Modal Harmony vid series

[MadBrain]

So I had some experience with lead sheets and, by the time I actually went to conservatory (21 yrs old) I was quite versed in jazz concepts. It seems queer that you'd think I was shocked, since I gave a not-too-shabby primer on Russell's Concept. I don't call myself a jazz musician, but I have lived next door to that world for a good portion of my musical life. Including writing some pretty hip big-band charts for shows. I'm pretty hip actually.

Well, I had my dose of figured bass, and we sometimes had pretty nasty chords to deal with, yet the fidures were plain simple. We have a given tonality. If we want a 7 chord, we have the bass and we write simpy 7. What notes it has - the notes that belong to tonality, of course. If we want other notes, we write # or b or b-square, depending on what alterations are needed, for the notes that are to be altered. If the 7 is inverted, we have 6 5, or 4 3 or 2. When I see a 2 I already know it's a seventh chord in the third inversion. That's it. It works for whatever notes are there. I just need a bass and a figure.

For a 9, we write 9, and for the inversions, the relevant intervals, the same way we used to do for the 7. No big deal. Why write Esus b9 if what we want is the plain F that belongs to the tonality? If it's there, is a 9, plain and simple. And what the f*ck is a "sus"? Nothing is suspended there (that's a reminiscence of the counterpoint laws, I guess), it's a 4, plain and simple. If the 9 is major or minor depends entirely on the root note and which tonality we are in. Sometimes, it seems like jazz people don't even know which tonality they are playing on, and have to be told which notes each chord has, one by one, even when those notes have no alterations at all. And all those different symbols to the same chord, it's a total mess. Why not just write 7, as Jan said? Why is it so complicated?

It's simply a different tradeoff due to stylistic differences. Jazz has more color chords, and less inversions and chords with supensions and anticipations moving up and down chromatically, so it has a notation that makes writing chord colors easier, at the cost of making inversions and inner voice movement harder to write.

Ok, how about an example of a Bossa Nova song written in (an approximation of) both notations to show the differences and trade-offs?

The Girl from Ipanema (F major)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5QfXjsoNe4

Jazz notation (from "The Real Book"):
Fmaj7 G7 G-7 Gb7b5 Fmaj7 Gb7b5
Fmaj7 G7 G-7 Gb7b5 Fmaj7
Gbmaj7 B7 F#-7 D7 G-7 Eb7
A-7 D7b9(#11) G-7 C7b9(#11)
Fmaj7 G7 G-7 Gb7b5 Fmaj7

ROUGH approximation in figured bass (I'm doing the best I can here, normally you'd have the bass notes on a staff, I'm using · here to separate chord names that would be ambiguous, there's probably a better way of writing "Gb·b7bb5")
F7 G7 G7 Gb·b7bb5 F7 Gb·b7bb5
F7 G7 G7 Gbb·b7bb5 F7
Gb7b5 B7#5# F#7#5 D7# G7 Eb7
A7 D·b9(#11)# G7 C·b9(#11)
F7 G7 G7 Gb·b7bb5 F7

[fmr]

Actually, I think I see what he meant by "dominant as the default of all chord extensions."

What that means is that G7, G9, G11, and G13 all imply dominant seventh chords as the core seventh chord. And it's true, that's how it works in jazz theory.

I stick by my opinion. A Fb is a F flat for any musician. If we are in C Major (and everyone who deserved to be called a musician had to know that) then writing a 9 would had to be enough. As a maestro once said to Stravinsky: "If it is to be played normally, please don't write any indication" (because Stravinsky notated EVERYTHING, even when it was supposed to be played normally).

But I think I start to understand now where do the theory that C Major/Ionian is the "one ring that rules them all" comes from. It seems anything in jazz starts with C Major. Not just Major - it "has to be" C Major. Is there some prejudice, or any historical reason why it's like this?

[fmr]

... there's probably a better way of writing "Gb·b7bb5"

I interpreted those figures (like for example F7) as having the F on the bass (the F would be my given bass) and then I had a 7. Right?

Are the notes on this "Gb·b7bb5" F#(Gb)-C-E ?

[stringtapper]

I don't think you are actually understanding what I mean by jazz chords being self-contained. C major doesn't *necessarily* have anything to with the chord label Esus4b9. That label could exist anywhere in a jazz piece that otherwise had no indications of C major anywhere else in it.

[fmr]

I don't think you are actually understanding what I mean by jazz chords being self-contained. C major doesn't *necessarily* have anything to with the chord label Esus4b9. That label could exist anywhere in a jazz piece that otherwise had no indications of C major anywhere else in it.

Now I am lost. I thought you had at least a melody to start with. Or do you just have a piece of paper with chord symbols and its "anything goes"?

Anyway, I was talking about G7 being the reference for all the chords, not about Esus b9.

[MadBrain]

... there's probably a better way of writing "Gb·b7bb5"

I interpreted those figures (like for example F7) as having the F on the bass (the F would be my given bass) and then I had a 7. Right?

Are the notes on this "Gb·b7bb5" F#(Gb)-C-E ?

Gb-C-D-Fb
EDIT
Gb-Bb-Dbb-Fb
(sorry for mistake)
enharmonic spellings: Gb-Bb-C-Fb, Gb-Bb-C-E

[stringtapper]

Now I am lost. I thought you had at least a melody to start with. Or do you just have a piece of paper with chord symbols and its "anything goes"?

Sometimes that's exactly what you get. If I reharmonize the changes to a song for a jam session then I'm just going to write out the chord symbols with slash notation and assume everyone at the session already knows the melody.

[fmr]

Now I am lost. I thought you had at least a melody to start with. Or do you just have a piece of paper with chord symbols and its "anything goes"?

Sometimes that's exactly what you get. If I reharmonize the changes to a song for a jam session then I'm just going to write out the chord symbols with slash notation and assume everyone at the session already knows the melody.

But you "have" a melody. Therefore, you have a tonality, and an anchor. That's your starting point. You don't have just chords, out of nothing.

[stringtapper]

But you "have" a melody. Therefore, you have a tonality, and an anchor. That's your starting point. You don't have just chords, out of nothing.

Melodies in jazz rarely encompass a tonality. Rapid tonicization of different key areas is a hallmark of certain styles of jazz.

[jancivil]

Why not just write 7, as Jan said? Why is it so complicated?

It's simply a different tradeoff due to stylistic differences. Jazz has more color chords, and less inversions and chords with supensions and anticipations moving up and down chromatically, so it has a notation that makes writing chord colors easier, at the cost of making inversions and inner voice movement harder to write.

Ok, how about an example of a Bossa Nova song written in (an approximation of) both notations to show the differences and trade-offs?

The Girl from Ipanema (F major)

Jazz notation (from "The Real Book"):
Fmaj7 G7 G-7 Gb7b5 Fmaj7 Gb7b5
Fmaj7 G7 G-7 Gb7b5 Fmaj7
Gbmaj7 B7 F#-7 D7 G-7 Eb7
A-7 D7b9(#11) G-7 C7b9(#11)
Fmaj7 G7 G-7 Gb7b5 Fmaj7

ROUGH approximation in figured bass [...] chord names that would be ambiguous, there's probably a better way of writing "Gb·b7bb5")

Here is my take on it {as though for my own purposes}
[KEY OF F]:
I7 V7/V ii7 V7b5/bV I7 V7b5/bV
" "
bII7 V7/vii ii7 HERE IT BREAKS DOWN due to F#m {KEY OF E: V7 ii7 ? E NEVER HAPPENS}
end of line 3, KEY OF G MINOR: V7 i7 VI-7
ii+5 V7b9 #11 i7 V7b9 #11/bVII
KEY OF F: I7 V7/V ii7 V7b5/bV I7

There are a couple of complications but it really doesn't matter.
I would find, eg., the F#m7 and Eb7 to Am7 gross, anyway IRL I would do something else.
Here's the thing, when I have scored pop tunes for big band I looked at the tune's ACTUAL changes via Roman Numeral Analysis in order to explore my options in a clearer picture.

The song's changes:
I7 | Tall and tan and young and lovely, the
II7 | girl from Ipanema goes walking and
ii7 | when she passes each
bII7 | one she passes goes
I7 } ahhhh

For the more involved one, I made II7 (in itself perfectly clear) V7/V. I would never bother except for my own purposes, and I would be real clear to myself, not overcomplicate the thing.

[jancivil]

where does bb5 enters into anything. If we encountered a Gb in key of F, it's bII. The default 7 for that is F. So you'd indicate a lowered 7. The b5 of Gb is Dbb.

[MadBrain]

where does bb5 enters into anything. If we encountered a Gb in key of F, it's bII. The default 7 for that is F. So you'd indicate a lowered 7. The b5 of Gb is Dbb.

The other option is to say that the chord is really a Gb7#11, in which case it's a C.

[fmr]

where does bb5 enters into anything. If we encountered a Gb in key of F, it's bII. The default 7 for that is F. So you'd indicate a lowered 7. The b5 of Gb is Dbb.

The other option is to say that the chord is really a Gb7#11, in which case it's a C.

Makes more sense to me. Note that I spelled the chord with C and E.

[zethus909]

i didnt say it was completely modal. i asked "how is it not modal", parts of it, ARE modal. it's a free jazz performance, there is no rules.

The problem is that it's not modal AT ALL. It's nothing, for that matters, It's just a chaotic succession of sounds, without any organization. Therefore, it's not music.

you are obsessed with rules, that are meaningless without any music. you are basically slowing down the music, into this sledge of complex notations that serves no real purpose other than to describe. this is all explanation and not action. action creates music. attempting to explain the action after the fact does not create music. i agree that it is noodling, but its still was mainly a performance. but more just practicsing, but practicsing without thoughts.

Music is an intelectual achievement, as much as an artistic achievement. That's why we spend years trying to dominate it's techniques. Because, like all forms of art, it's as much creation as it is craftmanship. You showed no craftmanship at all, no intrinsic musical thought behind, no conducting line of thinking. What you still didn't understand is that a mode is NOT just a succession of notes. It has an inner organization without which it will not exist. This is where our intelect, our mind, and also our technical craftmanship comes into call. I'm not saying that I can do that without any fail, but I understand the principles, and at least I try to come out with something meaningful, as I showed.

And rules are not meaningless. Rules are what differentiates music from any chaotic succession of sounds. It's what you fail to understand, and that's probably why you cannot listen to someone like Ligeti - because you apparently are incapable of recognize these simple principles.

we'll, I can't agree with what you're saying here. it's overly romantic and simply not reflective of what real musical artistry is about. music is about expressing yourself, not trying to fit your expression into some imaginary framework that only exists Inside your mind . music comes from within, it doesn't come from a book that you read.

[fmr]

we'll, I can't agree with what you're saying here. it's overly romantic and simply not reflective of what real musical artistry is about. music is about expressing yourself, not trying to fit your expression into some imaginary framework that only exists Inside your mind . music comes from within, it doesn't come from a book that you read.

Comes from within? Where from? Your guts? Your stomach? Your loans? Give me a break... Music comes from your mind, nowhere else. And it comes from a summing build of all your past experiences, mostly sounding and musical experiences. The more experiences you have, the better musician you are. Nothing comes "from within" (except maybe sh!t" - literally). Or are you pretending those "arpeggios" you played "came from within". They were nothing else than a memory reproduction of some exercizes you used to play.