Question for Joey
Jon Slaughter
in a stylistically correct way? Could you also give me your analysis of the
progression and your logic.
The progression is, if you don't know,
Am E+5/G# C/G D/F# Fmaj7 G/B Am x2
C D Fmaj7 Am C G D x2
Don't know why they call it E+5/G# when the C can easily be heard as a
pedal(as can the E). I hear it much more like E7/G# or E6 in minor. The 6th
just adding color but not effecting the function.
Joey Goldstein
a:
T SD T
Im VIm7b5 bVI Im
Am / Am9(maj7)/G# / |Am7/G / F#m7b5 / |Fmaj7 / / / |Am / / / / |X2
T SD SD T T D SD
bIII IV bVI Im bIII bVII IV
C / D / |Fmaj7 / Am / |C / G / |D / / / |X2
As far as soloing is concerned I'd be mostly focused on the chord tones
of the chord-of-the-moment. I'd derive any extensions or passing tones,
etc., mostly from the A nat min/C maj scale pitch collection.
Am
A C E CTs
B D F G NCTs
9 11 b7 Extensions
Am(maj7)
A C E G# CTs
B D F (G) NCTs
9 11 ("#13") a cool sound on this chord
Am7
A C E G
B D F
9 11
F#m7b5
F# A C E
G B D
11 b13
Fmaj7
F A C E
G B D
9 #11 13
C
C E G
D F A B
9 13 7
D
D F# A
E G B C
9 13 b7
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Daniel Schorr
> Jon Slaughter wrote:
> > How would you solo over the stairway to heaven progression(the full
> > intro) in a stylistically correct way? Could you also give me your
> > analysis of the progression and your logic.
>
> > The progression is, if you don't know,
>
> > Am E+5/G# C/G D/F# Fmaj7 G/B Am x2
> > C D Fmaj7 Am C G D x2
>
> > Don't know why they call it E+5/G# when the C can easily be heard as a
> > pedal(as can the E). I hear it much more like E7/G# or E6 in minor. The
> > 6th just adding color but not effecting the function.
>
> a:
> T SD T
> Im VIm7b5 bVI Im
> Am / Am9(maj7)/G# / |Am7/G / F#m7b5 / |Fmaj7 / / / |Am / / / / |X2
Joey, where are you getting F#m7b5 from?
It's a 1st inversion D chord.
Joey Goldstein
As I recall there's no D in that chord.
On guitar, as I recall, it's F# C E A which is F#m7b5.
Aka Am6/F#.
I could be wrong, but that's the way I remember it.
If there is a D in the voicing I'd lean towards calling it D9/F# and I
might lean more towards labelling its function as SD rather than T.
Daniel Schorr
>
> As I recall there's no D in that chord.
> On guitar, as I recall, it's F# C E A which is F#m7b5.
> Aka Am6/F#.
> I could be wrong, but that's the way I remember it.
> If there is a D in the voicing I'd lean towards calling it D9/F# and I
> might lean more towards labelling its function as SD rather than T.
Second Half of m.2 is
F# - D - A - F#
F# F#
No 9 (D), no b5 (F#m)
so it is SD.
To me it's just i- IV -bVI with the defining feature of a
chromatically descending bassline.
See also the intro to "Michelle", to name one example off thetop of my
head.
D.
Joey Goldstein
>> As I recall there's no D in that chord.
>> On guitar, as I recall, it's F# C E A which is F#m7b5.
>> Aka Am6/F#.
>> I could be wrong, but that's the way I remember it.
>> If there is a D in the voicing I'd lean towards calling it D9/F# and I
>> might lean more towards labelling its function as SD rather than T.
>
>
> Second Half of m.2 is
> F# - D - A - F#
> F# F#
Ah. Right. Thanks.
> No 9 (D), no b5 (F#m)
> so it is SD.
>
> To me it's just i- IV -bVI with the defining feature of a
> chromatically descending bassline.
> See also the intro to "Michelle", to name one example off thetop of my
> head.
>
> D.
>
>
>
>
LJS
Is there really an analysis in this reply?
Play the chord tones for improvisation?
Choose other tones "mostly" on the white notes?
I can see why there is no logic to this included in the post!
LJS
Steve Latham
Yeah, it's just a D/F# - we actually had this same discussion years
ago Joey. :-)
Steve
Joey Goldstein
Groundhog Day.
LJS
So did you see your shadow?
David Raleigh Arnold
> How would you solo over the stairway to heaven progression(the full
> intro) in a stylistically correct way? Could you also give me your
> analysis of the progression and your logic.
>
> The progression is, if you don't know,
>
> Am
E+5/G#
is a nutty and grotesque name to associate with a simple bass line moving
chromatically to the relative major.
Am/g# or Am(9)/g# or Am(maj7)add9/g# would be much better. There is not
the faintest whiff of a suggestion in that score to justify
the e as the root. That spelling makes no sense whatever,
and the c in the chord is not actually *or functionally*
a b#, as the +5 would suggest. Regards, daveA
--
For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early
intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists.
http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ::: plus new and
better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com
Joey Goldstein
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:08:39 -0600, Jon Slaughter wrote:
>
>> How would you solo over the stairway to heaven progression(the full
>> intro) in a stylistically correct way? Could you also give me your
>> analysis of the progression and your logic.
>>
>> The progression is, if you don't know,
>>
>> Am
>
>
> E+5/G#
>
> is a nutty and grotesque name to associate with a simple bass line moving
> chromatically to the relative major.
Agreed.
> Am/g# or Am(9)/g# or Am(maj7)add9/g# would be much better.
Generally I agree about this also.
> There is not
> the faintest whiff of a suggestion in that score to justify
> the e as the root.
But that's not actually true.
The acoustical root of the chordal structure in question (bottom to top
G# C E B) is actually E. There is an entire Emaj triad in there and
there is no A at all.
> That spelling makes no sense whatever,
The alternate chord symbol(s) for that sound with E as the root would be
Emaj(addb13)/G# or E+(add12)/G#. But most folks wouldn't know what to do
with such chord symbols.
Still, in the context of this progression Am(maj9)/G# makes the most
sense and is the one usually used by most people.
But getting back to Jon's question about note choice when improvising
over this chord, it can be a cool sound to treat it as if it's E7b9 (V7
in A minor).
> and the c in the chord is not actually *or functionally*
> a b#, as the +5 would suggest. Regards, daveA
>
--
LJS
Who are these "most people" anyway?
> But getting back to Jon's question about note choice when improvising
> over this chord, it can be a cool sound to treat it as if it's E7b9 (V7
> in A minor).
>
> > and the c in the chord is not actually *or functionally*
> > a b#, as the +5 would suggest. Regards, daveA
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT primus DOT ca
As he sinks deeper and deeper into total theoretical nonsense about a
simple walk down!
LJS
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:08:39 -0600, Jon Slaughter wrote:
> > How would you solo over the stairway to heaven progression(the full
> > intro) in a stylistically correct way? Could you also give me your
> > analysis of the progression and your logic.
>
> > The progression is, if you don't know,
>
> > Am
>
> E+5/G#
>
> is a nutty and grotesque name to associate with a simple bass line moving
> chromatically to the relative major.
>
> Am/g# or Am(9)/g# or Am(maj7)add9/g# would be much better. There is not
> the faintest whiff of a suggestion in that score to justify
> the e as the root. That spelling makes no sense whatever,
> and the c in the chord is not actually *or functionally*
> a b#, as the +5 would suggest. Regards, daveA
I am glad to see that I am not the only one that sees this for the
nonsense that it is. Any of your solutions make much more sense not
only from a theory sense but as a better answer to what was actually
asked in the post, and I think that your analysis has too many
options. lol your first example says it all, especially when it comes
to giving an analysis that might actually help someone to play a solo
over this part of the passage.
With something like this, there are limited options as to how to
approach a solo.
1. If it is a cover band, you cover the solo as well.
2. If the tune is being approached as a simple jazz tune and
improvised to form, one has the option of using either the literal
notes to suggest that you are keeping this line as an essential part
of the character of the original tune and it is being retained as part
of the framework for improvisation and thusly the rhythm section is
most likely continuing to cover the accompaniment and you would be
using the functional harmony of the chords with the addition of the
moving bass line in a horizontal fashion.
3. The group could approach the solos in a more jazz fashion and
improvise on the functional relationships of the chords and not repeat
the walk down as an integral part of the tune. If is NOT considered
requirement to keep the walk down for improvisation, then it would be
foolish to even consider these tones as part of the framework for
improvisation.
4. Well, I guess it could be maybe even "analytical improvisation".
This type of improvisation would include, but not be limited to, just
thinking of all kinds of "cool" ways to spell vertical structures that
will almost make sense if even some of the choices would have anything
at all to do with what is going on in a simple rock ballad with a nice
modal flavoring added.
Of course, the question was possibly more rhetorical in nature (or
maybe just too quickly composed) as if one really wants to know how
to play over these chords, the first thing to do would be to
transcribe the original and then analyze the the solo and see what
parameters were used in the original and that would be a base line for
improvising. You could then use the same parameters and the solo
should sound as if it were the original but maybe just a different
take. Or, you could then change the parameters to fit the purpose of
the group or function of the song for different performances.
BUT, I think that Jon asked Joey how "he" would play it and for that
makes Joey's statements and approach correct. I think that he
explained quite clearly how he would play it. He would do an analysis
of the song by spelling all the vertical structures as if they were
all chords. He would Approach each vertical structure as an
independent chord standing alone. He would have a broad idea of the
Tonic, SubDominant and Dominant areas of the tune (kind of hard to
ignore in something like this except for maybe a suggestion of a modal
cadence here and there) and then I would guess that he would play
"Mostly" white notes. (that is my paraphrase of the tone set families
he described as the major and relative pure minor.) and I suppose
that, especially if he would be playing alone, then add the walk down
as a base line, but then again, he might even surprise me and be
consistent and play each and every one of those walk down structures
exactly as he described them in his reply to your comments!.
And this is a rather common way to play something like this so in the
context of this thread, Joey is correct. HE would play it the way he
described it. If he sees the tune this way and explains it this way,
what other way could he play it? In the context of giving a real
analysis of this song, well, you are absolutely correct. It is all
total nonsense and totally not a product of understanding what is
going on in that tune nor is it any sign of understanding what an
analysis is either. The descriptive nature if his analysis does not
qualify as analysis. It is explanation. Explaining the aspects the
Knowledge of what is played is just getting into the second stage of
understanding. Analysis is a few steps up from this.
LJS
>
> --
> For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early
> intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists.http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html::: plus new and
David Raleigh Arnold
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:08:39 -0600, Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>
>>> How would you solo over the stairway to heaven progression(the full
>>> intro) in a stylistically correct way? Could you also give me your
>>> analysis of the progression and your logic.
>>>
>>> The progression is, if you don't know,
>>>
>>> Am
>>
>>
>> E+5/G#
>>
>> is a nutty and grotesque name to associate with a simple bass line
>> moving chromatically to the relative major.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Am/g# or Am(9)/g# or Am(maj7)add9/g# would be much better.
>
> Generally I agree about this also.
>
>> There is not
>> the faintest whiff of a suggestion in that score to justify the e as
>> the root.
>
> But that's not actually true.
> The acoustical root of the chordal structure in question (bottom to top
> G# C E B) is actually E. There is an entire Emaj triad in there and
> there is no A at all.
You're right, but not E, C. Cmaj7(#5)/g#. Better to have two roots
in 3 chords rather than three for a "simple walkdown", and there is no
reason to tolerate speculation about a missing root. Regards, daveA
David Raleigh Arnold
I really didn't worry that much about soloing over it, but for that:
Am Am Am D
would be fine, or
Am Am/g# Am/g D/f#
for the bass player, to put a finer point on it. ;-) Regards, daveA
David Raleigh Arnold
It is all total nonsense and
totally not a product of understanding what is going on in that tune nor
is it any sign of understanding what an analysis is either. The
descriptive nature if his analysis does not qualify as analysis.
===
I could not agree more. At the very least, it should be qualified
as *harmonic* analysis. I have also tried to point out, in another
group IIRC, that a harmonic analysis often gives no indication of what is
really going on in a piece of music, but this falls
on deaf ears. I feel your pain :-)
For a jazz solo however, a harmonic analysis
should suffice, since you don't care a rat's ass what the
composer's intentions, methods, or cultural environment may have been.
LJS
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:41:27 -0800, LJS wrote:
>
> It is all total nonsense and
> totally not a product of understanding what is going on in that tune nor
> is it any sign of understanding what an analysis is either. The
> descriptive nature if his analysis does not qualify as analysis.
>
> ===
>
> I could not agree more. At the very least, it should be qualified
> as *harmonic* analysis. I have also tried to point out, in another
> group IIRC, that a harmonic analysis often gives no indication of what is
> really going on in a piece of music, but this falls
> on deaf ears. I feel your pain :-)
>
> For a jazz solo however, a harmonic analysis
> should suffice, since you don't care a rat's ass what the
> composer's intentions, methods, or cultural environment may have been.
>
> --
> For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early
> better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com
Unfortunately, Joey is not the only one that thinks an analysis is the
same as a description. There was an otherwise good Jazz magazine that
I first discovered around 1990ish, I think it was called Jazzit or
something like that. It has good interviews (well, at least the best
around!) and usually there was a theme, usually a composer, and a few
transcriptions an decent articles about the music and of course there
were regular features and recording reviews. BUT they also often had
an analysis. Or at least they billed it as an analysis. I remember
that I was given the one about Bill Evans as a gift and I did enjoy
doing some analysis of the tune. When I discovered that they had one
in there, and I read it, it went something like this:
"The first measure starts on an Amin7 chord and moves to a D7 on the
third beat while the 8th note melody ascends on the chord tones and
then descends on a G major scale....."
After that, it got down right descriptive! There may have been some
vague references to a key or a statement that almost said something,
but the sample sentence I started there is not really dummied down. It
was at least that bad. I understand that part of the nature of Jazz
music is that it is very conducive to learning solely by the use of
your ears. The best way to learn to play Jazz is probably still to
learn it by simply listening to what you like and then listening to
what you play as you try to figure out how to play this music. This
was not really Bill Evans' way, and is certainly is not the only way
to learn jazz, but it is a whole lot easier to learn Jazz this way
than Classical music. I under stand that Joey went to Berkley and this
school in particular, doesn't seem to understand how CPP theory and
Jazz are related and they seem to ignore all the other aspects of the
Classical world in order to specialize on the theory that they and
their students create, use and teach in their courses.
This is fine if you stick to Jazz theory and it is especially fine if
you don't know anything about functional harmonic analysis, form, and
countless other aspects of music that does not appear very much in the
Jazz world. I understand that we all do the best we can with the cards
that we are dealt and I am friends with many musicians that are
excellent players and improvisers that stopped their theory with the
251 and I have the utmost respect for them and their own particular
talents.
My friends, however, don't profess to be masters of ALL of music,
Jazz, and Classical. They don't take questions on Classical theory or
concerning analyses, they don't make up "facts" to justify inane
statements that they would not have uttered anyway. And they don't
profess to be college professors although some of these friends of
mine have also been associate professors at the local schools with me
and some have continued to work there for many years. They are there
to teach the things that one does not learn in the classroom. It is
great for them, the best of two worlds.
But IF these friends would start to pretend to be things that they are
not, and if they would consistently shoot off their mouth about things
that they know nothing about, and claim to be giving good information
about things that they really have no understanding, then they are not
my friends. Students are delicate. They are in a world where they have
to "open up and bare their souls? to the world and they are eager to
lean what they need to express their ideas.
This is why I have to go off on an occasional poster from time to
time. If one replies about spelling chords (many of which should not
be spelled as chords in the first place!) that is fine. If the student
is trying to learn the language, that is fine. I would help him out
myself. I would show the student that the chord's relationship to the
composition is much more important that the spelling and that is
more to life than spelling chords, but that is usually about it. But
when the question is about understanding the music and the answer is
centered around this very small and closed box that is occupied by the
"teacher", then I feel obligated to make an attempt to show the
student that there is more to music than what is being stated or that
this statements are just plain not correct.
If one wants to sound like a particular teacher, that is fine and the
student has the right to want to learn how to sound like that. I call
these teachers "Preachers". "Teachers", on the other hand, will teach
the student how to study music so that they can find their own talents
and create in a manner that sounds like the student can sound and this
will very likely be different than the Teacher will sound IF he
improvises or composes.
At any rate, thanks for the venting opportunity.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:50:52 -0500, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:08:39 -0600, Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>>
>>>> How would you solo over the stairway to heaven progression(the full
>>>> intro) in a stylistically correct way? Could you also give me your
>>>> analysis of the progression and your logic.
>>>>
>>>> The progression is, if you don't know,
>>>>
>>>> Am
>>>
>>> E+5/G#
>>>
>>> is a nutty and grotesque name to associate with a simple bass line
>>> moving chromatically to the relative major.
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> Am/g# or Am(9)/g# or Am(maj7)add9/g# would be much better.
>> Generally I agree about this also.
>>
>>> There is not
>>> the faintest whiff of a suggestion in that score to justify the e as
>>> the root.
>> But that's not actually true.
>> The acoustical root of the chordal structure in question (bottom to top
>> G# C E B) is actually E. There is an entire Emaj triad in there and
>> there is no A at all.
>
> You're right, but not E, C. Cmaj7(#5)/g#.
It's true that this chord can also be seen as Cmaj7#5/G# and it can also
be improvised upon using scales that are normally associated with that
chord, like C lydian aug, C ion aug, C harm maj and/or the C aug scale
(m3-M3).
That doesn't make wrong what I said about its acoustical root being E or
the utility of improvising over it with scales normally associated with
E7b9. The acoustical root of most inversions of Cmaj7#5 is really E anyway.
What this chord *actually* is, namely Am(maj9)/G# or an Am triad with 2
simultaneous passing tones moving towards Am7/G, doesn't take away from
any of this either.
> Better to have two roots
Well, the acoustical roots of chords are often not the written root or
the structural root of the chord.
So, at the risk of sounding a bit like Bill Clinton, that all depends on
what you man by "root".
> in 3 chords
What's the 3rd chord you're referring to? The one on beats 1 and 2 of
the second bar?
I prefer the one root approach myself.
> rather than three for a "simple walkdown", and there is no
> reason to tolerate speculation about a missing root. Regards, daveA
"Tolerate"?
And what do you mean by a missing root, the fact that the second chord
is functionally Am(maj9) but has no A in it? That's not speculation.
it's a fact.
Joey Goldstein
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:41:27 -0800, LJS wrote:
>
> I really didn't worry that much about soloing over it, but for that:
>
> Am Am Am D
>
> would be fine, or
>
> Am Am/g# Am/g D/f#
>
> for the bass player, to put a finer point on it. ;-) Regards, daveA
>
The above chord symbols tell us nothing about soloing on the progression.
Joey Goldstein
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:41:27 -0800, LJS wrote:
>
> It is all total nonsense and
> totally not a product of understanding what is going on in that tune nor
> is it any sign of understanding what an analysis is either. The
> descriptive nature if his analysis does not qualify as analysis.
>
> ===
>
> I could not agree more.
Agreeing with LJS puts you in a very special group of people.
As far as his comment about me not understanding what is going on in the
tune, well, no comment.
As far as my analysis not qualifying as an analysis well, his comments
don't even qualify as being worthy of comment.
> At the very least, it should be qualified
> as *harmonic* analysis.
Of course it was an harmonic analysis.
What else should it have been?
> I have also tried to point out, in another
> group IIRC, that a harmonic analysis often gives no indication of what is
> really going on in a piece of music,
An harmonic analysis should give a pretty good idea of what is going on
harmonically, or it's not much of an harmonic analysis.
Certainly an harmonic analysis can't tell you everything that is of
importance or worth noting about a piece, but then it's not supposed to.
> but this falls
> on deaf ears. I feel your pain :-)
>
> For a jazz solo however, a harmonic analysis
> should suffice,
Occasionally an harmonic analysis of a key-based progression will tell a
jazz player what scales are operative, but more often than not this is
not the case.
All a Tonal analysis can do is tell you what key the music is in at any
given time and how the chords happen to function in that key. And that's
all it's supposed to do.
> since you don't care a rat's ass what the
> composer's intentions, methods, or cultural environment may have been.
>
--
David Raleigh Arnold
I mean *analyzing* a chord which has no A in it as an A chord.
It's like "graduated college". Back in my day, that was supposed
to be incorrect because it required a preposition: "graduated
*from* college". It reality, it's an ablative of source, but
English is not supposed to have an ablative case, but it in
fact does. Locative too: "I've got it home." They don't teach
attributive case either. Examples:
"wooden stove", "oaken bucket". The "en" ending is for what something is
made of. Grammar is supposed to be analysis. It is incorrect grammar
to speculate about missing prepositions, just as it is incorrect
musical analysis to speculate about missing roots. If it ain't
there, you can't explicate it.
Calling it a C chord is simpler than calling it an E and much
better from both points of view.
Writing sheet music I would have no problem calling it an A
if it functioned as an A. In a jazz arrangement I absolutely
would. Regards, daveA
David Raleigh Arnold
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:41:27 -0800, LJS wrote:
>>
>> I really didn't worry that much about soloing over it, but for that:
>>
>> Am Am Am D
>>
>> would be fine, or
>>
>> Am Am/g# Am/g D/f#
>>
>> for the bass player, to put a finer point on it. ;-) Regards, daveA
>>
>>
> The above chord symbols tell us nothing about soloing on the
> progression.
On the contrary, you don't need the b passing tone from the
melody or the g# bass "walkdown" at all to improvise to
the Am chord. All you need is Am and then D.
There is no "progression" in the first three chords, only a
chromatic bass line. Regards, daveA
David Raleigh Arnold
It was music to my ears. :-) Regards, daveA
Jon Slaughter
This is not necessarily true. You can take a single note and filter out the
fundamental yet it the note does nto change. i.e., a harmonic. A harmonic
removes the fundamental yet we don't change the note value. It's not
speculation when it is possible to arrive at a logical conclusion. ? + 3 =
9 It is not speculation to say that ? = 6. It is speculation to say a + b =
9 and then it follows that a = 4 and b = 5.
Similarly the ear is able to fill in missing fundamentals and this is
provable emperically and theoretically. Now the "acoustical root" for a
chord may be more speculative than a note but it is not all speculation.
The real question that should be ask if Joey actually hears the acoustical
root or simply says it must be so because he learned it out of a book.
Joey Goldstein
> it is incorrect
> musical analysis to speculate about missing roots.
>
> If it ain't
> there, you can't explicate it.
Nonsense. Roots are omitted from the voicings of chords all the time and
just because the root is not sounding does not necessarily mean that the
chord is really some other chord. Rootless dom7 chord are particularly
common.
> Calling it a C chord is simpler than calling it an E and much
> better from both points of view.
>
> Writing sheet music I would have no problem calling it an A
> if it functioned as an A. In a jazz arrangement I absolutely
> would. Regards, daveA
>
The 2nd chord of this arrangement *is* functioning as Am(maj9) yet there
is no root present in the voicing. Naming it anything else is mere
pedantry at best, folly at worst.
Joey Goldstein
>
> The real question that should be ask if Joey actually hears the
> acoustical root or simply says it must be so because he learned it out
> of a book.
The acoustical root of the chord G# C E B is quite ambiguous, with
several tones competing for supremacy.
How its functional root will be felt will depend on the specifics of the
context in which it occurs.
But if we examine the possible candidates we can look at the partial
numbers involved. The candidate with the lowest partial numbers and
fewest altered partials will be the acoustical root that the ear will
most naturally be drawn to outside of any musical context.
If the root was C the partial numbers would be:
3* 4 5 7* ("*" denotes a distorted partial)
If the root was E the partial numbers would be:
5 6* 8 12
If the root was G# the partial numbers would be:
4 5 6* 9*
If the root was A the partial numbers would be:
7* 8* 12 18
Now, while the partial numbers for G# and C are lower than those for E,
the OTS of G# and/or C requires 2 altered partials.
So E, while not the clear winner, is the winner nonetheless.
The only reason that this chord is experienced as, and is typically
analyzed as, Am(maj9) is the context in which it happens to occur within
this progression.
Joey Goldstein
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:49:32 -0500, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:41:27 -0800, LJS wrote:
>>>
>>> I really didn't worry that much about soloing over it, but for that:
>>>
>>> Am Am Am D
>>>
>>> would be fine, or
>>>
>>> Am Am/g# Am/g D/f#
>>>
>>> for the bass player, to put a finer point on it. ;-) Regards, daveA
>>>
>>>
>> The above chord symbols tell us nothing about soloing on the
>> progression.
>
> On the contrary, you don't need the b passing tone from the
> melody or the g# bass "walkdown" at all to improvise to
> the Am chord. All you need is Am and then D.
>
> There is no "progression" in the first three chords, only a
> chromatic bass line. Regards, daveA
If the OP's intent was to have someone improvise a melody over the same
or similar chordal sequence that was used in the original recording (and
I think that was his intent), and you don't want to write out the actual
voicings, then a chord chart like the one I'm advocating will be needed.
Eg.
Am / Am(maj9)/G# / |Am7/G / D/F# / |etc.
Whether or not this chord chart constitutes a proper harmonic analysis
is irrelevant.
Now, a jazz arrangement of this tune could choose to ignore this and
approach it your way.
They could also re-harmonize the tune all sorts of other ways.
But the OP's question was about this particular sequence of chords. He
even supplied the chord symbols, even though his chord symbol for the
2nd chord in the sequence was wrong.
Joey Goldstein
> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>> How would you solo over the stairway to heaven progression(the full
>> intro) in a stylistically correct way? Could you also give me your
>> analysis of the progression and your logic.
>>
>> The progression is, if you don't know,
>>
>> C D Fmaj7 Am C G D x2
>>
>> Don't know why they call it E+5/G# when the C can easily be heard as a
>> pedal(as can the E). I hear it much more like E7/G# or E6 in minor.
>> The 6th just adding color but not effecting the function.
>
> a:
> T SD T
> Im VIm7b5 bVI Im
> Am / Am9(maj7)/G# / |Am7/G / F#m7b5 / |Fmaj7 / / / |Am / / / / |X2
>
> bIII IV bVI Im bIII bVII IV
> C / D / |Fmaj7 / Am / |C / G / |D / / / |X2
So Jon, what was your reason for asking about this in the 1st place?
I thought that you were going to come out say that Cmaj Dmaj sequence
had to be in the key of G, based on some of our other recent
discussions. I guess that's not why.
So, do you accept my analysis as being more or less correct?
LJS
This statement would have some validity IF this was the context of the
examples under discussion! But it is not and thus this statement is
still one more example of how you don't really grasp the situation.
True that an Incomplete dominant does not have the root present. It is
often a diminished chord. Notice that I am using the word dominant and
not the chord name that you had used! Stop a while and step back and
look at the context. Maybe you can see what is wrong with this
statement of yours.
The progressions that you "named" have not been shown by functional
analysis to indeed be a dominant! Your spellings actually point out
that it IS NOT a dominant function. When you think about what you
said, you are saying that a Dominant chord can be incomplete so this
makes your original statement true. Well, FALSE!! What you are saying
is that a G# diminished chord (or G#dim9) is an incomplete dominant
and in this case it simply is not. Your example of incomplete
dominants is NOT the same as a virtual root and the Incomplete V HAS
to FUNCTION as such in order to call it that. There are many cases
where a G# diminished chord is NOT an incomplete E7 and this certainly
is a perfect example of how it is NOT as you say. It is also a very
good example of how you will shift context to try to show that your
original statement was true when indeed you are really showing that IF
the progression was something other than it is it MIGHT be an
incomplete dominant.
Of course translated into English, you are really saying that If the
tune was different and if the chord functioned in a different manner
then the analysis would be different. Well, that is true, but it isn't
so it is not!
LJS
So you are missing the point again. There was no analysis! And they
the professor is asking the student if he explained it correctly?
Maybe your horse is not facing the same way as your cart.
LJS
LJS
Read the previous post. This is not what you said and the chord still
does not FUNCTION as a Dominant. There is no functional root if there
is not a FUNCTION to begin with.
LJS
Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca
> On Nov 10, 7:36 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > Nonsense. Roots are omitted from the voicings of chords all the time and
> > just because the root is not sounding does not necessarily mean that the
> > chord is really some other chord. Rootless dom7 chord are particularly
> > common.
>
> This statement would have some validity IF this was the context of the
> examples under discussion!
> But it is not and thus this statement is
> still one more example of how you don't really grasp the situation.
Again it appears to be you who has no idea what is being discussed and
who understands nothing that is being said.
> The progressions that you "named" have not been shown by functional
> analysis to indeed be a dominant!
I never said that the 2nd chord of this progression (if that's what
you're talking about) was a "dominant", nor did I say that it had
dominant function.
Go back and read my 1st post in this thread.
What I said later was that the chord in question could be treated by
an improviser *as if* it was a V7b9 chord. There's a difference.
This is something you don't 'get' because you're not an improviser and
you're totally out of your depth here.
Improvisers often have the power alter the harmonic function of the
given chords that they are required to improvise over by virtue of
their note selection.
I also said that the chord voicing in question's acoustical root,
outside of a musical context, was E, because it is.
What do you disagree with?
> Your spellings actually point out
> that it IS NOT a dominant function.
Nice to see that you're not completely blind.
> When you think about what you
> said, you are saying that a Dominant chord can be incomplete
Yes. I said that. And it happens to be true.
I was responding to David's comments.
> so this
> makes your original statement true.
What 'original statement' are you talking about?
The post you are responding to involves me replying to David about
*his comments*.
> Well, FALSE!! What you are saying
> is that a G# diminished chord (or G#dim9) is an incomplete dominant
> and in this case it simply is not.
The acoustical root of a G#dim triad and of a G#m7b5 chord *is* E.
Are you denying this?
Meanwhile, there is no G#dim triad anywhere in the piece being
discussed. Why are you bringing up that particular chord at this
particular point in this particular discussion?
>Your example of incomplete
> dominants is NOT the same as a virtual root and the Incomplete V HAS
> to FUNCTION as such in order to call it that.
I have no idea what you're going on about.
Please provide actual quotes of the actual statements I've made with
which you disagree.
> There are many cases
> where a G# diminished chord is NOT an incomplete E7
Of course.
But there are no examples where the acoustical root of a G#dim triad
is not E.
> and this certainly
> is a perfect example of how it is NOT as you say.
What is not as I say?
What did I say?
> It is also a very
> good example of how you will shift context to try to show that your
> original statement was true when indeed you are really showing that IF
> the progression was something other than it is it MIGHT be an
> incomplete dominant.
It seems to be an example of how you don't 'get' anything, and don't
understand how discussions work.
What's probably happened is that I've used an example that you don't
understand the relevance or the meaning of to make a point in a
discussion about which you don't understand the content of.
> Of course translated into English, you are really saying that If the
> tune was different and if the chord functioned in a different manner
> then the analysis would be different. Well, that is true, but it isn't
> so it is not!
I have no idea what you're going on about.
I gave my analysis of the original progression in my 1st post in this
thread. What do you disagree with in my analysis?
Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca
> So you are missing the point again. There was no analysis!
Bullshit.
I supplied a typical Tonal analysis of the given chord progression. I
corrected Jon's chord symbols based on my experience with the tune. I
made one minor mistake with regards to the 4th chord, which I gladly
admitted to and then corrected my analysis.
I just used upper case Roman numerals, which is the convention in the
jazz community.
I labelled each chord according to its RN function within the key and
I also supplied the function (T SD or D) of each chord.
To most people this is an harmonic analysis.
If you think that this is not an harmonic analysis then *you* need to
show us what you think an harmonic analysis is supposed to look like.
Since we still seem to be going on and on and on and on about the 2nd
chord in the piece, what is your analysis of this chord and how is it
any different than mine?
Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca
> Read the previous post.
Which previous post?
The one you just quoted in its entirety?
OK. I've read it.
> This is not what you said
What is not what i said?
I'm looking at what I said right now.
What sentence are you referring to?
> and the chord still
> does not FUNCTION as a Dominant.
What chord does not function as a dominant?
What chord did i say was functioning as a dominant?
In my analysis the only chord that I said was functioning as a
dominant was the Gmaj triad preceding the Dmaj triad.
My analysis called the Gmaj triad a D function chord in the key of A
minor.
Now, I could understand a contrary opinion to this analysis, but I
still hear it that way and see it that way.
But that's not the chord you're talking about, is it?
So which other chord have I labelled as a "dominant" in my analysis?
i.e. What the f... are you going on and on and on and on about
already, you boob.
> There is no functional root if there
> is not a FUNCTION to begin with.
BTW
The only chords in this progression that are missing their roots are
the Am(maj9) voicing and the Am7/C voicing, the latter of which also
makes sense to label as C/G (and as bIII in the analysis).
If we choose to look at the Am(maj9)/G# voicing (G# C E B) from the
perspective of its acoustical root then its acoustical root is not
absent. It's the 2nd voice from the top.
So, you still seem to be very confused about several aspects of this
discussion, from my perspective.
Try to clarify yourself please and contribute something to the
discussion, or go away.
Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca
> Is there really an analysis in this reply?
Yes there is.
What does *your* analysis look like?
> Play the chord tones for improvisation?
> Choose other tones "mostly" on the white notes?
That's right.
The primary note choices here for most improvisers who are not trying
to stretch the tonal centres very much would be chord tones mixed with
colour tones and approach notes derived mostly from the scale that is
related to the primary key, A minor.
I did not say "white keys". I did say the A nat min scale which is the
same pitch-class collection as the C major scale.
I'd like to extend my idea to also include the musica ficta notes of
the key of A minor which can also be brought into play without making
the music sound all that exotic.
I.e. There might be a role for using and emphasizing G#'s on Am, and D/
F#; and there might be a role for using F#'s on Am(maj9).
> I can see why there is no logic to this included in the post!
What then is your own "logic" for selecting notes in a melodic
improvisation over the given chord progression.
All I've stated are the typical default scale choices that most
musicians trained in some sort of jazz improv would select.
Please enlighten us.
Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca
> On Nov 6, 7:03 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Steve Latham wrote:
> > > Yeah, it's just a D/F# - we actually had this same discussion years
> > > ago Joey. :-)
>
> > > Steve
>
> > Groundhog Day.
> So did you see your shadow?
I take it then that you didn't get the reference to the movie.
Yet another thing you don't 'get'.
Oh well.
Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca
> On Nov 8, 11:50 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > Still, in the context of this progression Am(maj9)/G# makes the most
> > sense and is the one usually used by most people.
>
> Who are these "most people" anyway?
These are the people who use chord symbols such as these in their
music making activities.
This does not include people like you who do not understand the role
of chord symbols in music making.
> > But getting back to Jon's question about note choice when improvising
> > over this chord, it can be a cool sound to treat it as if it's E7b9 (V7
> > in A minor).
> As he sinks deeper and deeper into total theoretical nonsense about a
> simple walk down!
Do you disagree that a jazz player might choose to play over the 2nd
chord of this progression as if it's an E7b9 chord?
Have you ever tried it yourself?
Did you not enjoy the results?
I happen to like that sound, sometimes.
As a point of fact...
If I choose to play and emphasize the note D natural on top of this
chord voicing (or between the C and the E), I effectively create the
sound of E7b13/G#.
G# C E B D = E7b13/G#
G# C D E B = E7b13/G#
End of objective facts....
With that sound in mind, it's no large leap to hear the chord as being
an E7 chord.
That's not a fact exactly, but in my experience, it's a cool sound -
and that is a fact.
LJS
That's an interesting concept. I don't know what it has to do with
anything.
I have constantly said that there are many people that play from chord
symbols. And it is taught as being something that is useful to do. I
would agree that you think this way. I would never. Well, never is a
bit strong. I would not in tonal music nor would I when composing . I
don't know if there is a way to explain this to you as you certainly
are not willing to listen, but I will give it one more try.
Everything you said up there is true in SOME circumstances and in
certain kinds of music and styles this is fine.You talk about sounding
good, about a cool sound. You have a set of OBJECTIVE FACTS, you talk
about many different types of chords and other related things
involving chords. You ask if I disagree that a jazz play may play over
a certain chord a certain way etc etc.
To me, this is all I have to read to see your problem. To you, and a
whole lot (not all) guitar players the concept of improvising takes on
a different meaning. Let me ask a question.
Here you are talking about playing a solo. I would assume that you are
talking about a melodic solo and not a "Freddie Green solo" of chord
voicing sounds. The question is then:
Do you see the word melody used even ONCE in this post? I didn't. I
think I can count on one hand how many times in this entire discussion
you have mentioned the concept of melody. Maybe I am out of touch. Has
Jazz moved away from MELODIC improvisation?
Oh, you may answer. OF course I play melodies. That goes without
saying! But does it? From listening to your on line tunes and from
what you say in this group. We could just as well rename the group
"musical. puzzles". Judging from your statements and the limited
listening to your music, it seem as though you play chords and you
then connect one chord tone to another chord tone and will maybe use a
key to select the inbetween tones or not. but you seem to be
professing (no pun intended) that the melody is incidental to the
chords and is only a matter of connecting the dots.
Now, this is not a totally wrong concept. Many people have used it and
many have made money with it. They are not the people that I will
choose to listen to any more than once or twice. Sometimes not even
that many times. I think of all the people that I, and hundreds of
thousands of jazz listeners constantly listen to and they all have one
thing in common. They use the chords as an accompaniment to the
melody. Not the other way around. Yes, there are some exceptions, but
as a general rule, it is the melody that people remember and it is the
melody that creates the most interest in most music. Jazz expecially.
In jazz, as you certainly know, a progression is repeated over and
over and the MELODY is improvised. Certainly there are chord tones and
non chord tones. Do you play the same extensions repeatedly over and
over no matter where you melody leads you in a song? Do you not take
the tonal centers and improvise melodic ideas over the tonal centers
creating even different "extensions" to the basic harmony? It sounds
like you will play a 'cool' chord every time it comes around the in
the solo exactly the same alterations, even if, and here is another
aspect of your lack of melodic center concept to improvising.
A whole lot of the extensions that you know, and I do believe that you
may know as many or more than most anyone else, were first created by
a melodic alteration to an other wise diatonic chord. A flatted 5th
for example would have MOST LIKELY in most cases be a result of a
chord with an altered tone falling on the 5th. Then someone says, "hey
that sounds cool" and may even write a piece based on that alteration.
Altered chords are historically a result of melodic alteration. So the
chords are really altered IN MOST cases to reflect an alteration or a
note in the melody.
So how does this fit in? Well, if you consider the chord extensions
"sacred" then you are severely limiting your melodic choices in a
tune. If you consider the basic underlying tonal centers as more
important, you are allowing your melodies to have MUCH more freedom.
IF you hear a melody that creates the same extension as in the head,
you can certainly use it. Reading your posts for many years, you seem
to take these chord types as "gosple" (sorry if this is a politically
incorrect reference. I don't know if the Torah is appropriate for the
analogy, sorry if it is an insensitive choice of examples) I do not
and I don't hear everyone doing it that way.
What I hear is a series of tonal centers (if we are talking about
typical 251 jazz in particular) I hear a melody that goes with these
tonal centers. The bass emphasizes the tonic and other strong tones,
the chord players play sparsely and listen to the soloist and
harmonizes the melody that the soloist PLAYS. It is often in the
framework (this is where many young players go wrong, they think that
it HAS to be in the STRICT framework because their chord players are
not adept enough to FOLLOW the soloist so they strictly play within
the limits of their rhythm section or of "band in a box" (they are
often not very much different in concept!) and they never get out of
that rut and they never take the lead and CREATE a melodic solo.
Instead they learn to work it as a puzzle. Then look at the
fingerboard (if they are a guitarist) or the keyboard and visualize
the notes that are available (much as your list of note choices for
each chord in your original "analysis") and then just connect the
dots.
Occasionally a good melody comes out of this. Most of them seem to me
to be just the solution to a puzzle. Melody should come from
someplace inside. It is supposed to MEAN something. All I hear from
so many these days is that it MEANS that the puzzle has been solved
and "hey, by the way, I made some cool chords there and I emphasized
some cool notes in the chord)
No, improvisation to me is an attempt to create art. If you don't
strive for this, do something else. If I want to do puzzles, I will
pick up the NY Times. they have some good ones. Musical puzzles may be
fun, but do you really enjoy them from a musical standpoint? will they
stand up to time? will they likely create an emotion? They might in
some cases. there is that old example of millions of chimps with
typewriters and one of them might happen to run across a permutation
that will make a decent couplet.
I know you will most likely not understand this so I will only try
one more way of explaining it to you.
Think of a melodic improvisation with only a simple bass accompaniment
and make it interesting and meaningful without outlining the chords?
This would be an example of what I am trying to say. You don't need
all those extensions in general and specifically they are NOT
appropriate to improvising a chromatic walk down on an Amin chord.
Those chords are a result of the walk down and have no function
harmonically. As I stated in my post about the various "frame works"
that this could be used as a vertical structure if you limited your
bass player and did not allow him to improvise his own line. In that
case, these chords still don't really mean anyting that simply adding
the bass note to the chord would produce.
Enough for now. Weather or not I continue to respond to this will
depend upon the sincerity of your reply.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
irrelevant, that it makes it extremely tiresome to respond to you.
Other members of the ng have mentioned this politely to you also, yet
you continue to do it over and over and over again. Ever wonder why so
few peole here actually bother replying to you? Well that's why, among
other reasons of course.
2. It's clear that all of your problems stem from not knowing what it
is that you are talking about.
You spent 17 paragraphs of text telling me, a jazz musician, your
fantasy about how it is that jazz music is conceptualized and created
by jazz musicians.
It's obvious that you don't know how we do it. I think you even admit
as much a few time within your diatribe.
I'm a fairly decent jazz musician, based on the acceptance by my peers
and acceptance within the jazz academic community.
It's understandable that you might not personally enjoy my own music,
but that's largely irrelevant here.
But rather than telling me how jazz music is created, you should be
asking me about it.
3. Now, I know this is going to be fruitless (and all I really want to
do right now is to tell you to GFY after that essay of yours, the
intent of which is really only to attempt to paint me as an inferior
musician and a charlatan of an educator) but I'll try to entertain you
for a little while.
On Nov 11, 7:55 pm, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 3:42 pm, Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca
>
> > As a point of fact...
> > If I choose to play and emphasize the note D natural on top of this
> > chord voicing (or between the C and the E), I effectively create the
> > sound of E7b13/G#.
> > G# C E B D = E7b13/G#
> > G# C D E B = E7b13/G#
> > End of objective facts....
>
> > With that sound in mind, it's no large leap to hear the chord as being
> > an E7 chord.
> > That's not a fact exactly, but in my experience, it's a cool sound -
> > and that is a fact.
>
> That's an interesting concept. I don't know what it has to do with
> anything.
I'm sure you don't. But it directly relates to your imaginings below
about how it is that the more advanced improvisers appear to leave the
written chord symbols behind. But i'll try to get to that later.
> I have constantly said that there are many people that play from chord
> symbols.
Most people playing popular music today who are required to come up
with their own parts are working from chord symbol notation.
> And it is taught as being something that is useful to do.
It is something that is useful to do.
You can not dispute this without looking like a fool.
> I
> would agree that you think this way.
I do think that being able to work from chord symbols is useful and I
do think that teaching others how to do so is useful too.
> I would never.
And that's why people who play the types of music where this ability
is essential might not want to play with you, let alone talk to you
about how these chord symbol thingy's are used..
> Well, never is a
> bit strong. I would not in tonal music
You see no use for chord symbols within music that is based on the maj/
min key system? How odd.
> nor would I when composing .
There is little need for the use of chord symbol notation when
composing music.
Chord-symbols are meant to be used by musicians who are improvising
their own parts while creating an arrangement of a pre-composed
musical form. If the parts are already written there is no need for
chord symbol notation. Standard notation can and should be used for
that purpose.
However, most jazz arrangers of, say big band music, will still
dedicate a staff on their score for chord symbols as a guide/metric.
> I
> don't know if there is a way to explain this to you as you certainly
> are not willing to listen, but I will give it one more try.
Hah. I'm listening. I do understand what you're trying to say. You're
wrong about most of it. And you will not understand the answers I give
you because you are completely out of your element.
> Everything you said up there is true in SOME circumstances and in
> certain kinds of music and styles this is fine.
I never intended it to be useful for *all* types of music. Just the
type of music that Jon was asking about.
> You talk about sounding
> good, about a cool sound.
Sorry if you don't dig my hip lingo Daddy'O.
> You have a set of OBJECTIVE FACTS,
Yes, I like to try to deal with objective facts as much as possible.
> you talk
> about many different types of chords and other related things
> involving chords. You ask if I disagree that a jazz play may play over
> a certain chord a certain way etc etc.
All true.
> To me, this is all I have to read to see your problem.
I have a problem?
> To you, and a
> whole lot (not all) guitar players the concept of improvising takes on
> a different meaning.
What does this have to do with guitar players?
> Let me ask a question.
>
> Here you are talking about playing a solo. I would assume that you are
> talking about a melodic solo
Of course.
> and not a "Freddie Green solo" of chord
> voicing sounds.
Freddy Green never played solos except for I think one record that he
put out.
Even still, his solos would have been single line solos, i.e.
melodies.
Nobody plays chord-solos in a Freddy Green style because there is no
such thing.
"Freddy Green style" is a type of rhythm guitar playing usually
confined to old-school big band arrangements.
If you actually knew anything about jazz you'd have to know this.
> The question is then:
>
> Do you see the word melody used even ONCE in this post?
*That's* the "question"?
If you did not get that I was talking about melodic improvisation (for
the most part that is) it can only be because of your lack of
experience talking to jazz musicians about jazz music.
> I didn't. I
> think I can count on one hand how many times in this entire discussion
> you have mentioned the concept of melody. Maybe I am out of touch.
Lol.
> Has
> Jazz moved away from MELODIC improvisation?
No it has not.
The scales and pitch collections that I was listing are to be used by
the improviser to create melodies with on top of the harmonic
background that was given as supplied by Jon and Led Zeppelin.
In a more free environment, where the given harmonic accompaniment is
not an issue, the chord symbols themselves might serve as a stepping
off point for a similar yet different harmonic accompaniment which
might also make use of the harmonic and melodic extensions listed in
the post in question.
> Oh, you may answer. OF course I play melodies. That goes without
> saying! But does it?
Yes, it does.
> From listening to your on line tunes
Are you trying to imply that there are no melodies in my own
compositions or in my improvisations?
That's a pretty untenable position.
> and from
> what you say in this group. We could just as well rename the group
> "musical. puzzles".
Oy.
> Judging from your statements and the limited
> listening to your music, it seem as though you play chords and you
> then connect one chord tone to another chord tone and will maybe use a
> key to select the inbetween tones or not.
I'm sure it 'seems' that way to you. But you don't really know what
I'm doing, do you?
So why not ask me?
> but you seem to be
> professing (no pun intended) that the melody is incidental to the
> chords and is only a matter of connecting the dots.
In jazz playing over a pre-composed form we typically try to adhere to
that form.
The type of jazz where adherence to the form is not a prerequisite is
usually called "free-form" jazz.
One of the most important components of the form that we jazz players
adhere to is the essential chord structure of the tune.
Some types of jazz tunes are based on a very simple harmonic skeleton
and the art then consists of embellishing that skeleton in interesting
ways.
Some types of jazz tunes are composed with fairly elaborate harmonic
skeletons and in cases like this adherence to the pitch collections
denoted by then chord-symbols used is an important factor in keeping
things cohesive between the various musicians while still keeping true
to the composer's vision.
It's fairly widely accepted within the jazz community that one of the
goals of a neophyte improviser should be to develop the ability to
improvise a melodic line that very closely reflects the underlying
harmony of the piece. I.e. The harmony should be implied by their
melodic line even if played with no accompaniment. Most neophyte
improvisers can not coherently re-harmonise a tune on the fly, so they
start with the given chords denoted by the chord symbols on the
supplied lead sheet arrangement of the tune.
It's generally acknowledged that a novice player should avoid taking
any further liberties with the tune until *after* he has developed
this ability.
So, while an advanced jazz player might not see the original chord
symbols as being sacrosanct, a beginner probably should see them as
being sacrosanct.
And an advanced player who is apparently leaving the original chords
behind is actually playing off of other chords with near and distant
relationships to the given chords. It stands to reason that he would
not be able to take those types of liberties until after he has
developed the ability to outline chords in general in the first place.
> Now, this is not a totally wrong concept. Many people have used it and
> many have made money with it.
That's right. Improvising over changes is just a tool for crass
commercialism.
Lol.
> They are not the people that I will
> choose to listen to any more than once or twice.
Bill Evans, your fav, knew how to play over changes.
If you don't think so then you don't know what you're talking about.
> Sometimes not even
> that many times. I think of all the people that I, and hundreds of
> thousands of jazz listeners constantly listen to and they all have one
> thing in common. They use the chords as an accompaniment to the
> melody.
You don't know what you're talking about.
If there is any style of music can be described as "chord-based
music" (and i'm not saying that there is) it's jazz.
What's happening is that *you* probably just don't understand the
chords that people like Bill Evans are playing over.
In jazz, the art is to make a good melody over the given changes as
well as a host of substitutions that we all know and practice.
Do you not understand that in the jazz repertoire there are hundreds
of tunes all written over the same blues changes or the changes for I
Got Rhythm.
Which came first, the chords for Donna Lee or the melody?
Are you familiar with the term "contrafact"?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrafact>
Most jazz can be described as the improvised creation of contrafacts.
> Not the other way around. Yes, there are some exceptions, but
> as a general rule, it is the melody that people remember and it is the
> melody that creates the most interest in most music. Jazz expecially.
There's truth in what you're trying to say but it's so clouded by your
misunderstanding of the process involved.
> In jazz, as you certainly know, a progression is repeated over and
> over and the MELODY is improvised. Certainly there are chord tones and
> non chord tones. Do you play the same extensions repeatedly over and
> over no matter where you melody leads you in a song?
No I don't. I never said or intimated that I did.
But when I was first learning to play I did a lot of limitation
exercises just like that.
That's how we learn to "hear" the ins and outs of the tune.
> Do you not take
> the tonal centers and improvise melodic ideas over the tonal centers
> creating even different "extensions" to the basic harmony?
If I thought you knew what a "tonal centre" was I might try to answer
that question.
You probably mean "key", in which case the answer is sometimes yes but
very often no.
Very often the scale related to the key the music is in at any
particular point will be a very poor scale choice to be using on the
chord-of-the-moment.
> It sounds
> like you will play a 'cool' chord every time it comes around the in
> the solo exactly the same alterations, even if, and here is another
> aspect of your lack of melodic center concept to improvising.
See? You're telling me what you think I'm doing, but you don't know.
And you're doing it in a disrespectful manner.
You should be asking me what it is that we do and how we go about
developing the ability to be able to do that.
> A whole lot of the extensions that you know, and I do believe that you
> may know as many or more than most anyone else, were first created by
> a melodic alteration to an other wise diatonic chord.
True. That was the genesis of many of these sounds.
That does not necessarily mean that the same sounds are used the same
way in today's music though.
> A flatted 5th
> for example would have MOST LIKELY in most cases be a result of a
> chord with an altered tone falling on the 5th. Then someone says, "hey
> that sounds cool" and may even write a piece based on that alteration.
> Altered chords are historically a result of melodic alteration. So the
> chords are really altered IN MOST cases to reflect an alteration or a
> note in the melody.
And the point is?
> So how does this fit in? Well, if you consider the chord extensions
> "sacred" then you are severely limiting your melodic choices in a
> tune.
If someone is playing a chord and you know what the notes of that
happen to be then it's a given that making melodies out of the chord
tones will yield melodies that do no clash with the chord (except in
certain instances). These types of melodies are just the first baby
steps in learning how to play over changes. But if you can't play
these types of melodies your chances at being being very competent at
anything more sophisticated are slim to none.
I've never said that the chord tones are sacred or anything like that.
All I've said is that they are a given and a safe bet and a good place
to start from.
> If you consider the basic underlying tonal centers as more
> important,
The key feeling is not much more important than the vertical
relationships on the chord-of-the-moment. They are of equal weight.
Any good improviser needs to take both into account at all times.
Someone who thinks only of the key and ignores the chord will sound
bad and someone who thinks only of the chord and not the key will also
sound bad.
You scoffed at me suggesting that Jon should look at using the "white
keys" when soloing over the changes to STH. Isn't that what you
yourself are advocating here?
> you are allowing your melodies to have MUCH more freedom.
Nonsense. An improviser's melodies will have as much freedom as the
skill set of the improviser allows for.
An improviser who never explores the sounds available from the chord
tones and extensions will never have any melodic freedom at all.
An improviser who only explores the sounds available from the chord
tones and extensions will have very little melodic freedom as well.
> IF you hear a melody that creates the same extension as in the head,
> you can certainly use it.
Huh?
> Reading your posts for many years, you seem
> to take these chord types as "gosple"
No I don't take them as Gospel. (Don't you have a spell-checker?)
Getting familiar with chord tones is simply the first baby step that
novice players need to take.
Again. Rather than telling me what you think I'm doing, you should be
asking me. No wonder you don't know anything.
> (sorry if this is a politically
> incorrect reference. I don't know if the Torah is appropriate for the
> analogy, sorry if it is an insensitive choice of examples) I do not
> and I don't hear everyone doing it that way.
Actually, your mention of Torah in this way is the inappropriate
reference, asshole.
> What I hear is a series of tonal centers (if we are talking about
> typical 251 jazz in particular) I hear a melody that goes with these
> tonal centers.
OK. What *do* you mean by "tonal centers"?
In a IIm7 V7 I progression there is only one key involved.
Are you saying that IIm7 is a tonal centre, followed by V7 which is
another tonal center, followed by I which is yet another tonal centre?
When I hear a skilled jazz player playing over a II-V-I progression I
hear someone who has command over the vertical relationships that his
notes create over each individual chord and I also hear his command
over how each one of these notes operates within the key. One skill
set without the other is always wanting.
> The bass emphasizes the tonic and other strong tones,
OK. What do "you" mean by "tonic" now?
You seem to be talking about chord roots, not tonics.
Do you think that all that jazz bass players do is play the roots of
the chords?
Or do you think that they just play the tonic of the key?
The point is that you don't know what they do. You should be asking me
what they do, but instead you're making up this story based on what
you think they might be doing, and you're wrong.
> the chord players play sparsely and listen to the soloist and
> harmonizes the melody that the soloist PLAYS.
Again, you're making up some stroy based based on your own false
assumptions of what you think we do. But you don't know.
Yes, accompanists listen to the soloist and attempt to voice their
chords sympathetically to the melodic line.
But both the accompanist and the soloist are adhering to the given
changes to a much greater degree than you seem to realize. Any
deviations form the given harmony are usually in the form of well-know
harmonic devices and cliché´s. There is a large palette of such
devices that we all know and use and maybe this is why someone like
you, an outsider, can not recognize it as such when you hear it.
> It is often in the
> framework (this is where many young players go wrong, they think that
> it HAS to be in the STRICT framework because their chord players are
> not adept enough to FOLLOW the soloist so they strictly play within
> the limits of their rhythm section or of "band in a box" (they are
> often not very much different in concept!) and they never get out of
> that rut and they never take the lead and CREATE a melodic solo.
You are describing a beginner.
Anybody who actually learns how to play will know lots of other novel
things they can do with the given changes.
> Instead they learn to work it as a puzzle. Then look at the
> fingerboard (if they are a guitarist) or the keyboard and visualize
> the notes that are available (much as your list of note choices for
> each chord in your original "analysis") and then just connect the
> dots.
If you can't connect the dots of these simple little puzzles then you
can't play. Simple as that.
The puzzles are just the first baby steps.
> Occasionally a good melody comes out of this.
Actually, a good player will be able to create a good melody using
just chord tones, if required.
> Most of them seem to me
> to be just the solution to a puzzle. Melody should come from
> someplace inside. It is supposed to MEAN something.
That's your opinion and lots of people seem to share it.
One of the things I love about music is that it is abstract. It
doesn't really mean anything, unless there are lyrics. It's just
beautiful and that's all it has to be.
> All I hear from
> so many these days is that it MEANS that the puzzle has been solved
> and "hey, by the way, I made some cool chords there and I emphasized
> some cool notes in the chord)
The master players all were capable of solving puzzles that leave the
rest of behind.
You probably don't even realize that these puzzles exist.
> No, improvisation to me is an attempt to create art. If you don't
> strive for this, do something else. If I want to do puzzles, I will
> pick up the NY Times. they have some good ones. Musical puzzles may be
> fun, but do you really enjoy them from a musical standpoint?
Depends on the puzzle and the players.
Coltrane's Giant Steps is a great puzzle and his solutions to it still
thrill me *musically*.
> will they
> stand up to time?
Some will. Some won't won't.
> will they likely create an emotion? They might in
> some cases. there is that old example of millions of chimps with
> typewriters and one of them might happen to run across a permutation
> that will make a decent couplet.
Chimps don't type permutations. They type randomly.
Much theoretical thinking in modern jazz can be traced back to Joseph
Schillinger's system of composition which was entirely based on
permutation theory.
His school, Schillinger house, went on to become Berklee after he
passed away.
> I know you will most likely not understand this so I will only try
> one more way of explaining it to you.
Oh I understand how jazz is played and the concepts involved. It's you
who is indulging in fantasy here.
Please don't try to "explain" anymore stuff to me. lol
> Think of a melodic improvisation with only a simple bass accompaniment
> and make it interesting and meaningful without outlining the chords?
There's lots of free-jazz music like this.
But most folks playing a standard tune in a duo with a bass player
will be spending much more effort outlining the changes than you seem
to realize.
It's when they stop doing that that it tends to lose coherence and
cohesiveness. But you wouldn't know about that, because you know
nothing about this music. But that won't stop you from writing another
17 paragraphs about it, will it?
> This would be an example of what I am trying to say. You don't need
> all those extensions in general and specifically they are NOT
> appropriate to improvising a chromatic walk down on an Amin chord.
The truth of the matter is that *you* don't see the ways that these
concepts are utilized by jazz improvisers.
> Those chords are a result of the walk down and have no function
> harmonically.
If someone is playing G# C E B behind me then how bad can it really
sound if I use those same notes in my line?
> As I stated in my post about the various "frame works"
> that this could be used as a vertical structure if you limited your
> bass player and did not allow him to improvise his own line.
It was my understanding that Jon was stipulating just such a
limitation by the way he framed his question.
Of course *you* didn't 'get' that though.
> In that
> case, these chords still don't really mean anyting that simply adding
> the bass note to the chord would produce.
>
> Enough for now. Weather or not I continue to respond to this will
> depend upon the sincerity of your reply.
Please don't continue to respond. You're as boring and confused and
long-winded as ever and it's a total pain talking to you.
Orangeboxman
If the point is a solo, rather than an analysis, what matters for each
chord is not the root,
but what tone, if played in the melody, sounds as if it does not want
to go to some other chord.
Joey Goldstein
> Roots and chord names are subjective.
>
Not sure how your comments are relevant in the context of the
post/thread you are replying to.
But I tend to both agree and disagree with your assertion that chord
roots are subjective.
Certainly, constructional roots are objectively based on whatever
intervallic formula you decide to use to construct a chord from a given
root.
Eg. If we decide that we want to use the intervallic formula 1 4 b5 b7
to build a chord where "1" is C, then C is the constructional root of
the chord by definition. Hopefully no-one will every really invoke that
particular intervallic formula fo chord-building purposes. It's kind of
a nonsense chord-formula. But if adhered to it would yield the following
chord:
C F Gb Bb
Now this chord would never *function* as a "C chord" in any music where
the notion of a "C chord" makes sense. It might function as Gbmaj7b5/C
or as a partial voicing of Cm7b5(11), D7alt, Ebm(6)(9) or several other
chord types. But that functional designation *would be* relative to the
musical context in which the chord occurs.
Besides constructional roots, the closest thing we get to absolutes in
determining a chord's root is the acoustical root and sometimes these
can be so ambiguous that they're not all that objective either.
The ac rt of C F Gb Bb would be F, btw.
>> If the point is a solo, rather than an analysis, what matters for each
>> chord is not the root,
>> but what tone, if played in the melody, sounds as if it does not want
>> to go to some other chord.
I have no idea what that means. Please explain.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
Joey Goldstein
> Orangeboxman wrote:
>> Roots and chord names are subjective.
>>
>
>
> Not sure how your comments are relevant in the context of the
> post/thread you are replying to.
>
> But I tend to both agree and disagree with your assertion that chord
> roots are subjective.
>
> Certainly, constructional roots are objectively based on whatever
> intervallic formula you decide to use to construct a chord from a given
> root.
> Eg. If we decide that we want to use the intervallic formula 1 4 b5 b7
> to build a chord where "1" is C, then C is the constructional root of
> the chord by definition. Hopefully no-one will every really invoke that
> particular intervallic formula fo chord-building purposes. It's kind of
> a nonsense chord-formula. But if adhered to it would yield the following
> chord:
> C F Gb Bb
>
> Now this chord would never *function* as a "C chord" in any music where
> the notion of a "C chord" makes sense. It might function as Gbmaj7b5/C
> or as a partial voicing of Cm7b5(11),
Sorry. That's a bit of a logical contradiction there.
Ignore what I said about this chord never functioning as a "C chord" (by
which I meant a chord whose functional root is C).
Obviously, Cm7b5(11) is a "C chord".
Had I chosen a different intervallic formula for chord construction, say
1 4 b5 6 (C F Gb A, clearly an Faddb9/C chord) my comments may have been
more suitable.
David Raleigh Arnold
>snip
Sidney Bechet participated in the invention of jazz. When asked how
jazz was done, he simply answered, "Melody and arpeggio".
Melody was first. Clear?
Try harder to understand what LJS is explaining to you.
Take "Georgia on my Mind", the word "song" in "just an old sweet song".
The melody is E. The chord is D7. Hoagy chose an E instead of an
Eb, but most cats, including singers, flat the E at some point. If you
"analyze" the chord as a D9 the Eb is unlikely to be played. Your
analyses do not reflect the difference between chord tones and melody
notes in the context of improvising, which leads to silly ideas such as
"note choice", chord scales and modes, and boring monotonous playing.
A proper analysis of the top example is that it is an Am chord with
a walkdown followed by D. A walkup in the melody might be fun:
a,8 c e a a# b c'
Oops! What happened to the 9th chord? What 9th chord? daveA
Joey Goldstein
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:01:20 -0800, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> snip
>
> Sidney Bechet participated in the invention of jazz. When asked how
> jazz was done, he simply answered, "Melody and arpeggio".
> Melody was first. Clear?
Jazz has moved along quite a bit from SB's time and there are all sorts
of techniques used by comtemporary players that he never would have
imagined.
But 'melody plus arpeggio' is certainly a good place to start.
> Try harder to understand what LJS is explaining to you.
lol.
LJS is advocating the opposite of what SB suggested.
LSJ is suggesting that the chord is not important.
Try to read what LJS is actually 'explaining'.
> Take "Georgia on my Mind", the word "song" in "just an old sweet song".
> The melody is E. The chord is D7. Hoagy chose an E instead of an
> Eb, but most cats, including singers, flat the E at some point.
That's a good example of the contrast between modern jazz style and the
older trad jazz style.
Trad jazz players preferred to use the leading tone (scale degree 7) as
an extension on V7/IIm whereas most modern players choose the subtonic
(scale degree b7). The b7 happens to be more closely related to the key
of IIm. The leading tone happens to be more closely related to the
primary key. The b7 can also be seen as a blue note in the primary key.
> If you
> "analyze" the chord as a D9 the Eb is unlikely to be played.
Yet if if the E was played it *is* D9.
A writer of a chart of chord-symbols has the choice to make things as
lose as possible by simply confining his chord symbols to maj, min and
dom7 or he can try delineate things with a bit more specificity by using
more elaborate structures. There is a role in jazz for both types of
chord chart.
The former approach assumes that the players will add colour tones to
the basic chords at their own discretion. If they are not also supplied
with the melody line then there are all sorts of potential snafus that
may or may not occur depending on the notes in the melody.
A chord chart sans melody can be constructed in such a way that the most
important notes in the melody that are extensions on the basic chords
are incorporated into the chord symbol. Eg. Using the chord symbol D9 on
Georgia can help to prevent a piano player from playing D7b9 at this
point which is what he might do if given a chart with a simple D7 on it
instead.
Imagine a chord chart for a piano part in a big band chart that did not
specify the extensions that were being voiced in the horns?
Sure, a writer could do that and just leave the piano player up to his
own devices where he as to listen to every voicing o the horns and make
sure that his own voicings don't clash. He has to do that anyway, to a
large degree, even if he is given more elaborate chord symbols. But it
sure helps to know what the extensions are before hand.
> Your
> analyses do not reflect the difference between chord tones and melody
> notes in the context of improvising,
It's true that I did not include the melody or any aspects of how the
melody might be used for improvisation within my analysis.
But I most certainly did include the chord tones as well as their
relation to the key. I also gave some details about how the non-chord
tones in that key might be used *on the chords*.
> which leads to silly ideas such as
> "note choice", chord scales and modes,
It's always interesting to see you classical guys try to explain to us
jazz guys how jazz is played and conceptualized. You always get it wrong.
Do you have any clips uop anywhere of your jazz playing David?
> and boring monotonous playing.
Who exactly is making this boring monotonous music?
What musicians in particular are you talking about?
> A proper analysis of the top example is that it is an Am chord with
> a walkdown followed by D.
That's exactly what my analysis said.
Im for 1.5 measures followed by the chord with F# in the bass, which I
originally labelled incorrectly as VIm7b5 and later corrected to IV.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
LJS
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:01:20 -0800, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> >> snip
>
> > Sidney Bechet participated in the invention of jazz. When asked how
> > jazz was done, he simply answered, "Melody and arpeggio".
> > Melody was first. Clear?
>
> Jazz has moved along quite a bit from SB's time and there are all sorts
> of techniques used by comtemporary players that he never would have
> imagined.
> But 'melody plus arpeggio' is certainly a good place to start.
>
> > Try harder to understand what LJS is explaining to you.
>
> lol.
> LJS is advocating the opposite of what SB suggested.
> LSJ is suggesting that the chord is not important.
> Try to read what LJS is actually 'explaining'.
Direct LIE! I never said anything of the sort!
>
> > Take "Georgia on my Mind", the word "song" in "just an old sweet song".
> > The melody is E. The chord is D7. Hoagy chose an E instead of an
> > Eb, but most cats, including singers, flat the E at some point.
I know my cat has a problem with intonation. lol But one can change it
to an Eb if you like, but in reality, the E natural is really the more
contemporary sound. As I hear it, it is the European "trad Natzis"
that changed it (at least around here) because the older music, from
around the 20s and 30s would have been more likely to use the
flattened note.
>
> That's a good example of the contrast between modern jazz style and the
> older trad jazz style.
Not really, but I do understand how you would say so.
> Trad jazz players preferred to use the leading tone (scale degree 7) as
> an extension on V7/IIm whereas most modern players choose the subtonic
> (scale degree b7). The b7 happens to be more closely related to the key
> of IIm. The leading tone happens to be more closely related to the
> primary key. The b7 can also be seen as a blue note in the primary key.
>
> > If you
> > "analyze" the chord as a D9 the Eb is unlikely to be played.
>
> Yet if if the E was played it *is* D9.
> A writer of a chart of chord-symbols has the choice to make things as
> lose as possible by simply confining his chord symbols to maj, min and
> dom7 or he can try delineate things with a bit more specificity by using
> more elaborate structures. There is a role in jazz for both types of
> chord chart.
> The former approach assumes that the players will add colour tones to
> the basic chords at their own discretion. If they are not also supplied
> with the melody line then there are all sorts of potential snafus that
> may or may not occur depending on the notes in the melody.
> A chord chart sans melody can be constructed in such a way that the most
> important notes in the melody that are extensions on the basic chords
> are incorporated into the chord symbol. Eg. Using the chord symbol D9 on
> Georgia can help to prevent a piano player from playing D7b9 at this
> point which is what he might do if given a chart with a simple D7 on it
> instead.
Any musician worth his salt would automatically play the tune the way
that that particular group would play it. And if you understood what I
was saying (which you obviously don't) you would see that this is a
good example of what I was telling you! Interesting how you pick and
choose with what I say and what you make up about my posts.
>
> Imagine a chord chart for a piano part in a big band chart that did not
> specify the extensions that were being voiced in the horns?
You would have to imagine it because it is totally absurd. And only an
idiot would say that this is anything at all what I said. Really!
> Sure, a writer could do that and just leave the piano player up to his
> own devices where he as to listen to every voicing o the horns and make
> sure that his own voicings don't clash. He has to do that anyway, to a
> large degree, even if he is given more elaborate chord symbols. But it
> sure helps to know what the extensions are before hand.
And in a big band chart or in ANY written out chart, it would be
appropriate as well as necessary to write out the extensions. If you
recall, JOEY, we were talking about IMPROVISING (there is that CONTEXT
thing again) and to use the statement in the IMPROVISING context to
make a stupid claim in the COMPOSITION context is simply either
grossly dishonest or totally unbelievable of someone who is a
contracted part-time professor of music.
>
> > Your
> > analyses do not reflect the difference between chord tones and melody
> > notes in the context of improvising,
>
> It's true that I did not include the melody or any aspects of how the
> melody might be used for improvisation within my analysis.
> But I most certainly did include the chord tones as well as their
> relation to the key. I also gave some details about how the non-chord
> tones in that key might be used *on the chords*.
And if you get back to that CONTEXT thing again, I was clearly talking
about the first walk down on the Amin chord. And in those cases, both
I and David are completely correct.
>
> > which leads to silly ideas such as
> > "note choice", chord scales and modes,
>
> It's always interesting to see you classical guys try to explain to us
> jazz guys how jazz is played and conceptualized. You always get it wrong.
> Do you have any clips uop anywhere of your jazz playing David?
Here we go again. If JOEY doesn't like your approach or the way you
play, you CAN NOT have a good idea. That is his position and he is
very diligent in sticking to it no matter how idiotic it is. I suppose
that he would say that George Bernard Shaw (alias Basso Buffa) and his
brilliant musical critiques in the London Globe are simply trash
because he was only a mediocre viola player. (or what ever string
instrument he played around with) It is simply another ploy in his
Distort and Evade approach to defending his positions and statements.
>
> > and boring monotonous playing.
>
> Who exactly is making this boring monotonous music?
> What musicians in particular are you talking about?
>
> > A proper analysis of the top example is that it is an Am chord with
> > a walkdown followed by D.
>
> That's exactly what my analysis said.
> Im for 1.5 measures followed by the chord with F# in the bass, which I
> originally labelled incorrectly as VIm7b5 and later corrected to IV.
No Joey. If it had said that there would have been no discussion. But
you even made comments of the "cool sounds achieved by emphasizing (I
think it was) the E note in one of the chords. Were you lying then or
are you lying now?
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT primus DOT ca
to DAVID:
Although I could find some minor problems with your post, it is really
so much better than I get from Joey that they are really not worth
mentioning. Don't let him bully you. He is good at that. You have
shown some very good insights into some of the developments of Jazz
and the creative process. Hang in there and make sure that you are not
falsely led or bullied by anyone. You seem to be aware of this, I am
just emphasizing the obvious because I would not want you to loose
your interest in learning and working on creativity.
If you think your solos are boring, you can contact me privately or in
group and I will share with you some of the concepts passed to me from
Nadia Boulanger and Bill Evans. I had all the same teacher as Bill and
one of my teachers taught with Nadia. If you want to better understand
Bill, I can tell you that Nadia is a big influence on his idea of
improvising from a "framework".
Of course, if you want to discuss this in group, we will just have to
agree to ignore any "trollish" posts for the discussion no matter who
they come from.
Thanks for reading the posts and following the scarce musical ideas
that I have been able to sneak in between the personal attacks. He
will attack you, and if you continue to disagree, be ready for the
next steps!
LJS
Orangeboxman
>> chord is not the root,
>> but what tone, if played in the melody, sounds as if it does not want
>> to go to some other chord.
I have no idea what that means. Please explain.
Sure.
When people talk about the "root" of the chord, they are usually
talking to me about the tone of the chord they perceive to be the most
inert in contrapuntal implication at that point in the progression.
Many (if not most) soloists prefer to avoid and/or de-emphasize such
tones, at least as long as they intend to avoid tonal inertia.
Otherwise, strictly for solo purposes, I'm not sure what other point
could be so compelling in terms of "needing" to "know" what the "root"
is.
LJS
>
> > Now this chord would never *function* as a "C chord" in any music where
> > the notion of a "C chord" makes sense. It might function as Gbmaj7b5/C
> > or as a partial voicing of Cm7b5(11),
>
> Sorry. That's a bit of a logical contradiction there.
> Ignore what I said about this chord never functioning as a "C chord" (by
> which I meant a chord whose functional root is C).
> Obviously, Cm7b5(11) is a "C chord".
> Had I chosen a different intervallic formula for chord construction, say
> 1 4 b5 6 (C F Gb A, clearly an Faddb9/C chord) my comments may have been
> more suitable.
>
I hope my window of opportunity for you to graciously offer to discuss
music has not expired. Maybe you have a higher level of "function"
than I am aware of!
I don't see how anything can "function" as a "C chord". To my
understanding, a C chord has no inherent function. It may function as
a Tonic, or a subdominant, or a dominant in major or it may function
as a bIII or a bVI or V in minor. It could also function as
Neopolitan (usually in minor) but if you are considering it as an
isolated chord relative to its Root or implied root, how can it
"Function" as anything?
Is there some definition that I have missed over the years? Please,
enlighten me (us) .
LJS
David Raleigh Arnold
Thanks for taking this old dog to be a youth. ;-) Regards, daveA
Joey Goldstein
> On Nov 13, 9:52 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:01:20 -0800, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> > >> snip
>
> > > Sidney Bechet participated in the invention of jazz. When asked how
> > > jazz was done, he simply answered, "Melody and arpeggio".
> > > Melody was first. Clear?
>
> > Jazz has moved along quite a bit from SB's time and there are all sorts
> > of techniques used by comtemporary players that he never would have
> > imagined.
> > But 'melody plus arpeggio' is certainly a good place to start.
>
> > > Try harder to understand what LJS is explaining to you.
>
> > lol.
> > LJS is advocating the opposite of what SB suggested.
> > LSJ is suggesting that the chord is not important.
> > Try to read what LJS is actually 'explaining'.
>
> Direct LIE! I never said anything of the sort!
Then I must have misunderstood your comments.
Comments like this:
"What I hear is a series of tonal centers (if we are talking about
typical 251 jazz in particular) I hear a melody that goes with these
tonal centers. The bass emphasizes the tonic and other strong tones,
the chord players play sparsely and listen to the soloist and
harmonizes the melody that the soloist PLAYS."
No mention in there that I can see about how it is the chords that are
holding everything together. Just vague shadowy references to
mysterious 'tonal centers' and 'tonics' whatever you think those are.
No mention about how these 'tonal centers' are to be used by the
player.
No mention in there about chords or arpeggiation at all.
Don't you take the time to think before you write something?
> > > Take "Georgia on my Mind", the word "song" in "just an old sweet song".
> > > The melody is E. The chord is D7. Hoagy chose an E instead of an
> > > Eb, but most cats, including singers, flat the E at some point.
>
> I know my cat has a problem with intonation. lol But one can change it
> to an Eb if you like, but in reality, the E natural is really the more
> contemporary sound.
Lol.
> As I hear it, it is the European "trad Natzis"
> that changed it (at least around here) because the older music, from
> around the 20s and 30s would have been more likely to use the
> flattened note.
You're completely wrong.
> > That's a good example of the contrast between modern jazz style and the
> > older trad jazz style.
>
> Not really,
Yes really.
> but I do understand how you would say so.
I say because it was so.
What 'particular group'?
> And if you understood what I
> was saying (which you obviously don't) you would see that this is a
> good example of what I was telling you!
If you understood what you were saying you wouldn't be saying it. Lol.
> Interesting how you pick and
> choose with what I say and what you make up about my posts.
I address your sentences line by line. I only leave out stuff that is
either too idiotic to comment on or completely irrelevant.
> > Imagine a chord chart for a piano part in a big band chart that did not
> > specify the extensions that were being voiced in the horns?
>
> You would have to imagine it because it is totally absurd.
Only someone with no experience in the jazz community would say that.
> And only an
> idiot would say that this is anything at all what I said. Really!
Only an idiot would think I was talking to him when I was really
talking to someone else.
Only a self absorbed fool would think that my comments to David were
actually about him.
And I don't believe that you and I have been talking about big band
chord charts at all, so I guess you're deluded too and making up
imaginary conversations with me in your mind. All together that's a
deluded idiotic fool. What level of Bloom is that?
> > Sure, a writer could do that and just leave the piano player up to his
> > own devices where he as to listen to every voicing o the horns and make
> > sure that his own voicings don't clash. He has to do that anyway, to a
> > large degree, even if he is given more elaborate chord symbols. But it
> > sure helps to know what the extensions are before hand.
>
> And in a big band chart or in ANY written out chart, it would be
> appropriate as well as necessary to write out the extensions.
The rhythm section parts in a big band are mostly improvised and are
based off of chord charts.
These chord charts can be as complex or as simple as the writer sees
fit.
> If you
> recall, JOEY, we were talking about IMPROVISING
But I'm not talking to you here. I'm talking to David and I'm
addressing David's comments. Not yours.
As much as you think it is, it's not all about you.
> (there is that CONTEXT
> thing again)
Right. You've totally lost the context of the conversation I was
trying to have with David.
> and to use the statement in the IMPROVISING context to
> make a stupid claim in the COMPOSITION context is simply either
> grossly dishonest or totally unbelievable
It's totally unbelievable that you think what you think and write what
you write.
> of someone who is a
> contracted part-time professor of music.
I'm not a professor. Geez.
> > > Your
> > > analyses do not reflect the difference between chord tones and melody
> > > notes in the context of improvising,
>
> > It's true that I did not include the melody or any aspects of how the
> > melody might be used for improvisation within my analysis.
> > But I most certainly did include the chord tones as well as their
> > relation to the key. I also gave some details about how the non-chord
> > tones in that key might be used *on the chords*.
>
> And if you get back to that CONTEXT thing again, I was clearly talking
> about
Who cares what *you* were talking about?
I was talking to David.
> the first walk down on the Amin chord. And in those cases, both
> I and David are completely correct.
My analysis was and is correct.
You don't know what part of my post was the analysis and what part was
the chord symbols.
If you think that the chord symbols are an analysis then you are
WRONG.
In an harmonic analysis in the classical idiom there is music in
standard notation which is analyzed according to harmonic function
within the key via Roman numeral designations plus abbreviated figured
bass for inversions.
In a jazz analysis there is no music, just a chord chart plus the
analysis (although sometimes the melody line of the head may be
included as well).
sometimes we use all upper case RN. Sometimes we use the more
traditional methods. But the chord symbols are *not* the analysis. The
chord symbols are the outlines of the harmonic movements of the music
that need to be analyzed so that an improviser can make more informed
choices in his improvisation.
"Your 'problem" is that you know nothing about jazz or how we operate
within the jazz community, yet you go on and on and on as if you do.
> > > which leads to silly ideas such as
> > > "note choice", chord scales and modes,
>
> > It's always interesting to see you classical guys try to explain to us
> > jazz guys how jazz is played and conceptualized. You always get it wrong.
> > Do you have any clips uop anywhere of your jazz playing David?
>
> Here we go again. If JOEY doesn't like your approach or the way you
> play, you CAN NOT have a good idea.
If you have bad ideas there's a big chance that you can't play. But
lots of great jazz players have no clue in the area of theory whether
it be jazz theory or any other theory.
But if someone's going to try to piss all over my abilities, technical
or conceptual, within the jazz idiom they'd damn well better play
better than me.
> That is his position and he is
> very diligent in sticking to it no matter how idiotic it is. I suppose
> that he would say that George Bernard Shaw (alias Basso Buffa) and his
> brilliant musical critiques in the London Globe are simply trash
> because he was only a mediocre viola player. (or what ever string
> instrument he played around with)
If his critiques were brilliant then that would be obvious to any
reader no matter what his musical abilities.
If his critiques were lame and his musicianship was also lame then
he'd have no redeeming factors.
Your ideas about music and David's ideas are not on a par with GBS's
ideas about anything, you pompous old deluded fool.
> It is simply another ploy in his
> Distort and Evade approach to defending his positions and statements.
I've distorted and evaded nothing.
I quote your words line for line. I wade through this bullshit you
write and I distort nothing. I don't have to. It's filled with
cognitive distortions in every line.
> > > and boring monotonous playing.
>
> > Who exactly is making this boring monotonous music?
> > What musicians in particular are you talking about?
>
> > > A proper analysis of the top example is that it is an Am chord with
> > > a walkdown followed by D.
>
> > That's exactly what my analysis said.
> > Im for 1.5 measures followed by the chord with F# in the bass, which I
> > originally labelled incorrectly as VIm7b5 and later corrected to IV.
>
> No Joey. If it had said that there would have been no discussion.
Well that's what it said.
Go read it again, fool.
> But
> you even made comments of the "cool sounds achieved by emphasizing (I
> think it was) the E note in one of the chords. Were you lying then or
> are you lying now?
Those comments had nothing to do with the analysis.
But of course you didn't 'get' that.
They had more to do with how a jazz line *can be* generated *by
considering the chords*.
But you don't 'get' that either because you think you know all about
jazz. Lol.
> to DAVID:
> Although I could find some minor problems with your post, it is really
> so much better than I get from Joey that they are really not worth
> mentioning. Don't let him bully you. He is good at that. You have
> shown some very good insights into some of the developments of Jazz
> and the creative process.
No you haven't. You think about jazz in the same way that LJS does.
You're both looking at jazz through the eyes of classical music and
you'll never understand it that way.
> Hang in there and make sure that you are not
> falsely led or bullied by anyone. You seem to be aware of this, I am
> just emphasizing the obvious because I would not want you to loose
> your interest in learning and working on creativity.
>
> If you think your solos are boring,
Now you're insulting David's playing. Nice touch.
He never said his solos were boring.
As far as I know he doesn't even play jazz solos. I've been
disagreeing with David about how jazz is created for several more
years than you have been on usenet.
If he does play jazz solos, I'd like to hear some recordings of them.
It would give me insights into how his suggested methods for jazz
techniques are potentially superior to my own.
> you can contact me privately or in
> group and I will share with you some of the concepts passed to me from
> Nadia Boulanger and Bill Evans. I had all the same teacher as Bill and
> one of my teachers taught with Nadia. If you want to better understand
> Bill, I can tell you that Nadia is a big influence on his idea of
> improvising from a "framework".
Oh yes. Please share all your advanced jazz ideas Lemmy.
Oy.
> Of course, if you want to discuss this in group, we will just have to
> agree to ignore any "trollish" posts for the discussion no matter who
> they come from.
*YOU'RE THE TROLL!!!!*
OMG
> Thanks for reading the posts and following the scarce musical ideas
> that I have been able to sneak in between the personal attacks. He
> will attack you, and if you continue to disagree, be ready for the
> next steps!
I'll attack his ideas cordially if I think they're wrong. And I'll
attack him personally if he attacks me personally first.
Joey Goldstein
Hmm.
Of the people I know who are actually concerned about soloing, i.e.
jazz musicians, I don't know of any who conceive of roots in quite
that manner.
Most jazz playing is done over standard harmonic structures using
standard harmonic Tonal sentences. There is very little room for
ambiguity as far as determining a chord's root for the purposes of
soloing over it is concerned. The root is usually a given, by the
composer of the tune to be improvised upon.
Any ambiguities about the chords' roots will only arise when
harmonically ambiguous voicings of the given chords are employed.
in my experience it's good to know about acoustical roots in
situations like this because if you do you can more effectively
navigate these ambiguous structures.
But for a jazz player there are all sorts of reasons/'purposes' to
know what the root of the chord-of-the-moment is, as far as note
selection for the improvised line is concerned.
As far as melodies that use the root as an emphasized tone is
concerned, sure, I guess that can get boring, but sometimes that's
exactly the sound that's called for too.
And as I said earlier, there are both absolute and relative notions at
work in the concept of a chord's "root". But I've already posted about
that in this thread, haven't I?
And your present comments do not really explain your previous
comments. Although i understand your present comments I still don't
understand your previous comments. Sorry. But thanks for trying.
Joey Goldstein
Sorry. Perhaps i should have used the word "operate" instead of
"function" so that you would not be side-tracked by those traditional
blinders you always have on.
Orangeboxman
disenchanted with a lot of the thinking that infects it.
Chord notation seems to be made for the convenience of pianists and
guitarists rather than horn players.
It was a breakthrough for me when I realized this and started re-
notating progressions in terms of how I would likely
solo through them on my horn instead of how I would need to reference
them for voicings if I were playing piano.
The biggest symbol in every chord notated is usually the note you
should play if you want melodic motion to become abruptly stagnant.
How is that supposed to help?
LJS
> better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com
I didn't really.. I am still young enough to learn. Whan I am not, I
will be dead.
I never did talk to you about your march. I didn't find your melodies
boring. I did want to point out that I thought that you had enough
material for several compositions and that I would suggest that you
economize with your ideas and do more development of what you have.
The most difficult part for most people is to get good ideas. I think
you have too many in that one piece. You could just as easily do more
development and use the ideas that you have there to create several
movements without having to create any more ideas. Development or lack
of that is the only weak point that considered worth mentioning. This
was a big thing at my school. All of our theory was, in a way, geared
to means of getting the most out of the small ideas that were the
basis of a composition.
I believe that you mentioned in an earlier post that you were old..
Well so am I, and so is Joey. I think Tom is up there and there are a
few other old coots around here. Even with that broad base of
knowledge, I have noticed that MOST of the old timers are still
looking to learn. It is a good indication of which ones are Teachers
and which ones are Preachers.
My only preaching is the Harmonic Series and maybe the concept of
there being more than one way to do EVERYTHING. Other than that, I am
willing to adjust, add to and modify my views on every concept that I
ever have run across.Like I say, when you stop learning, you stop
living and you begin to wait for the end to come. I don't expect that
to happen to me.. I have the impression that you can understand that
approach to life and music.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
> I studied and played jazz for enough years to become pretty
> disenchanted with a lot of the thinking that infects it.
Well, for a lot of jazz musicians the thinking part is the least of
their concerns. Lol
All a jazz player has to do is to sound good. Lots of absolute dummies
have figured out how to that.
Still the best jazz players tend to be geniuses, which is of course true
in any field.
> Chord notation seems to be made for the convenience of pianists and
> guitarists rather than horn players.
How so?
Chord symbol notation is designed to operate as a simple harmonic sketch
from which chordal players can improvise an accompaniment to the melody
and for the soloist(s). It also serves as a guide to the soloists as to
the types of chords the accompanists will likely be playing.
IMO It seems to be entirely up to the task that it is designed for.
What would you do differently?
Of course nobody learns how to play anything very musical and/or
idiomatically correct by simply studying chord symbols. He will have to
go to the recordings of actual music and figure out what this style is
supposed to sound like first and then he can make decisions as to how he
should interpret the chord symbols.
> It was a breakthrough for me when I realized this and started re-
> notating progressions in terms of how I would likely
> solo through them
> on my horn
I thought you were a guitar player?
Are you calling the guitar "your horn" or do you actually play trumpet
as well?
> instead of how I would need to reference
> them for voicings if I were playing piano.
Details of this notation please?
> The biggest symbol in every chord notated is usually the note you
> should play if you want melodic motion to become abruptly stagnant.
>
> How is that supposed to help?
Why should it follow that you concentrate on the root within your jazz
solos just because it's the biggest letter in the chord symbol?
That sounds like the type of mistake only an absolute beginner would
make, and hopefully he'd only make it once.
Seems like you're throwing out the baby for the bath water here to me.
LJS
You are correct. You have totally misunderstood everything that I have
said.
Chords are certainly important. The specific colors of each individual
chord is not. Remember, that the CONTEXT (there is that mysterious
word again) of all my statements have been concerning the Functional
Analysis. The fact is that this is dealing only with chords. It is in
the way that these chords are used and defined that seems to be
confusing to you.
In simple terms, Piston is correct with his RN/UC approach to CPP
harmony. It doesn't matter so much the individual color of the chord
when looking at the total picture. USUALLY the Dominant is Major. And
USUALLY it has a m7 added to it. BUt that is not the only type of
dominant chord that is possible and this is the MOST important chord
in the Functional harmony of the CPP. (and CPP harmony and Jazz is so
close that if it applies to one it applies to the other)
When you are talking about a Dominant chord, it really doesn't matter
if it is a 7th or a 9th or 11th or what alterations it has, it still
functions as a Dominant. When it gets to the 2nd class chords, it
matters even less. The important thing in CPP and Jazz is that the
music moves away from tonic and returns through the cycle of fifths.
These can be literal or diatonic. Autumn Leaves is a perfect example
of the concept of moving away and returning. It can then be broken up
into two distinct key areas with a 251 cadence and a common chord
modulation to connect them or you can look at it as one continuous
movement to SD and returning diatonically through the entire circle
back to the tonic of Emin.
It just is not important TO THE FUNCTION of the chords. It is
important to the individual characteristics of the specific tune being
analyzed. I have, however, never addressed that CONTEXT in my posts.
You have the bad habit of looking at everything I say and putting it
into what ever CONTEXT you seem to be thinking of at the time and you
do not consider the CONTEXT that the post was addressing. That is
where you get into trouble and that is what will keep you from getting
a Masters Degree in theory. If you want to be a full professor or even
to be able to intelligently converse with classical theorists, then
you have to get a handle on this CONTEXT thing. Berklee just didn't
seem to get this point across to you, and they may not have even tried
as this does not seem to be their function. It goes back to what I
have been saying since my first encounter with you. You don't
understand classical theory thinking and contexts. You try to find
square holes to put round thing into. The problem is that they never
quite fit right although they almost sound as if they do. Seriously,
if you looked up Blooms, it should clear up a lot of this stuff. As I
have repeatedly said, you have a lot of knowledge, you just don't know
how to organize it except in the one way you do that suits your own
personal playing style.
That is fine if you stick to that. When you go into classical theory,
you just don't have the concepts and contexts sorted out. Bloom would
solve this for you and take all those factoids and help you to put
them into the proper context. It is there for you Joey. With all the
time, (yours, mine and the whole groupé) you spend arguing about
things that you don't understand, you could read Bloom's and put your
knowledge to work and become a "real professor" even though you don't
have the academic credentials to get the contract. It would also allow
for you to get a masters if you wanted to. I can assure you that if
you enrolled in a Master of Music Theory program in a major
university, you would HAVE to do this in order to survive. They will
not tolerate the kind of arguments that you present in this
newsgroup.
This is sad because you have the ability, you are just too pig headed
to admit that you do not KNOW EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!. If you
can't understand what I talk about, and defend your views to me, you
have no chance to do it to a credible board when you take the Board
Exams.
>
> Don't you take the time to think before you write something?
>
> > > > Take "Georgia on my Mind", the word "song" in "just an old sweet song".
> > > > The melody is E. The chord is D7. Hoagy chose an E instead of an
> > > > Eb, but most cats, including singers, flat the E at some point.
Not so much here. Maybe in Canada. Maybe in a solo, but I don't think
I can remember anyone making it that down here at the source. In fact,
it is that Major 9th in that context that is characteristic of
Dixieland Harmony. Occasionally a singer or soloist might use it sort
of as a "blue" note, but I don't think that this could be considered
characteristic of the style. You are, of course, free to play it any
way you want and reharmonization is a valid style to use for
improvisation, but I don't think it can be considered a convention of
the style. The Major 9th on the secondary dominant of the to the ii7
chord is related to the sonority produced by the ^3rd in the V7 chord
instead of the ^2 on "Geor" and "mind" in the V7 for the cadence. I.e.
it might be done some times someplace, but it is not characteristic in
this area or in any recordings hat come to mind.
>
> > I know my cat has a problem with intonation. lol But one can change it
> > to an Eb if you like, but in reality, the E natural is really the more
> > contemporary sound.
>
> Lol.
>
> > As I hear it, it is the European "trad Natzis"
> > that changed it (at least around here) because the older music, from
> > around the 20s and 30s would have been more likely to use the
> > flattened note.
>
> You're completely wrong.
Sure Joey. That is your opinion. I am only living and grew up at the
place where these conventions started. Did Ray Charles change it to
Eb? I don't remember that he did. I know we don't.
>
> > > That's a good example of the contrast between modern jazz style and the
> > > older trad jazz style.
>
> > Not really,
>
> Yes really.
>
> > but I do understand how you would say so.
>
> I say because it was so.
This would have been a good time to post some REASON for your opinion
rather than just to say "its so because Joey thinks it is so". If you
want to make an authoritative statement, this is the time to back it
up instead of that comment.
>
>
>
> > > Trad jazz players preferred to use the leading tone (scale degree 7) as
> > > an extension on V7/IIm whereas most modern players choose the subtonic
> > > (scale degree b7). The b7 happens to be more closely related to the key
> > > of IIm. The leading tone happens to be more closely related to the
> > > primary key. The b7 can also be seen as a blue note in the primary key.
You are talking about Canadian Trad players? I don't know what they
think. We have multiple classes of trad players here. At least a half
dozen recognized styles. If you can't clearly express what you mean,
your statement can not possibly be understood.
>
> > > > If you
> > > > "analyze" the chord as a D9 the Eb is unlikely to be played.
If the Eb was often played at this point, we would analyze it as such.
Do you have any examples of this happening? Maybe it is played that
way in your circles. Maybe it happens in some groups that I have not
heard. Please give examples so that you don't sound like you are
making it up. If it happens, then you have validity even though it is
not so down here. Without an example, its just ramblings about
undocumented occurrences.
>
> > > Yet if if the E was played it *is* D9.
> > > A writer of a chart of chord-symbols has the choice to make things as
> > > lose as possible by simply confining his chord symbols to maj, min and
> > > dom7 or he can try delineate things with a bit more specificity by using
> > > more elaborate structures. There is a role in jazz for both types of
> > > chord chart.
> > > The former approach assumes that the players will add colour tones to
> > > the basic chords at their own discretion. If they are not also supplied
> > > with the melody line then there are all sorts of potential snafus that
> > > may or may not occur depending on the notes in the melody.
> > > A chord chart sans melody can be constructed in such a way that the most
> > > important notes in the melody that are extensions on the basic chords
> > > are incorporated into the chord symbol. Eg. Using the chord symbol D9 on
> > > Georgia can help to prevent a piano player from playing D7b9 at this
> > > point which is what he might do if given a chart with a simple D7 on it
> > > instead.
>
This sounds like the ramblings of a CHART player. If you are talking
about reading charts, that is fine. For improvisation, Yes, the player
has all the freedom that he wants to take. That is why they call it
improvisation!
> > Any musician worth his salt would automatically play the tune the way
> > that that particular group would play it.
>
> What 'particular group'?
What ever particular group. If I were playing with your group.
ROTFLOL, I would play it your way. If I were playing it in a rock
group, I might play it only with power chords. In general, I would
play it the way the Rules that the man with the GOLD likes to hear. If
I am with my group, I might play it 12-tone. Who knows! That is why it
is called improvisation. As long as it is musical, it is musical. If
you want to make make hits you have to play it the way the public
wants to hear it and be able to have them understand it. The very
nature of "What particular group" shows that we are speaking in two
different CONTEXTS. Can't you see that?
>
> > And if you understood what I
> > was saying (which you obviously don't) you would see that this is a
> > good example of what I was telling you!
>
> If you understood what you were saying you wouldn't be saying it. Lol.
Well, if you could stick to the CONTEXT I might be able to ascertain
what you are saying. With all your mixed interpretations and red
herrings (accidental or on purpose) I can not see a coherent thread to
your statements. You just seem to jump around from place to place.
>
> > Interesting how you pick and
> > choose with what I say and what you make up about my posts.
>
> I address your sentences line by line. I only leave out stuff that is
> either too idiotic to comment on or completely irrelevant.
That could be the problem. You seem to be missing the overall picture.
I too will sometimes go line by line, but before I do, I read the
whole post and try to get an idea of what is being talked about.Then I
try to more or less comment in the places close to where the ideas are
being expressed. When you go only line by line, that linear type of
thinking becomes tunnel vision and it is very easy to miss the
contexts of what was said. All of my posts relate to each other. Yours
seem to me, to be exactly how you say it here. One line at a time. If
you want to understand what is being said in my posts, this is not the
way to understand what I am saying. You are doomed to misunderstand
because you are just haphazardly choosing factoids and putting them
with random contexts.
>
> > > Imagine a chord chart for a piano part in a big band chart that did not
> > > specify the extensions that were being voiced in the horns?
>
> > You would have to imagine it because it is totally absurd.
>
> Only someone with no experience in the jazz community would say that.
>
> > And only an
> > idiot would say that this is anything at all what I said. Really!
>
> Only an idiot would think I was talking to him when I was really
> talking to someone else.
So somethings are true for someone else and not true for another? This
is an interesting approach to truth! I had been kidding about your
being a Right Wing Radio host, maybe I wasn't kidding!
> Only a self absorbed fool would think that my comments to David were
> actually about him.
This does sort of sum it up. I talk about the facts of the posts. I
don't respond to YOU or to David. If it is true, it is true. If it is
false it is false. I don't care who said it. If it is false I
challenge it. If it is true I go with it.
> And I don't believe that you and I have been talking about big band
> chord charts at all, so I guess you're deluded too and making up
> imaginary conversations with me in your mind. All together that's a
> deluded idiotic fool. What level of Bloom is that?
That is the result of liner one dimensional thinking of knowledge. the
first level. Reading the definitions. Gathering facts and then mis
applying them. It really doesn't have a level, it is what you said,
It is also that CONTEXT thing again. The only way that your factoids
are relevant was in the Chart reading situation of a big band chart.
You mentioned that it would be silly to have a Big Band Chart without
extensions to tell that rhythm player what to play. I agreed. Then you
accuse me of thinking about the context of Big Band!! Joey, get a
grip. It is YOUR concept that you are challenging! You inject Big Band
and then accuse me of being out of context? !?! That doesn't even get
to the first level of understanding of Bloom.
>
> > > Sure, a writer could do that and just leave the piano player up to his
> > > own devices where he as to listen to every voicing o the horns and make
> > > sure that his own voicings don't clash. He has to do that anyway, to a
> > > large degree, even if he is given more elaborate chord symbols. But it
> > > sure helps to know what the extensions are before hand.
Where do you get his stuff? Read the post in its entirety! You are
arguing with yourself. I said nothing of the sort!
>
> > And in a big band chart or in ANY written out chart, it would be
> > appropriate as well as necessary to write out the extensions.
>
> The rhythm section parts in a big band are mostly improvised and are
> based off of chord charts.
> These chord charts can be as complex or as simple as the writer sees
> fit.
You are so far "all over the place" here that is a bit disturbing!
Who are you talking about? It has NOTHING at all to do with what I
said and this whole subthread is all of your saying!
>
> > If you
> > recall, JOEY, we were talking about IMPROVISING
>
> But I'm not talking to you here. I'm talking to David and I'm
> addressing David's comments. Not yours.
> As much as you think it is, it's not all about you.
lol Right, Its not about me at all. It is your comments that are all
over the place. Can't you think about what is written and not who
wrote it? Things are true for David but not true for me? That is
really an interesting approach! ROTFLOL
>
> > (there is that CONTEXT
> > thing again)
>
> Right. You've totally lost the context of the conversation I was
> trying to have with David.
Sure. If you say so.The word according to Joey.
>
> > and to use the statement in the IMPROVISING context to
> > make a stupid claim in the COMPOSITION context is simply either
> > grossly dishonest or totally unbelievable
>
> It's totally unbelievable that you think what you think and write what
> you write.
Again, never an example, just idle unrelated words.
>
> > of someone who is a
> > contracted part-time professor of music.
>
> I'm not a professor. Geez.
Did I misquote your job description that you posted? Sorry if I did. I
though this was the politically correct way to describe it. How should
one address you when you post your "title" in your contract online.
(do you really think that was a wise thing to do?)
>
> > > > Your
> > > > analyses do not reflect the difference between chord tones and melody
> > > > notes in the context of improvising,
>
> > > It's true that I did not include the melody or any aspects of how the
> > > melody might be used for improvisation within my analysis.
> > > But I most certainly did include the chord tones as well as their
> > > relation to the key. I also gave some details about how the non-chord
> > > tones in that key might be used *on the chords*.
There, you just proved my point. You did not include it and that is
one of the reasons that your analysis was incomplete. The melody is
the main part of a composition. The chords are the accompaniment (in
this piece at least) It ma be interesting, but without the melody,
there is no hit. If the harmony is not related to the melody in some
way, the analysis is incomplete and if the Poster was asking about how
to improvise on the tune, doesn't it seem as though it might be
included in some form when talking about improvising a solo over the
same changes that are there to accompany the melody? THAT is what is
wrong with you analysis. And here, you have said it better than I did.
Congratulations. You have seen what I am talking about. your original
post missed the point both on the function of the first few chords and
you missed the point on helping him to play a solo. Thanks.
>
> > And if you get back to that CONTEXT thing again, I was clearly talking
> > about
>
> Who cares what *you* were talking about?
> I was talking to David.
And so was I. If you want to talk ONLY to him, do it privately. Not on
a public news group. I read both of your comments and they are very
related to what I said. If you don't see that, you should maybe look
closer. If you want a private conversation, talk to him privately.
Don't bitch like an old lady if I read your comments and then comment
on them if you publish them in a public newsgroup.
>
> > the first walk down on the Amin chord. And in those cases, both
> > I and David are completely correct.
>
> My analysis was and is correct.
> You don't know what part of my post was the analysis and what part was
> the chord symbols.
> If you think that the chord symbols are an analysis then you are
> WRONG.
No, that is my statement. Don't steal my material You are the one that
emphasized that chords and somehow forgets the tmelody and other
considerations, not me.
> In an harmonic analysis in the classical idiom there is music in
> standard notation which is analyzed according to harmonic function
> within the key via Roman numeral designations plus abbreviated figured
> bass for inversions.
> In a jazz analysis there is no music, just a chord chart plus the
> analysis (although sometimes the melody line of the head may be
> included as well).
And this is not music? And the Figured bass was not music? You are
standing on quicksand once again! b careful!
> sometimes we use all upper case RN. Sometimes we use the more
> traditional methods. But the chord symbols are *not* the analysis. The
> chord symbols are the outlines of the harmonic movements of the music
> that need to be analyzed so that an improviser can make more informed
> choices in his improvisation.
I am glad that you read that someplace. When you start to use it in
analyses then you may understand what it means. Where is the evidence
that you consider other factors in your analysis. You certainly don't
post them on this news group!
> "Your 'problem" is that you know nothing about jazz or how we operate
> within the jazz community, yet you go on and on and on as if you do.
You seem th think that you are in the definitive jazz community. I
have listened to your music on line. Maybe if you showed us the OTHER
music that you play that is the result of your definitive jazz
community this might make sense. Of course, jazz is so large that
there is no definitive jazz community so it really comes back to if
you understand it it is good and if you don't it is not. You really
missed the boat with you comment about Bill Evans being a musician
that plays the changes. yes it can. He usually didn't but yes he
could. He does, with standards, usually use the harmonic analysis with
the chord types provided in the original fake books that were copies
of the old song cards used at the time. And then he drastically goes
into reharmonization and new concepts of harmony and many different
concepts as he modified his frameworks during his tragically short
life. You have not clue to his way of thinking. You constantly are
opposed to practically all of his approaches to music as evidenced by
your replies and unawareness of various other approaches that are
different from your own.
>
> > > > which leads to silly ideas such as
> > > > "note choice", chord scales and modes,
>
> > > It's always interesting to see you classical guys try to explain to us
> > > jazz guys how jazz is played and conceptualized. You always get it wrong.
> > > Do you have any clips uop anywhere of your jazz playing David?
>
> > Here we go again. If JOEY doesn't like your approach or the way you
> > play, you CAN NOT have a good idea.
>
> If you have bad ideas there's a big chance that you can't play. But
> lots of great jazz players have no clue in the area of theory whether
> it be jazz theory or any other theory.
> But if someone's going to try to piss all over my abilities, technical
> or conceptual, within the jazz idiom they'd damn well better play
> better than me.
lol You have bad ideas. You play. What are you talking about?
>
> > That is his position and he is
> > very diligent in sticking to it no matter how idiotic it is. I suppose
> > that he would say that George Bernard Shaw (alias Basso Buffa) and his
> > brilliant musical critiques in the London Globe are simply trash
> > because he was only a mediocre viola player. (or what ever string
> > instrument he played around with)
>
> If his critiques were brilliant then that would be obvious to any
> reader no matter what his musical abilities.
> If his critiques were lame and his musicianship was also lame then
> he'd have no redeeming factors.
> Your ideas about music and David's ideas are not on a par with GBS's
> ideas about anything, you pompous old deluded fool.
Name calling is still your last resort to providing any real insight.
You are consistent!
Have you actually read any of Basso Buffa's critiques? It doesn't
sound like it. It sounds like you are woofing.
>
> > It is simply another ploy in his
> > Distort and Evade approach to
>
> ...
>
> read more »
oops! no, I think not this is already too much BS! (yes, I left the G
out on purpose)
LJS
tom_k
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:254f5354-2cdb-461d...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Did Ray Charles change it to
> Eb? I don't remember that he did. I know we don't.
Ray Charles made a couple of changes (I hear them as improvements) to
Carmichael's music. At this particular spot (2nd half of m.5), the Real
Book 2 lead sheet specifies a D7 chord. The melody contains an 8th note
appoggiatura of E which quickly resolves to D - no maj. or min. 9th
contained in the chord. Charles sings a D there with no E - actually an E
with no F# as he always performed Georgia in the key of G. The harmony he
uses is an E Aug. which would be D+ in the key of F - no 9th in his chord.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IumnmhnPJKQ
Also, note that in measures 4~5, instead of the written |G/B Bbm7 - Eb|
F D7| , he used |Bb Bbo7| F/C D+| (all transposed to F).
Tom
Joey Goldstein
Again. Paragraph after insane paragraph, just going on and on about
music that you know nothing about.
On Nov 14, 4:09 pm, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 10:28 pm, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 13, 3:38 pm, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 13, 9:52 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > > > David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:01:20 -0800, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> > Then I must have misunderstood your comments.
>
> > Comments like this:
>
> > "What I hear is a series of tonal centers (if we are talking about
> > typical 251 jazz in particular) I hear a melody that goes with these
> > tonal centers. The bass emphasizes the tonic and other strong tones,
> > the chord players play sparsely and listen to the soloist and
> > harmonizes the melody that the soloist PLAYS."
>
> > No mention in there that I can see about how it is the chords that are
> > holding everything together. Just vague shadowy references to
> > mysterious 'tonal centers' and 'tonics' whatever you think those are.
> > No mention about how these 'tonal centers' are to be used by the
> > player.
> > No mention in there about chords or arpeggiation at all.
>
> You are correct. You have totally misunderstood everything that I have
> said.
>
> Chords are certainly important. The specific colors of each individual
> chord is not.
You are wrong about this.
To a beginner jazz player the specific colors of each individual chord
are in many ways the most important thing he has to consider in order
to coherently navigate the tune. To an advanced player the specific
colors of the chords that he is substituting for the original chords
are of the utmost importance. It is impossible to state the sound of a
substitute chord if you do not actually sound several of the chord
tones of the substitute chord. It is impossible to play intelligently
off of a substitute chord if you can not already play intelligently
off of the original chords.
When someone like Bill Evans plays off of his substitute chords he has
to be very precise in actually outlining those chords otherwise it
won't sound like he's playing off of those chords.
> Remember, that the CONTEXT (there is that mysterious
> word again) of all my statements have been concerning the Functional
> Analysis.
The context of my statements to you is the statement of yours that I
am replying to.
> The fact is that this is dealing only with chords.
That's all I was asked to address.
That's all a jazz-oriented *harmonic* analysis is supposed to address.
The fact that this is not sufficient for you simply points up yet
again how much you do not know about how jazz musicians operate.
I was not asked to give a classical CPP analysis of this tune. If I
had been asked to do that I probably would have passed.
I've asked you to do this several times now but you just avoid it and
evade it.
> It is in
> the way that these chords are used and defined that seems to be
> confusing to you.
I'm not confused at all. I know how to play this stuff. There are
demonstrations of my playing at several web sites across the internet
that prove that I have at least some level of competence playing music
in this style.
There is no evidence anywhere that you have ever participated in any
music making at all in any capacity.
> In simple terms, Piston is correct with his RN/UC approach to CPP
> harmony.
What does it matter if he uses UC or LC Roman numerals?
> It doesn't matter so much the individual color of the chord
> when looking at the total picture.
But when jazz and/or pop musicians are improvising from a chord chart
it does matter.
> USUALLY the Dominant is Major. And
> USUALLY it has a m7 added to it. BUt that is not the only type of
> dominant chord that is possible and this is the MOST important chord
> in the Functional harmony of the CPP. (and CPP harmony and Jazz is so
> close that if it applies to one it applies to the other)
>
> When you are talking about a Dominant chord, it really doesn't matter
> if it is a 7th or a 9th or 11th or what alterations it has, it still
> functions as a Dominant.
That's all true, unless the band has decided beforehand to use a
particular set of extensions. In that case it does matter.
If I know that the piano player is playing a G7 chord with both A and
E within his voicing, either by us agreeing to work off of a pre-
written chord chart or if I simply hear him playing that sound, then
I'm not as free as I might be just playing a generic dominant chord.
We jazz musicians study these individual sonorities so that we can
navigate them when we need to.
You don't know this stuff because you're not out there playing jazz
every day and having to deal with each new playing situation you find
yourself in. But that won't stop you from going on and on about it as
if you do know what you're talking about.
> When it gets to the 2nd class chords, it
> matters even less. The important thing in CPP and Jazz is that the
> music moves away from tonic and returns through the cycle of fifths.
While root progression via the cycle of 5ths is statistically the most
common it is by no means necessary for Tonal music.
If Piston said that it is, then he's wrong. I'm guessing that you're
just misinterpreting him like you do with everything else.
> These can be literal or diatonic. Autumn Leaves is a perfect example
> of the concept of moving away and returning.
Autumn Leaves begins by moving towards a Tonic, not by leaving it.
> It can then be broken up
> into two distinct key areas with a 251 cadence and a common chord
> modulation to connect them
I'm familiar with the tune.
> or you can look at it as one continuous
> movement to SD
You can?
Please explain.
To my way of thinking the SD chords in AL are IIm7 and IVmaj7 in the
major key and IIm7b5 in the relative minor key.
How can this progression be "looked at it as one continuous movement
to SD"?
Most folks look at it as "progression" to T.
> and returning diatonically through the entire circle
> back to the tonic of Emin.
Whatever.
> It just is not important TO THE FUNCTION of the chords.
"What" is not important to the function of the chords?
> It is
> important to the individual characteristics of the specific tune being
> analyzed.
What do you mean by "it"?
> I have, however, never addressed that CONTEXT in my posts.
What "context" are you blathering on about now?
> You have the bad habit of looking at everything I say and putting it
> into what ever CONTEXT you seem to be thinking of at the time and you
> do not consider the CONTEXT that the post was addressing.
That's because you don't know how to participate in a conversation.
> That is
> where you get into trouble and that is what will keep you from getting
> a Masters Degree in theory.
I don't want a Master's Degree in theory. That's something that you
probably aspire towards.
> If you want to be a full professor
I don't want to be a full professor. You're the wannabe professor
here, not me. I'm a jazz musician.
> or even
> to be able to intelligently converse with classical theorists,
I do fine conversing with classical theorists. I don't do well
conversing with you because you're not a classical theorist. You're
someone who's taken a few harmony courses *many* years ago and did not
understand what was being said to him who wants to be seen as a
classical theorist.
> then
> you have to get a handle on this CONTEXT thing. Berklee just didn't
> seem to get this point across to you,
> and they may not have even tried
> as this does not seem to be their function.
There was no Context According To LJS" course at Berklee, 'tis true.
> It goes back to what I
> have been saying since my first encounter with you. You don't
> understand classical theory thinking and contexts.
I understand enough and I seem to understand more of it than you do,
which is pitiful IMO.
> You try to find
> square holes to put round thing into. The problem is that they never
> quite fit right although they almost sound as if they do. Seriously,
> if you looked up Blooms, it should clear up a lot of this stuff. As I
> have repeatedly said, you have a lot of knowledge, you just don't know
> how to organize it except in the one way you do that suits your own
> personal playing style.
The fact that you go on and on about "Bloom" here as being some
infallible arbiter of objective knowledge who happens to justify your
own insane rants, just paints you as being even more insane.
> That is fine if you stick to that. When you go into classical theory,
> you just don't have the concepts and contexts sorted out.
Neither do you. Lol.
> > Don't you take the time to think before you write something?
>
> > > > > Take "Georgia on my Mind", the word "song" in "just an old sweet song".
> > > > > The melody is E. The chord is D7. Hoagy chose an E instead of an
> > > > > Eb, but most cats, including singers, flat the E at some point.
>
> Not so much here. Maybe in Canada. Maybe in a solo, but I don't think
> I can remember anyone making it that down here at the source. In fact,
> it is that Major 9th in that context that is characteristic of
> Dixieland Harmony. Occasionally a singer or soloist might use it sort
> of as a "blue" note, but I don't think that this could be considered
> characteristic of the style. You are, of course, free to play it any
> way you want and reharmonization is a valid style to use for
> improvisation, but I don't think it can be considered a convention of
> the style. The Major 9th on the secondary dominant of the to the ii7
> chord is related to the sonority produced by the ^3rd in the V7 chord
> instead of the ^2 on "Geor" and "mind" in the V7 for the cadence. I.e.
> it might be done some times someplace, but it is not characteristic in
> this area or in any recordings hat come to mind.
Who do you think you're talking to above?
You're actually arguing with your buddy David, not me.
Lol.
> > > As I hear it, it is the European "trad Natzis"
> > > that changed it (at least around here) because the older music, from
> > > around the 20s and 30s would have been more likely to use the
> > > flattened note.
>
> > You're completely wrong.
>
> Sure Joey. That is your opinion.
My opinion is based on 30 years of experience within the jazz
community as a jazz musician.
> I am only living and grew up at the
> place where these conventions started.
Your experience is that you happen to live in New Orleans where many
people are still playing in the style of early New Orleans jazz.
That's kinda' like Sarah Palin citing that her experience creds for
foreign policy are based on that she can see Russia from her house.
> Did Ray Charles change it to
> Eb? I don't remember that he did. I know we don't.
Buy some jazz records, learn a few tunes from fakebooks and you'll
quickly realize that b9 on V7/IIm is the norm.
Georgia On My Mind was written in 1930. it's an example of the older
style.
> > > > Yet if if the E was played it *is* D9.
> > > > A writer of a chart of chord-symbols has the choice to make things as
> > > > lose as possible by simply confining his chord symbols to maj, min and
> > > > dom7 or he can try delineate things with a bit more specificity by using
> > > > more elaborate structures. There is a role in jazz for both types of
> > > > chord chart.
> > > > The former approach assumes that the players will add colour tones to
> > > > the basic chords at their own discretion. If they are not also supplied
> > > > with the melody line then there are all sorts of potential snafus that
> > > > may or may not occur depending on the notes in the melody.
> > > > A chord chart sans melody can be constructed in such a way that the most
> > > > important notes in the melody that are extensions on the basic chords
> > > > are incorporated into the chord symbol. Eg. Using the chord symbol D9 on
> > > > Georgia can help to prevent a piano player from playing D7b9 at this
> > > > point which is what he might do if given a chart with a simple D7 on it
> > > > instead.
>
> This sounds like the ramblings of a CHART player. If you are talking
> about reading charts, that is fine. For improvisation, Yes, the player
> has all the freedom that he wants to take. That is why they call it
> improvisation!
You don't seem to realize how often it is that jazz musicians are
called upon to improvise based upon a given chord chart in all sorts
of settings. Trios, quartets, big bands, etc.
That's because, when talking about jazz, you don't what you're talking
about.
The reason I treat you like you're a dick is because you go on and on
and on about this stuff that you are totally clueless about and then
try to paint me as being a charlatan when i actually tell the truth
about the way it is. I.e. I treat you like you're a dick because
you're a dick. If I've ever met anybody who deserves to be treated
like a dick it's you.
> > > Any musician worth his salt would automatically play the tune the way
> > > that that particular group would play it.
>
> > What 'particular group'?
>
> What ever particular group. If I were playing with your group.
> ROTFLOL, I would play it your way. If I were playing it in a rock
> group, I might play it only with power chords. In general, I would
> play it the way the Rules that the man with the GOLD likes to hear. If
> I am with my group, I might play it 12-tone. Who knows! That is why it
> is called improvisation. As long as it is musical, it is musical. If
> you want to make make hits you have to play it the way the public
> wants to hear it and be able to have them understand it. The very
> nature of "What particular group" shows that we are speaking in two
> different CONTEXTS. Can't you see that?
What it shows is that you are quite poor at both sentence construction
and at presenting your thoughts in print.
> > > And if you understood what I
> > > was saying (which you obviously don't) you would see that this is a
> > > good example of what I was telling you!
>
> > If you understood what you were saying you wouldn't be saying it. Lol.
>
> Well, if you could stick to the CONTEXT I might be able to ascertain
> what you are saying. With all your mixed interpretations and red
> herrings (accidental or on purpose) I can not see a coherent thread to
> your statements. You just seem to jump around from place to place.
I jump wherever your comments lead us to.
> > > Interesting how you pick and
> > > choose with what I say and what you make up about my posts.
>
> > I address your sentences line by line. I only leave out stuff that is
> > either too idiotic to comment on or completely irrelevant.
>
> That could be the problem. You seem to be missing the overall picture.
Lol.
> It is also that CONTEXT thing again. The only way that your factoids
> are relevant was in the Chart reading situation of a big band chart.
The sphere in which my comments are relevant is the sphere in which
jazz musicians have to operate in.
This is a world that you know nothing about yet you keep going on and
on and on and on as if you know everything about it.
You're a fool.
> > > And in a big band chart or in ANY written out chart, it would be
> > > appropriate as well as necessary to write out the extensions.
>
> > The rhythm section parts in a big band are mostly improvised and are
> > based off of chord charts.
> > These chord charts can be as complex or as simple as the writer sees
> > fit.
>
> You are so far "all over the place" here that is a bit disturbing!
> Who are you talking about? It has NOTHING at all to do with what I
> said and this whole subthread is all of your saying!
I am responding there to your incorrect assertion that it is necessary
to write out the extensions within a big band rhythm section's chord
charts. You don't know what you're talking about. I do. I play
regularly in one of the best big bands in Canada or anywhere else.
"The rhythm section parts in a big band are mostly improvised and are
based off of chord charts.
These chord charts can be as complex or as simple as the writer sees
fit."
That is the truth of the matter. But go ahead and argue the point some
more.
> > > > It's true that I did not include the melody or any aspects of how the
> > > > melody might be used for improvisation within my analysis.
> > > > But I most certainly did include the chord tones as well as their
> > > > relation to the key. I also gave some details about how the non-chord
> > > > tones in that key might be used *on the chords*.
>
> There, you just proved my point.
> You did not include it and that is
> one of the reasons that your analysis was incomplete.
And we're all still waiting with bated breath for *your* "complete'
analysis of Led Zeppelin's Stairway To Heaven.
Let's have it already.
> The melody is
> the main part of a composition.
In how many of Jimmy Page's guitar solos has he based his solo off of
the melody?
In this style of music the improvisation is based off of the chords.
The art is in coming up with a new melody.
Within the jazz world, many of the greatest jazz musicians spent
considerable energy on embellishing the tune's original melody. Many
did not do that to any great degree much of the time.
Monk's solos almost always fit the former description. Coltrane often
went both ways. Miles seems to have been more concerned with
improvising his own melodies based on *the harmonic structure of the
tune* much of the time.
> The chords are the accompaniment (in
> this piece at least) It ma be interesting, but without the melody,
> there is no hit. If the harmony is not related to the melody in some
> way, the analysis is incomplete and if the Poster was asking about how
> to improvise on the tune, doesn't it seem as though it might be
> included in some form when talking about improvising a solo over the
> same changes that are there to accompany the melody?
If I thought that it was important for Jon to be basing his improvised
rock or jazz solo on themes occurring within the original melody then
that topic may have surfaced in my conversation with him. But you
decided to hi-jack the thread so that no such intelligent discourse
could occur. Now we've been talking about me for instead for 2 weeks.
As it was, I just dealt with the things he we actually asking me
about.
> > > the first walk down on the Amin chord. And in those cases, both
> > > I and David are completely correct.
>
> > My analysis was and is correct.
> > You don't know what part of my post was the analysis and what part was
> > the chord symbols.
> > If you think that the chord symbols are an analysis then you are
> > WRONG.
>
> No, that is my statement. Don't steal my material You are the one that
> emphasized that chords and somehow forgets the tmelody and other
> considerations, not me.
Look at my analysis you idiot.
It says 1.5 bars of Im followed by VIm7b5 corrected to IV.
That's just what it says. There's no spinning this your way.
> > sometimes we use all upper case RN. Sometimes we use the more
> > traditional methods. But the chord symbols are *not* the analysis. The
> > chord symbols are the outlines of the harmonic movements of the music
> > that need to be analyzed so that an improviser can make more informed
> > choices in his improvisation.
>
> I am glad that you read that someplace. When you start to use it in
> analyses then you may understand what it means. Where is the evidence
> that you consider other factors in your analysis. You certainly don't
> post them on this news group!
I don't consider other factors in the harmonic analysis. That's not
what an harmonic analysis is for.
> > "Your 'problem" is that you know nothing about jazz or how we operate
> > within the jazz community, yet you go on and on and on as if you do.
>
> You seem th think that you are in the definitive jazz community.
No. that's what *you* think, and you're not even a jazz musician.
> I
> have listened to your music on line.
And? What?
You don't think any of my music is "jazz"?
Have you heard the big band stuff with Freeflight?
Have you heard the duos with Geoff Young, or the other clips on that
page?
Do you have any recordings of yourself playing what you think "jazz"
is supposed to be?
> Maybe if you showed us the OTHER
> music that you play that is the result of your definitive jazz
> community this might make sense.
I lived in Boston for 3.5 years studying with me of the best jazz
musicians on the planet. That's one community.
I've been performing jazz music in Toronto since the late 1970's.
That's two communities.
I've recorded and or performed with the following jazz artists, some
of them from all over North America:
Darcy James Argue, Ingrid Jensen, John MacLeod's Rex Hotel Orchestra,
Diane Nalini, Campbell Ryga, Phil Wilson. Graeme Kirkland, Ron Allen,
Vito Rezza, Ralph Bowen, Dick Felix, Graydon Hillock, Tribal Unit, The
Humber College Big Band (under the direction of Russ Little), Brian
Katz, Demo Cates, Don Franks, John Cheeseman, John Findlay, The Bobby
Herriot Orchestra, Dave Hutchison, Bernie Senensky, Freeflight, John
MacMurchy, Michael Farquharson, The Gene Pool Boys, etc.
I've been hired to teach jazz guitar in two of the best jazz-oriented
schools in the Toronto area (Humber College and Mohawk College).
We all speak the same language., jazz. We all utilize chord symbol
notation in more or less the same way.
What are *your* credentials in jazz? That you live in New Orleans and
know somebody who knew Bill Evans?
What have you ever done at all in music at anytime, you pompous
idiotic self-inflated fool?
> You really
> missed the boat with you comment about Bill Evans being a musician
> that plays the changes. yes it can. He usually didn't but yes he
> could.
Bill Evans always played on either *the* changes or another set of
changes of his own device.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
LJS
Ahh, now it makes sense. Your chords "operate". That clear it up. And
now you can teach me something. What is the definition of "operate" in
the musical sense? What kind of Operations does a C chord do? This
sounds like a leading edge concept. Now you have my interest. I have
no idea of how a C chord operates.
LJS
LJS
> I studied and played jazz for enough years to become pretty
> disenchanted with a lot of the thinking that infects it.
>
> Chord notation seems to be made for the convenience of pianists and
> guitarists rather than horn players
>
> It was a breakthrough for me when I realized this and started re-
> notating progressions in terms of how I would likely
> solo through them on my horn instead of how I would need to reference
> them for voicings if I were playing piano.
What method of notation did you use that worked for you? With
standards and for casual improvisation a framework of implied scales
always worked for me. Its simple and your ear can guide your choices
of which ones to play. And face it, if you can't hear it, no system
will work for anybody any better than their ear is capable of
hearing.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
A major chord with root on C can operate with several different
harmonic functions within a Tonal piece of music.
It might function as a T chord in C or A minor, a SD chord in G major
or E minor or B major, a D chord in F major or F minor.
It might also serve as bVII in either D major or D minor. But the
harmonic function of bVII can be ambiguous, either SD or D.
There's probably a few other functions it is capable of within the maj/
min key system that I've left out.
And of course in atonal music or non-tonal music it can function all
sorts of other ways for which no standard descriptions exist.
The chord voicing C F Gb Bb that i was referring to earlier can
operate as a partial voicing of Cm7b5(11) which might have SD function
in Bb minor or T function in Eb minor or F#/Gb major. It might also
have D function in Db major.
What "function" do you believe that the pitch collection known as
"Cm7b5" has outside of any given context?
David Raleigh Arnold
????
What march?
Take a look at my site. I have specialized in ultra easy solos
for guitar because there were none. Instead there was this huge
gap in difficulty between initially learning the notes and the
first solos in two and three parts. My other thing is not more longer
forms, but song writing. I don't feel any need to write more
difficult music because there is no need for it. I have a couple
of very easy jazz-oriented solos in flat keys. I started writing to a
purpose and I feel no impulse to change.
Certainly I have nothing against mining my own stuff, and I have
done so on occasion.
The
> most difficult part for most people is to get good ideas. I think you
> have too many in that one piece. You could just as easily do more
> development and use the ideas that you have there to create several
> movements without having to create any more ideas. Development or lack
> of that is the only weak point that considered worth mentioning. This
> was a big thing at my school. All of our theory was, in a way, geared to
> means of getting the most out of the small ideas that were the basis of
> a composition.
I had the wrong composition teacher (for me) so I didn't last in
a master's program. He thought that there was a "music of our time".
Ever hear that one? "Unity and variey", the beat goes on. I thought
instead that one should imitate whatever one likes. My way was the
highway. I came out making a much more worthwhile contribution than my
last composition teacher. Regards, daveA
LJS
Maybe in your class. To navigate the tune, the melody is the most
obvious and the most easiest to learn. In the early days of jazz, many
of the solos were not much more than the melody with unessential
variation. If the student needs to get his "feet wet" and you are
limiting your outlook to getting him up on the stage quickly so that
he can learn on the stage what to do, your having even think of chord
colors will guarantee him to screw up. Teach him the melody. He may be
boring but he won't get lost As he learns to hear how the melody fits
into the harmonic structure, he will then start to break the melody
into motifs and moving things around a bit and maybe in between
sessions he might start to look at the basic ( no more than 7ths and
an occasional 9th mostly diatonic chords in the keys( harmonic
structure and he will be able to improvise then in a KEY using the
motifs of the song being played.
During this evolutionary process, the student is also learning to
LISTEN and is definitely improving his ear. He will get to all the
essential changes but the "fancy" ones that consume the guitar player
time are only necessary when the music is being read and everyone has
to play the exact colors for the CHART. BUT wait, that is not
improvisation. It might be jazz, but it is not improvisation. There
may be room for some limited improvisation in it, but you are soloing
during an improvisation, you don't NEED to even know what chords that
rhythm section is playing. You have a good ear, you listen and you
respond and you should know the tune to begin with so why to you need
them?
Most of those chords came from horn arrangements. If you are playing
with a horn section it is necessary to play them in order to avoid
noise. In a small group setting, the various colors added to the tune
is a signature of the soloist. Not usually of the tune. AFTER the
student has learned to play by ear, and they can create music on their
own, they can add the "cool" sounds if they like. Or not. Its the
melody that is important in an improvised solo.
NOW, if you are talking about a guitar player that needs to play the
chords for others, then he needs to concentrate more on changes.and
usually that takes time away from their learning to hear the melodies
as a stand alone element. This is a trap that many guitar players fall
into. Their solos then become arppegios and a few connecting notes.
Fine, but if you want to improvise a solo, the MELODY is WAAY more
useful to keep your place, to not sound like someone stumbling over
chords as then mis finger, get distracted, loose their place as they
try not to hurt themselves as their fingers get tangled up in knots as
they try to play the advanced colors before they know what they are
doing.
If you make a student wait until he can play extended color changes he
will probably remain a closet player for life. When I had a class of
HS students taking Jazz band, we improvised and developed their ears.
Start a young soloist out with the standard blues sale. Give him a
backing track with the blues changes and let him go. He will learn to
play music in a short time if he is ever capable of doing it. He gains
confidence and he learns the blues. THen when he can keep his place,
and he is making some real ideas and melodic thoughts on the I IV V
blues add the 251 instead of the 541 for the third section. Then add
blues tunes in different forms. (ala watermelon man) then I go to
simple combination tunes like Blue Bossa, a little bit blues form but
some variations with 251 progressions.
If you really just send kids out to play a solo thinking that playing
all the colors of the chords are the important thing, you are
diverting them from learning to hear their music. I am sure you have
had students that can do what you describe. But those students would
probably do it even if they were not taking lessons in that same
manner. If you want to TEACH the student how to improvise a solo, you
have to teach him how to create a melody. Freddie Green solos are nice
for people on the "inside" to enjoy, but they are certainly not
mainstream.
To an advanced player the specific
> colors of the chords that he is substituting for the original chords
> are of the utmost importance.
It is only important to his creating HIS style. Otherwise it is not
important. If he can make music without substuting for the "cool"
sounds he doesn't have to. If he thinks something else is "cool" he
can do that as well. Personally, I think that what the player can do
best is the "coolest" thing to do!
It is impossible to state the sound of a
> substitute chord if you do not actually sound several of the chord
> tones of the substitute chord. It is impossible to play intelligently
> off of a substitute chord if you can not already play intelligently
> off of the original chords.
Yes you can. And many do. Its called melody! lol IF you are the
soloist and you play a normal note and the rhythm plays the "cool"
chord, the rhythm player is wrong, not the soloist! The rhythm player
is supposed to accompany the soloist. That is true by definition as
well as in practice. If the great Joey is the rhythm section, his job
is to make the soloist sound good. So if the soloist wants to "play
off of" only triads, that would be YOUR job to make a musical
background using TRIADS. Of course if you WERE a bully, the ending
might not quite live up to the ideal.
> When someone like Bill Evans plays off of his substitute chords he has
> to be very precise in actually outlining those chords otherwise it
> won't sound like he's playing off of those chords.
You gave Bill as an example of a great musician that played off of
changes! That was in the post I never got around to responding to.
Well, back that up! What makes you think that he played that way?
What proof do you have that he thought that way when he played?
Maybe you have Bill confused with his brother Harry. Harry played that
way. He played licks that he could put musically over the changes.
Sort of the old Mel Bay manner that gave 251 patterns and drilled them
in all the keys. Hey, it works. They had all types of chord colors and
you could just program them in and play them when appropriate. String
them together and add a few connecting tones and you had a solo. And
it sorta passes for improvisation.
But Bill himself played differently. There are videos on YouTube with
Bill and Harry discussing how Bill approached playing jazz. I realize
that you have better sources, but in these video's Bill seems to think
that you are wrong. He seems to think you may have him confused with
his brother Harry. Bill tried to teach his brother how to play from a
framework but Harry never would pay the dues necessary to achieve that
level of playing. Harry admits it. Bill further describes how he uses
chords. He must not know as much as you do Joey, because he seem to
think that the harmonic analysis of his framework is more concerned
with tonality and the chords are only a guide to that tonality. If
there is a particular characteristic change or color that he wants to
explore, then he would include it the framework.
I realize that he is probably lying. He was just looking ahead and
covering for his future alumni and Frat brother. But if you can
understand what he is saying, in his own words, he tells of how he
plays and it is not by connecting the dots between the notes of the
chords of the changes. Have you ever listened to his music? He very
often plays a single line melody and 2 or 3 notes scattered around to
reinforce the tonality or just because he wanted that sound happening.
Chords? Sometimes, of course. But as a way of playing? Get real!
BIll, on standards, studied from the old 2 fake books. The ones that
are copies of the typewritten changes that were used in the 30s and
40s. THERE WERE NO EXTENSIONS in the material that he used to study
jazz. He did it the old fashioned way. He listened and he studies and
he tried out things. His ear was excellent and his education was the
state of the art at the time. He would in his middle years at school,
when he was taking styles and analysis, he would take these old books
and use the tunes to do his homework. He would play the song as
Wagner, and as Bach, and as Debussy and Ravel and Hindemith and
Copland. and everyone. Schoenberg, Berg it didn't matter. He would use
that material and learn to think like the composer and then use the
material from the tune to compose in the style of...whoever.
Does that really sound like he is an example of a musician that "Plays
the changes"? Out of all the musicians that do mostly play in a
manner at least similar to what you describe you choose the one that
is the most unlike what you are saying. But what do Bill, Harry and I
know? Joey knows better.
>
> > Remember, that the CONTEXT (there is that mysterious
> > word again) of all my statements have been concerning the Functional
> > Analysis.
>
> The context of my statements to you is the statement of yours that I
> am replying to.
>
> > The fact is that this is dealing only with chords.
>
> That's all I was asked to address.
> That's all a jazz-oriented *harmonic* analysis is supposed to address.
Mayte. The post was about how to analyze the tune. You chose that
limited type of analysis to show how to take a solo. that was the
question. So you are saying by your choice of that limited way of
analyzing that you think this will help. IF your analysis, as you
said, was limited to only the chords, then it was your decision. You
must have thought it was all that was relevant. But then you didn't
bother to check the validity of this tune that you had forgotten and
you got it wrong. So maybe it isn't a matter of not knowing, only of a
"Half-fasted" effort! (as Pete would say)
> You're actually arguing with your buddy David, not me. ...
I see. Everyone that disagrees with you must be buddies of mine. Well
if you need that to keep on going.
>
> read more »
NO THANK YOU!
LJS
LJS
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That is such a nice cut. He sure did run the gamut with the production
at that stage of his concerts. I remember him being much more simple
with the production and less arrangements of that show style nature. I
loved playing in those types of bands in the 70s and 80s. It was a
nice era. I am glad to see that it lasted through the 90s as well.
Ah yes, that first part, before the production ending is pretty much
how I remembered it, thanks for letting me hear it again and
refreshing my memory. The first couple of choruses (including the walk
down you post) are right out of our R&B music that came out of the
gospel churches in N.O. and vicinity. You can hear them and other
variations in all the keyboard players from around here and at scores
of churches every week. He was more like our music in this video than
any other time I have seen him. The Swing Dixieland leaders, on the
other hand, would have used closer to the printed changes but would
of course change that a bit when using a full front line with the
improvisation and the Trad Nazis would probably not play it at all.
The real traditional bands that actually used the older players might
use a mixture of the gospel changes and the printed ones. There is
little or no difference in the tonality although the Gospel chords are
a part of everything played by a Gospel keyboard player so anything
that they play will sound like gospel music. lol
Its amazing that we have no problem switching from one style to the
other since the colors of the chords are SO important to playing that
we can't rely on melodic playing to get us through all the various
different changes that each musician brings to the gig. I guess we
have to learn to have meetings and all decide on what sets of changes
to use instead of the way we have been doing it for 100 years. Jazz
will never catch on if we rely on our ears to play melodic solos! lol
It is a really well written song and can be played with a lot of
different frame works. I am not sure that it is not based on some hymn
although I don't know which one. It has that quality about it,
especially the harmony. Thanks again for the memory.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
incompetent paragraph.
And you wonder why nobody likes to talk to you here.
The proof is in his recordings.
At all times he can be seen to be outlining a chord.
> Maybe you have Bill confused with his brother Harry. Harry played that
> way. He played licks that he could put musically over the changes.
> Sort of the old Mel Bay manner that gave 251 patterns and drilled them
> in all the keys. Hey, it works. They had all types of chord colors and
> you could just program them in and play them when appropriate. String
> them together and add a few connecting tones and you had a solo. And
> it sorta passes for improvisation.
>
> But Bill himself played differently. There are videos on YouTube with
> Bill and Harry discussing how Bill approached playing jazz. I realize
> that you have better sources, but in these video's Bill seems to think
> that you are wrong. He seems to think you may have him confused with
> his brother Harry. Bill tried to teach his brother how to play from a
> framework but Harry never would pay the dues necessary to achieve that
> level of playing.
What you don't understand is what that "framework" actually consists of.
And you certainly have no idea of the process involved in learning how
to operate as a jazz player within that framework.
You're talking out of your ass, as usual.
I never used that phrase, "plays the changes" as far as I know. If I did
use it I'd have to see the context in which I used it.
I said he is "outlining chords", and that's what he does, always.
He will play off of the agreed upon changes that have either been
written out beforehand or discussed with his band-mates, and he will
also be playing off of substitute changes that he and his band-mates are
comfortable with and may have discussed beforehand as well, but he is
always outlining a chord of some sort. That's true of him perhaps moreso
than any other jazz piano player's approach.
The first step in learning to create a single note line that outlines a
chord is to learn how to make up melodies with the chord tones
themselves. That is not the end goal. It is an *exercise* for a beginner.
For a jazz musician, the goal is to transcend all of your exercises and
play what you hear. But if you want to be able to hear anything
interesting and/or coherent over a given set of chord changes the place
to start is with the chord tones.
The theme of the tune, aka the melody, also has its place in a jazz
improviser's palette.
A player who only plays literally on the pre-agreed-upon changes will
not be playing at a very high level, but at least he's made a start.
A player who only plays off the chords, including any substitute chords
(whether they're "cool" chords or not lol) and does not incorporate the
themes of the melody will not be playing on a very high level by the
standards of many people. But he still might be making some pretty good
music.
A player who plays only off of the chords and ignores the relationship
between his note choices and how they happen to operate within the
primary key and/or key-of-the-moment will also most likely not be
playing on a very high level.
But a player who can't play notes that fit the changes simply can't "play".
And of course rhythm is by far the most important element in jazz.
If a player can do all of the above but he can't play it in time with a
good time feeling then he can't "play" either.
> Out of all the musicians that do mostly play in a
> manner at least similar to what you describe you choose the one that
> is the most unlike what you are saying. But what do Bill, Harry and I
> know? Joey knows better.
All jazz musicians play in the manner that I've described.
Some play better than others, that's all.
You really don't know what you're talking about.
You'd be wise to shut up sometime soon.
LJS
Total non answer. You have merely defined "operate" as "function" and
substituted one for the other. It is one of the more lucid
descriptions of function that I have heard you quote. Maybe you are
gaining some more knowledge. I have noticed that you have made an
attempt as you have made the statement "Thanks, I didn't know that!"
more times in the recent past than you have in the 5 years or what
ever I have been in the group. That's great and congratulations. I
wonder what you are going to do when you realize that in each instance
that I saw, I told you the same thing at some point in the past. But
what ever it takes, if you do your part, we can teach you some things
about functional harmony in spite of yourself. All it really takes is
an effort on your part.
OH YES, in another post you make some comment about a i6 being
impossible and then maybe changed it to "not so much but really hard
to find" or something like that. I can't find it now, but I thought I
had remembered an instance where I saw that notation. I believe that
Tom may have asked you about it in one of his posts and thought that
we might be overlooking something obvious. Well, It came to me and if
you look at p.24 in the Real Book 1 (the handwritten one it is not
printed like sheet music in the legal ones) Angel Eyes has a Cm6 at
the end of the tune as a Tonic as well as at the earlier cadence.
I just thought in you might be interested. I am sure, however, that
you play it in some other manner.
LJS
Orangeboxman
On thing that is convenient for me as a flute and Eb doubler, and a
composer/theorist is to renotate chords
such that the pitch classes appear as black dots as if on clock
positions overlying a cross (clockwise chromatic scale where C is 12;
closely related to pc set theory).
The theory advantage is that I can see the tones without being told
what function they are "supposed to have
within the chord", which allows me to look at individual tones
disappearing and reappearing as harmonic elements
over the course of the progression. Also, ANY collection of pitches
can be notated this way unambiguously.
Then you can circle or cross out pitches or add hollow circles, etc.
Whatever you need. You get to impose
whatever grammar you decide, and then think about it a lot less while
you play.
And if I want to switch from Eb to C or vice-versa, I can just rotate
the chart 90 degrees and read it upward or downward,
as the case may be.
The bigger problem, though, is the jazz mentality in which no one
plays any roots or 3rds anymore, no one plays the same unstated
extension twice, and everything is substituted as much as possible. I
have considered trying to use my Chinese flute in D as a way of
getting ahead of this, but it's easier just to avoid jazz and focus on
developing my own thing.
Joey Goldstein
Read it again.
Guess you didn't get it.
> It is one of the more lucid
> descriptions of function that I have heard you quote. Maybe you are
> gaining some more knowledge. I have noticed that you have made an
> attempt as you have made the statement "Thanks, I didn't know that!"
> more times in the recent past than you have in the 5 years or what
> ever I have been in the group. That's great and congratulations. I
> wonder what you are going to do when you realize that in each instance
> that I saw, I told you the same thing at some point in the past. But
> what ever it takes, if you do your part, we can teach you some things
> about functional harmony in spite of yourself. All it really takes is
> an effort on your part.
That's all total bullshit.
I always thank people who have corrected me and/or shown me something
new. I.e. You are a liar.
[I never thank *you* because you have never corrected me or shown me
something I didn't know already. I've corrected you many many many many
many times. But you're too stupid to notice, let alone to thank me.]
> OH YES, in another post you make some comment about a i6 being
> impossible and then maybe changed it to "not so much but really hard
> to find" or something like that. I can't find it now, but I thought I
> had remembered an instance where I saw that notation. I believe that
> Tom may have asked you about it in one of his posts and thought that
> we might be overlooking something obvious. Well, It came to me and if
> you look at p.24 in the Real Book 1 (the handwritten one it is not
> printed like sheet music in the legal ones) Angel Eyes has a Cm6 at
> the end of the tune as a Tonic as well as at the earlier cadence.
>
> I just thought in you might be interested. I am sure, however, that
> you play it in some other manner.
>
> LJS
>
You idiotic troll.
I've gone on record several times on usenet saying that in jazz harmony
the norm for a Im chord is Im6.
In modal era jazz it's Im7.
In bebop it's Im6 and nowadays most folks seem to prefer Im6 as well.
Im6 with the melodic minor scale applied to it, in a chord-scale
relationship, is one of those "cool" sounds we like.
Joey Goldstein
>> Total non answer. You have merely defined "operate" as "function" and
>> substituted one for the other.
>
> Read it again.
> Guess you didn't get it.
You seem to believe that the tones delineated by a jazz/pop chord symbol
automatically constitute some sort of designation of harmonic function
to the chord.
This is absolutely not true.
Although it's often best if a chord symbol also coincides with a correct
RN analysis of the chord, this is often not the case, and it is not the
purpose for the chord symbol.
One good example of this wold be the chord symbol used for the chord
functioning as bVI in the following progression:
Ebm / / / |B / Bb7 / |Ebm
Now, many writers would write that as Cb which is technically more
correct because it's more in line with the correct harmonic analysis.
But just as many writers would write it the way I have for ease of reading.
So the function of this B chord is not as a B chord at all. This B chord
is functioning as bVI in the key of Eb minor. Just identifying it as a
B chord is saying absolutely nothing about its function within any key.
The chord symbol "C" means:
A chord that has a C as its lowest tone, plus a note a maj 3rd above
that (or some other octave double of a maj 3rd), plus another note a
P5th above C (or an octave double of the note that is a P5th above C).
When an improvising musician sees this chord symbol he is expected to
iterate that pitch collection in some manner.
The chord symbol does not in any way delineate the way the chord will
function within any key. The chord symbol is merely a prescription for
construction of a chord according to the above mentioned intervallic
formula. How the chord actually functions within a key or a mode or
within some other conceptual framework is a totally different matter.
Because your training is all in the area of analysis of pre-composed
music you can't actually see the role of the chord symbol the way that
an improvising musician sees it.
By calling a chord "a C chord" we are not ascribing any harmonic
function to it. We are simply recognizing the intervallic construction
of the pitch collection.
If we sometimes say things like "C E G functions as a C chord" we are
not talking about harmonic function of that C chord within a key or a
mode in the way that we would describe a I chord or a IV chord, for
example.
*As a matter of fact, we're not talking about the function of the chord
at all. We're talking about the result of sounding those three notes
simultaneously. I.e. The sentence "C E G functions as a C chord" says
nothing about how the C chord itself functions.*
If you want to keep this little silly war of semantics going on then go
right ahead. But you're wrong.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Because your training is all in the area of analysis of pre-composed
>music you can't actually see the role of the chord symbol the way that
>an improvising musician sees it.
>By calling a chord "a C chord" we are not ascribing any harmonic
>function to it. We are simply recognizing the intervallic construction
>of the pitch collection.
>If we sometimes say things like "C E G functions as a C chord" we are
>not talking about harmonic function of that C chord within a key or a
>mode in the way that we would describe a I chord or a IV chord, for
>example.
>*As a matter of fact, we're not talking about the function of the chord
>at all. We're talking about the result of sounding those three notes
>simultaneously. I.e. The sentence "C E G functions as a C chord" says
>nothing about how the C chord itself functions.*
Speak for yourself there. I definitely think of chord functions rather than
absolute or abstract pitch collections. My functional framework allows me to
select soloing melodies that will reinforce harmonic direction. So, if a C
major chord is the I, it will obviously be a resolution chord, unlike it being
the VII of D minor, for instance.
Orlando
Joey Goldstein
The chord created by notes C E G in-and-of-itself, outside of any
musical context, has no harmonic function at all. But it is always
correct to identify that pitch collection as "functioning", or
"operating", or whatever other word you choose, as "a C major chord"
because that's the definition of "a C major chord".
How you decide to use that structure creatively or how you "think" about
it is your own business.
Joey Goldstein
And Orlando... You're a blind person. So you never even have to look at
chord charts anyway! Lol.
LJS
Yes. C E G does spell a C maj Chord. But but Alfred's Theory method
will only get you so far. When you use it in a context, it then has a
function. Simple enough to say that a MAJOR TRIAD has a name but it
has no function until it is put to use. It it really only the
definition of a major chord. Nothing more and nothing less.
LJS
LJS
lol You ignorant slut! lol
> I've gone on record several times on usenet saying that in jazz harmony
> the norm for a Im chord is Im6.
> In modal era jazz it's Im7.
> In bebop it's Im6 and nowadays most folks seem to prefer Im6 as well.
> Im6 with the melodic minor scale applied to it, in a chord-scale
> relationship, is one of those "cool" sounds we like.
is this supposed to be realted to something? Like what for instance?
someone (I think you) said that they could not think of a i6 as tonic.
Notice the LOWER CASE. It means minor.
So how many ways can you be wrong on a simple thing like this? I count
3 major errors in your reasoning and several more if you include the
implications and context changes.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
Yeah. It's related to some other stupid irrelevant tangent that you
brought up in which you got the details wrong.
> Like what for instance?
> someone (I think you) said that they could not think of a i6 as tonic.
> Notice the LOWER CASE. It means minor.
Notice the lower case "m". It means minor too, fool.
LJS
And that is the only thing that is wrong with my statement. Oops! THe
rest of it is correct. I believe that you stated something on the
order of a half diminished chord (like A C Eb G) could not be a
tonic. Tom asked for an example of the Cm6 as a tonic as he could not
remember one in Jazz. I pointed out that Angle Eyes ended on one on
the sheet. You busted in on my reply to Tom and you are now telling me
that.... what is it you are trying to say again?
Joey Goldstein
>
>> You idiotic troll.
>
> lol You ignorant slut! lol
Finally, you begin to see some of the context and also demonstrate that
you may even have a sense of humour.
Maybe you're not a Turing test after all?
LJS
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> > LJS wrote:
> >> On Nov 15, 1:40 am, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Total non answer. You have merely defined "operate" as "function" and
> >> substituted one for the other.
>
> > Read it again.
> > Guess you didn't get it.
>
> You seem to believe that the tones delineated by a jazz/pop chord symbol
> automatically constitute some sort of designation of harmonic function
> to the chord.
> This is absolutely not true.
Are you totally nuts? Every time it came up in the last 5 years I said
the exact opposite! WE even had other heated discussions where I tried
to point out to you that this was a limitation of the Jazz theory that
you described!
Try to keep us straight! LOL
Joey Goldstein
Hardly.
> Oops! THe
> rest of it is correct. I believe that you stated something on the
> order of a half diminished chord (like A C Eb G) could not be a
> tonic.
Half-diminished chords are never the tonic chord chord of a key. This is
by the definition of what "key" means.
In jazz, we talk about VIm7b5 as having T function in a minor key, but
that's a different animal from being the tonic chord.
We also talk about IIIm as having T function in major keys, but we don't
think of IIIm as being the tonic chord of the key.
The tonic chord of a major or minor key is the major or minor chord
built on the tonic of the key.
I've never seen a m7b5 chord convincingly used as a home chord of a
modal tonal centre, but I'm sure someone has or will try it.
But, regardless, it would not be a "key".
Keys are either major or minor and are associated with major chords and
minor chords built on the tonic of the key. In other words, the tonic
chord of a key is always either a major chord or a minor chord.
Im6, while comprised of toneas that are enharmonically equivalent to
VIm7b5, is *not* the same chord as VIm7b5.
> Tom asked for an example of the Cm6 as a tonic as he could not
> remember one in Jazz. I pointed out that Angle Eyes ended on one on
> the sheet. You busted in on my reply to Tom
Hmm. yet in all of that mass of text you've decided to quote above there
is no trace of this discussion with Tom. Interesting. Tom's name isn't
even mentioned in the headers. Interesting.
Maybe you were really talking to me and I was talking back to you
because what you said was full of shit like it always is?
> and you are now telling me
> that.... what is it you are trying to say again?
I dunno. You brought up min7b5 chords as tonics.
I explained it to you. Feel free to thank me.
Joey Goldstein
> On Nov 15, 6:35 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>> LJS wrote:
>>>> On Nov 15, 1:40 am, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Total non answer. You have merely defined "operate" as "function" and
>>>> substituted one for the other.
>>> Read it again.
>>> Guess you didn't get it.
>> You seem to believe that the tones delineated by a jazz/pop chord symbol
>> automatically constitute some sort of designation of harmonic function
>> to the chord.
>> This is absolutely not true.
>
> Are you totally nuts? Every time it came up in the last 5 years I said
> the exact opposite! WE even had other heated discussions where I tried
> to point out to you that this was a limitation of the Jazz theory that
> you described!
>
> Try to keep us straight! LOL
Were you not trying to get me to admit that when I said that C F Gb Bb
could "operate" as a voicing of "Cm7b5" that somehow "operate" and
"harmonic function" were equivalent?
If not, then I wasted a whole lot of effort explaining to you why it is
that that isn't so.
It would be easier to have coherent conversations with you if you were
more coherent, lied less often, and made less mistakes.
tom_k
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I'm occasionally afflicted with CRS, I doubt I would have claimed that
the added 6th couldn't be added to a minor tonic in jazz. In addition to
Angel Eyes (& many others, I suspect) two of Bobby Timmons's tunes
immediately come to mind - So Tired & Dat Dere.
I may have said that the half-diminished only functions as ii or vii in CPP.
Tom
LJS
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry Tom, I was referring to Boey. With all these posts, It did look
like I meant you, but of course it was Boey.
Wasn't it you that mentioned you knew that there were examples but
that you could not think of one? Or was that another error with all of
the posts and so many >>>>>>>>>>> in the posts.
LJS
LJS
> LJS wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 6:35 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> >>> LJS wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 15, 1:40 am, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Total non answer. You have merely defined "operate" as "function" and
> >>>> substituted one for the other.
> >>> Read it again.
> >>> Guess you didn't get it.
> >> You seem to believe that the tones delineated by a jazz/pop chord symbol
> >> automatically constitute some sort of designation of harmonic function
> >> to the chord.
> >> This is absolutely not true.
>
> > Are you totally nuts? Every time it came up in the last 5 years I said
> > the exact opposite! WE even had other heated discussions where I tried
> > to point out to you that this was a limitation of the Jazz theory that
> > you described!
>
> > Try to keep us straight! LOL
>
> Were you not trying to get me to admit that when I said that C F Gb Bb
> could "operate" as a voicing of "Cm7b5" that somehow "operate" and
> "harmonic function" were equivalent?
> If not, then I wasted a whole lot of effort explaining to you why it is
> that that isn't so.
Well Boey, if that is the case, you wasted a whole lot of effort. I
was trying to get a translation of your Jargon. Instead of explaining
how it was different from function, you illustrated that it was the
same as function with your answer. If you substituted the word
function for operate in your reply (if I remember correctly) you gave
one of your better definitions for Function. At that point, I assumed
that you maybe understood Function under the term of Operate.
Sometimes someone understands a principle but just has a different
name for that principle. It did seem, from your reply, that this might
have been the case. From this reply, I see that I may have been wrong.
Sorry to have overestimated you. I will try not to assume that you
know things anymore.
Recap:
At first, I was looking for an explanation of your term "operate" in a
musical context. After the explanation, I thought that maybe you
understood function but called it operating. If I am wrong with this
assumption, then I still don't know what you mean by "operate" and you
still don't seem have a complete understanding of what Function is all
about.
I wasn't trying to have you to admit anything. I was looking for a
definition of your terms. Paranoia is a very dangerous thing. I never
think in the manner that you assumed. I either ask for information or
I try to explain. In your case, I do sometimes find myself sinking to
your level and will answer a retort, sometimes I just ignore them. I
never try to trick you into saying anything. You do that all by
yourself.
LBS
LJS
Until I looked up the "condition", I was concerned for you. But since
I don't think you are pregnant, I assume that you mean the acronym
with the same letters. lol
VERY WELL PUT!!
(I hope that there is not another meaning for the CRS! If so I am not
laughing at your condition!
LJS
BTW, I know Dat Dere but don't have the sheet on it. But I don't
recognize So Tired by the title. Is it in one of the standard books?
tom_k
On Nov 19, 10:33 am, "tom_k" <tkor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:344c252b-00ee-4963...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 18, 2:47 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> And that is the only thing that is wrong with my statement. Oops! THe
> rest of it is correct. I believe that you stated something on the
> order of a half diminished chord (like A C Eb G) could not be a
> tonic. Tom asked for an example of the Cm6 as a tonic as he could not
> remember one in Jazz. I pointed out that Angle Eyes ended on one on
> the sheet. You busted in on my reply to Tom and you are now telling me
> that.... what is it you are trying to say again?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> While I'm occasionally afflicted with CRS, I doubt I would have claimed
> that
> the added 6th couldn't be added to a minor tonic in jazz. In addition to
> Angel Eyes (& many others, I suspect) two of Bobby Timmons's tunes
> immediately come to mind - So Tired & Dat Dere.
>
> I may have said that the half-diminished only functions as ii or vii in
> CPP.
>
> Tom
Sorry Tom, I was referring to Boey. With all these posts, It did look
like I meant you, but of course it was Boey.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I understood Joey's position to be that an added 6th to a minor
tonic would not be considered as a functional half-diminished chord.
In other words, the proper chord symbol in Cm would be Cm6, not Am7b5/C. I
would agree with that.
Tom
tom_k
> BTW, I know Dat Dere but don't have the sheet on it. But I don't
> recognize So Tired by the title. Is it in one of the standard books?
Although missing the intro and coda, a sheet on Dat Dere may be found in the
old "Jazz LTD" fakebook. Although it shows the first (tonic) chord as Cm,
Bobby always added the A natural.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a lead sheet for So Tired in any
of the fake books, although googling it reveals at least one source who will
sell it to you.
You can hear a creditable performance here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMlS9cizrbQ
Tom
Joey Goldstein
Yes, please give me some examples of minor key music that ends on a
min7b5 chord.
Lol.
Joey Goldstein
Actually, I demonstrated that is was a different type of usage of the
term "function". But of course that was too abstract for your little mind.
Joey Goldstein
Thanks. Because that's right.
Most people with brains could easily understand my positions on most things.
Joey Goldstein
there are a few different ways that the tonic chord can be handled in
minor keys in jazz.
Im, Im6, Im7 and Im(maj7)
tom_k
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:f2f95$4b058937$d8fecf76$12...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
> there are a few different ways that the tonic chord can be handled in
> minor keys in jazz.
> Im, Im6, Im7 and Im(maj7)
>
Although the chart doesn't show it, Bill Evans used Fm(ma7) for Gigi Gryce's
Minority, IIRC.
Tom
LJS
Joey, I never said it was not! As I said before, I was responding to
Tom's ending question that asked if anyone knew of a i6chord (C Eb G
A) as a tonic function chord. I supplied him with one and he gave two
more later. In this case, you had no position! You misunderstood what
I said and applied it to the wrong context.
LJS
LJS
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Thanks, I will listen to the video when I get home. (in my district,
they make a big thing about technology. BUT then they block all blogs,
and streaming video. We can't get YouTube here!!)
I think I have the LTD Jazz Fake book. on pdf at home as well. I will
look that up as well.
LJS
LJS
lol, if you don't care about the spelling, its the the i6 in 3rd
inversion. lol
LJS
LJS
That is what I was hoping you would say, but if you did, the point did
not come across. Please clarify.
LJS
LJS
LJS
I don't know Joey. It has to be a type of turrets syndrome. You just
can't control your self or what? Have you ever tried to find help to
cure that problem?
I am used to SpEd students with your attitude and that same problem.
Some of them can be helped. We have usually started with trying to
find out the reason for their hostility. I have only seen limited
success. But you should really consider the possible consequences if
this spills over into your talking with students and faculty in the
academic world.
LJS
I don't know Joey. It has to be a type of turrets syndrome. You just
can't control your self or what? Have you ever tried to find help to
cure that problem?
Joey Goldstein
Yet in your preferred system of analysis, the only system you claim to
"understand", "i6" actually means a tonic minor triad in 1st inversion
not a min6 chord built on the tonic.
In your preferred system of analysis, the only system you claim to
"understand", the sound you're trying to specify would be written as
"i(add6)".
It's easy to see wonder why people don't understand you, even on the odd
occasion when you get something correct.
Joey Goldstein
It's clear enough. Piss off.
LJS
You are slow aren't you. I understand your system as well. I just
don't like it. It is rather general. It works fine for improvisation,
as does the spelling of the chords, but as far as the theory goes, I
don't see any reason not to look at it from a more classic system of
analysis. Most of your system is ours anyway, the few changes are not
really changes at all. Just another way of labeling the same thing in
different ways.
I do like those slanty thingies. the \xxxxx/. That is cool. I don't
like the look of the "V of" or the V/II notation. It could be used
there. But the same stuff is true with out the slanty things if you
use the right numbers and you don't need to have SUB plastered like a
NEON sign out there. If you use the classical numerals, you can see it
just as easily as you can see a IV V and know that you are approaching
a cadence and that it will be a TTS. There is no difference except for
the Characters.
In Chinese, they use the same characters but each group of people
sound them out differently. In music, it is the notes that are the
same and the RNs spell them out in the two symbolic languages used by
the Jazzers and "Us Guys".
In Chinese the spoken words of each region have many similar sounding
words but certain words are spoken differently. In Music the symbolic
notation has many similar symbols but there are certain concepts (like
TTS) that are written differently.
To a lot of people, Joey, this is not really a big deal. Most of us
are musically multilingual. You can be too if you learn to translate
YOUR symbols into our language. I can read your language quite easily.
I am not totally fluent in YOUR language in those areas that you have
changed the symbolic notation so as I can write it YOUR way. I can
explain your things to you in our language even if you don't believe
it. You can't even try to write YOUR things into the classical
language. It would be informative if you could provide this service to
the group instead of your ranting and raving and name calling etc
These things always seem to start about the time that it you are
expected to translate YOUR ideas into the CPP language that these
tirades seem to start. Why is that?
> In your preferred system of analysis, the only system you claim to
> "understand", the sound you're trying to specify would be written as
> "i(add6)".
That is one way. To one that is fluent in MY PREFERRED SYSTEM (I like
that. MY SYSTEM! too bad I didn't get it copy written) i6 says it
fine. We generally only use the 6 as an inversion in a figured bass
context or if by CONVENTION it is a chord that is CONVENTIONALLY
required to be in an inversion as in the Fr6 (which by definition
means the French Aug6 chord in its traditional voicing.) If there is a
score, either the Gr6 can be written under the bass note of ^b6 or one
can write a #6/5 under the bass note. Either means the same thing. How
exactly is the SUB different than that? Then there is that part that I
like that uses the \ / as a ( ) in an algebraic manner to show
that the SUB uses the two chords as a pattern transposed to the
tritone. That is clever and was necessary when you added the symbol
SUB. I still like ours, but that is a very good adaption for reading
on the fly. It does fulfill its reason for being. Other than this SUB
symbol, exactly how is your functional harmonic notation different
from our functional harmonic notation?
LJS
> It's easy to see wonder why people don't understand you, even on the odd
> occasion when you get something correct.
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT primus DOT ca
No Joey, the Figured Bass notates it as the minor chord in first
inversion. The functional notation means ^1^3^5^6 or in your key of
choice for examples C min: C Eb G A. Yes, A nat even though it is
minor. If I hadn't known it already, you pointed this out in another
discussion a few years ago. I forgot that you needed the assumed
information written out. Since this chord came from an earlier
specified context that specifically spelled this chord out in a
different inversion, I thought you didn't need the explanation. Its
that foolish CONTEXT thing again. You understand it enough to change
it to provide you with an argument! Makes one wonder!
LJS