Best theory behind jazz fusion chords

[BertKoor]

Yeah, we should know better. Line, hook, sinker...

This was post #5 of the OP. After that (s)he was mainly interested in the Sell&Buy section.

[BertKoor]

Electronic musician wanting to expand my sound palate

By learning or by buying?

[vurt]

knowledge can be found by reading
have a look around for some jazz mags.
we used to find them in the woods ...

[jancivil]

Well, you don't learn how to _do_ music by reading about it any more than you can learn to swim by reading up on strokes.


Since I brought that particular bit of Bill Evans in and made a certain assertion, I should say that shortly after this I found a page at YT where someone had "created" a lead sheet of the tune, displayed in the video, with normal, simple 7th chords throughout.
So it's the normal lead sheet apparently (probably copy/pasted).
I posted this performance specifically once found because I strongly feel that cut and dried formulaic by-the-book theory is against the spirit of jazz. And as it happens the old guard was rather upset by what Charlie Parker and John Birks Gillespie and crew did in the post-war years that got known as bebop. So it's easy to miss how out on a limb Parker was, going past what was. Louis Armstrong called it Chinese music.

In the initial post Wayne Shorter's name is dropped, note well. And ultimately he didn't give a f**k; seriously you can't name a lot of it by tertial device (explanation of the quartal harmony not infrequently found instead is not codified like roman numeral analysis with obvious roots given) and we'll find things that violate some of the principles I brought in as norms (eg., major and minor 7ths on "V"). I will have been amiss in not saying so at the end of that post.

BTW, I wrote more on the first bars of this piano intro (and revised the first moment I'd assessed, as I'd gone with a visual w. my terrible eyesight) regarding what the lead sheet has compared with what happened: viewtopic.php?p=8750495#p8750495

{NB: of course it was my assumption the intro follows the changes of the body of the tune, but I'm confident it does, only with interest.}

[vurt]

Well, you don't learn how to _do_ music by reading about it any more than you can learn to swim by reading up on strokes.

just a joke, as it was a post n run.
jazz mags = porn mags, here

[Aloysius]

But can you learn to read by reading?

[jancivil]

"jazz mags = porn mags, here"
it looked like that no doubt, but I said that anyway because every potential reader getting the joke as it were is unrealistic. My experience in music theory incl formally has not involved books at_all. 'You don't learn to swim from a book'

I'm experiencing a terrible technical problem owing to VE Pro being fatal to Cubase 12 so I decided to waste some time going on about my interest. I don't quite get how this thread (even as it is, begun in service of the requisite 5 posts to get to Buy 'n Sell) warrants people that have no interest in the matter posting "jokes", particularly Mr. Absolute Arsewit there, now twice. whatev, it's a free cuntry.
We can assume it's garbage by your user name, jagoff.

[eLawnMust]

Yes, Jazz-Fusion Chords are no laughing matter for sure... Ear training is it & fluency with instrument. You have so many in this genre that have NO formal training & completely self-taught, like the late Tommy Bolin, who could not read any sheet music but could play anything TO anything, Self-taught he would often be asked "what chord is that?" & he'd often say "I don't know it just sounds good/right". I still often listen to his playing on Billy Cobham's Spectrum Album. That was a great team-up just like Doug Rauch & Billy Cobham on 'Life & Times'... Many cool talented self-taughters use the EAR & forget books do what sounds good not what theoretically sounds good>>>

[NKF]

Start with early jazz and just work chronologically.

[jancivil]

You must be a glutton for punishment.

"Start with early jazz and just work chronologically." Work how? With what concepts? I couldn't write a less meaningful sentence about this if I tried.

Early jazz is almost purely diatonic. We move ahead a relatively short period of time, to the post WWII era where Charlie Parker and John Birks Gillespie, and Bud Powell concocted a method by which any regular old show tune can be made to exploit 'the full chromatic'; the dominant harmony's fifth is flatted which makes another dominant harmony at that interval identical in pitch content.
In C: G B Db F = Db F Abb (G) Cb (B). And on top of this the old classical kind of tonicization & secondary dominants concept was applied, only any chord in the original diatonic or what-not gets a ii and a V of it. Flat five substitution on the Vs (and devices like borrow ii from minor, if you're headed to a minor harmony) and we can soon see 12 tones to work with as opposed to 7. And they created a style of linear thinking that agrees with the thing.

If you mean jazz since then (say 1947), either you know this one way or another or you're f**ked. (or you stick to "trad") Louis Armstrong, perhaps from "early jazz" was so thrown by it he called it "chinese music".

[eLawnMust]

This still going I see... There really is no theory as theory is something thought to be correct or true but may not necessarily be so. Certainly not for music. Coltrane might have chord changes every second or two others just maybe two chords the whole tune but jamming like you would not believe. I think Jaco Pastorius's 'Teen Town' was only two chords...I can tell you for sure Jean-Luc Ponty's 'Don't Let the World Pass You By' is ONLY two chords except for very last 'Hit' at end where they strike a suspended... It's super jammin' the whole damn tune-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kshlohQzO6Y


I don't know what key he is using but I'm doing very close to same Ebminor7th to CMajor9th...Back-forth... If you are on the QWERTY you just place fingers on the 3-5-7-9 keys for the Ebminor7th then slide up just semitone to E-T-U-O adding the lower 'C'...

Making tune in AXS Tracker heavily influenced but is just WIP...I kinda got the synth phasing between the two chords 'OK'. Yeah, won't be as good as the original by a long shot but hey it's done in a tiny freeware tracker 23 years old now only 460 KB in size>>>

https://soundcloud.com/waxing-and-wanin ... me-a-river


All picked out by 'EAR', develop the EAR...Listen to tunes & try to play along then soon you do it in your head>>>

[jancivil]

This still going I see... There really is no theory as theory is something thought to be correct or true but may not necessarily be so.

In the terms I gave there is solid information about reality. Do you have a question or a concrete objection to points?

There are cases - like most of the music I make - where what happens defies analysis. Debussy's "there is no theory" was a reply to a clueless person trying to challenge him on something they don't get as a conservative.
I am not wrong, if you do not grasp flat five substitution and the style is exploiting that as a way of life, you're not going to be competent for the task for shit and you're out. On the topic, you're pulling turds out of your ass and it's phony as phuck, talking John Coltrane. Case in point, we talk Giant Steps we recognize the modulation targets major third moves, it's right at the heart of it. Why seek to vacate it? WTF is wrong with you?

Spare us all the fatuous twaddle, FFS. It's gotten to be quite transparent the exercise you're embarking on is trying to look like you're above people with actual useful answers. You're not, you're only showing your ass, just another big talker. Waving a bag of gas.

[jancivil]

Jazz especially, the more you know - which means you have the information and have tested it - the more fluid you are. Bebop was invented by people that knew things. You don't know the "theory" of ii-Vs on as many chords in the tune as you like, about the music theory business of extensions, which ones produce the right result and are as such conventional usage, flat 5 on V7s including secondary V7s, what ii in minor is etc, well good luck with that.

You're going to suss a fugue and reproduce it by your ear? By your ego (ie., ass)? What.
So full of shit. This isn't the place or time to waste everybody's time posing. Not in front of me anyway.

[jancivil]

First, 'the theory might be wrong, so' may apply in an edge case, ie., there may be two ways of calling a seven note chord, but most questions can be settled because they have been, everyone knows Giant Steps is built on the M3rd movement.
Theory as far we are concerned here is analysis after the fact. Occasionally someone has a question here - there was one regarding an augmented chord out-of-key and outside of hearing it even the key wasn't entirely obvious because this progression was complex but the conception was naive, I mean they had a question about the meaning of their own move. So there were varied conceptions coming back. Some of them were wrong, even if there is some ambiguity, here was some bullshit.
I was able to make a coherent harmonic sentence out of it, by implication. We were not provided audio and hearing it, for me was the only way to ascertain the truth.

But first, 'a theory (music theory isn't theory as a scientific theory is) may be wrong so' 'there is no theory' is totally non sequitur, and as fallaciously reasoned, I swear to God, as I hope to ever see.


If to you there is no knowable theory, maybe the subforum is not for you.

[LocrianLocrian]

Think of sets of notes on top of a fundamental bass note. These sets of notes, same interval series, can be then pushed around, moving the fundamental bass note. That's one approach that can generate those types of sounds.