is fair game. I just don't see the need for this system.
> I will respond to your analysis post when I have more time. I am on
> holidays with my kids this week.
Well, you obviously have a computer with you and internet access. You
had enough time to write the above post.
*I* went to the trouble and took the time to do what *you* asked me to
do. The least you could is respond.
It seems to me that your system requires the student to have already
learned about 200 tunes in order to be able to compare the common
'bricks' between them.
What training in harmonic analysis allows the student to do is to learn
those 200 tunes. I.e. A student of harmonic analysis should be able to
see the common chord sequences *prior to learning the tunes* and this
knowledge will aid him in memorizing and being able to hear the tunes.
IMO
Joey Goldstein
>
> This thread is not about melody. Melody is important and not to be
> neglected. Learning the melodies on their own will not teach you what
> you need to know about chords.
>
> J
And here's another post you had time to respond to while on vacation.
Dr Jazz
Joey
I just came back to the computer to start my considered response to
you. But, to be honest with you, I fund your attitude astonishingly
unfriendly and aggressive.
You've made it clear several times that you have already made your
mind up that LEGO is not worthwhile.and I am not interested in
changing *your* mind.
I'm out of here.
J
Joey Goldstein
> On Apr 14, 6:53 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Dr Jazz wrote:
>>
>>> This thread is not about melody. Melody is important and not to be
>>> neglected. Learning the melodies on their own will not teach you what
>>> you need to know about chords.
>>> J
>> And here's another post you had time to respond to while on vacation.
>>
>> --
>> Joey Goldstein
>> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
>> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
>> joegold AT primus DOT ca
>
> Joey
>
> I just came back to the computer to start my considered response to
> you. But, to be honest with you, I fund your attitude astonishingly
> unfriendly and aggressive.
My attitude has begun to lean that way because I actually took about a
half hour of my life to write those analyses *for you*. I did that
because *you asked me too*.
And now I see you coming on here *several days later* replying to pretty
much everybody out here but me.
If you've got the time to respond to them, then certainly you have the
time to respond to me.
My attitude towards you was completely cordial *until today*.
*Now* you're pissing me off.
There's a simple remedy to that. Just post the damn Lego analyses.
> You've made it clear several times that you have already made your
> mind up that LEGO is not worthwhile.and I am not interested in
> changing *your* mind.
If you're not interested in changing my mind or in educating me about
this system then why the hell did you bother engaging me about it in the
1st place?
I, on the other hand, really was interested in learning more about the
Lego system. Obviously, you think that your system possesses something
that is lacking in the more traditional approaches. I can't fully
evaluate the merits of your system without knowing at least a bit more
about it than I do now.
> I'm out of here.
Suit yourself.
Again, and hopefully for the last time...
If anybody out there finds the Lego bricks system to be helpful to their
music making then, by-all-means, continue to use it and have fun.
Sheesh.
andy-uk
lego.......
Joey Goldstein
At any rate, Keith Freeman had already graciously supplied us/me with a
snippet of the Lego style analysis for Falling Grace, along with some
definitions for the terms used, so I do think I've got the gist of it.
Thanks anyway.
Dr Jazz
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> At any rate, Keith Freeman had already graciously supplied us/me with a
> snippet of the Lego style analysis for Falling Grace, along with some
> definitions for the terms used, so I do think I've got the gist of it.
>
> Thanks anyway.
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT primus DOT ca
Joey
I can understand that you felt ignored since I had not explained that
I wanted time to write a more *considered* response to the analysis
question. Whereas the other posts were simpler replies.
I needed to decide how to notate the stuff (since we usually use brick
wall graphics to communicate, which takes more time than one usually
spends on songs when you know the system). How to show bricks and
joins in text is not standardised and is therefore often hard to read
(as shown by Keith's post).
Now I 've got my kids in bed, I cannot resist completing the deal by
sending the LEGO analysis of at least one of the songs. I say one,
because there is a lot to explain (as there would be for you if I had
not already known functional analysis already).
Named bricks are in quotation marks, joins are in [square brackets]
1) I Can't Believe That You're In Love with Me:
For someone who uses the system, this is all they need to remember for
this song's chords:
Form AABA
A1: "Pennies Ending" variant + Bootstrap launcher
A2: "Pennies Ending" variant [Sidewinder]
B: Rhythm Bridge
A3: "Pennies Ending" variant (+ Bootstrap launcher)
Now to explain some jargon.
First off, it is important to say that there is often resistance to
the terms that Conrad Cork chose for the bricks and joins, but please
look beyond that and imagine you can call them whatever you like to
the same effect (as you have already said).
The first brick covers almost the whole A section (8 measures) and is
a variant of the brick named after the last 8 measures of Pennies from
Heaven. This meta-brick is incredibly common in jazz standards such
as:
* The More I See You
* There'll Never Be Another You
* A Weaver of Dreams
* You Go to My Head
* I Thought about You
* It Had to Be You
* You Turned the Tables on Me
* Moonglow
* East of the sun
* Emily
* I Fall in Love Too Easily
* It Could Happen to You
* It's You or No-one
* In a Mellow Tone
The common form of the "Pennies Ending" would be (in C):
FM7 | Bb7 | CM7 | A7 | D-7 | G7 | CM7 | % ||
IVM7 | bVII7 | IM7 | VI7 | II-7 | V7 | IM7 | % ||
But there are a few variants. The meta-view is that first this brick
start at IV and returns to I. There are various common ways of
returning that are worth learning and these are one lot of variants.
This tune being analysed uses IVm (Fm) instead of the more common
bVII7.
Next it "dropsback" (using VI7, A7) to start a final cadence home.
Again there are variant in how to dropback and the one in this tune
uses II7 (D7) instead. (In a similar way that Cherokee uses II7 where
you might expect VI7.) Functional harmony talks about secondary
dominants as though they are all equal. Whereas LEGO tells the student
that there are common ones (e.g. II7, VI7, bVI7) and the others are
not worth thinking about since they are more about key change and are
often easier thought of as V7 in the new key).
So, for three quarters of this song, you are thinking the meta-brick
Pennies Ending with a couple of relevant variants. You drive your
solos through the brick they should make sense and have direction. The
student also becomes robust to substitutions that happen in real time;
it does not matter, they know where they are going and will not be
thrown off course. They can focus on the variations as necessary, none
of the other details will distract them.
How to enter the bridge. Well, you can just remember that it starts on
III7 (E7) or that they join is the "Sidewinder". This is the name that
Cork gave to the join that takes you to the relative minor. (CM7 ->
Bm7b5 E7 ...). Please don't complain about the names he chose.
The B section is the I Got Rhythm bridge that we all know (III7 (E7)
round the cycle to V7 (G7), but with a "dogleg" (G7 -> G-7 C7) at the
end to launch us back towards IV, rather than I.
All that remains to be defined is the "Bootstrap launcher" at the end
of A1 and A3. This is the common "II-7 V7" that we use to get from I
to IV (i.e. V-7 I7). It is named after the join in the system that is
called the Bootstrap, which is because it feels like you are picking
yourself up by your bootstraps and moving round the cycle to the next
key.
Clearly, any system that you are not familiar with will seem strange
at first. And there is inevitably a lot of jargon at the beginning.
But many do find the system useful. One of the main benefits to
students is identifying the element that do recur so that they can
focus their efforts on learning to play over them.
I hope now you can see why I did not rush into replying. There is a
fair amount to explain. If there were not then, there would be no
system. At the same time, this is not rocket science and I am not
expecting you to be blown away with any revelations.
So, in summary (for this post):
There are bricks of chords that help the student spot the common
sequences they will need to be able to blow over. This is nothing
special, we all do this, but this system just names them, categorises
them and notes common variants.
There are joins between bricks (and other fragments). There are 12
standard joins as you can imagine since there are 12 possible
intervals between one brick ending and another beginning. As far as I
know, no-one else uses joins and they can be strength when playing in
any key compared to RN analysis. For example, when playing CM7 B-7 E7,
it is easier to remember "down a semitone" (i,e, Sidewinder join) than
I (original key) II-7 V7 (Key VI) where you have to compute the join.
John
Joey Goldstein
>
> Joey
>
> I can understand that you felt ignored since I had not explained that
> I wanted time to write a more *considered* response to the analysis
> question. Whereas the other posts were simpler replies.
Yada yada yada....
> I needed to decide how to notate the stuff (since we usually use brick
> wall graphics to communicate, which takes more time than one usually
> spends on songs when you know the system). How to show bricks and
> joins in text is not standardised and is therefore often hard to read
> (as shown by Keith's post).
Any RN analysis system that I am aware of also uses graphical elements
that are impossible to do in ascii text.
I understood Keith's stuff. And I understand yours.
It doesn't look like it took you nearly as long to write this as it took
me to write one of my RN analyses.
But thanks for getting around to it.
How do you notate and keep track of all the individual variants of this
'brick'?
Most of the tunes that you list above do not use this 'brick' exactly as
you have it notated above. I.e. Almost all of them have significant
deviations from the Pennies Ending changes.
The changes for I Can't Believe That You're In Love With Me, that I
lifted from the Billy Holiday recording, have a V7/V in the 4th measure.
How do you account for that particular 'variation' in your notation or
in your analysis?
I can see why it is useful to see the similarities between this
progression and the progression in Pennies, but I think it's even more
useful to see the differences so that you don't confuse the two when
playing them on gigs.
> But there are a few variants. The meta-view is that first this brick
> start at IV and returns to I. There are various common ways of
> returning that are worth learning and these are one lot of variants.
> This tune being analysed uses IVm (Fm) instead of the more common
> bVII7.
See above. That's not the only difference.
> Next it "dropsback" (using VI7, A7) to start a final cadence home.
> Again there are variant in how to dropback and the one in this tune
> uses II7 (D7) instead. (In a similar way that Cherokee uses II7 where
> you might expect VI7.)
But you made no mention of this 'dropback' 'variant' in your actual
"analysis", so how is anyone whop is trying to learn this tune going to
be helped by looking at your analysis? It seems tyo me that he will be
learning Pennies not ICBTYILWM.
> Functional harmony talks about secondary
> dominants as though they are all equal. Whereas LEGO tells the student
> that there are common ones (e.g. II7, VI7, bVI7) and the others are
> not worth thinking about since they are more about key change and are
> often easier thought of as V7 in the new key).
If a dom7 is involved in an actual key change it is not a secondary
dominant chord, by definition. By definition that would be V7 in the new
key.
In major keys the only secondary dominant chords are V7/IV, V7/V, V7/VI,
V7/II and V7/III. There is no V7/VII.
In minor keys the possible secondary dominants are V7/IV, V7/V, V7/bVI,
V7/bVII, V7/II and V7/bIII.
They are not all 'equal'. They are all different, of course.
If you're talking about statistics, then...
In my experience all the secondary dominants in major occur somewhat
frequently, as do their tritone substitutes.
In my experience, in minor keys true V7/bVII, V7/bVI and V7/bIII chords
do not occur all that often. But V7/IV, V7/V and V7/II are quite common.
> So, for three quarters of this song, you are thinking the meta-brick
> Pennies Ending with a couple of relevant variants.
Again...
How do you describe these particular variants to someone who is using
this system to try to learn this particular tune?
> You drive your
> solos through the brick they should make sense and have direction.
Your solo won't make sense if you're 'driving' it with the same
progression as Pennies.
> The
> student also becomes robust to substitutions that happen in real time;
> it does not matter, they know where they are going and will not be
> thrown off course.
V7/V is *not* a substitute for V7/II that anyone I know of would come up
with in real time while trying to play this tune.
Maybe you need an I Can't Believe That You're In Love With Me brick.
Lol.
> They can focus on the variations as necessary, none
> of the other details will distract them.
See above.
> How to enter the bridge. Well, you can just remember that it starts on
> III7 (E7) or that they join is the "Sidewinder". This is the name that
> Cork gave to the join that takes you to the relative minor. (CM7 ->
> Bm7b5 E7 ...). Please don't complain about the names he chose.
The names are fine.
But this tune starts on IIm7/VI. In F, that's Em7. In C it'd be Bm7, not
Bm7b5.
How do you *indicate* this particular variation for a student trying to
learn this particular tune?
> The B section is the I Got Rhythm bridge that we all know (III7 (E7)
> round the cycle to V7 (G7),
But this tune does not use that exact progression.
How do you indicate the variations?
> but with a "dogleg" (G7 -> G-7 C7) at the
> end to launch us back towards IV, rather than I.
All I have to know is that the A sections start on IV and that a typical
way to approach IV is via V7/IV or via a \IIm7-V7/IV progression.
This type of thinking also allows me approach the IV chord all sorts of
other ways, ways that have nothing at all to do with the idea that this
progression is similar to part of the progression at the end of Pennies.
And your changes for the last 2 bars of the bridge are different than
the ones that I lifted from the Billy Holiday recording.
C7 / B7 / |C7 / F7 / || Bb / / / | in F.
How do you indicate this in your system?
> All that remains to be defined is the "Bootstrap launcher" at the end
> of A1 and A3. This is the common "II-7 V7" that we use to get from I
> to IV (i.e. V-7 I7).
See above.
It is the same device that is used at the end of the bridge but with the
variation of the related IIm7 of V7/IV, which my notation accounts for
and yours apparently does not.
> It is named after the join in the system that is
> called the Bootstrap, which is because it feels like you are picking
> yourself up by your bootstraps and moving round the cycle to the next
> key.
But there is no change of key.
A secondary key is not considered to be an actual key change.
Only a feeling that the tonic has actually changed is treated as an
actual key change.
> Clearly, any system that you are not familiar with will seem strange
> at first.
Your system does not seem strange to me.
It seems unnecessary *to me*.
> And there is inevitably a lot of jargon at the beginning.
> But many do find the system useful.
It seems like your system requires someone to have already closely
studied a RN analysis of Pennies. Then they have rethink Pennies in
order to jigger their minds to get around this tune.
Functional analysis allows a student to learn Pennies in the 1st place.
After they know Pennies they are free to associate any similar
progressions they see in other tunes with Pennies, or not. They can
learn this particular tune whether they already know Pennies or not.
then when they learn Pennies they might become cognisant of the
similarities as well as the differences between the 2 tunes.
I.e. IMO Because functional analysis involves a higher level of
abstraction than the Lego bricks system, it is more generally applicable
to a wider sphere of usage.
> One of the main benefits to
> students is identifying the element that do recur so that they can
> focus their efforts on learning to play over them.
RN analysis allows for the same conceptual overview and it's more
flexible. IMO.
IV to IVm to I is a SD to SDM to T progression.
An improviser who has studied harmonic function will have an overview of
all sorts of like-function substitutes for the SD function chords in a
key and the SDM function chords.
Bb to Bbm might become Gm to Gm7b5 or Bb to Eb7 or any one of a number
of other possible like-function substitutions.
To my way of thinking, *this* is the 1st 'brick' in this tune. This
brick occurs in tune after tune after tune. It is much easier to
recognize than any 8 measure brick.
The next 'brick' is I to V7/II which occurs in tune after tune after tune.
The next brick is IIm7-V7- I. It needs no introduction.
Then V7/IV, which any player will know can be preceded by its related
IIm7 chord.
Etc., etc. etc.
I think that shallow approaches to playing tunes are more likely when
the player tells himself "These 8 bars are the same as Pennies" than it
is if he looks at each individual harmonic device so that he can see how
this tune is different from Pennies so that he can put his own stamp on
*this* tune.
IMO.
> I hope now you can see why I did not rush into replying.
Sorry, but no.
I still await your analyses of the other 2 tunes.
> There is a
> fair amount to explain. If there were not then, there would be no
> system. At the same time, this is not rocket science and I am not
> expecting you to be blown away with any revelations.
>
> So, in summary (for this post):
>
> There are bricks of chords that help the student spot the common
> sequences they will need to be able to blow over. This is nothing
> special, we all do this, but this system just names them, categorises
> them and notes common variants.
>
> There are joins between bricks (and other fragments). There are 12
> standard joins as you can imagine since there are 12 possible
> intervals between one brick ending and another beginning. As far as I
> know, no-one else uses joins and they can be strength when playing in
> any key compared to RN analysis. For example, when playing CM7 B-7 E7,
> it is easier to remember "down a semitone" (i,e, Sidewinder join) than
> I (original key) II-7 V7 (Key VI) where you have to compute the join.
Are Cmaj7 Bm7, Cmaj7 Bm7b5, Cmaj7 B7, Cmaj7 Bmaj7, etc., all considered
to be the same 'join'?
Dan Adler
Dr. Jazz,
If I were you, I'd enjoy my vacation with my kids before writing any
more replies to this forum...
Real life comes first :-)
rpjazzguitar
learning the changes to tunes (melody comes quite easily for some
reason -- I can play any tune I know in any key without thinking, but
I can't do it very well with chords). I haven't found harmonic
analysis especially helpful (which I'll accept as my fault for not
having spent enough time with it and for having a very limited ear).
The nomenclature strikes me as awkward, although I understand there is
no simpler way to get all the detail of a tune.
I was intrigued by the idea of easy to remember labels for common
sequences of chords. I don't really think this is the best way to
remember tunes, but it might, conceivably, organize one's approach to
trying to learn the sounds of common cadences. If it does that much,
it would be a contribution.
But, like the other more verbal methods, it starts collapsing under
its own weight as the complexity of the tunes rise. So can bandstand
shorthand. Easy for Autumn Leaves, hard for Stella.
I find it easiest to think about the melody and the bass line and
trust my ear to hear the thirds and sevenths. Not that it always
works.
Joey Goldstein
>
> Real life comes first :-)
Not in my case evidently.
Lol.
Joey Goldstein
Functional harmonic analysis will break down under its own weight too
once the music exceeds the bounds of the maj/min key system.
There's no substitute for experience and ears.
Joe Finn
On Apr 13, 8:30 pm, 335 <335pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 1:40 pm, Dr Jazz <john.elliot...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > It is then up to you how much effort you put in in order to learn to
> > play in many keys. But at least it tells you what the essential
> > harmonic moves are that you need to know.
>
> I'm not so sure I agree that learning "essential harmonic moves" is
> the best way to learn tunes. It can help, and it's important to know
> the framework of a tune, but in my own experience, learning to play
> the melody in time is the most important part of really learning a
> tune. Anything that tries to shortcut that process is probably
> detrimental.
>>I can't tell whether you guys are joking around or not. But I'll
>>assume you are not.
>>Clearly, knowing the essential harmonic moves is the *only* way to
>>learn hundreds of standards. There are too many of them not to
>>categorise the moves and spot where they are re-used. We all do it
>>this way. You can do it the slow way by analysing hundreds of tunes
>>yourself until you finally discover and absorb them all. Or you can do
>>it the quick way, by letting LEGO Harmony tell you what the moves
>>are.
It's important to recognize that different people learn different things in
different ways. I wouldn't be too quick to conclude that there is only one
way to go about learning anything. ......joe
Joe Finn
"Dr Jazz" <john.el...@btinternet.com> wrote
John
========================================================
Has it occoured to you that you may be trying to reinvent the wheel?
rpjazzguitar
How did the wedding musicians of my youth in NYC play any tune in any
key, accompanying drunken guests, while looking bored and never
missing a note?
My impression is that they aren't thinking about a long string of
roman numerals and slash marks and they aren't thinking about 8 bar
sections of other tunes minus a few variants.
What they are thinking, I suspect, is about the same thing that I
might think while playing a blues. That is, when it's time to go to
the IV chord, I can hear the change in my mind, it's completely
obvious, and I don't have to think about anything to find the notes.
So, the question is, really, how do you get that stuff in your ears in
the most efficient way possible?
Some people don't have to work very hard at this. These are the guys
who can hear a piano player reharm something on the fly and they just
know what it is from the sound.
The rest of us can probably hear some sequences better than others.
If Lego Bricks provides an organized way to do the ear training on the
most commonly used sequences, then it has value.
If the idea is that a musician is supposed to remember tunes based on
a concatenation like "Pennies, Dropback, Sidewinder" or whatever,
well, I doubt that most people would really remember tunes that way.
Same problem with Roman numerals and slash marks.
Rick
Keith Freeman
acf0-c1b...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> If the idea is that a musician is supposed to remember tunes based on
> a concatenation like "Pennies, Dropback, Sidewinder" or whatever,
> well, I doubt that most people would really remember tunes that way.
> Same problem with Roman numerals and slash marks.
Precisely. The aim is that you've played and heard those bricks so many
times - and recognized them as they crop up in tunes - that you don't need
to think of their names, you just hear/know where the harmony's going.
John's pdf book makes the learning process easy, as I can search by name to
see where, in which tunes, any particular brick occurs, then I can - for
example - play those parts of those tunes and hear the same progression in
the different tunes.
Joey Goldstein
> The question I always wondered about was this ...
>
> How did the wedding musicians of my youth in NYC play any tune in any
> key, accompanying drunken guests, while looking bored and never
> missing a note?
>
> My impression is that they aren't thinking about a long string of
> roman numerals and slash marks
In my case, you're wrong.
> and they aren't thinking about 8 bar
> sections of other tunes minus a few variants.
>
> What they are thinking, I suspect, is about the same thing that I
> might think while playing a blues. That is, when it's time to go to
> the IV chord, I can hear the change in my mind, it's completely
> obvious, and I don't have to think about anything to find the notes.
You just called it "a IV chord".
"IV" is a Roman numeral.
You yourself happen to associate that *sound* with the notion that the
chord's root is a P4th away from the tonic of the key.
Hearing music in relation to a tonic is called relative pitch.
One of the ways that we enumerate and categorize the various intervalic
distances from the tonic is with Roman numerals, although they could
just as easily be Arabic numerals as in the Nashville Numbering System.
The other way is via solfege syllables. It's all the same process.
> So, the question is, really, how do you get that stuff in your ears in
> the most efficient way possible?
Experience playing and listening to lots of tunes while paying close
attention to the relation between the chord's roots and the tonic of the
key by trying to learn what these root progressions sound like by ear.
Good practice is to sing the root progressions. Learn the sound of the
root progressions the same way you learn to sing the tune's melody.
> Some people don't have to work very hard at this. These are the guys
> who can hear a piano player reharm something on the fly and they just
> know what it is from the sound.
>
> The rest of us can probably hear some sequences better than others.
>
> If Lego Bricks provides an organized way to do the ear training on the
> most commonly used sequences, then it has value.
>
> If the idea is that a musician is supposed to remember tunes based on
> a concatenation like "Pennies, Dropback, Sidewinder" or whatever,
> well, I doubt that most people would really remember tunes that way.
> Same problem with Roman numerals and slash marks.
>
> Rick
>
Keith Freeman
internalized. I don't really see any alternative, unless we just number
them (remember Mickey Baker and his jazz chords?)...
> they aren't thinking about 8 bar sections of other tunes
I've met several professional jazzers who are certainly aware of such
connections, even have off-the-shelf solos/chord sets for them.
flatnine
To know a tune we just need to work on it, in its key.
Once we know it well in one key, it´s not that hard to transpose to
any other one.
If not, then maybe we don´t know it that well.
Once we know "2" tunes well, is easy to notice if they have a
similarity or not
(like sharing a chord prog), if not, maybe we don´t know these that
well.
There´s no "need" to spend time trying Mustangs if you want a Camaro.
All these things are big distractions.
Tunes in 12 keys...most of the time, none of these well.
Particularly on guitar, where basically there are just 2 keys,
the one with tonic on 5th string and the other with tonic on 6th.
;-P
To "train" in all keys, it´s very important, but is another matter.
For me.
335
> So, the question is, really, how do you get that stuff in your ears in
> the most efficient way possible?
Practice and experience are highly underrated.
Tim Berens
> If the idea is that a musician is supposed to remember tunes based on
> a concatenation like "Pennies, Dropback, Sidewinder" or whatever,
> well, I doubt that most people would really remember tunes that way.
> Same problem with Roman numerals and slash marks.
>
> Rick
Rick:
It's easy. To remember the list of LEGO blocks for a song you want to
memorize, you just set the names of the blocks to music, then when you
remember the melody that the list of LEGO blocks is set to, the names
of the blocks for the original tune pop into your head, and you can
remember the original song you're trying to play. If you have trouble
remembering the song that the names of the blocks are set to, you just
use another set of LEGOs for that song too. Then you just remember
the LEGO blocks for the song that the list of LEGO blocks for the song
you're playing is set to, then decode the harmony from the LEGO
blocked LEGO blocks, and voila, you are making music.
Simple.
335
>
> Precisely. The aim is that you've played and heard those bricks so many
> times - and recognized them as they crop up in tunes - that you don't need
> to think of their names, you just hear/know where the harmony's going.
And that is exactly the knowledge that you gain from learning tunes.
flatnine
I heard of a guy once, that actually knew many tunes but don´t know
how they sounded.
:-)
Paul K
Tim, that's brilliant! I recommend you take this further and publish a "Lego
Book": It would be just like the "real book", except instead of a bunch of
tunes that are impossible to memorize and blow over, like "all of me",
"nardis", "Falling Grace", etc, there would be simple bricks called
"Brick 12: All of me", then "Brick 145: Nardis", "Brick 86: Falling grace",
etc. Then, once a student had worked for a few years and memorized the entire
Lego book, it would be a just a matter of days before they could play every
tune in the real book.
(Place Tongue in cheek emoticon here)
More seriously, my thoughts on this (informed only by what's been discussed
here) are basically, "if it works for you, fine", but:
I think it's trying to fix a problem that doesnt exist by a method that isnt
going to catch on.
Paul K
--
http://www.youtube.com/TopologyPaul
http://www.soundclick.com/paulkirk
rpjazzguitar
progressions. Sometimes you have to invent the wheel for yourself.
When I know the bass note, I don't often have trouble figuring out the
rest of the chord.
hw
"Dr Jazz" <john.el...@btinternet.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:52ca33ed-1bb5-4481...@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 9:24 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>
>> At any rate, Keith Freeman had already graciously supplied us/me with a
>> snippet of the Lego style analysis for Falling Grace, along with some
>> definitions for the terms used, so I do think I've got the gist of it.
>>
>> Thanks anyway.
>>
>> --
>> Joey Goldstein
>> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
>> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
>> joegold AT primus DOT ca
>
> Joey
>
> I can understand that you felt ignored since I had not explained that
> I wanted time to write a more *considered* response to the analysis
> question. Whereas the other posts were simpler replies.
>
> I needed to decide how to notate the stuff (since we usually use brick
> wall graphics to communicate, which takes more time than one usually
> spends on songs when you know the system). How to show bricks and
> joins in text is not standardised and is therefore often hard to read
> (as shown by Keith's post).
>
> Now I 've got my kids in bed, I cannot resist completing the deal by
> sending the LEGO analysis of at least one of the songs. I say one,
> because there is a lot to explain (as there would be for you if I had
> not already known functional analysis already).
this is really lame. after all it was *you* who asked mr goldstein to
analyze *three* tunes. you even named them and promised to do the same.
you're not exactly doing a great job representing your product.
southtexasguitarist
In the beginning I analyzed tunes with Roman numerals (thanks,
Romans!), but now I mostly rely on the sound of the tune in my head. I
find remembering the starting melody note in relationship to the key
helpful, as in Autumn Leaves starts on the tonic note of the minor
key, or ATTYA starts on the tonic of the major key. But sometimes
those harmonic tricks can really help. Eons ago I was scuffling on the
bridge to Miss Jones until the bass player told me the ii chord to the
"other" keys was a whole step down from the tonic of the previous key.
i.e., you're in Bb on the Ist measure of the bridge, then the next ii
chord is Abm7, a whole step down. Then you're in Gb, and the next ii
is Em7. Made the tune completely easy to remember.
Joey Goldstein
Still waiting for #2 and #3.
Joe Finn
news:0d8bf72b-5ae7-4c3a...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
I'm guessing that the people you heard in your youth were a little older
than you. That would mean they grew up in a different musical context. They
were probably very much at home with the older style so playing in various
keys and not missing notes was possibly second nature. I don't think this is
actually as difficult as some may feel it really is.
I think most active performers would tend to think about root motion much as
you suggest; at least now and then. And root motion is most easily conceived
by some sort of a numerical system. The "Pennies, Dropback, Sidewinder"
nomenclature seems like a kind of template that superimposes itself over a
more concise and basic system. One of the important reasons the numerical
system works so well is that it enhances communication. If I called out,
"Two chord, five chord." most players would understand. If I say, "Pennies,
Dropback." I would likely get blank stares. ........joe
Joe Finn
That's a good point. It's important be able to hear things from the bottom
up. .....joe
Joe Finn
news:87c0be6f-9bcf-4d0f...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
You can say that again. .....joe
Joe Finn
news:b6ccfeb5-66c2-4aa7...@k11g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>>Rick:
>>Simple.
>>Tim
>>http://timberens.com
All kidding aside, I think the convolutions you enumerate are a distraction.
Better to deal directly with the music itself!! 8-) ....joe
Dr Jazz
> "Dr Jazz" <john.elliot...@btinternet.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:52ca33ed-1bb5-4481...@w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
I'm not clear why there is so much negativity on this site. I clearly
said I am on holiday with my kids. I have not yet said I will *not*
post the other songs (though nor am I feeling encouraged to continue).
J
Greger Hoel
<john.el...@btinternet.com>:
> I'm not clear why there is so much negativity on this site. I clearly
> said I am on holiday with my kids. I have not yet said I will *not*
> post the other songs (though nor am I feeling encouraged to continue).
You're both a new and controversial voice here; it's basic social
psychology that you will be challenged and tested to a higher degree. That
being said, on Usenet it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, virtuoso
or pleb, your statements are always gonna be challenged. The key to
enduring the negativity, as you label it, is to not take things
personally. Not even when you're sure they're meant personally :P Or you
can kick back, which can be satisfying in and of itself, but don't expect
much more than a good flame fest to come out of it.
If you do decide to stick around and make a strong case for your product,
there are /many/ people here who do buy a lot of method books...
--
Always cross a vampire; never moon a werewolf
Dr Jazz
> Dr Jazz wrote:
> How do you notate and keep track of all the individual variants of this
> 'brick'?
> Most of the tunes that you list above do not use this 'brick' exactly as
> you have it notated above. I.e. Almost all of them have significant
> deviations from the Pennies Ending changes.
Just to clarify, the original LEGO system proposed by Cork does not
track variants in any rigorous way at all. In my book, I give name
variants to indicate some variants, but it is kind of clunky, For
example, there is a brick called "To IV n Back" which is defined as:
IM7 V-7 I7 IV #IVo IM7
But my research showed that there are several variants on how to come
back from IV to I and the most common way back is actually via the
back door cadence that LEGO names after Yardbird Suite, the "Yardbird
Cadence".
So, I capture some variant in the names like this:
IM7 V-7 I7 IV bVII7 IM7 "To IV n Yak"
IM7 V-7 I7 IV IVm IM7 "To IV n Mak"
etc.
For me, the point is, there is nothing as detailed as RN analysis.
LEGO is not competing with that. I don't find it hard to remember the
variants that do apply to a particular song, but I do find it handy to
know that sections conform roughly to some metabrick or other (e.g.
Pennies Ending). Once you know the sound of the song and you have
clocked the extant variants, you know what to do. You don't need
telling in a detailed way.
Being told the common variants is a help to students in knowing what
to learn to get there fast.
> The changes for I Can't Believe That You're In Love With Me, that I
> lifted from the Billy Holiday recording, have a V7/V in the 4th measure.
> How do you account for that particular 'variation' in your notation or
> in your analysis?
>
See above. In this case the II7 (V7/V) variant is called a "Somewhere"
for reasons explained in the book. It is one of the very common
secondary dominants that is worth knowing. Songs often just jump to
II7, so let's give it a label. It does not matter what you call it.
> But you made no mention of this 'dropback' 'variant' in your actual
> "analysis", so how is anyone whop is trying to learn this tune going to
> be helped by looking at your analysis? It seems tyo me that he will be
> learning Pennies not ICBTYILWM.
Yes, my analysis did not show all the variant details. But we have
covered them above and they are not hard to learn. Yes, this is the
same knowledge that you gain from analysing lots of songs yourself,
but that takes years, whereas this is telling you what you should
know. There is always a clash between LEGO and those who have already
put in those years.
> > How to enter the bridge. Well, you can just remember that it starts on
> > III7 (E7) or that they join is the "Sidewinder". This is the name that
> > Cork gave to the join that takes you to the relative minor. (CM7 ->
> > Bm7b5 E7 ...). Please don't complain about the names he chose.
>
> The names are fine.
> But this tune starts on IIm7/VI. In F, that's Em7. In C it'd be Bm7, not
> Bm7b5.
> How do you *indicate* this particular variation for a student trying to
> learn this particular tune?
>
> > The B section is the I Got Rhythm bridge that we all know (III7 (E7)
> > round the cycle to V7 (G7),
>
> But this tune does not use that exact progression.
> How do you indicate the variations?
If you wanted to use your chords, then you would use other bricks. I
think you started with a cadence and missed out the next chord in the
cycle?
> All I have to know is that the A sections start on IV and that a typical
> way to approach IV is via V7/IV or via a \IIm7-V7/IV progression.
> This type of thinking also allows me approach the IV chord all sorts of
> other ways, ways that have nothing at all to do with the idea that this
> progression is similar to part of the progression at the end of Pennies.
Yes, I agree. When you know what you are doing, you just stop the
bridge progression and head for IV. Making LEGO roadmaps can force one
to be too prescriptive sometimes.
> And your changes for the last 2 bars of the bridge are different than
> the ones that I lifted from the Billy Holiday recording.
> C7 / B7 / |C7 / F7 / || Bb / / / | in F.
> How do you indicate this in your system?
This is just detail of that arrangement. I would not try to capture
that in the LEGO roadmap. But you could since it is just "Dominants
Round the Cycle" from V7 to IV with a tritone variant. Again LEGO is
not aiming to allow you to reverse engineer every last chord in a
particular arrangement.
J
Dr Jazz
>
> Bb:
> bVII V7/VI VIm
> Abmaj7 / / / | / / / / |D7/F# / / / |Gm7 / / / |
>
> F(aka: the key of V):
> \IIm7__V7/IV IV V7/VI \IIm7________V/
> Fm7 / Bb7 / |Eb6/G / D7/F# / |Gm7/F / / / |C/E / / / |
>
> Em(aka: the of VIIm-relative to preceding key):
> I \IIm7b5________V7/ Im
> Fmaj7 / / / |F#m7b5 / / / |B7 / / / |Em7 / / / |
>
> G(aka: relative major of preceding key):
> \IIm7__V7/ I
> Am7 / D7 / |Gmaj7 / / / ||
>
> Bb(aka: the key of bIII, aka: the orig key)
> IIm7 #IIdim7 I IV
> Cm7 / / / |C#dim7 / / / |Bbmaj7/D / / / |Ebmaj7 / / / |
>
> \IIm7b5_______V7/III \IIm7__SubV7/II \IIm7__V7/
> Em7b5 / / / |A7 / / / |Dm7 / Db7 / |Cm7 / F7 / |
>
> I IV
> Bbmaj7 / / / |Ebmaj7 / / / || Repeat
>
> TAG
> bVII bIII
> Abmaj7 / / / |Dbmaj7 / / / ||
> Fine
>
I'm posting about Falling Grace next because I think that is most
instructional and of the three, the song LEGO deals with the least
well. I did not know this song before you mentioned it.
As said before LEGO is designed for the American Songbook standards
repertoire. It clears the decks for us to focus on the new stuff. It
does not cope well with songs where the artists are deliberately not
using harmonic formulae that were used in the past (much stuff since
the late 50s!), but it does cope with masses of what many still play
today.
However, this song seems half way between these two camps. It is as
though Swallow took bricks from various key centres and stitched them
together. There are some moves for which there are not currently named
bricks, but these could be made up. This song relies heavily on
inversions to make the progressions sound good. That is not something
that LEGO has had to deal with so far. But I think your analysis
ignores the inversion too?
The inversions make the joins not work well at all and they become
almost useless. I would have to remember the joins merely by where the
bass line goes.
The song form is not a traditional one, so I have grouped by bricks,
rather than in sections (ABC etc).
Here is my take [joins in square brackets]:
AbM7 | D7/F# | Gm |
On (bVII) [Downwinder] Cadence (inversion variant 1) [Half Nelson]
F-7 Bb7 | EbM7/G D7/F# | [Bauble]
Cadence (inversion variant 2) No LEGO name for this move.
G-7/F | C7/E | FM7 |
Cadence (inversion variant 3) [Downwinder]
F#m7b5 | B7alt | Em |
Cadence [Highjump]
A-7 D7 | GM7 || [Highjump]
Cadence (relative major as expected)
C-7 | C#o | BbM7/D | EbM7 |
"II n Back" cadence with "overrun" [Downwinder]
Em7b5 | A7 |
"Launcher"
D-7 Db7 | C-7 F7 | BbM7 | EbM7 || [M7 round the cycle?]
"Long cadence" with "overrun"
TAG
AbM7 | DbM7 ||
Not covered yet, call it "M7s round the cycle"?
J