KVR :: Music Theory » The same object from different angles [View Original Topic]
There are 71 posts in this topic.

---

MOK19 - Tue May 22, 2012 8:47 pm

---

A little background first, unfortunately.

I learned reading music in middle school, playing the oboe up through high school. Then I started messing with audio apps, but didn't do anything with Oboe or piano. Then I decided I didn't understand chords well enough, and I took about 2 months of piano and theory lessons. I also read through a book, Music Theory for Computer Musicians, which wasn't that hot but it did the job, and I did learn a good bit. I've also got a small book on learning piano that I've been through. Nothing in those books mystified me, and it all works great.

Then at the end of last year, I took a music class that focused on chords and arrangement. As I was took this course, I confirmed something I'd been suspecting for a while: That the way I work with, and understand theory, appears to be different from a most musicians.

When I listen to, or read other musicians discussing it, they talk about scales and chords as if they're individual entities. As if chords or scales are learned one at a time, as if one can know some chords, some scales, but not others. This confuses me hugely.

By contrast, my understanding of them is fairly systemic in nature. I see scales and chords as a pattern of intervals that can be applied to any note, and elaborated to build any given scale, or voiced differently for different styles of chord. If you know the interval patterns of a major or minor scale, how is it possible to know one scale or chord without knowing the others?

Yet, when I was sitting in class, listening to the other students' questions(many of them far more advanced than me), and then listening to my instructor's responses, I started seeing that even though I shared a lot of knowledge and understanding in common with these other students, and the instructor, I was off on a different planet in how I saw it.

I tried to talk to my music teacher at the time about this oddity, but he was busy and I didn't really get much out of him. If I'd have taken the prereq classes, I'd have a better understanding probably, but that wasn't gonna happen because I'm paying through the nose for an engineering degree, not a music degree.

So the class is through, and although I know a bit more than before, I'm left with a massive sense of confusion. I thought I had my understandings down, and my knowledge base is highly functional in my music now. But whenever I hear other musicians speaking music-tongue, I sometimes have a hard time following what they're talking about. This is even though I'm pretty certain that my level of understanding is basically on par with theirs.

We're looking at the same thing, but from a different angle. I suspect my angle is wrong, somehow. Well, not wrong, but not common. And that pretty much undermines a huge part of the point of music theory; it's a tool for communication. I want to switch around so that my understanding is more like everyone else's, so I gotta try and figure out what the difference is, here.

I don't know how, precisely, my understanding is different. If there's holes in my knowledge base, I don't know where they are. If it's reliant on formal training with a polyphonic instrument, like piano or guitar, then I'm in trouble.

I'm wondering if, based on this, anyone has ideas about what's going on here. If anyone might know what I'm babbling on about. Because I need to re-orient what I know.... somehow.

I hope all that made sense. Apologies for length; I felt the context was important.

---

JJBiener - Tue May 22, 2012 10:03 pm

---

I am not sure where your confusion lies. First, just because some people babble using a bunch of big words, that doesn't necessarily mean they know what they are talking about. Second, what you said about scales and chords was correct. They are just patterns of intervals. A scale is a series of whole and half steps or in other words, major and minor 2nds. A chord is a series of major and minor thirds with occasionally some modifications. If you know the pattern for one scale, you know all of them since they all are the same. If you know the pattern for one chord, you know how to build a chord on every note. It really isn't that complicated.

The people here are very generous with their time and knowledge, so if you have specific questions, ask them here and you should get some good answers.

---

D.Josef - Wed May 23, 2012 12:17 am

---

Even though there is no difference between a C scale and an F# scale, or a C chord and an F# chord in theory, there is a difference in fingerings. And that is the main reason why many musicians only care to learn a few of them.

In my experience this approach is most widely spread among rock musicians and self-educated guitarists. In certain rock genres, if you can play four major chords and a single dominant seventh, and have a sense of rhythm, you are already considered a guitarist.

If you have a look at songbooks, many guitarists learn chords as "magic spells", through fingering charts, instead of finding each way a chord can be voiced on the six strings. So that's why.

(And well, in a way they are right. They play music in a band while many of us practice scales at the piano for hours. XD)

---

stillshaded - Wed May 23, 2012 12:36 am

---

I know what you mean. I think your issue might be easily related to engineering in a way. It seems to me that you have a kind of big picture understanding Of how things work in music theory, and I think I'm gleening from what youre saying tha you are able to take that and apply it to situations in your own way that works for you. This is all well and good, however there are definite advantages to learning the terminology and forms that are taught in music theory. It provides a structure for you to work through. you might understand how electricity works in a conceptual way, but if you've never learned what a transistor does its going to make learning about circtuits a whole lot slower.


The way I think of music theory is just a way to label all the sounds that are already freely roaming around your head. You're not going to learn about anything that you haven't already heard a thousand time, but with each concept you learn, youll be like "OH, so thats what that is!". And pretty soon you'll have a vocabulary of concepts that you can string together in fancy music theory talk to impress your friends with, but more importantly, you'll be able get from a to b (musically speaking) much quicker and with more purpose.


hope that helps!

---

kevinjames011 - Wed May 23, 2012 3:56 am

---

This is a bit of a shot in the dark, but there actually IS a difference between the intervals of, say, a D major and F# major chord... but only when using old-style tuning systems.

The current tuning system that is widely accepted, 12-tone equal temperament, has only been the universal standard since the introduction of Les Paul's electric guitar. In the 19th century, there was a wide variety of tuning systems, and in the 17th century, the current standard did not exist. In other, older standards of tuning, the distance between each semitone was slightly different.

This gave different scales a different "feeling" or "quality". For example, D Major is more "gay" and "happy" while F# Major is more "distressed" or "tense".

In the modern day, theorists have invented thousands of tuning systems, and some of them are quite effective and yet completely different from our 12-tone system.

This may have nothing to do with your situation, but these kinds of things do come up in music theory classes with an emphasis on history.

---

wrench45us - Wed May 23, 2012 9:29 am

---

I don't get the source of confusion. Music scales/chords are a system, not independent. Some 'advanced' systems work by applying certain scales or modes against a particular chord in certain context, but it's all based on a chord/scale system. It's possible to apply various scale/modes within a bar where a given chord applies, but there's nothing independent about that. It is a system with rules that arise from the key/scale/mode/chord in use.
Reharmonization takes it all a few steps further out, but it all still comes down to the same 'rules' of harmony. It's possible someone could talk as if the number of option sthat apply make it sound independent. but I don't tthonk it is.

Any example of how these oters talk about things may help.
I don't think bringing up scale systems prior to equal temperament is helpful.

---

MOK19 - Wed May 23, 2012 2:52 pm

---

I wanna apologize for the massive ambiguity of the post. Unfortunately, that's unavoidable because that ambiguity is my ambiguity. I don't know precisely what my question is. Instead, I observe that some musicians are seemingly approaching theory from a different angle than me. Or that they know something I don't, whose nature is a mystery.
Since I value theory in large part for it's use as a common language, this apparent lack of parity is a problem.

I think that D.Josef might be correctly interpreting what I'm seeing. It might be an elaboration of how one learned theory, where it's slanted toward your 'instrument' in a utilitarian way. Fingerings, for example, is something I'm never concerned with. But I can see how a guitarist would focus extensively on a specific voicing of a specific chord in a specific key, in order to learn how to actually play it.

By comparison, my primary instrument, my primary way of relating theory to reality is with a DAW. Not even a piano. So my top-down view really serves me pretty well in a utilitarian way. But if I were to talk to a pianist, I'll probably run into some communication snags, because their understanding is probably going to shift a bit towards a voicing emphasis.

But I think, as another person highlighted, I'm kinda at a dead-end until I can provide more specificity of what another musician say that has me confused. Sadly I can't remember any of that. I'll have to keep my eyes open.

Still thank you guys for your input so far. It's all been helpful. Thanks for reading all that text, and suffering my vagaries - It was typed in a moment of frustration. =/

---

jancivil - Fri May 25, 2012 11:17 am

---

You are seeing the forest; they have confused the trees for it.

---

tapper mike - Fri May 25, 2012 4:56 pm

---

I'll put it out this way. Harmony is my universe.


In a blues setting the blues has two primary progressions and lots of variations. If someone calls out blues in E The bass player plays basslines derived from the progression, The rhythm guitar and keyboards play the progression possibly mixing it up with different ideas and the lead instrument plays blues in E. They all know all the chords They all know it's a 12 bar progression and after measure (bar) twelve they all come in again.
The lead instrumentalist knows the chord that's playing and knows the next one. Where by you can focus your attention to playing a line that supports the chord and/or play a line that leads to the next chord. "Play them Changes"
The blues has it's own set of rules for circumstances there are do's and don'ts which do not fit into traditional theory. Many are shared with Jazz, rock, pop, country. Some are not depending on circumstance. Jazz has it's own derivations for Jazz/blues But the same concept of working from the chord progression applies.

A remedial knowledge of chords does not survive the acid test of learning songs. There are endless variations and in some circumstances the fact that you are repeating a progression even if it doesn't adhere to one key give it's own validation.

While I disagree with some of this young fellow's rant a lot of it hits home for me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4uCWDlWrMI


When I first learned guitar I learned chords. Before notation before scales. I always learned chords in the context of songs. As soon as I could put two successive chords on the fretboard (first day) I was learning accompaniment.
In the first week I'd learned three songs and wrote two.

I never practiced a chord out of context of a song like one would learn scales. If you want to learn "Pop" songs you learn the chord progression(s) first. This gives you the outline of the song. When you pick up a fake book you see,,,,chord names If you have a fair ear and hand at rhythm you can "fake" your way through a song. usually you pick up little things along the way like rhythms/arpeggiation 9sic) that get you closer to the truth.

---

MOK19 - Fri May 25, 2012 6:22 pm

---

This adds on to what I got from D.Josef's post, and it makes even more sense now. This would fundamentally change the way a person talks about theory.

So how do I bridge this gap? If I want to be able to get together with two guitarists who learned by the route espoused in the TapperMike's video, and try to make or play music, how do I alter the way I listen and talk? How do I approach their way of trying to convey an idea, or convey my own idea such that it doesn't make unnecessary complication?

Anyone got tips on that?

---

tapper mike - Fri May 25, 2012 8:18 pm

---

Well if they are guitarists they know how chord progressions work for the most part. Same with a reasonable keyboard player.

In the old days I'd simply say "It goes D-A-G-Bm-A for first verse and D-G-D-G for the chorus.

Or I'd pen out the changes to paper, play and they would come in.

BIAB makes everything easier. Even If I'm only using the drums from the style.
Since I've talked about the blues and the fact that it has several variations.
Lets say you wanted you and your mates to jam over one of these blues progressions.

Okay before you hit play look at the markers I've got a Am Blues 12 bar progression. The repeat bar indicates to play three times but on the third time end on Am not E7

Here is your link.
http://tappermike.com/theory/amBlues1.html

When you do hit the play button you'll hear a two measure count in. 1-3,1234 Playing with others they will need a count in and they will now how long the count in is. Most of the time the person calling the count in just counts to four.

Notice how the chord is highlighted while being played. If there is no chord shown it means the chord is the same as the previous measure.

Usually when sitting in with another musician and biab I'll use the drums or drums and one instrument (the bass if there are no bass players available)
http://tappermike.com/theory/amBluesbd.html

See the chord>play the chord. That simple

---

stillshaded - Sat May 26, 2012 9:28 am

---

let me condense my above post.

There's no magic bullet, period. Just learn as much about theory as you can, and in any given situation use that knowledge combined with your resourcefulness. That's how it works. The more details you analyze, the more your brain will relate them to the big picture.

So get out there and just start memorizing and applying things about theory. Learn your key sigs by heart. Memorize the roman numeral chord notation system. learn your inversions. Analyze songs as best you can, and the more details you learn, the more things will start to make sense. Like I say it's like engineering, it's made up of many concepts and details. There's no way around learning them one by one, so stop wasting time and just start chipping away.

---

MOK19 - Sat May 26, 2012 1:32 pm

---

I dig. But acquiring and placing knowledge in a useful way isn't the problem. My depth of knowledge is pretty good, growing, functional, and I'm not afraid to practice.

The issue is when guys(who are sometimes less advanced as me in their knowledge-base) talk about things that I feel like I already understand, and yet their way of talking about it are confusing me. Like pointing at a green apple, and calling it sharbleblox. I KNOW what it is, and apparently they do too, but they're coming at it differently.

So doesn't appear to be a matter of familiarizing myself with more theory, as I've already been progressively doing.

---

tapper mike - Sat May 26, 2012 3:05 pm

---

Assuming they aren't fracking with you just to frack with you.


Some players have done that with me as well. Some pretended to know less then they did just to annoy me. Some players actually aren't as knowledgeable and are trying to fake their way thru understanding.

Some players may be referencing the rhythmic structure not the harmonic structure (styles) Though most know a reggae style is called reggae straight 8 means even 8th note patterns and swing/shuffle means 12/8 triplets with the middle note omitted. Instead of calling a style by it's name they'll refer to something familiar about it.


That being said even with the plethora of information on the web. So much disinformation is passed along it's a wonder anyone can think straight.

(another one of those old man stories) Back when I was a kid I lived in a rock and roll town. Three guitar stores, two sheet music stores and a piano store inside the city limits and many more just on our border. People playing guitar on the porch, People playing guitar in the park. After school we'd work things out. Wear out records trying to decipher a song. Play it play it again and play it again. Open a fake book and study a song.

Ten years later Still before the internet. I could find jammers (people who don't play professionally but can play tunes with other people. Thirty plus years later it is a different story. Guys who claim to be guitarists can't string together two chords. have no clue about key and think because they've watched a video on how to shred they're gonna be the next big thing.

There are still talented, educated, and versatile guitarists of all ages. But they are few and far between in my neck of the woods.

---

tapper mike - Sat May 26, 2012 5:53 pm

---

As an addendum There is a system for non sight readers which I don't use called Nashville.

Nashville system starts very similar to numbers
You say Dm-G-C I say ii-V-1 in C Nashville says 2-5-1

Nashville gets tricky when using "Over chords"

---

jancivil - Sat May 26, 2012 6:22 pm

---

Well that was not so much a desired result but a fact of life that intonation/temperament people went about solving in various ways. JS Bach in the 18th c. had a hand in developing 'well-temperament', with outcomes such as 24 preludes and fugues, one for each key. 'The Well-Tempered Clavier demonstrates the ability of a single instrument in tempered tuning to play in all 24 keys without having to be tuned to new fundamentals.'

IE., I don't think he desired to compromise every quality of key, but in 1722 he wasn't about preserving the more out keys' problems I assure you.

Really?

<Equal temperament in the Baroque era

From 1450 to about 1800 plucked instrument players (lutenists and guitarists) generally favored equal temperament,[15]>

^"Lutes, Viols, Temperaments" Mark Lindley ISBN 978-0-521-28883-5

---

jancivil - Sat May 26, 2012 6:40 pm

---

Funny, I was about to say something about the use value of theory from the aspect of observing models and experience with them vs top-down theory from abstraction.

I don't think the idea of ignoring instrumental practice is going to serve you so well in the end frankly. If you won't shape a performance with your hand, in real time, perfecting the effect, in time from left to right, for real, you *will* miss something very valuable about music, how it lives and breathes.

---

jancivil - Sat May 26, 2012 6:48 pm

---

@ Kevin: by the 'late Romantic' period, which certainly preceded the 20th c., the practice of distant modulations was prevalent enough to absolutely demand that the standard was equal temperament for the practice of it.
While it is true that strings for one produce other effects as a matter of course, this was certainly the system in place and was for Beethoven prior to that.

---

tapper mike - Sat May 26, 2012 6:52 pm

---

We have a winner.

---

MOK19 - Sat May 26, 2012 9:52 pm

---

I believe this. I have some background on an honest instrument, the Oboe I learned music on, and am currently procrastinating proper piano practice. My hope is that as I grow with piano, I'll get familiar with the a player's approach to theory, and the topical problem will subside.
But that's kinda far down the road.



Me no understand.

---

someone called simon - Sat May 26, 2012 10:50 pm

---

I grew to understand theory in my own way from listening, trying to work out chords on pre internet isolation etc. And I know how I refer to things is 'right', for me, though it may be wrong for others. My approach is very much focussed around the sound of intervals and melodies over differing chords etc, and I don't claim that it would suffice for advanced theoretical stuff.
Here's an example: The Hendrix chord, a 7th with a sharp 9, eg E7#9. I once described this on a forum as a major and a minor chord at the same time, but was shot down as that is a theoretical impossibility I think. I think the deal is that in notation you can't have a major and minor 3rd at the same time, Trying to define those intervals in that way won't work. BUT, to my ears, I hear the minor 3rd, and the major 3rd, playing concurrently, and no rule will stop me hearing that as a major/minor combo chord. I know what a 9th sounds like, and its not that, so my brain doesn't cope with it on a conceptual level. A flat 9, that's fine. But calling that note a sharp 9 is kind of a ridiculous workaround in my brain.

---

tapper mike - Sat May 26, 2012 11:11 pm

---

It was intended as a compliment.

You have a function sense of theory you are moving in a direction you want to go and you aren't afraid of practice/hard work. It strikes me that you've worked harder then I when it comes to understanding theory even though I may know a bit more about the idiosyncrasies of style when it comes to theories. The big thing is you are not a quitter and when you don't know you aren't afraid to ask until you do. And for those things I tip my hat to you.

---

MOK19 - Sat May 26, 2012 11:31 pm

---

Well, gracias, amigo.



I hate to be critical, but I'm not following you; I'm unsure of the relevance of what you just described to the thread topic.

In regards to your notion of 'right for you:' Note that music theory isn't ever meant as a catalogue of possibility, nor is it meant to codify correct and incorrect music(since such a thing does not exist).

Instead, music theory is a formalized means of creating some commonality between musicians who practice the art. It's meant to help multiple musicians work together and communicate, or to give a framework of learning common, effective tricks in the art.

It's similar to the concept of formally recognized, popular spoken language. And in the same way that you can speak a language wrong, it's possible to misuse music theory. The fact that what you do works just fine for your music's sonic results in a good and pleasant way is great, and your ideas should be used. But to try to convey it in terms of music theory, as you appear to, undermines a vast section of the purpose of music theory: communication and commonality.

Therefore, I don't think you should portray your ideas within the context of music theory. It could frustrate people who rely on it as their means of precise communication. If someone told you your chord is impossible, it's not like you shattered formal theory with groundbreaking ideas. Rather, you spoke something in a manner that is unclear, described incorrectly, while it is highly, highly likely that there is a way to accurately describe what you did within the system of theory, if you were to discover it.

Sorry for ranting. My original post was made out of frustration for possibly this exact kind of thing. Really, you probably know theory better than I do, but it struck a chord.

*If my rant is misplaced and ill-informed, feel free to talk some sense into me.

---

tapper mike - Sat May 26, 2012 11:41 pm

---

@simon
7#9 chords were around long before hendrix and are based around the superlocrian mode
The superlocrian mode is starts from the seventh degree of the melodic minor scale.

You'll notice hendix doesn't play the 5th of the chord... because it's altered.
So the
F melodic minor scale is
FGG#(Ab)BbCDE
If you start on the seventh degree you get.
E-F-G-G#-Bb-C-D-E

---

someone called simon - Sat May 26, 2012 11:45 pm

---

oh. right then.

It seems you have a completely different understanding of music theory. Maybe you just proved your own point.
I will always describe that chord I mentioned as being major AND minor as that's what it is. Calling it a sharp 9th in an effort to fit it into a codified way of transmitting information denies the experience of the ear. This seemed relevant to me in a conversation of the theory of music. Forgive me if I was wrong there. Perhaps if you played a guitar you'd get it, perhaps not. However, whether you get what I'm saying, I know I'm not wrong to think of the chord this way, but I apologise if my thoughts subverted the foundations of music as you know it. won't happen again.

---

someone called simon - Sun May 27, 2012 12:21 am

---

Ok maybe my illustration was too basic to be used in this thread, but I'll clarify it a little more. If i play 3 notes, low to high, E, D, G... its an Em7. No 5th I know but that doesn't matter here. The G is a minor 3rd, it gives the chord it's minor sound. If I then add a G# so my chord is E, G#, D, G, how does my top G note suddenly not become a minor 3rd? It's impossible, sonically, if i define a minor 3rd as a kind of sound. It would be as logical/illogical to call that chord an Em7b4.
I understand for NOTATION purposes it must be considered something other than both a major and minor 3rd, but in terms of sound, that's what it is.
Maybe it annoys you that I used note names rather than talking numerically, but talking numerically I couldn't state this argument. I'd have to define the chord as I VII iii III or something, which would get a good smirk I'm sure. It's something you hear when you play a chord. And how you describe such a thing seems to have EVERYTHING to do with theory, and the communication of musical thoughts and concepts, and the differing ways people's brain process these rather strange things

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLGzCD0qmFA

If you can't hear a major/minor clash in there then our brains definitely work very differently.

---

tapper mike - Sun May 27, 2012 9:36 am

---

You are correct it has both a minor third and a major third, But in jazz it's mostly treated as an "altered dominant" More to do that it has a b5 and a #5 and a b9 and a #9


I used to be a straight ahead rocker. Beatles, Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd.
You don't need to know much to any theory to play most popular rock all you need to do is play it. It's just memorization when you are performing covers. Thinking about things is optional. A lot of rockers had the "Jimmy moment" when they heard/saw the 7#9 and it lead them into learning more about jazz which spawned the jazz/rock or fusion movement. Not me per say.
I'd listen to jazz and say what the freak are they *jazzers" doing that doesn't make sense. That was when I had my epiphany there's more to this whole music theory stuff then I think I know.

Styles have idiosyncrasies, characteristics which make them unique to the styles themselves. It's not just rhythm. On occasion you do have a exception to stylistic rules like,,,the Jimmy Chord in Rock. Or the G7b13 In Stray Cat Strut.

---

jopy - Sun May 27, 2012 9:51 am

---

The "codified way" does have something to do with the way that it sounds in certain contexts. You're right that in a rock context it is only a "blues" chord that implies major and minor tonality at the same time, but in a jazz context the #9 is used to imply a specific voice leading arrangement, implying both the major 7th of the I chord as well as the minor 7th of the I chord, permitting the player to use diminished scales or the superlocrian mode. In a tune like Purple Haze it's clear that Hendrix is using that chord to throw a little spice onto a dominant chord that isn't really even functioning as a dominant, whereas in a tune like Blue Bossa in C minor, using a G7(#9) as the dominant after a Dm7(b5) drives you straight into the arms of that C minor in a very harmonically rich way, suggesting, as I said earlier, that you can think in terms of a few different scales with different voice leading possibilities.

In other words, there is a functional, practical, and very "hearing" oriented reason that has everything to do with how you hear the chord that makes some people call it a Hendrix chord and just think of it as a shape on the fretboard and that makes other people call it a 7(#9) chord and think of it as a voice-leading opportunity. Context is king here.

---

jancivil - Sun May 27, 2012 10:40 am

---

Context always rules 'theory'. (I think the term 'theory' promotes bullshit guesses too often, ie., when people bypass hearing it in the first place, for instance in place of <what does the melody determine about the harmony>...)

it's funny, the first 'master class' I had for composers someone brought up the matter of the chord, -7#9 and the professor/whatever said there is no such thing, 'that's a major/minor'. Which was him showing his own ignorance [of jazz practice, and/or rock/funk practice]. Around this time I decided not to pursue compositional study academically.

However, in Foxy Lady it does not function as a 'dominant seventh/sharp nine'. It's the I chord. It does have the major and minor third.

I remember Fuji showing me it when I was 15. It was something I didn't get from trying to cop it off the record, a mystery chord - my hand didn't know it, for one.

In minor it's not so unusual as an extension for V7, particularly #9-b9 moving down to the fifth of the i voice-leading wise.
actually in modern music it's done, there is not a necessary problem displaying say G# snd G with a natural sign in the same chord for such a case. as to your other point, I guess people with less 'theory' could be put off by that notation.

---

jancivil - Sun May 27, 2012 11:08 am

---

what this has to do with the use of it by Jimi Hendrix is a mystery except to you. I think that unnecessarily complicates a basic situation.

NB, *is/are* based in... states absolutely the chord derived from that scale, instead of observing a coincidence. It makes what could be a true statement into an untrue one.

Hendrix didn't play the fifth because he didn't find any use for it there I reckon. It is the object what it is.
What evidence is there for an altered fifth? The non-evident 'superlocrian', your 'altered fifth' follows that. It's illogical.

---

tapper mike - Sun May 27, 2012 11:18 am

---

I love that song, Not because of the theory behind it, Just because I do. Sometimes I think it's a standard simply because it's taught in jazz study programs all over the world for it's theory application.

---

jancivil - Sun May 27, 2012 11:20 am

---

I would eschew absolutist statements such as this. I would never advise 'music theory' information as a recipe book...

but I would think the writers of eg., '20th Century Harmony' might take exception to the statement, as that is a description of new possibilities, observed from practice, and opens up some minds to those practices and possiblities.

---

Nystul - Sun May 27, 2012 11:55 am

---

The thing is, if you look at Blue Bossa, there is a whole lot of context saying that note has to be Bb. This is like harmony from the Renaissance almost. False relation. Maybe you write the chord symbol G7#9 because jazz musicians will recognize what to play when they see that. But to really think of that note as A# is just weird. Now you have melody lines like Ab G A# Ab G. What?

---

tapper mike - Sun May 27, 2012 12:27 pm

---

I write melody from the chords not the other way around. As do most jazzers I know. Sure you can build the otherway round harmonizing the single note lines but It's less common. Jazz types are taught to connect melodic notes by chord tones. It's a less linear approach then simply constructing melodies from scale tones as first you have to determine the chord you are playing over then you have to fit the line to accommodate the chord structure.

First we learn chords and chord progressions then we learn scales and relate them back to the chord. Our concept of movement is from chord to chord. When a jazz lick is presented it is presented in the harmonic structure. This is a Bb7 lick, this is a line that works over a ii7-V7-1 progression. With the exception of say...Miles Davis who wanted to escape from the cliche's of this type of thought it has been fairly solid in the traditions of swing, modern, post modern, fusion and dare I say it "smooth" jazz. Now we still throw a few monkey wrenches in such as harmonic justification. Tritone subsitution and a few other ideas. But make no mistake when a jazz song is written by a jazz musician he uses the tools at his disposal. Just as a Blues player doesn't write a blues song and then dummy it down for his fellow blues players.

---

jancivil - Sun May 27, 2012 1:04 pm

---

IME, that is the best way.

But, and this brings around the original point:That isn't a problem with that name, that is you having yet to encounter the reality of the -7#9. and conversely the reality of major/minor as a concept in 'modern classical' practice; like I said I had an authority figure insist on major/minor and #9 was meaningless to him, out of his experience as if it's 'the' experience that's valid.

When I first was show'd the Foxy Lady chord, I can't recall if Fuji called it anything. I sure didn't have 'chord theory', it was 'that sound'. Later I am likely to have found names like this in a Mickey Baker chord book.

By the time I had a first year 'Music Theory' course I had got a lot by ear. I took to the course like a fish to water, I was swimming while people were finding their toes cold, dipping in.

I did a thing recently where I arrived at arch high romantic harmonies by way of 'archaic' contrapuntal workings. Out of curiosity I looked at the harmonies strictly from vertical and I don't think there is any good name for these things, too complex. I don't myself define chords as a beginning; it's too tight shoes, I find things by my ear and am free from any necessity of this middleman of naming/labeling.

---

jancivil - Sun May 27, 2012 1:08 pm

---

It could go to Cm^7 and the voice leading is A#-B. Context rules every time. I agree with the Bb, until I don't.

where you have it, and another instance, #9, -9, to 5 of i, calling them ninths is conventional, people know from that move.

---

jancivil - Sun May 27, 2012 1:16 pm

---

That is such a narrow box. What it ensures is that a whole lot of jazz is hard to differentiate from the next thing. For my purposes, I'm happy to have realized this.

Not that that's a bad thing, it defines 'style'; but I notice things that stand out. Such as, the first record of my father's collection I listened to over and over was Birth of the Cool. And then later Inside Sauter/Finegan...

---

tapper mike - Sun May 27, 2012 2:23 pm

---

You see it as a narrow box. I see it as pandora's box. Tomato/tomato.

When Benny Goodman plays "In the mood" the chord is a Bb and he outlines the Bb
DFBb when the chord changes to Eb he outlines the Eb EbGBb and when the chord moves to F he outlines F
When Paul Desmond wrote Take Five he had the sections reversed. Dave Bruebecks only contribution to the song writing was in which section played when.
When He's playing over Bm and Em he plays an Eminor blues scale. for the turnaround he links outlines of the chord(arpeggios) via chromatic passing notes. For the most part (indifferent of rhythms and yes there are plenty of exceptions but for the most part) Centric to the study of jazz the melody supports the harmony and not the otherway round.

It's not limited to keyboard or guitar either. Sax/trumpet/bass whatever also base the function of the melodic line against or in conjunction with the chord it supports. It's not an endless stream of arpeggios However the focus on the chord tones create the directionality of the piece. Even in "smooth jazz" The chord movement defines the individual note selection. It makes more sense to me then say "Counterpoint".

---

JJBiener - Sun May 27, 2012 4:03 pm

---

Simon, I know a lot of people have weighed in on this point, but I thought I would add my bit to this. First, if someone tells you something is a theoretical impossibility, give them a lollipop and move on. Nothing is impossible in theory.

I have to admit that at first glance, I would call the chord an E7#9 only because that is the easiest way to describe it. You could also describe it as an G#dim6(maj7), but that is more complicated. I suppose you can call it E7(add min3) which would better describe how you hear, but it would get you some quizzical looks from the people who saw it. You can take any given collection of notes and describe them as chord in one way or another. In fact, you can usually find 3 or 4 ways of describing the same notes.

Keep in mind that notation is just for communication. It is really the sound that is important. One of my favorite chords is Ab-C-D-G. I suppose it could be considered an Abmaj11. If I think of it at all, I think of it as a Abmaj7(b5). Most of the time, I don't think about what it is called because I like the sound.

My suggestion is to spend less time trying to figure out how to name chords, and more time finding and using chords you like. I think you will be much happier and more creative in the process.

---

JJBiener - Sun May 27, 2012 4:26 pm

---

I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I don't know any Jazz types who work this way. If they use any theory, they start from scales, not chords. However, in the heat of improvisation, they are not thinking that they are playing over a C#maj9 or that they need to play a Locrian mode. They hear what is being played and add what they know will work. There may be some theory going on at the subconscious level, they aren't actively thinking about it. One Jazz guy told me, "If you don't know what to play, start with a chromatic scale until you figure it out."

I can understand how you could come to your conclusion by looking at lead sheets or transcriptions, but that is an exercise in hindsight. It is an analysis of a performance after the fact and trying to put it into musical notation. I will grant you that students may be taught this way, but whoever is doing it is putting the cart before the horse. It is only once you can stop thinking about what you play that you will truly be able to play Jazz.

---

jopy - Sun May 27, 2012 6:14 pm

---

jj, what you're saying comports with what i've generally heard from professional jazz musicians as well.

---

tapper mike - Sun May 27, 2012 7:55 pm

---

So When I provide a valid theory and provide evidence that supports it as a valid approach. You not being able to refute what I've said based on the evidence I have provided then go on to disclaim it as "Not most jazzers"

Honestly I don't know the jazz players or would be jazz players you do.

I do know that when Joe Pass talks about constructing melodic lines he does so using the chord(s) as the structure.
Joe Pass first outlines the chords in the progression then he builds a melody line from the progression.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlmXCubqheM

Emily Remler Berkee School of Music graduate Numerous awards for her jazz guitar playing instructs that users follow "guide tones" to create melodic lines over chord progression
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vICCNOtGZ0&f

When fusion guitarist Frank Gambale (most noted for his sweeping technique)
Discusses developing melodic lines he to uses the structure of the chord progression

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXbi3UM-PO8

When Celebrated jazz guitarist Frank Vignola comes out with a 50 licks you must know for jazz guitar. He uses the harmonic structure for which the line was written. He specifically states what chord or chords it is to be played over. Once again the chord progression is the force that shapes the notes that follow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwXFlVhQolI

When Pat Martino talks about superimposing subsitutions he starts with the chord the idea is played over then he plays the superimposed arp on top of it.
Chords lead the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duDncVOQ1Jo

It's not limited to guitarists. Sax players learn to play lines over chord progressions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC2ZW0LES9g

And here is a bass lesson on how to play in the context of the chord progression Using notes from the chord
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BVs6b2F_aY&feature=related

But let's not stop there. Here is a guy who uses the standard procedure of starting with chord tones on the first beat of the chord and generates a "walking" bassline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=693zGPGhpjc

He explains the chord progression and constructs bass lines from the chord not the melody.

And it goes on and on and on. The melody is in context of the progression. The melody is shaped by the progression.

And now is where I may turn a little snipy.
I don't know where you or your alegded jazzer friends got their jazz education which is unlike a classical education. I learned from a Wayne State Professor. He also taught Earl Kugh and Al Dimeola.

I don't know what type of professional background they have in jazz. I've had over 200 paying gigs as a jazz guitarist. And over 500 as a session rock/blues guitarist. When jazz musicians meet up they don't have to discuss what they already know. It's like having a discussion on how to tie shoe laces. Usually if anything it's about stylistic approaches having to do with rhythm. If we don't know the song we have the sheet in front of us.

---

someone called simon - Sun May 27, 2012 9:37 pm

---

thanks for some considered replies to my little point... @jancivil, I do see other uses in the chord I mentioned, like the voice leading mentioned here... "In minor it's not so unusual as an extension for V7, particularly #9-b9 moving down to the fifth of the i voice-leading wise. " I can also imagine it as a II chord, where in your example it moves down to the fifth of I, that chord could also be the fifth of V, then lead in to the tonic of i. This is where I maybe get my terminology wrong and I find it easier to resort to concrete examples... say Bm7b5 > E7 > Am, with melody running D, C > B > A. But I don't know about the modern theory approaches you mention, true...

@ Tapper Mike, my initial posts following yours were intended as response to the OP, it probably seemed I was replying to you... I know the chord has been around for longer than Hendrix, I guess I'm just using that as it seems to be a common name for it.
And I was going to retaliate a little about the superlocrian thing, because while i understand what's happening with the math there (i tend to think of it as math), that is so obviously not the 'intention' of that piece of music. but jancivil did it for me first . ... If a B fell easily under the fingers in that chord, it probably would have been included. Guitarists are like that The Bb maybe as a blue note in a scale or melody, but not as part of a ringing chord, I think you'd have to agree? Actually I just checked this on youtube, Near the start some other guitar track is definitely playing B, a straight ol' 5th, over this, so I think we can safely rule out any idea of it being superlocrean! I wanna check out those videos, I'm sure its good intellectual stuff though its not really where my particular head is at with music.

Lots more stuff there for me to look at in this thread now. Maybe my post was relevant to this topic of how we understand and communicate theory after all... Some people's mathematical approach leads to places that conflicts with my ear. Just for instance...

---

jopy - Mon May 28, 2012 4:01 am

---

i should probably have been more specific earlier when i said i was agreeing with jj. i had a number of jazz teachers (both guitar and piano) and they each had different approaches. they all did definitely emphasize learning to solo by outlining chord tones and running arpeggios as a starting step, but they also emphasized that as a "crutch" that one should eventually abandon. one (berklee trained, frequently plays out around boston) guitar teacher told me that he didn't really think in terms of chords when he was soloing, but thought in terms of lines. he said even when he was comping, he didn't think in terms of standard chord shapes, but thought of grabbing notes from the scale that lead into one another. another guitar teacher (who is quite well known in the minneapolis/st. paul area) said she always heard the melody of the song while she was soloing and tried to think in terms of ideas that she could sing over the chord progression ahead of straight outlining the chords. the piano teacher i took lessons from (also well known in the twin cities) emphasized using chord substitutions ahead of melody and did stick with arpeggios a lot, but frankly, he was the least interesting soloist of the bunch.

so, i guess there are multiple ways to get to a good jazz solo and as mike said, you do have to know the harmony inside and out to play effectively, it's just that the soloists i liked the best definitely emphasized melodic contour and voice leading.

---

tapper mike - Mon May 28, 2012 5:33 am

---

When I play rhythm I can't stop myself from humming or singing along and I'm always singing guide tones even if I've reharmonized the piece. When I'm playing a solo I'm either singing to it or outlining the chord they are hand in glove I cannot not be conscious of one without the other. Even when I'm working with non scale tones I'm thinking of how I'm going to resolve them to a chord.

---

jancivil - Mon May 28, 2012 10:11 am

---

I mean for creativity, for my purposes. Either way.
I haven't thought about a chord name in my own music for years. I don't make decisions for a melody, against a sonority or harmony, from the basis of 'scale name here' either.No shit? Maybe [he's] just playing blues licks or phrases and he perfectly well knows what key. I know perfectly well what is inside vs outside, you know. It's just not a matter of "then you have to fit the line to the chord". Already you are narrowing the possibilities of a line to 'the chord', as though the cart pulls the horse.
You have, right there, defined your box. It may be too much to imagine, but harmony can be more fluid than that, allowing melodic lines to determine their environment.

Like a conversation, you know. With an open mind. It would be great if one of these times you actually listened to what I'm saying rather than react with these lengthy lectures justifying your position, as if I have a problem with someone playing inside on purpose or something.

---

jancivil - Mon May 28, 2012 10:21 am

---

Speaking of different angles, that 'Hendrix chord' is a structure I think of intervallically as stacked alternate fourths. G# D G. (And unless I was really meaning to inflict my idea of voice-leading, I would not tend to write G# D Fx for someone to read, not for that, which again is for me M/m)

In my first theory course at CPCC (that looks soviet don't it), Webb Wiggins was teaching intervals and did a sweep of P fourths. It was one of those moments. Five of those babies and you have gone the fvck outside!

There were other people taking the jazz reharmonization course and, as I had my hands full with first and faking second year concurrently I didn't take it, but pestered people every day to show me what went on in there. I found out about quartal approaches and the kind of planing and a lot of what I liked but had not the best guesses on was brought into the light.

Zappa had the anecdote about his high school theory teacher, he showed the guy some record 'what do I like, that's different, about these harmonies'. 'Perfect fourths'.

---

jancivil - Mon May 28, 2012 10:29 am

---

For years I participated in free improvisation. Knowing what key and understanding harmonic structures is pretty much de rigeur for this kind of exercise unless one is content with playing noise.

I worked with a composer and we sought to create compositions in real time. He was tres interested in harmonic concepts, but he had his own [and his teacher's primary approach (which has been the way since Mozart went to study) was counterpoint].

There isn't time, with no concrete plan, no chord chart, out of the blue, to think and make decisions out of music theory definitions/language. You hear something, you have an impulse *right now* and you make it or you don't. I worked, as a melodic guitarist, against a keyboard composer, with horn players also mixing in. You have to be vastly quicker on your feet than a decision-maker with a cookie cutter set in front of the process to cut that.

One thing I had to lose pretty quick was relying on running scales; find THE note for that moment, the ear and the mind are not conflicted by a middleman of names for shit.

---

JJBiener - Mon May 28, 2012 12:23 pm

---

I specifically said, I don't mean to sound argumentative, but you seem to want to turn it into an argument in spite of this. This is a discussion of music, not politics, so talking about evidence and refuting your posts really misses the point. We (at least I think most of us) are here to exchange ideas and learn from each other.



Of course melody is shaped by the progression, but that is different from saying the melody is constructed by outlining chords which is what you wrote earlier.



I think herein lies the difference between us. You learned Jazz theory. Jazz theory is an attempt to describe in retrospect what people have been playing for decades without the benefit of knowing Jazz theory. It is fine for what it is, and I am sure there is value in it. But it is not the be-all and end-all of playing Jazz. It is a starting point. The people who created Jazz didn't start with the theory. They started with the music. The theory came later.

BTW, I am a bug fan of Earl Klugh and Al Dimeola, so I know their music well. They don't play melodies constructed by outlining chords or by playing in strictly defined scales or modes.



That's nice. I've been playing Jazz for 35 years. I have been listening to it for even longer. I have played with so many musicians over the years, I couldn't begin to count them. I will grant you they probably didn't go to Wayne State. They learned Jazz the way I did. By playing it.

I am not trying to invalidate what you learned, but at some point you have internalize those lessons and learn to just let go and play. The reason I responded in the first place is because I have seen too many people get caught up in the theory and not be able to play. I see it here all the time. "What am I supposed to play after a ii7 chord?" Ultimately, this is a wrong question. the right question is "What can I play after a ii7 chord," and the answer is "anything you want." I don't want people to get caught up in the idea that there is a right or a wrong in music. There isn't.

---

JJBiener - Mon May 28, 2012 12:37 pm

---

This is what I've been talking about. I don't understand how someone could turn Jazz reharmonization into an entire course. It took me 10 minutes to learn how to do reharmonization followed by 35 years of practice.



When I want to play something different I start creating chords out of fourths. They tend to have an open and ambiguous sound that I really like. They don't really fit with Jazz, but they are good for Ambient music.

BTW, your last few posts were excellent.

---

jancivil - Mon May 28, 2012 12:57 pm

---

It was so long ago. The amount of new information was really something for me as far as what I got people to show me out of it at 18. I remember this one guy was all, 'TV CHORDS! I know what those things are now!' You know all that kind of outside business in TV scores what are hard to guess. I totally felt him on that.

Later at SFCM Beulah Forbes had a jazz reharm. course that I don't think was anything to scoff at. But I take your point about practice vs theory. Yet, George Duke gives mad props to SF State! He may have had Beulah's course, I think the theory at that time at SFSU was outsourced to SFCM.

---

jancivil - Mon May 28, 2012 1:01 pm

---

Honestly I think I really began to grow as a creative musician when I saw how valuable learning what NOT to play really is.

---

jancivil - Mon May 28, 2012 1:16 pm

---

there is a thread here to truly reveal the problem of putting 'theory' before the horse.

Let's Get Lost. No one thought to go hear the tune at all, yet we had all sorts of conplicated information flying about.

I don't know what this or another jazz writer specifically thought coming up with a line. I don't see a necessary duality between chords and melody as I think it's the opposite of useful, in coming up with a song. I believe that the people that wrote the exemplars in song that jazz practice is based in did not work out of that dichotomy but the chords and the tune go hand-in-hand.

but OTOH you could be making a doo-wop number and you go with I vi IV V I. I've said it before, these cliche changes are cliche for a reason, which is they have been known to support melody well, historically.

'Melody supporting chords' seems backwards to me.

---

jopy - Mon May 28, 2012 1:21 pm

---

i'm a little surprised at how strongly this discussion emphasizes jazz built from tertian harmony and not from quartal harmony and modal playing, which is to effectively ignore about 1/2 of all jazz created over the past 50 years.

---

jancivil - Mon May 28, 2012 1:41 pm

---

I got a lot off of McCoy Tyner. I loved it when someone caught that in one of my rock tunes when I take the solo outside.

I am frankly bored with tertial harmony and have been for eons. It might have been good to have my old chops for chromatic writing recently but I sorted it out sans bothering what the things will be called.

I had a horrorshow of a Music History course at CCM which I was fired from. The Grout History of Western Music and a little man that in a trimester still hadn't gotten near the 16th c. What an asshat, taught by a wannabe asshat. The dismissiveness towards non-western music, so unnecessary, and so wrong anyway.

Around that time I started feeling western european [read: functional harmony] ideas weren't so compelling for me. The people I followed, Stravinsky and the other French composers following Ravel and Debussy [Varese, Zappa] done got rid of the stench of sauerkraut from the music.

Hippest move Wagner had IMO was a french sixth, voiced quartally: F B D# G#...

---

tapper mike - Mon May 28, 2012 6:11 pm

---

@JBB
This is the music theory forum at KVR. Simply stating you don't want to be argumentitive does not halt your argument from being discussed. If you don't want your ideas discussed then it's best not to post them in the forum.

Jan I am more then happy to operate in the box of understanding popular music with the tools that are provided in learning popular music. I don't see it as a limitiation I see it as a means to an end. The same means that others use as well and I've demonstrated time and time again and even when I do using some very prominent examples from those who are considered masters in the field of which you do not belong. You still reject it. Cognative Dissonane you can't accept what is staring you in the face because you are wrapped up in your own avant garde perceptions of music.

Now I like the popular song, You may not as a matter of fact you've gone to great lengths to show your disdain for it. "TV chords". And quite honestly I hate free jazz. You can't make me like it Maybe someone else here does aside from you. But I can assure you you would be in the minority. Monority of listeners and minority of music buyer and minority of musicians from the popular western world.

Does it not make more sense that a person who has lived the popular music form, Performed it and learned it by methods Is best suited for explaining it? That's what I've done and the same methods I've explained it are the same methods those in the field have explained and And I've provided links of them explaining the same concept that I have. No maybe this or could be that or might be something else. Those who embrace the concept get the concept.

I don't embrace your music. I've heard your music. I don't get your music. If someone asked me something about your music from a theory standpoint I wouldn't hypothesize on what you could be doing or how you approach things. But I also don't think your music is better because it holds theories I don't know or want to know. You would be the better person to present information on how your music is constructed.

If I need brain surgery I don't go to a priest so he can perform an exorcism I go to a brain surgeon

---

someone called simon - Mon May 28, 2012 10:09 pm

---

This quartal thing... I'm not a jazz dude to any degree really, but do these examples count, in any way, as examples of that? Just the chords being played I mean. At about 11 sec the main chord riff comes in, using as a starting point, a triad containing 4, b7, b3 over the bass note.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpwVFuWTeFQ

Another thing that caught my ear early on was the little chord break down in (actually all of the chorus), of all things, this: (comes in at 1.30)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBC9RPpY7rw

I hear:
E, A, D, G over E
F, B, E, A over C#
E, Bb, D, G over F#
E, A, D, G over B (actually, my brain wants the E in this to be Eb, it would seem to make more sense. But I don't hear it happening)

Um, so is this an example of this quartal harmony, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

---

JJBiener - Mon May 28, 2012 11:07 pm

---

There is a difference between a discussion and an argument. In a discussion, the participants don't feel the need to be right and prove the others wrong. You apparently have that need. If I want an argument, I go to Huffington Post, not KVR.

BTW, I am used to people misspelling my last name. You are the first person to misspell my initials. Nice job.

---

jancivil - Tue May 29, 2012 1:02 am

---

I understand your POV. In a conversation, which you never have here, one endeavors to understand another POV.

You have chosen to have fights with your straw man out of what you feel is your personal problem with me, in place of any kind of normal discourse. Particularly following the fact that I have gone to the trouble to argue with your actual points, which you didn't fare well against. They have included whoppers in particular areas.

You have bad arguments as a matter of course. I don't think you have the clarity of language to do otherwise. You seem to be clouded by something when you post here, great rambling off-topic tangents that frankly make little sense to others. I bet you think you nailed Let's Get Lost, but it's a lot of inchoate information.

I do not have disdain for popular song itself. You can even find in one of my most recent posts that I characterize 'the examplars in song' that are the bases for jazz practice. I don't reckon you have written anything on the order of that kind of song. I have. I have e melodic gift frankly, but as a person I fail to find the wherewithal to push that kind of thing. A success financially with music is about a lot of things, placement, and who you know/who you blow. Life is short and I chose to do what I love the most. You want to think of it a certain way, 'avant garde'. It's just a label. I don't think I'm in front of any martial thrust. I find it a kind of funny term actually. It gets put on me a lot because I am uninterested in cookie cutters.

I realized young enough I'm not likely to have anything of import to say, applying variations of 'the lick' in the field of chord changes type of music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krDxhnaKD7Q

My decision to follow my own drummer is me with self-knowledge, as an artist. I rejected that particular approach as a dead end for myself creatively. I knew I 'didn't belong' by the time I was 21. It does not bespeak my ignorance of any of it. I can write anything. We have a disagreement, I do not buy 'melody supports chords'. That's upside down. I have clearly enough stated, I think in pop songwriting, which I have real knowledge of from doing it, that chords/melody go hand in hand.

The striking thing about your POV is you approach music from the standpoint of a rhythm guitarist and you demand chords are the most important thing. That's your truth and you are here demanding it is Universal Truth. In place of addressing actual points what you are doing is trying to make arguments by appeal to authority. In itself understood to be a fallacious approach; and I don't buy that you understand the authority you appeal to, you fit them to you. It is really appeal to the authority of tappermike at the end of the day. Who's buying that?

---

jancivil - Tue May 29, 2012 1:15 am

---

Since you insist on being argumentive, this is a well known fallacy: argument from popularity, formalized even from antiquity: argumentum ad populum. Godwin revisited: 'The general public voted for Hitler and likes Coldplay'.

In support of WHAT, though? People like different things in the world. I was never driven to like things just because the next person did.
You have yet to say one thing about music I failed to get. You never will. You don't have the first idea of me as a musician. I can't see you have the first idea about anyone's except your own thinking.
I don't think any music's quality owes to theory...

You as a teacher of concepts is laughable at this point. You confuse yourself, make errors several of us notice and then revise the history of your posts to cover it. You sound like you're typing while drunk.

---

jancivil - Tue May 29, 2012 1:29 am

---

yes, that will be called quartal.

---

jancivil - Tue May 29, 2012 1:48 am

---

You got it and you seem to have a great ear. But the penultimate one could work more like F#7b9b13, particularly if followed by some kind of B. But that is also a device, voicing tertial structures quartally. Toto was influenced by jazz; David Paich's father was Marty Paich, a big jazz arranger.

When I first got what that was I went to reliable music and tuned an Oberheim. oscillators to these kinds of stacks and played a lot of artificial scales I was screwing around with. It was 'of moment' to me.

---

jancivil - Tue May 29, 2012 2:54 am

---

Your straw man must be feeling so pwned by this prattle. I don't rely on any 'perceptions', I look at musical objects as objects and do it with a clear eye and ear.

What is staring me in the face, sir, are your opinions. I reject your opinions as if Truth. I do not reject the mastery of masters. Your arguments are the opposite of masterful.

I dropped out of school after the ninth grade. This did not affect my ability to learn to write coherently nor to debate cogently. I was never captivated by the concept of the internal combustion engine automobile but I managed to learn to drive ok. I even had a job driving.

Surely you do not have the meaning of 'cognitive dissonance'. <discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously>

There isn't any sign of that from me, nor any psychological manifestation, following me merely not buying your argument. Which is in this thread little more than an appeal to authority. And you're bashing people for not accepting your take on what is INCREDIBLY BASIC: people need to know what in a line fits with chords in that kind of practice. THIS IS NOT NEWS, MAN!!! If it is the sum of your knowledge that's one thing. But there is nothing to fail to get, except your overarching opinion which seems to follow a premise, 'chords are the most important thing in music'.

Apparently you, using Band in a Box, rely on a set of chord changes before you will try and come up with a line. Fortunately I don't.

It's fine with me if you like that box. But you're actually trying to convince the world is it The Way. You wind up here, not for the first time, with a thrust of inflicting your pedestrian taste on others as the One True Path. Kind of bizarre to me. You're not going to find this a happy route I guess.

---

jancivil - Tue May 29, 2012 3:40 am

---

what about that shows disdain for anything? I didn't grow up with anything but jazz and pop records. The more outside things I was exposed to were Stan Kenton's 'Experiments in...' series and 'Inside Sauter/Finegan', two arrangers that formed a band and managed some popular success, touring and selling albums, being weird on purpose with pop songs. I was not exposed to Schoenberg Second Viennese School, or the later on 'avant' composers before I was say 18, but I was exposed to it from Schoenberg students particularly, from TV scores. Or, Lalo Schifrin, you know. Avant garde composer, Mission Impossible theme. Pretty hip I thought. Memorable melody! Too bad if this offends you, people more curious than yourself.

You can try to convince yourself I don't know something instead of addressing any point but it's not intelligent discourse. Frankly the things you know I had sussed quite young.

You have a completely unnecessary dichotomy, yet again. In service of bashing people into your kind of religious belief about chords and that false dichotomy. You absolutely will not consider other people's contributions to threads. It's terrible and I assure you I'm not the only person noticing this.
That may be the most absurd non sequitur I've seen in a while. BTW that means 'it does not follow' [what happened in the thread].

---

jancivil - Tue May 29, 2012 6:26 am

---

as far as a video of a guy doing a walking bass as evidence of 'melody supports the chord', it's off the mark for a couple reasons.

1) the bass tends to begin from the perspective of the fundament OF the harmony.
2) a walking bass is not usually itself the tune it supports. The bass can reasonably be said to support the harmony.

BUT the role of walking is not significantly different than a baroque bass line, which is to say it can't be reasonably said to be in substance other than a contrapuntal approach. You seem to want every choice in a line to be *determined* by a chord chart as if Band in a Box is the level of thought one ought to be after.

when a bass player listens and crafts the line to the lead player, let's say a singer singing the melody, is the bassist restricted to the thought of 'chord' or is there really melody to content with? In two parts. People listening for when to enter for their solo, making a compelling transition, they are listening to lines. Interacting with the rest of the ensemble, let's get down to basics in jazz, Dixieland? This_is_counterpoint.

I could say this is right before you and you don't get it. You like that box, you got your mind closed up in it.
The way you come off here is as someone that NEVER LISTENS to the rest of the group.

Finally, you present us with a deterministic axiomatic truth ['it ought to be self-evident that everyone makes decisions *determined by* the chord name'], which seems anthetical to the spirit of jazz improvisation.

To sum, the OP in the thread was to discuss people with a mistaking the trees for the forest POV and an unnecessary dichotomy of chords/scales up in theory class. With you that's a good thing?

---

jancivil - Tue May 29, 2012 11:54 am

---

to be precise, these two could reasonably be said to be tertial structures voiced quartally.

C#7#9b13
F#+5 (or b13) b9


but from 1:30 in the toto record it doesn't go anywhere and I get the open, suspended kind of feel so certainly that's a quartal approach.

---

jancivil - Tue May 29, 2012 12:06 pm

---

as though the cart is what the horse needs in order to move forward.

there are things a more studied approach will bring to light following jazz practice, George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept, not a lite read... like that. But I find it strange a person needing to go to college to get jazz harmony concepts as basic as what's shown by tappermike.

As far as I can tell the creators in front of jazz - and for Louis Armstrong, Bird was avant-garde, or something, 'Chinese music' - got their education largely off the street.

But when you get into more advanced concepts, ask yourself what Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock, McCoy Tyner looked at and formulated principles from. Interesting that a guy with such an anal-retentive approach as tappermike is so allergic to concepts out of 'classical'.

I vascillated a bit before I went off to seek some higher educating, between the jazz schools and conservatory. I find that Berklee focuses on things more like a trade school than a conservatory approach - and for a time I tended to somewhat regret I didn't go there - but out of this kind of discussion, 'jazz theory course' seems like it could be some bullshit. The one at CPCC seemed hip, Grover got them TV chords and we had a good time looking at new information.

---

jancivil - Tue May 29, 2012 1:30 pm

---

as far as what to do in music that likes to take ii-V to some kind of I, and i as the new ii to obtain more movement; modulation constantly by b5 subsitute to find the full chromatic and all this, there are principles. the seventh of the ii to the third of the V, which is good for flat five of V equally, these are target tones and a kind of roadmap. If you're sequencing down by tones, a straight chromatic in descension is your safe tones. etc.

this is not news to me Mike. It was when I was 19 and picked up a Mickey Baker book but it's just not real challenging theory to an educated musician. 11 of the ii7 is #11 of bV/V7 (bII7) was of moment to me once upon a time.

As far as it being deterministic axiomatics, that's some boring shit, Jim. AFAICT that is a sure path to tedium from a soloist. You have twelve tones and the matter of one of them being wrong at some point is GWYNE HAPPING.
So in real time you have to be flexible. You have twelve motherfucking tones, you're in a music that once erpon a time decided to exploit the full chromatic, so you explore some options following that idea. There is inside playing and outside playing. One provides a contrast, maybe you feel you're too out for too long and you go for blues feel and limit the numbers.

OTOH you can be safe as milk with this puritan determinism.

---

D.H. Miltz - Wed May 30, 2012 2:02 am

---

Trolling split.

I don't know if the horse is dead or not, but if there's still on topic arguing (or even discussing) to be done, have at it.

---

MOK19 - Wed May 30, 2012 7:24 pm

---

Nope, this thread has gone elsewhere. When 10 replies in a row are from one person, the thread is best put on quarantine status.

---

D.H. Miltz - Wed May 30, 2012 7:28 pm

---

Thread retired at OP's (sensible) request.

---

There are 71 posts in this topic.