Twelve-Tone Improvisation, by John O'Gallagher

[Joey Goldstein]

Anybody else out there happen to be working on this book?

I became aware of it when Vic Juris recommended it on Facebook.

I've been looking for a way to study 12-tone techniques to be applied to jazz improv for some time now and this appears to fit the bill quite nicely.

It's a really big book that will take me the rest of my life to begin to absorb but if I can only take away a few concepts it will be worth it.

It's a little bit intimidating for me because I have very little experience in 12-tone techniques or terminology.
But after wading through the first few chapters which sadly, are peppered with a few unfortunate non-standard uses of certain terms and often presents the information in an order that works against understanding it, I'm beginning to make some headway.

One assumption I made incorrectly was this was going to be about a method for using 12-tone rows within free improv as well as on standard changes, and it is about that eventually.
But the main focus of the book seems to be about utilizing tone rows that are based on tricords (3-note chords - the 4 standard triads as well as any non-tertian 3-note chords) and pairs of tricords.
So, much of the book deals with 3-note and/or 6-note rows rather than 12-tone rows.
The sections about using an entire 12-tone row are saved for later, presumably because gaining familiarity with the smaller rows develops the skills needed to deal with the 12-tone rows.

So, since my lessons with Charlie Banacos actually ended around the time he was teaching me about "non-tertian bi-tonal pendulums", which is another way of saying "tricord pairs", I find that I already have some familiarity with tricords, tricord pairs, their rotations/inversions, potential patterns, voicings and fingerings on the guitar - which is quite helpful in exploring O'Gallagher's ideas.

It's a tough book but I highly recommend it if you're interested in learning how to play extremely chromatically but to still have some underlying order in your lines.

[Mike Neer]

I am working with it, but at a very leisurely pace.

His new CD, The Anton Webern Project is really interesting and has some great playing on it. I did a gig with guitarist Pete McCann recently and he told me it was really difficult music to play.

In addition to buying O'Gallagher's book, I also purchased a few others on his suggested reading list, including The Tone Clock by Peter Schat (Kindle edition $90+!). I look at this as an investment toward a direction I want to go, or at least investigate thoroughly.

[Joey Goldstein]

On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 14:16:16 UTC-4, Mike Neer wrote:
> The Tone Clock by Peter Schat (Kindle edition $90+!). I look at this as an investment toward a direction I want to go, or at least investigate thoroughly.
>

When I look at the TOC of a book like that I am reminded how less serious I am about music than a lot of other real serious musicians.
I.e. That book looks hard. lol
I wish I was serious enough to take a more scholarly approach to my music but there are only so many hours in the day and so many years left to me.
I have to remain happy with the little scraps I pick up here and there and hope that my own music will be strong enough to garner me some sort of audience that allows me to keep playing.

[Gerry]

On 2013-07-17 18:10:59 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:

> Anybody else out there happen to be working on this book?
>
> I became aware of it when Vic Juris recommended it on Facebook.
>
> I've been looking for a way to study 12-tone techniques to be applied
> to jazz improv for some time now and this appears to fit the bill quite
> nicely.

Though it doesn't direct itself to jazz improv, I assume you know there
is a slim volume on 12-Tone composition writted by Gordon Delamont.

http://www.playjazz.com/AL121.html

--
Those who wish to sing always find a song. -- Swedish proverb

[Joey Goldstein]

Yeah, I've got most of the Delamont books including that one.
Like his book on melody and the one on counterpoint it's just an overview.

[Gerry]

On 2013-07-17 21:47:33 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:

> Yeah, I've got most of the Delamont books including that one.
> Like his book on melody and the one on counterpoint it's just an overview.

True. I really wish he'd provided more in his book on melody, but such
an approach was really not Delamont's turf.

[Mental Handle]

This one? http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Arranging-Composing-Twelve-Tone-Technique/dp/B0018OAM2S

(Currently unavailable: http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Arranging-Composing-Twelve-Tone-Technique/dp/B0018OAM2S)

For a list of his compositions see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Delamont
('werke' - the english version does not list them at the moment...)

-
http://www.youtube.com/thementalhandle

[Sam Sung]

Mental Handle schrieb:

> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 15:27:31 UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
>>> On 2013-07-17 18:10:59 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anybody else out there happen to be working on this book?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I became aware of it when Vic Juris recommended it on Facebook.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I've been looking for a way to study 12-tone techniques to be applied
>>>
>>>> to jazz improv for some time now and this appears to fit the bill quite
>>>
>>>> nicely.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Though it doesn't direct itself to jazz improv, I assume you know there
>>>
>>> is a slim volume on 12-Tone composition writted by Gordon Delamont.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.playjazz.com/AL121.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Those who wish to sing always find a song. -- Swedish proverb
>>
>> Yeah, I've got most of the Delamont books including that one.
>> Like his book on melody and the one on counterpoint it's just an overview.
>
> This one? http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Arranging-Composing-Twelve-Tone-Technique/dp/B0018OAM2S
>
> (Currently unavailable: http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Arranging-Composing-Twelve-Tone-Technique/dp/B0018OAM2S)

Aaah - it's available here but as pdf only
http://www.strangfordlough.org/strangfordLoughSite/files/81/81ba4445-1cdd-42d8-b193-3b64c28ecf04.pdf

[Mental Handle]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:18:32 +0200, Sam Sung wrote:

> Mental Handle schrieb:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 15:27:31 UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
>>>> On 2013-07-17 18:10:59 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Anybody else out there happen to be working on this book?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I became aware of it when Vic Juris recommended it on Facebook.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've been looking for a way to study 12-tone techniques to be applied
>>>>
>>>>> to jazz improv for some time now and this appears to fit the bill quite
>>>>
>>>>> nicely.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Though it doesn't direct itself to jazz improv, I assume you know there
>>>>
>>>> is a slim volume on 12-Tone composition writted by Gordon Delamont.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.playjazz.com/AL121.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Those who wish to sing always find a song. -- Swedish proverb
>>>
>>> Yeah, I've got most of the Delamont books including that one.
>>> Like his book on melody and the one on counterpoint it's just an overview.
>>
>> This one? http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Arranging-Composing-Twelve-Tone-Technique/dp/B0018OAM2S
>>
>> (Currently unavailable: http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Arranging-Composing-Twelve-Tone-Technique/dp/B0018OAM2S)
>
> Aaah - it's available here but as pdf only
> http://www.strangfordlough.org/strangfordLoughSite/files/81/81ba4445-1cdd-42d8-b193-3b64c28ecf04.pdf

Nah - here it is for 9 pound: http://www.shopzilla.co.uk/gordon-delamont-modern-arranging-technique/products/

[Joey Goldstein]

On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 18:09:36 UTC-4, Mental Handle wrote:
>
> This one? http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Arranging-Composing-Twelve-Tone-Technique/dp/B0018OAM2S
>

Yes.

[Paul]

I tried to keep an open mind listening to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBYziHLcNJ8

But I have to admit, he never played anything on
the piano that I thought sounded GOOD.

But of course, we have to remember he's a sax player,
not pianist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL7UBIfady8

So this second video was significantly better, even
if the audio quality is piss-poor.

Still, I can't really say he's blowing me away with
his lines....

[Mike Neer]

John is one of the best players on the scene. Go check out some of the Smalls archive.

[Mike Neer]

Maybe you'd like this better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igV6IfyQ9ts

[Paul]

Well, that was a little better, but you have to wonder about the
professionalism of a band when they allow piss-poor recordings
to be posted. It doesn't matter how good the band is if the recording
sucks donkey-balls.

He's got chops, but they are flash chops, technique chops. Don't
get me wrong: Technical virtuosity is an important part of music.
But more and more what I hear in Jazz these days is the mere display
of how fast one can play licks based on scale patterns, as if the scale
patterns themselves were good melodies. Scale patterns have their
place, but can be over-used. In this sense, Jazz musicians are not
very different from Speed Metal musicians.

[Mike Neer]

If you choose to criticize someone's work as "flash chops", then that says more about you than it does the player. I'll make my own decisions as to how valid his jazz is, thank you very much.

People take cellphone videos these days and post them on YouTube...crazy, isn't it.

[Paul]

On 7/18/2013 6:28 AM, Mike Neer wrote:
> If you choose to criticize someone's work as "flash chops", then that says more about you than it does the player. I'll make my own decisions as to how valid his jazz is, thank you very much.
>

And I'll make MY own opinion as well, thank YOU very much.

> People take cellphone videos these days and post them on YouTube...crazy, isn't it.
>

I think musicians should be a bit more selective about what they
present to the public, that's all. The built-in mics
on most video cameras usually suck....

[Joey Goldstein]

On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 20:59:16 UTC-4, Paul wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL7UBIfady8
>
>
>
> So this second video was significantly better, even
>
> if the audio quality is piss-poor.
>
>
>
> Still, I can't really say he's blowing me away with
>
> his lines....

Sounds good to me.

[Joey Goldstein]

Too many statements in there that I disagree with.
But what's wrong with "speed metal musicians"?
IMO Some of those guys are brilliant.
I don't listen to it because I don't like the way it makes me feel and because it's too loud.
But it's often what I would call good music.
There's lots of great music I don't listen to because I don't like it.
It's still great music.

[Mike Neer]

> Sounds good to me.


Me, too. Same old story: "it doesn't swing, it's all scales, flashy chops...." Bullshit.

[Paul]

Well, that's good. You're a bit more open minded
than some.

Eddie Van Halen, although not technically metal, is
an incredibly inventive and innovative guitarist. He's
technically brilliant, but also melodic.

My point is you can over-analyze music and think
that the music theory alone will lead you to great melodic playing.

You can be an academic musician, but it will show in your
lines. Miles Davis was NOT academic.

[paul s]

Thanks for the headsup, I didn't know there was such a book.

There was a book/pamphlet by Dave Creamer re tone rows on the guitar that I worked out of years ago. I seem to recall that it mostly showed examples that could be played over static harmony for an inside/outside effect.

I somehow stumbled across the book on ebay and it's currently in storage somewhere. If it turns up I'll give a more detailed account.

Paul S

[thomas]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 2:10:59 PM UTC-4, Joey Goldstein wrote:

Here's a pretty entertaining intro to 12-tone music video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4niz8TfY794

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/18/13 2:57 PM, Paul wrote:
>
> Well, that's good. You're a bit more open minded
> than some.

Thanks?

> Eddie Van Halen, although not technically metal, is
> an incredibly inventive and innovative guitarist. He's
> technically brilliant, but also melodic.

What do *you* mean by "melodic"?
What you probably mean is that *you* enjoy the melodies that you hear
him playing because they resonate with your own abilities to play and
hear melody.

And the reason why you might not enjoy John O'Gallagher's melodies is
because they are beyond your own capabilities to hear.
That's one of the reasons why I enjoy O'Gallgher's melodies is because
they're harder for me to hear yet I can sense the order and the elegance
and the highly developed skill level in them.
For some listener's like me, that sense of order is one of the main
things I listen for in music.
And I'm always happier listening to someone with highly advanced
technique as opposed to someone who is just scraping by.
As a matter of fact, because I'm a relatively advanced musician in some
respects, I get bored with the stuff that I hear all the time and would
rather hear something that I don't understand.
The way I've always expanded my ears as a musician is by studying the
stuff that I don't understand.

> My point is you can over-analyze music and think
> that the music theory alone will lead you to great melodic playing.

This argument is presented here quite often and it doesn't hold up
because NOBODY actually does that or thinks that.
Most folks under-analyze things, and never arrive at the ideas that make
the things that sound good in music sound good.
IMO, most things that sound good sound good for a reason or several.
Like-wise, if you look hard enough, you can usually deduce why the
things that don't sound good don't sound good.
But you have to look.

> You can be an academic musician, but it will show in your
> lines. Miles Davis was NOT academic.

Miles knew way more about classical music, classical music theory,
George Russell's theories, etc. than the vast majority of his
contemporaries and probably sponged up everything and anything he could
about music for all of his life.
That's one of the big reasons why his music was so much more advanced
than that of his peers, let alone open-minded.

So it's obvious that you don't like 12-tone influenced jazz music.
Why are you contributing to this thread might I ask?
What do you hope to accomplish here?

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/AudioClips/audio.htm>

[Paul]

On 7/18/2013 12:51 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:

> What do *you* mean by "melodic"?
> What you probably mean is that *you* enjoy the melodies that you hear
> him playing because they resonate with your own abilities to play and
> hear melody.
>
> And the reason why you might not enjoy John O'Gallagher's melodies is
> because they are beyond your own capabilities to hear.
> That's one of the reasons why I enjoy O'Gallgher's melodies is because
> they're harder for me to hear yet I can sense the order and the elegance
> and the highly developed skill level in them.
> For some listener's like me, that sense of order is one of the main
> things I listen for in music.
> And I'm always happier listening to someone with highly advanced
> technique as opposed to someone who is just scraping by.
> As a matter of fact, because I'm a relatively advanced musician in some
> respects, I get bored with the stuff that I hear all the time and would
> rather hear something that I don't understand.
> The way I've always expanded my ears as a musician is by studying the
> stuff that I don't understand.
>

John plays decently well technically, but for me to study
someone's music, I have to first like it.

>> My point is you can over-analyze music and think
>> that the music theory alone will lead you to great melodic playing.
>
> This argument is presented here quite often and it doesn't hold up
> because NOBODY actually does that or thinks that.
> Most folks under-analyze things, and never arrive at the ideas that make
> the things that sound good in music sound good.
> IMO, most things that sound good sound good for a reason or several.
> Like-wise, if you look hard enough, you can usually deduce why the
> things that don't sound good don't sound good.
> But you have to look.
>
>> You can be an academic musician, but it will show in your
>> lines. Miles Davis was NOT academic.
>
> Miles knew way more about classical music, classical music theory,
> George Russell's theories, etc. than the vast majority of his
> contemporaries and probably sponged up everything and anything he could
> about music for all of his life.
> That's one of the big reasons why his music was so much more advanced
> than that of his peers, let alone open-minded.
>

It's more than just knowing all the theory.

He had an obvious talent for finding good melodies, which
is sadly lacking in much of today's music.

> So it's obvious that you don't like 12-tone influenced jazz music.
> Why are you contributing to this thread might I ask?
> What do you hope to accomplish here?
>

It's not my intention to start a flame war. I was just
commenting I have to really like someone's music if I want
to learn how to play like them.

So O'Gallagher's book is for you, not for me.

It's all good.

[Gerry]

On 2013-07-18 20:24:18 +0000, Paul said:

>>> You can be an academic musician, but it will show in your
>>> lines. Miles Davis was NOT academic.

Academic is used both as a word with a specific meaning, and also as an
insult. It use to mean "of or relating to education and scholarship".
So one might think in context this would mean "an educated musician".

But another definition is "not of practical relevance, of only
theoretical interest". So I think, in context, it's a poor word to use
in this context. Nevertheless, I am one of a minority of people who
believe that knowing theory, understanding how music works at a
mechanical level doesn't inherently produce negative effects on your
playing, as in the phrase "it will show in your lines"; which seems to
imply a negative characteristic. The implication seems to be that
academically trained or knowledgeable players will sound cold,
passionless, etc.

>> Miles knew way more about classical music, classical music theory,
>> George Russell's theories, etc. than the vast majority of his
>> contemporaries and probably sponged up everything and anything he could
>> about music for all of his life. That's one of the big reasons why his
>> music was so much more advanced than that of his peers, let alone
>> open-minded.
>
> It's more than just knowing all the theory.

Right! Certainly music is a critical part of music, to which I think
any underlying knowledge of theory is of secondary or lesser importance.

> He had an obvious talent for finding good melodies, which is sadly
> lacking in much of today's music.

Also true. Setting the quality of "today's music" aside, you seem to be
trying to unhinge the connection between Davis' academic credentials
from his playing. How can we possibly know how his knowledge effected
his music? It may well have been fundamental in his producing good
melodies. There's really no way to know.

All players who were once at Berklee, for example, are by definition"
academics (scholarship, not insult). There are certainly many of them
with a talent for good melodies, why not assume: A) It didn't hurt them
and B) Helped them?

The main reason to assume it hurts musicians is to make one feel more
comfortable with the decisions one has made to avoid spending the
additional time working with it. Additionally, like vitamins, you
learn a new scale or chord and the next week don't sound any better.
Conclusion: Scales don't help.

The things we learn early on as "theory", as information, rarely
produces immediate positive effects; that is, while we are thinking
about theory instead of music. But once absorbed and part of the
bedrock of our *application*, along with our emotional commitment
(passion), focus, years of labor in producing authority and conviction
in our playing, etc. it no longer becomes "theory we think about", but
one of a number of underlying components that contribute to who we are
as musicians.

[Gerry]

On 2013-07-18 19:49:46 +0000, thomas said:

> Here's a pretty entertaining intro to 12-tone music video:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4niz8TfY794

I'm glad you repeated this link for those who missed it. I relayed it
to all my friends, mostly non-musicians and all were thrilled by it.

[Jonathan]

That's very entertaining (and maniacal).
I didn't understand very much of it, but the rule that restricts the frequency with which you can use certain notes seems kind of arbitrary to me. What do you think?

[David J. Littleboy]

"Gerry" wrote in message news:2013071815394691013-address@domaincom...

>
>On 2013-07-18 19:49:46 +0000, thomas said:
>
>> Here's a pretty entertaining intro to 12-tone music video:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4niz8TfY794
>
>I'm glad you repeated this link for those who missed it. I relayed it to
>all my friends, mostly non-musicians and all were thrilled by it.

It's pretty funny that for all the snark, she manages to come up with some
interesting music towards the end. (Although there's an admission in a
subtitle that the 12-tone game needs to be relaxed a bit ("extended" to
allow certain repetitions) to make it useful as music.)

In the end, that stuff isn't going to be my cup of tea: the 12-tone game
forces forced jumps to unrelated notes, and said forced jumps end up
sounding very similar. I.e. despite the near-infinite number of
combinatorial possibilities, it ends up sounding to my ear to being a much
smaller _musical_ (melodic) space than tonal music.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[thomas]

On Thursday, July 18, 2013 7:05:54 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
>
> I didn't understand very much of it, but the rule that restricts the frequency with which you can use certain notes seems kind of arbitrary to me. What do you think?>

The tone row is just a technique for stimulating creativity. Any rules that restrict use of the tone row are self-imposed. Applications of the rules and strictness of that application vary from one composer to the next.

[Paul]

On 7/18/2013 3:38 PM, Gerry wrote:
> On 2013-07-18 20:24:18 +0000, Paul said:
>
>>>> You can be an academic musician, but it will show in your
>>>> lines. Miles Davis was NOT academic.
>
> Academic is used both as a word with a specific meaning, and also as an
> insult. It use to mean "of or relating to education and scholarship". So
> one might think in context this would mean "an educated musician".
>
> But another definition is "not of practical relevance, of only
> theoretical interest". So I think, in context, it's a poor word to use
> in this context. Nevertheless, I am one of a minority of people who
> believe that knowing theory, understanding how music works at a
> mechanical level doesn't inherently produce negative effects on your
> playing, as in the phrase "it will show in your lines"; which seems to
> imply a negative characteristic. The implication seems to be that
> academically trained or knowledgeable players will sound cold,
> passionless, etc.
>

And indeed some of them do sound that way. Or they are
simply Jazz clones, or showing how fast they can play scale
patterns, or rehashing stolen licks strung together.

Which can be an impressive display by itself, but
not necessarily moving emotionally.

>>> Miles knew way more about classical music, classical music theory,
>>> George Russell's theories, etc. than the vast majority of his
>>> contemporaries and probably sponged up everything and anything he
>>> could about music for all of his life. That's one of the big reasons
>>> why his music was so much more advanced than that of his peers, let
>>> alone open-minded.
>>
>> It's more than just knowing all the theory.
>
> Right! Certainly music is a critical part of music, to which I think
> any underlying knowledge of theory is of secondary or lesser importance.
>
>> He had an obvious talent for finding good melodies, which is sadly
>> lacking in much of today's music.
>
> Also true. Setting the quality of "today's music" aside, you seem to be
> trying to unhinge the connection between Davis' academic credentials
> from his playing. How can we possibly know how his knowledge effected
> his music? It may well have been fundamental in his producing good
> melodies. There's really no way to know.
>
> All players who were once at Berklee, for example, are by definition"
> academics (scholarship, not insult). There are certainly many of them
> with a talent for good melodies, why not assume: A) It didn't hurt them
> and B) Helped them?
>

Theory can help a musician, or it can hinder his/her
creativity. There is the intangible mystery of musical talent that not
everyone who went to school necessarily has.

Do you think Vangelis would have been a better composer
if he took music lessons? I highly doubt it, and it probably
would have stifled his growth.

> The main reason to assume it hurts musicians is to make one feel more
> comfortable with the decisions one has made to avoid spending the
> additional time working with it. Additionally, like vitamins, you learn
> a new scale or chord and the next week don't sound any better.
> Conclusion: Scales don't help.
>

I've spent plenty of time on theory, and will continue
to. It has made me a better player. But I drop the theory
that doesn't help me make good music. There are many types
of theories of music. Not all of it is useful, at least not to me.

> The things we learn early on as "theory", as information, rarely
> produces immediate positive effects; that is, while we are thinking
> about theory instead of music. But once absorbed and part of the bedrock
> of our *application*, along with our emotional commitment (passion),
> focus, years of labor in producing authority and conviction in our
> playing, etc. it no longer becomes "theory we think about", but one of a
> number of underlying components that contribute to who we are as musicians.

Agreed that the real benefits usually come when the
response is automatic....

[Paul]

Wow, she's great!

I liked the circle of notes stuff at the end. Cool to show
diminished and augmented as squares and triangles.

Here her making a music scroll into a Moebius strip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkmPDOq2WfA

[Gerry]

On 2013-07-19 00:14:39 +0000, Paul said:

>> But another definition is "not of practical relevance, of only
>> theoretical interest". So I think, in context, it's a poor word to use
>> in this context. Nevertheless, I am one of a minority of people who
>> believe that knowing theory, understanding how music works at a
>> mechanical level doesn't inherently produce negative effects on your
>> playing, as in the phrase "it will show in your lines"; which seems to
>> imply a negative characteristic. The implication seems to be that
>> academically trained or knowledgeable players will sound cold,
>> passionless, etc.
>
> And indeed some of them do sound that way. Or they are
> simply Jazz clones, or showing how fast they can play scale
> patterns, or rehashing stolen licks strung together.

Right, but some of those who don't know any theory, or are not
"academic", sound the exact same way. In fact in arguing for an
academic approach, I find that those who only got enough to stink
things, up are the worst in this regard, not those who put in the hard
work and really learned the theory and then moved on.

> Which can be an impressive display by itself, but not necessarily
> moving emotionally.

Flash is flash, regardless of the source, academia or licks copped from
others. There will always be a home for "impressive displays" in any
art. And there will always be a home for "boring" when it becomes
repetitive and vacuous.

>> All players who were once at Berklee, for example, are by definition"
>> academics (scholarship, not insult). There are certainly many of them
>> with a talent for good melodies, why not assume: A) It didn't hurt them
>> and B) Helped them?
>
> Theory can help a musician, or it can hinder his/her creativity. There
> is the intangible mystery of musical talent that not everyone who went
> to school necessarily has.
>
> Do you think Vangelis would have been a better composer if he took
> music lessons? I highly doubt it, and it probably would have stifled
> his growth.

I think I can call somebody a know-nothing hack or an academic and in
both cases I am substituting my own viewpoint of what is a bad or good
approach to learning music, as a form of insult.

There is nothing inherently musically wrong with learning what you're
doing, nor avoiding it and continuing in the noble "folk artist"
tradition. Since you were slamming academics I was pointing out their
merits.

Yes, I think Vangelis would have been better or worse if he had taken a
better or worse course in life. I don't think he would have
definitively been "made bad" by either approach, nor do I think others
are "made bad" in this way either. My only point is that academia has
no inherent liability. Bad students are bad students regardless of the
source material they are lazy with.

> I've spent plenty of time on theory, and will continue to. It has made
> me a better player. But I drop the theory that doesn't help me make
> good music.

I have found over the past 50 years that I sometimes don't know for a
long while whether something I've learned will be really useful. I'm
constantly surprised when something pops up as indispensible that I
pissed on 20 years before. That's just me.

> There are many types of theories of music. Not all of it is useful, at
> least not to me.

Makes sense. But it also makes sense that the theory that is the least
useful to you may well be the most useful to someone else. Music is
individual that way.

[Gerry]

What I like about that stuff is the intellectual part and the ways it
does--and does not--tickle my ear. It's kind of a brain game for me. I
studied it in high school and again in college and was very
enthusiastic, but I can't say I ever got any music out of it.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/18/13 4:24 PM, Paul wrote:
> On 7/18/2013 12:51 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> What do *you* mean by "melodic"?
>> What you probably mean is that *you* enjoy the melodies that you hear
>> him playing because they resonate with your own abilities to play and
>> hear melody.
>>
>> And the reason why you might not enjoy John O'Gallagher's melodies is
>> because they are beyond your own capabilities to hear.
>> That's one of the reasons why I enjoy O'Gallgher's melodies is because
>> they're harder for me to hear yet I can sense the order and the elegance
>> and the highly developed skill level in them.
>> For some listener's like me, that sense of order is one of the main
>> things I listen for in music.
>> And I'm always happier listening to someone with highly advanced
>> technique as opposed to someone who is just scraping by.
>> As a matter of fact, because I'm a relatively advanced musician in some
>> respects, I get bored with the stuff that I hear all the time and would
>> rather hear something that I don't understand.
>> The way I've always expanded my ears as a musician is by studying the
>> stuff that I don't understand.
>>
>
> John plays decently well technically, but for me to study
> someone's music, I have to first like it.

Technically speaking, he's miles ahead of most musicians, period.
You don't have to like it.
But disrespecting it says more about what you don't understand about
music than what you do.

>
>>> My point is you can over-analyze music and think
>>> that the music theory alone will lead you to great melodic playing.
>>
>> This argument is presented here quite often and it doesn't hold up
>> because NOBODY actually does that or thinks that.
>> Most folks under-analyze things, and never arrive at the ideas that make
>> the things that sound good in music sound good.
>> IMO, most things that sound good sound good for a reason or several.
>> Like-wise, if you look hard enough, you can usually deduce why the
>> things that don't sound good don't sound good.
>> But you have to look.
>>
>>> You can be an academic musician, but it will show in your
>>> lines. Miles Davis was NOT academic.
>>
>> Miles knew way more about classical music, classical music theory,
>> George Russell's theories, etc. than the vast majority of his
>> contemporaries and probably sponged up everything and anything he could
>> about music for all of his life.
>> That's one of the big reasons why his music was so much more advanced
>> than that of his peers, let alone open-minded.
>>
>
> It's more than just knowing all the theory.

Of course it is.
Always has been.
Nobody's ever said otherwise.

> He had an obvious talent for finding good melodies, which
> is sadly lacking in much of today's music.

It's not just a "talent".
Melody is something that Miles studied very closely, including
theoretical concepts of melody as well as studying actual great melodies.
That type of musicianship doesn't just come to anyone by some mysterious
natural process.
It's hard work.
And there are tons of Miles' melodies that are just plain hard to hear
in just the same ways that John O'Gallgher's melodies are hard to hear
because Miles was playing from the entire chromatic palette just like
O'Gallagher advocates.

Listen to Miles' solos on Miles Smiles and then tell me chromaticism has
no place in jazz
O'Gallaher's book helps interested players to be able to assimilate that
type of a chromatic approach into their own playing.

>> So it's obvious that you don't like 12-tone influenced jazz music.
>> Why are you contributing to this thread might I ask?
>> What do you hope to accomplish here?
>>
>
> It's not my intention to start a flame war. I was just
> commenting I have to really like someone's music if I want
> to learn how to play like them.

No-one is asking you to play like John O'Gallagher.
And I'm not trying top play like him either.
I'm trying to play like me.
He's got a book out that describes quite well how to approach certain
techniques that have been going on in jazz for quite some time now but
that have never, to my knowledge, been presented in a book.
You don't seem to be interested in jazz let alone this type of jazz so
obviously this book isn't "for you".

>
> So O'Gallagher's book is for you, not for me.
>
> It's all good.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/18/13 10:20 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> You don't seem to be interested in jazz let alone this type of jazz so
> obviously this book isn't "for you".

Sorry.
I have nothing to base that on.
I may have been mixing you up with someone else who's been posting here
recently who doesn't really seem to have any sort of a stake in jazz music.
I don't know enough about you to make the kind of sweeping statement
that I made above regarding your general interest level in jazz music.
I apologize.

But you don't seem too interested in the avant-garde of jazz which is
the style of music that these techniques are most often used in so I'm
still questioning why it is that you're participating in this thread.
But hey, it's free world.

[Paul]

I believe Vangelis was correct to refuse to take traditional
lessons. It would most likely have hindered his creativity....but
who knows.

>> I've spent plenty of time on theory, and will continue to. It has
>> made me a better player. But I drop the theory that doesn't help me
>> make good music.
>
> I have found over the past 50 years that I sometimes don't know for a
> long while whether something I've learned will be really useful. I'm
> constantly surprised when something pops up as indispensible that I
> pissed on 20 years before. That's just me.
>

Certainly you've got to be ready for a certain concept to sink in.

But can you give me an example? I'm just curious.

>> There are many types of theories of music. Not all of it is useful,
>> at least not to me.
>
> Makes sense. But it also makes sense that the theory that is the least
> useful to you may well be the most useful to someone else. Music is
> individual that way.

We don't disagree.

[Paul]

Not liking something is not necessarily disrespecting it.

Not my favorite Miles album. Some tracks are good,
and Chromaticism is a big part of Jazz, but chromatic rambling is not my
favorite aspect of the art.

>>> So it's obvious that you don't like 12-tone influenced jazz music.
>>> Why are you contributing to this thread might I ask?
>>> What do you hope to accomplish here?
>>>
>>
>> It's not my intention to start a flame war. I was just
>> commenting I have to really like someone's music if I want
>> to learn how to play like them.
>
> No-one is asking you to play like John O'Gallagher.
> And I'm not trying top play like him either.
> I'm trying to play like me.

That's a good point.

> He's got a book out that describes quite well how to approach certain
> techniques that have been going on in jazz for quite some time now but
> that have never, to my knowledge, been presented in a book.
> You don't seem to be interested in jazz let alone this type of jazz so
> obviously this book isn't "for you".
>

Some types of Jazz don't do it for me obviously.

I've posted some modal chord-scale analysis of several
songs on this NG, if you recall, and some people said they
felt that I was thinking to much about the music, even when
I feel the theory was helping me.

But at the same time, that's the same charge that I
would give to others! So it's all relative...

[Gerry]

On 2013-07-19 04:06:49 +0000, Paul said:

> I believe Vangelis was correct to refuse to take traditional lessons.
> It would most likely have hindered his creativity....but who knows.

It would have CRIPPLED him... or maybe been empowering. You are right:
Neither of us--nor anyone else. This, I've started calling the "McCain
argument" after a friend of mine. For a year or two there he had an
opinion about everything in the world, from the price of stamps to the
chance of rain: If McCain were president things would be different...
Apparently the abhorent smell of farts would have even have been
neutralized.

>> I have found over the past 50 years that I sometimes don't know for a
>> long while whether something I've learned will be really useful. I'm
>> constantly surprised when something pops up as indispensible that I
>> pissed on 20 years before. That's just me.
>
> Certainly you've got to be ready for a certain concept to sink in.
>
> But can you give me an example? I'm just curious.

A few were these: When studying with Galbraith he was all about
repertoire and insisted on working on pieces each week. I just wanted
to blow single-string lines and be Parker or Farlow. So after
abandoning my minionship I disregarded this (and much else). Thirty
years later I realize that repertoire is just about everything.

Another: I worked for one full year non-stop day after day on the
Chromatic Lydian concept; and learned and practiced all these scales
like crazy trying to put them into functional use like mad. Finally,
embittered at their lack of utility, I moved on with my life. Many
years later, I realized that I could find a scale step, relative to
either key or chord quite rapidly and believe that the synaptic path
was worn smooth from my studies that year. So though I've never made
much explicit use of ChroLyd, the acquisition of that material proved
incredibly beneficial.

But I could say this about most of the advanced chord alterations and
extensions I learned when pretty young: I rarely used them unless it
was written right there on a chart. Many years after the fact when I
understood how they could be used, they were already there under my
fingers prepped for almost cognition-free usage.

[Gerry]

On 2013-07-19 04:26:59 +0000, Paul said:

> I've posted some modal chord-scale analysis of several songs on this
> NG, if you recall, and some people said they felt that I was thinking
> to much about the music,

...how could they know what you were thinking...?

> ...even when I feel the theory was helping me.

If it was helping you then it how it sounds to "some guy on the
internet". It's rare that a player gets comfortable with something
rapidly. You have to turn it inside out a few hundred times first to
get it worn in first.

[Paul]

On 7/18/2013 10:29 PM, Gerry wrote:
> On 2013-07-19 04:26:59 +0000, Paul said:
>
>> I've posted some modal chord-scale analysis of several songs on this
>> NG, if you recall, and some people said they felt that I was thinking
>> to much about the music,
>
> ...how could they know what you were thinking...?
>

They couldn't, but when you spelled out all the modes
you could use for each chord in a song, it looks like
on paper to be over-analyzing the song, at least to them.

And as I've said before, there are musicians
out there who I would make the same statement
about: I feel THEY are over-analyzing. So
it's all relative to what level of analysis is
comfortable to you.

>> ...even when I feel the theory was helping me.
>
> If it was helping you then it how it sounds to "some guy on the
> internet". It's rare that a player gets comfortable with something
> rapidly. You have to turn it inside out a few hundred times first to get
> it worn in first.

Agreed. The modes simply become fretboard scale shapes
after a while, and I don't think about theory....I just make the music.

[Paul]

On 7/18/2013 10:25 PM, Gerry wrote:
> On 2013-07-19 04:06:49 +0000, Paul said:
>
>> I believe Vangelis was correct to refuse to take traditional lessons.
>> It would most likely have hindered his creativity....but who knows.
>
> It would have CRIPPLED him... or maybe been empowering. You are right:
> Neither of us--nor anyone else. This, I've started calling the "McCain
> argument" after a friend of mine. For a year or two there he had an
> opinion about everything in the world, from the price of stamps to the
> chance of rain: If McCain were president things would be different...
> Apparently the abhorent smell of farts would have even have been
> neutralized.
>

Well, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Vangelis ain't broken,
so I wouldn't recommend he start taking music lessons.....

[Joey Goldstein]

Please explain to me how it is that Vangelis has worked his way into a
discussion about 12-techniques being used in jazz?

[brucer]

Have you checked out George Garzone from the Fringe.
I think it is called the Triad Chromatic theory.

Maybe somebody mentioned it in one of the above .....

[Paul]

This is the first time someone has gone off-thread??!?

:)

[thomas]

I can see how he got there. Vangelis has a real gift for melody, and perhaps training would have broken that. I don't agree with that hypothesis, but I did understand it.

[Paul]

Yes, thank you.

The point is that some exceptional musicians have the music inside
of them already, and don't need external rules of theory to uncover
that music.

A lot of it gets down to how original you decide you want to be.
Vangelis is very original. If you want to play Jazz with others, you'll
have to learn some rules first.

[Joey Goldstein]

I've seen some talk of Garzone's methods, yes.
The gist of it seemed to be a technique where you arpeggiate one
standard triad (usually maj or min) from the rt 3rd or 5th, move a 1/2
step away from your last note and then start another triad arp from the
rt 3rd or 5th of some new triad.
Repeat. Etc.

It *is* a cool way to add some controlled chromaticism to your lines
over changes or in a free-blowing situation.
Much different and simpler than the techniques in O'Gallgher's book.
I'm probably not doing the GG techniques justice though in my
description of them.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/19/13 4:26 PM, thomas wrote:
>
> I can see how he got there. Vangelis has a real gift for melody, and perhaps training would have broken that. I don't agree with that hypothesis, but I did understand it.
>

Ah. OK. Thanks.

Like that argument that if Wes had learned to read music he'd probably
have been a much worse player.
Needless to say, I don't buy into any of that.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/19/13 4:45 PM, Paul wrote:
>
> The point is that some exceptional musicians have the music inside
> of them already,

Dude. *EVERYBODY* has to work for it in some way.
It's the different ways that we work for it that distinguish one
musician from another.

>and don't need external rules of theory to uncover
> that music.

External rules, internal rules, it's all the same on some level.

The external rules only apply when you want to discuss things with other
musicians.
If they're aware of those ideas then your discussion can proceed
effectively.
If not it won't.

> A lot of it gets down to how original you decide you want to be.

The surest way to be an original is to study *everything* that everybody
before you has already done and then do something else.
That way you won't be trying to reinvent the wheel all the time.

> Vangelis is very original.

I don't really know all that much about him or his music but I'll take a
guess that he has actually studied more music than you give him credit for.

[Paul]

On 7/19/2013 2:01 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
> On 7/19/13 4:45 PM, Paul wrote:
>>
>> The point is that some exceptional musicians have the music inside
>> of them already,
>
> Dude. *EVERYBODY* has to work for it in some way.
> It's the different ways that we work for it that distinguish one
> musician from another.
>

Relax, dude. Of course that is true.

Just because the music is inside of you, doesn't mean
you don't need to work to uncover it.

>> and don't need external rules of theory to uncover
>> that music.
>
> External rules, internal rules, it's all the same on some level.
>
> The external rules only apply when you want to discuss things with other
> musicians.
> If they're aware of those ideas then your discussion can proceed
> effectively.
> If not it won't.

Vangelis is mainly a solo musician, so he requires
fewer rules for making music than your typical Jazz musician.

>
>> A lot of it gets down to how original you decide you want to be.
>
> The surest way to be an original is to study *everything* that everybody
> before you has already done and then do something else.
> That way you won't be trying to reinvent the wheel all the time.
>

It's impossible to be completely original, but it's
possible to create music without scientifically analyzing it to the extreme.

>> Vangelis is very original.
>
> I don't really know all that much about him or his music but I'll take a
> guess that he has actually studied more music than you give him credit for.
>

Incorrect:

"Largely a self-taught musician, he reportedly began composing at
the age of four. He refused to take traditional piano lessons, and
throughout his career did not have substantial knowledge of reading or
writing musical notation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vangelis

I'm quite certain that he doesn't read music to this day. If
you watch him on Youtube, he improvises everything at the moment.

[Paul]

On 7/19/2013 1:54 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
> On 7/19/13 4:26 PM, thomas wrote:
>>
>> I can see how he got there. Vangelis has a real gift for melody, and
>> perhaps training would have broken that. I don't agree with that
>> hypothesis, but I did understand it.
>>
>
> Ah. OK. Thanks.
>
> Like that argument that if Wes had learned to read music he'd probably
> have been a much worse player.

It quite possibly would have damaged his ORIGINALITY.

He may have ended up learning more of other people's music,
so he would have been more of a Jazz clone like everyone else,
and could have lost his unique voice.

[TD]

[Gerry]

On 2013-07-19 20:45:12 +0000, Paul said:

> The point is that some exceptional musicians have the music inside of
> them already, and don't need external rules of theory to uncover that
> music.

In all fairness I think that is the *opposite* of the point you were
initially making. I generally agree with the point you make here. But
I disagreed with your initial inference that the "academic" process is
somewhow detrimental to musicians. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I see
no reason to believe--in this or any other field--that knowing more
about the history, theory or repertoire of it will somehow diminish
them.

Some of our greatest jazz musicians didn't have a full understanding of
the theory that governed their music. But that doesn't mean they might
have been bettered (in their own estimation) by learning theory when
they were coming up.

So this is one of a score of threads in which I make that assertion and
won't continue to rephrase it this time around.

[Joey Goldstein]

I never suggested that he studied music formally.
I suggested that he studied more than *you* give him credit for.

[Mike Neer]

On Friday, July 19, 2013 5:22:33 PM UTC-4, Paul wrote:

Just like John O'Gallagher has a unique voice.

[Paul]

I give him tons of credit, what the Hell are you talking about?

He studies the music that comes out of his *Soul*, not something
he read in some academic theory book. Obviously you can study music
without ever learning to read or write it.

He's absolutely brilliant coming up with awesome *melodies*,
which a lot of Jazz clones lack.

[TD]

You know what Paul, why don't you finally take a hike? You hate jazz? Get out. We come back on to your dumb posts and try to help you out in your stupidity and you only come back to shit all over us. "Jazz Clones." How dumb can you get? Get out already.

[PMB]

On Thursday, July 18, 2013 4:10:59 AM UTC+10, Joey Goldstein wrote:
> Anybody else out there happen to be working on this book?
>
>
>
> I became aware of it when Vic Juris recommended it on Facebook.
>
>
>
> I've been looking for a way to study 12-tone techniques to be applied to jazz improv for some time now and this appears to fit the bill quite nicely.
>
>
>
> It's a really big book that will take me the rest of my life to begin to absorb but if I can only take away a few concepts it will be worth it.
>
>
>
> It's a little bit intimidating for me because I have very little experience in 12-tone techniques or terminology.
>
> But after wading through the first few chapters which sadly, are peppered with a few unfortunate non-standard uses of certain terms and often presents the information in an order that works against understanding it, I'm beginning to make some headway.
>
>
>
> One assumption I made incorrectly was this was going to be about a method for using 12-tone rows within free improv as well as on standard changes, and it is about that eventually.
>
> But the main focus of the book seems to be about utilizing tone rows that are based on tricords (3-note chords - the 4 standard triads as well as any non-tertian 3-note chords) and pairs of tricords.
>
> So, much of the book deals with 3-note and/or 6-note rows rather than 12-tone rows.
>
> The sections about using an entire 12-tone row are saved for later, presumably because gaining familiarity with the smaller rows develops the skills needed to deal with the 12-tone rows.
>
>
>
> So, since my lessons with Charlie Banacos actually ended around the time he was teaching me about "non-tertian bi-tonal pendulums", which is another way of saying "tricord pairs", I find that I already have some familiarity with tricords, tricord pairs, their rotations/inversions, potential patterns, voicings and fingerings on the guitar - which is quite helpful in exploring O'Gallagher's ideas.
>
>
>
> It's a tough book but I highly recommend it if you're interested in learning how to play extremely chromatically but to still have some underlying order in your lines.

Hi Joey,

If you haven't already heard it, I suggest taking a listen to Webern's music, in particular the Concert Op. 24 (and I'll search out John O'Gallagher's music on your recommendation). The 'underlying order' you mention is very apparent in that piece via rhythmic, melodic and timbral manipulation of a trichordal-based 12 tone row.

[Joey Goldstein]

You give his music credit but pooh-pooh the fact that he must have
studied and worked very hard on music all his life IN HIS OWN WAY.
If Vangelis thought that 12-tone techniques had a place in his music
then he would have had to study that as well.
John Williams has studied *ALL* that stuff and tons more.
I find his scores zillions of times more satisfying than Vangelis'.
I find most scores more satisfying than Vangelis' scores.
But tons of people would disagree, obviously.
Just trying to point out though that just because you think Vangelis is
heavy doesn't make him heavy.
You don't seem to be all that aware of what else is going on.

And what are you basing your opinion on that he is so singularly
"original" on.
I don't hear that in his music.
I hear a sort of sappy synth pop voice based on bastardized notions of
classical music and folk music that he's managed to apply to film
scoring that is, granted, quite successful and popular often quite
pretty too.
It's also quite effective for the types of films that he's hired to
score for.
But for me, film scores, no matter how well done, are always subservient
to the film and if they're not then they're not very good film scores.
I'm much more interested in music for music's sake.
And I hope you understand that success and popularity are not the same
things as originality.

When you compare the ideas of John O'Gallagher and those of Vangelis
anybody with any knowledge of what's been done in music past and present
has to see that the former approach is way more original.
That doesn't make it better, mind you, but any two bar line of
O'Gallagher's is tons more original than Vangelis' entire output.
O'Gallagher is harder to hear, less accessible and requires a more
sophisticated listener.

> He studies the music that comes out of his *Soul*, not something
> he read in some academic theory book.

Ah. It's all a mystery. It just comes to him in dreams. I see.

>Obviously you can study music
> without ever learning to read or write it.

Obviously. What's your point though?

> He's absolutely brilliant coming up with awesome *melodies*,
> which a lot of Jazz clones lack.

If you say so.

Can you suggest some links on Youtube where he improvises for me please?

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/19/13 6:54 PM, PMB wrote:
>
> If you haven't already heard it, I suggest taking a listen to Webern's music, in particular the Concert Op. 24 (and I'll search out John O'Gallagher's music on your recommendation). The 'underlying order' you mention is very apparent in that piece via rhythmic, melodic and timbral manipulation of a trichordal-based 12 tone row.
>

I believe he cites that piece in the book, a few times.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/19/13 7:21 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
> On 7/19/13 6:54 PM, PMB wrote:
>>
>> If you haven't already heard it, I suggest taking a listen to Webern's
>> music, in particular the Concert Op. 24 (and I'll search out John
>> O'Gallagher's music on your recommendation). The 'underlying order'
>> you mention is very apparent in that piece via rhythmic, melodic and
>> timbral manipulation of a trichordal-based 12 tone row.
>>
>
> I believe he cites that piece in the book, a few times.
>

So far, my first attempts at applying any of this have been based on
tricord 1+2 (e.g. C Db Eb) and its complement tricord 2+1 (e.g. C D Eb).
They can be used as a tricord pair against various standard chord types.
Or a pair of 1+2 or 2+1 tricords at various transpositions might be used
on a standard chord.
2+1 is the retrograde inversion of 1+2 so there's a sort of symbiotic
ordered relationship, albeit obscure, between them when they're used
together.

So, on, say, C7sus4 I might use E F G as my 1+2 tricord and pair that up
with another 1+2 tricord like A Bb C.
I can then construct lines that go back and forth between the 2 tricords
and their rotations/inversions over C7sus4.
E.g.
E F G rotates/inverts to F G E and G E F.
A Bb C rotates to Bb C A and C A Bb.
Here's an 1/8 note line/pattern that goes back and forth between the 2
tricords (> = "up to", < = "down to":
A > Bb > C,< G > E > F,< Bb > C > A,< E > F > G,< C > A > Bb, > F > G >
E, A......
Etc., etc., etc.

I can also extract chord voicings from the tricords.
Each of then close-voiced rotations is playable on guitar as drop 2
voicings.
E F G becomes F E G
F G E becomes G F E
G E F becomes E G F
A Bb C becomes Bb A C
Bb C A becomes C Bb A
C A Bb becomes A C Bb
Alternating drop 2 tricord voicings between the 2 tricords gives me
progressions of voicings like:
F E G - A C Bb, E G F - C Bb A, G F E - Bb A C, F E G etc.

Using 1+2 and 2+1 on C7sus4 I might use A Bb C as 1+2 and D E F as 2+1.
All sorts of lines and patterns can be designed based on that concept
and they all hang together nicely over C7sus4.

At this point I'm just dipping my toes in the water though.
Nothing real novel happening here.... yet.

[brucer]

> I've seen some talk of Garzone's methods, yes.
> The gist of it seemed to be a technique where you arpeggiate one standard
> triad (usually maj or min) from the rt 3rd or 5th, move a 1/2 step away
> from your last note and then start another triad arp from the rt 3rd or
> 5th of some new triad.
> Repeat. Etc.
>
> It *is* a cool way to add some controlled chromaticism to your lines over
> changes or in a free-blowing situation.
> Much different and simpler than the techniques in O'Gallgher's book.
> I'm probably not doing the GG techniques justice though in my description
> of them.
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/AudioClips/audio.htm>

Close - but each triad has to be a different inversion.

Better description by the man himself:
http://www.jodyjazz.com/images/dvd/georgemaster.pdf

[Mike Neer]

Better yet, buy his new CD which is called The Anton Webern Project. They use Webern pieces as vehicles for improvisation. Very heavy stuff and great musicians on it: http://www.whirlwindrecordings.com/the-anton-webern-project/

[Gerry]

On 2013-07-19 23:17:16 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:

>> Obviously you can study music
>> without ever learning to read or write it.
>
> Obviously. What's your point though?

This may be wrong relative to Paul specifically, but with most of the
musicians I've known in life, the argument that music is "okay", or
"better" or "more soulfull" came from who musicians didn't want to put
the time and energy into learning theory--beyond a certain point. This
may be because they were lazy, or because they have demanding 9-5 jobs,
a wife and two kids.

But the loudest among them--my personal experience--were simply those
who wanted most to avoid learning/knowing anything. Maybe they felt
they were lower in the "pecking order" or something. These would
include most of my folk musician friends primarily, but I heard the
same stuff from many rock and jazz players.

[Paul]

On 7/19/2013 4:17 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:

>>>>
>>>> I'm quite certain that he doesn't read music to this day. If
>>>> you watch him on Youtube, he improvises everything at the moment.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never suggested that he studied music formally.
>>> I suggested that he studied more than *you* give him credit for.
>>>
>>
>> I give him tons of credit, what the Hell are you talking about?
>
> You give his music credit but pooh-pooh the fact that he must have
> studied and worked very hard on music all his life IN HIS OWN WAY.

Where the Hell did you get that? Of course he put
in tons of work, just in a more personalized way.

> If Vangelis thought that 12-tone techniques had a place in his music
> then he would have had to study that as well.
> John Williams has studied *ALL* that stuff and tons more.
> I find his scores zillions of times more satisfying than Vangelis'.
> I find most scores more satisfying than Vangelis' scores.
> But tons of people would disagree, obviously.
> Just trying to point out though that just because you think Vangelis is
> heavy doesn't make him heavy.
> You don't seem to be all that aware of what else is going on.
>

You really make huge, incorrect assumptions about people.

I LOVE the music of John Williams. Awesome work. But he did
steal from a lot of people, which is supposedly what great artists do.
Jimmy Page stole from everyone as well.

> And what are you basing your opinion on that he is so singularly
> "original" on.
> I don't hear that in his music.
> I hear a sort of sappy synth pop voice based on bastardized notions of
> classical music and folk music that he's managed to apply to film
> scoring that is, granted, quite successful and popular often quite
> pretty too.
> It's also quite effective for the types of films that he's hired to
> score for.
> But for me, film scores, no matter how well done, are always subservient
> to the film and if they're not then they're not very good film scores.
> I'm much more interested in music for music's sake.
> And I hope you understand that success and popularity are not the same
> things as originality.
>

This has nothing to do with how popular Vangelis is. For one,
just using the modern synthesizer for his scores automatically breaks
him off from traditional instruments.

> When you compare the ideas of John O'Gallagher and those of Vangelis
> anybody with any knowledge of what's been done in music past and present
> has to see that the former approach is way more original.
> That doesn't make it better, mind you, but any two bar line of
> O'Gallagher's is tons more original than Vangelis' entire output.
> O'Gallagher is harder to hear, less accessible and requires a more
> sophisticated listener.
>

Or maybe it's just bad chromatic rambling created by someone who
thinks academic music theory formulas will make up for a lack of talent.

>> He studies the music that comes out of his *Soul*, not something
>> he read in some academic theory book.
>
> Ah. It's all a mystery. It just comes to him in dreams. I see.
>

Could be. There are still mysteries in world, or do you mistakenly
assume humanity has figured everything out?

People have analyzed music since they have started making it. Will
knowledge of music theory make you compose like Chopin? No chance in
hell.

>> Obviously you can study music
>> without ever learning to read or write it.
>
> Obviously. What's your point though?
>
>> He's absolutely brilliant coming up with awesome *melodies*,
>> which a lot of Jazz clones lack.
>
> If you say so.
>
> Can you suggest some links on Youtube where he improvises for me please?
>

It's all there, just do a search....

[Mike Neer]

How the hell did Vangelis' name come into this conversation? Come on....

You don't like John O'Gallagher, or 12-tone music, we get it. Just go away then. You've managed to derail what could have been a good thread. Thanks for your input.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/17/13 2:16 PM, Mike Neer wrote:
>
> I am working with it, but at a very leisurely pace.
>
> His new CD, The Anton Webern Project is really interesting and has some great playing on it. I did a gig with guitarist Pete McCann recently and he told me it was really difficult music to play.
>
> In addition to buying O'Gallagher's book, I also purchased a few others on his suggested reading list, including The Tone Clock by Peter Schat (Kindle edition $90+!). I look at this as an investment toward a direction I want to go, or at least investigate thoroughly.
>

Hi Mike (or anybody else who knows the book)

Any idea why he leaves out trichord 4+3 (aka a root position maj triad)
from the list of trichords on page 13?
(BTW It's not "tricord". Sorry...I've been spelling it wrong.)

Earlier he talks about the 4 traditional tertian triads and the fact
that there are 9 more possible 3-note combinations.
But then he only lists a total of 12 trichords.
Doesn't 9 + 4 = 13?
He did include 3+4 (rt pos min triad), 3+3 (rt pos dim triad) and 4+4
(aug triad) in the trichord list.

Seems like it might just be an unintentional omission.
Unless the maj triad is deemed to not be suitable as a generator for a
12-tone row because 12-tone rows are not supposed to suggest any
tonality, especially harmonic cadences.
But I don't think that's it.

I'm pretty green with this material but I think I'm seeing all sorts of
typos in various spots too.
Critical spots too where he's explaining things.
Makes for a much tougher read.
T'would be nice if I could check with someone who knows what's what.

[Mike Neer]

I can answer this.

3+4 and 4+3 are the same trichords. If you look at all of the trichords listed on p. 13, none of them are inverted in any way. The trichord 4+3 is already represented by 3+4. Both the major and minor triads contain intervals of a minor 3rd and a maj. 3rd, so it is a wash. The prime form of those intervals is 3+4. Don't look at it in terms of tonality in any way, it's simply a collection of intervals.

It is all pretty confusing. I was spending a lot of time with it a few weeks ago and laid off for a while, now it's back to square one.

[Joey Goldstein]

D'Oh.
Thanks.

>If you look at all of the trichords listed on p. 13, none of them are
inverted in any way. The trichord 4+3 is already represented by 3+4.
Both the major and minor triads contain intervals of a minor 3rd and a
maj. 3rd, so it is a wash. The prime form of those intervals is 3+4.
Don't look at it in terms of tonality in any way, it's simply a
collection of intervals.
>
> It is all pretty confusing. I was spending a lot of time with it a few weeks ago and laid off for a while, now it's back to square one.
>

[Mike Neer]

Curious to know where you think you are seeing other typos.

[RS]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:54:40 -0400, Joey Goldstein
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:

>On 7/19/13 4:26 PM, thomas wrote:
>>
>> I can see how he got there. Vangelis has a real gift for melody, and perhaps training would have broken that. I don't agree with that hypothesis, but I did understand it.
>>
>
>Ah. OK. Thanks.
>
>Like that argument that if Wes had learned to read music he'd probably
>have been a much worse player.
>Needless to say, I don't buy into any of that.

I've never understood how learning something could screw somebody up.
It always sounded like an excuse for laziness to me.

The major jazz players, like Wes, obviously had a strong inner sense
of what -their- music was. Doubtful that any trivial external learning
experience could have sent that off course.

If someone has no idea about their target to begin with, yeah, they'll
end up wherever the tide carries them. Maybe best that those players
are sent in a productive direction by someone who can show them the
way. Later on, when (perhaps) they figure it out, they would
hopefully have accumulated the tools to chart their own course.

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 7/19/2013 5:53 PM, Paul wrote:
>
> I give him tons of credit, what the Hell are you talking about?
>
> He studies the music that comes out of his *Soul*, not something
> he read in some academic theory book. Obviously you can study music
> without ever learning to read or write it.
>
> He's absolutely brilliant coming up with awesome *melodies*,
> which a lot of Jazz clones lack.

Forgive me--I haven't (and won't, without a good reason) read the rest
of this thread. I am mystified by how Vangelis has entered a thread
about 12-tone music.
But mostly, I'd like to hear a piece of music that demonstrates his
melodic sense--I know nothing about him, except that he wrote the score
for "Chariots of Fire", and has lots and lots of hair (yeah, I'm
jealous--so shoot me), and a mysterious gaze.
"Chariots of Fire" must be--what? 30 years ago? So I'm assuming he's
not in the same place musically--no matter how rich that record made him.

Steve

[TD]

Maybe, he is in Tahiti.

[RS]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:43:52 -0400, Steven Bornfeld
<dentalt...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Forgive me--I haven't (and won't, without a good reason) read the rest
>of this thread. I am mystified by how Vangelis has entered a thread
>about 12-tone music.
>

>Steve

When I think jazz, especially 12-tone jazz, I'm thinkin' Vangelis!
(Seriously, no idea how he would come up in such a thread)

For anyone interested in jazz-oriented 12-tone music (I am, but with
limits), Gunther Schuller wrote a piece called Symphony for Brass,
which was featured on one of the great Third Stream albums called
"Music for Brass." Vinyl was Columbia 941, I believe. Re-released in
two forms on CD (2nd added some George Russell pieces) but that may be
hard to find as well.

Anyway, one side of the vinyl has Gunther conducting the Minneapolis
orch w Miles soloing. Really nice pieces by Jimmy Giuffre, JJ Johnson
and John Lewis. Worth it just for those (or maybe -mainly- just for
those).

The second side was Gunther's Symphony for Brass. I found a score and
studied that when I was learning the finer points of brass
orchestration. Not for everyone, but those interested in 12-tone will
probably dig it. Last chord of the symphony is all 12 tones, stacked
up like Slonimsky's nightmare. This was what...1963?

[RS]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:54:49 -0700 (PDT), PMB
<paulmitc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Joey,

>
> I suggest taking a listen to Webern's music, in particular the Concert Op. 24

I haven't listened to Webern for years, but I had to study that stuff
at school. The main focal point was always his Symphony, opus 21, I
believe. Way short, and way sparse, regarded as a landmark in
economical writing. I guess that's why I had to study it. :-)

I don't particularly care for 12-tone stuff in general. But I do like
the effect it had on classical composition. "Liberation of the
Dissonance" and all. Some of the French and Scandinavian writers
emerged from the other side of their serial sojourns with incredibly
sophisticated melodic and orchestration chops.

Probably a similar effect on jazz players.

BTW, I posted some info about Gunther Schuller's 12-tone "Symphony for
Brass" elsewhere in this thread. It was added onto some great Third
Stream releases (Miles Davis soloing on 3rd stream stuff in front of
the Minneapolis sym!). I've got several versions of the re-releases--
If anyone is interested, I'll try to find more details on those
recordings.

I'll check out the Webern Concerto.

[RS]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 04:58:45 -0400, RS <R...@sorrynospam.com> wrote:
>
>The second side was Gunther's Symphony for Brass. I found a score and
>studied that when I was learning the finer points of brass
>orchestration. Not for everyone, but those interested in 12-tone will
>probably dig it. Last chord of the symphony is all 12 tones, stacked
>up like Slonimsky's nightmare. This was what...1963?
>

I just checked and it was recorded in 1957. Wow.

http://www.amazon.com/Music-Brass-Gunther-Schuller/dp/B001GXTA06
http://www.discogs.com/Gunther-Schuller-John-Lewis-2-Jimmy-Giuffre-J-J-Johnson-Dimitri-Mitropoulos-Music-For-Brass/release/3409221

They list "Brass Ensemble Of The Jazz And Classical Music Society" but
I thought the early vinyl credited the brass from the Minn. Sounds
huge though. I actually remembered Columbia's release number for the
vinyl, so some memory cells are working.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/22/13 3:36 PM, Mike Neer wrote:
> Curious to know where you think you are seeing other typos.
>

Well, as I continue to work on this book I find myself having to go back
to the beginning and re-read stuff.
If I spot something I'll try to post about it here.
Definitely there have been some times when I just didn't understand what
he was saying and thought he contradicted himself or made a typo, but it
may have been me, just like that 4+3 = 3+4 thing.
Still, you think he would have mentioned the 3+4 thing somewhere.
And he did say that there were 9 other 3-note chords in addition to the
4 standard triads, which isn't exactly incorrect but it is a little bit
confusing.
He doesn't seem to mind if he confuses the reader. lol

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/22/13 7:24 PM, RS wrote:
>
> If someone has no idea about their target to begin with, yeah, they'll
> end up wherever the tide carries them.

Well said.

[thomas]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:14:49 AM UTC-4, RS wrote:
>
> I don't particularly care for 12-tone stuff in general. But I do like
>
> the effect it had on classical composition. "Liberation of the
>
> Dissonance" and all. Some of the French and Scandinavian writers
>
> emerged from the other side of their serial sojourns with incredibly
>
> sophisticated melodic and orchestration chops.

It also had a salutary effect on the TV and film scores of the 60s and 70s. Those guys all knew how to go out when they needed to, and the producers back then let them do it, unlike most scores today.

[Gerry]

For example, one of my favorites of the time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3zHGN4yWtA

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 7/23/2013 4:58 AM, RS wrote:
> When I think jazz, especially 12-tone jazz, I'm thinkin' Vangelis!
> (Seriously, no idea how he would come up in such a thread)
>
> For anyone interested in jazz-oriented 12-tone music (I am, but with
> limits), Gunther Schuller wrote a piece called Symphony for Brass,
> which was featured on one of the great Third Stream albums called
> "Music for Brass." Vinyl was Columbia 941, I believe. Re-released in
> two forms on CD (2nd added some George Russell pieces) but that may be
> hard to find as well.
>
> Anyway, one side of the vinyl has Gunther conducting the Minneapolis
> orch w Miles soloing. Really nice pieces by Jimmy Giuffre, JJ Johnson
> and John Lewis. Worth it just for those (or maybe -mainly- just for
> those).
>
> The second side was Gunther's Symphony for Brass. I found a score and
> studied that when I was learning the finer points of brass
> orchestration. Not for everyone, but those interested in 12-tone will
> probably dig it. Last chord of the symphony is all 12 tones, stacked
> up like Slonimsky's nightmare. This was what...1963?
>
>

Thanks for the tip!

Steve

[Bill Williams]

> For anyone interested in jazz-oriented 12-tone music (I am, but with
>
> limits), Gunther Schuller wrote a piece called Symphony for Brass,
>
> which was featured on one of the great Third Stream albums called
>
> "Music for Brass."

The July issue of Deadbeat has an interesting interview with Schuller about his Third Stream endeavors.
(Also carries a feature on archtop luthiers and another on Rosenwinkel)

[GuyB]

The beauty of Anton Webern's String Quartets says everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQmXU-XMCIs

[Dom Minasi]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 2:10:59 PM UTC-4, Joey Goldstein wrote:
> Anybody else out there happen to be working on this book?
>
>
>
> I became aware of it when Vic Juris recommended it on Facebook.
>
>
>
> I've been looking for a way to study 12-tone techniques to be applied to jazz improv for some time now and this appears to fit the bill quite nicely.
>
>
>
> It's a really big book that will take me the rest of my life to begin to absorb but if I can only take away a few concepts it will be worth it.
>
>
>
> It's a little bit intimidating for me because I have very little experience in 12-tone techniques or terminology.
>
> But after wading through the first few chapters which sadly, are peppered with a few unfortunate non-standard uses of certain terms and often presents the information in an order that works against understanding it, I'm beginning to make some headway.
>
>
>
> One assumption I made incorrectly was this was going to be about a method for using 12-tone rows within free improv as well as on standard changes, and it is about that eventually.
>
> But the main focus of the book seems to be about utilizing tone rows that are based on tricords (3-note chords - the 4 standard triads as well as any non-tertian 3-note chords) and pairs of tricords.
>
> So, much of the book deals with 3-note and/or 6-note rows rather than 12-tone rows.
>
> The sections about using an entire 12-tone row are saved for later, presumably because gaining familiarity with the smaller rows develops the skills needed to deal with the 12-tone rows.
>
>
>
> So, since my lessons with Charlie Banacos actually ended around the time he was teaching me about "non-tertian bi-tonal pendulums", which is another way of saying "tricord pairs", I find that I already have some familiarity with tricords, tricord pairs, their rotations/inversions, potential patterns, voicings and fingerings on the guitar - which is quite helpful in exploring O'Gallagher's ideas.
>
>
>
> It's a tough book but I highly recommend it if you're interested in learning how to play extremely chromatically but to still have some underlying order in your lines.

I studied 12 tone composition in college. It is very mathematical and precise. To use it in jazz is a complicated thing. First of all you have to think a lot and that is the #1 hindrance when trying to be creative from a spiritual and soulful place. There are other ways to achieve atonality in ones playing..but that's another story..

[TD]

That is so very true. I studied a good deal of Schoenberg. I studied a good deal one on one with Dennis Sandole down in south Philly. I learned a lot, yes, but I soon realized that that sort of knowledge is best assimilated into the ears and chops and then let go. Once we begin to immerse and overload ourselves with math and geometry, which is formidable in itself ( and we can easily get hung up on time-wise), we get too far away from the street.

Having stated that, I recommend all sorts of study to the max. But beware the ides of 'no soul/contrivedness.' It is forever lurking.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 7/24/13 5:37 AM, Dom Minasi wrote:
> To use it in jazz is a complicated thing.

And that's why he wrote this book.

> First of all you have to think a lot and that is the #1 hindrance when trying to be creative from a spiritual and soulful place.

Once you get the basic trichords under your fingers and in your ears it
should be just some more stuff in your palette.
BTW This book appears to be based only on the tone rows that can be
created by basic manipulations (inversion, retrograde, retrograde
inversion) of the 12 trichords, so there is a finite list tone rows that
are involved.
The problem is not thinking so much as it learning to hear the sounds.
Tone rows tend to work against the ear's tendency to hear things in
relation to the hierarchies within the harmonic overtone series.
But the more you expose your ear to these sounds the more easily
recognizable and familiar they become and you can play them the same way
you play anything else that you can "hear".

>There are other ways to achieve atonality in ones playing..but that's
another story..

The book is not about serial composition or playing.
But it does exploit tone rows, usually 3, 6 or 12 tones, from what I've
read so far.
For improvising purposes repeated notes, change of note direction within
the tone rows, serialization of trichords within the tone row, etc. are
all utilized.

[Dom Minasi]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 2:10:59 PM UTC-4, Joey Goldstein wrote:
> Anybody else out there happen to be working on this book?
>
>
>
> I became aware of it when Vic Juris recommended it on Facebook.
>
>
>
> I've been looking for a way to study 12-tone techniques to be applied to jazz improv for some time now and this appears to fit the bill quite nicely.
>
>
>
> It's a really big book that will take me the rest of my life to begin to absorb but if I can only take away a few concepts it will be worth it.
>
>
>
> It's a little bit intimidating for me because I have very little experience in 12-tone techniques or terminology.
>
> But after wading through the first few chapters which sadly, are peppered with a few unfortunate non-standard uses of certain terms and often presents the information in an order that works against understanding it, I'm beginning to make some headway.
>
>
>
> One assumption I made incorrectly was this was going to be about a method for using 12-tone rows within free improv as well as on standard changes, and it is about that eventually.
>
> But the main focus of the book seems to be about utilizing tone rows that are based on tricords (3-note chords - the 4 standard triads as well as any non-tertian 3-note chords) and pairs of tricords.
>
> So, much of the book deals with 3-note and/or 6-note rows rather than 12-tone rows.
>
> The sections about using an entire 12-tone row are saved for later, presumably because gaining familiarity with the smaller rows develops the skills needed to deal with the 12-tone rows.
>
>
>
> So, since my lessons with Charlie Banacos actually ended around the time he was teaching me about "non-tertian bi-tonal pendulums", which is another way of saying "tricord pairs", I find that I already have some familiarity with tricords, tricord pairs, their rotations/inversions, potential patterns, voicings and fingerings on the guitar - which is quite helpful in exploring O'Gallagher's ideas.
>
>
>
> It's a tough book but I highly recommend it if you're interested in learning how to play extremely chromatically but to still have some underlying order in your lines.

I'm the first one to say: get as much knowledge as possible and I agree with Tony then let it go.

[Joey Goldstein]

It's clear to me now that this book is really about various ways to use
trichords to generate chromatic material for jazz improvisation and/or
composition.
A more accurate title might have even been "Trichord Improvisation" IMO.
Not that I'm complaining mind you.

Any full-fledged 12-tone rows that he examines are limited to the ones
that can be constructed from a single trichord.
This leaves out a lot of potential 12-tone rows but simplifies the
techniques involved in a way that makes improvisation much more
achievable than it probably would have been if the subject was involved
with 12-tone rows all the time or with every possible 12-tone row.
Since there are only 12 possible trichords in his system it greatly
reduces the number of structures (inversions, voicings, rows, etc.) to
be studied.
He even has a passage where he enumerates the number of things to work
on in his version of "12-tone" improv vs the things one needs to work on
(scales, modes, etc.) in functional harmony settings and they are on par
with each other.

As I said earlier I'm already somewhat familiar with many of the
trichords myself (e.g. fingerings for arps and voicings and sequences of
trichords and trichord pairs) as they were part of the work I did with
Charlie Banacos (although he called them "non-tertian triads" and the
concept of trichord is a bit different).
So the whole endeavour here is not as all-encompassing as it could be.
Still, this is pretty involved and will take a lot of work to get even a
little mileage out of it.
But all these intervallic relationships that I wasn't aware of before
have been a real eye opener for me.

Highly recommended to anyone who's looking to expand their palette.

Of course making it all sound musical will be the real challenge.

[Mike Neer]

Here's a great podcast I just heard today: http://www.greenleafmusic.com/a-noise-from-the-deep-podcast-episode-10-john-ogallagher/