The same object from different angles

[jancivil]

t'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.

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

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.

When Benny Goodman...
Paul Desmond...

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.

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.

The chord movement defines the individual note selection. It makes more sense to me then say "Counterpoint".

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]

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]

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]

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"

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.

The melody is in context of the progression. The melody is shaped by the progression.

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 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 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.

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.

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]

There were other people taking the jazz reharmonization course...

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.

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'.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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.


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)


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]

@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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

Monority of listeners and minority of music buyer and minority of musicians from the popular western world.

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.

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.

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 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

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.