Whats the process of the way I create music called?

[tapper mike]

Apparently soundcloud doesn't like me today.
When using this type of harmonizations and working over a vamp.
(A vamp is a form of ostinato where by a repeated chord<<<- not a chord progression as it's the same chord throughout. Or musical line that implies a tonal center / chord)

Anyway.
Here is what I did with that type of horns harmonization.
http://tappermike.com/kvr/vamp2.WMV
YMMV


Rick Severson utilizes a blues progression however it is just as effective over a vamp. In my version I go slightly off the rails
This type of harmonization is not limited to horn sections or era or style. Though it is frequently used when harmonizing a horn section to facilitate parallel motion harmony for a given melody.

When using this approach standard diatonic structures go off the rails They aren't required as one is using the fixed structure of the harmony when applying it to a melody.

Again when harmonizing a melody line using voice leading the melody is on top meaning the highest note one plays where as other notes of the harmony are formed below that note. In this three note example the structure is root on the highest note. The next note is the sixth of the chord and the one below that is the 3rd.

Here is where I'm sure I'll walk into trouble. If these types of fingerings don't lay easy for you try this.
In your daw or host select three instruments that will be the voices for your chord. side chain (or link) these instruments then transpose your second and third voice. The natural 6th is -3 semitones and the major 3rd is -8 semitones. Now have some fun with the blues scale.

[tapper mike]

Re suspension in sus2 and sus4. More often then not in common when using a sus2 or sus4 chord the third is omitted. Try my previous example of chromatic notes movement against a minor chord. And then try it for yourself against a major primary chord.


Quartal harmony is a different beast then "Rock Sus4" With the standard rock sus4 the third is omitted leaving a 1-4-5 type harmony. Quartal harmony is a series of stacked 4ths sometimes augmented though in jazz to a lesser extent.
In Gospel Quartal harmony serves as a form of substitution or neighboring/approach chord when used in a chord progression type formula.

In the distant past quartal harmony was used as a means to harmonize traditional songs that had only a melody to work with. While quartal harmony does (albeit rarely) show face in rock fusion type progressions such as "Peg" by Steely Dan. This type of harmony especially in the methodology of parallel motion does have a place in Jazz. In particular McCoy Tyner.



As the name implies chords are built upon 4ths not 3rds.
As an example building from the C note upward would produce C-F-Bb-Eb in a four voice chord setting where as in a 5 not chord it would have an added Ab.

Generally when working around these structures the minor pentatonic scale is used for improvisation.

[JumpingJackFlash]

stuff

You're still confused about what Voice Leading is (and what it is not).
My earlier comments might help elucidate it for you.

With all due respect, if you're going to present yourself as an authority on this kind of stuff, you really need to first have a firm grounding in it yourself. I say this, not to be mean or pedantic, but I don't want newbies to be confused and led astray.

[jancivil]

Again when harmonizing a melody line using voice leading the melody is on top meaning...

AGAIN, this is not what the term 'voice leading' is taken to mean, except by you. I see you're writing the tappermike encyclopedia now, but I wouldn't want anybody to take these definitions away with them.

'voice leading' just means we are dealing horizontally with more than one 'voice', or 'part' happening simultaneously. There is no requirement the melody belongs on top or anywhere else. There is no requirement that the result of a voice or part's 'leading' gives us a melody particularly. There is no requirement for when in time a chord forms. There is no requirement that non-chord tones ("outside the harmony") have to happen. There is no requirement it be smooth or optimal.
It's just a way of writing, of making parts work together, typically working in harmony. That's all it means, per se (through itself).

For instance you want to move from C major to F major: the E and G move to F and A while the C is held, a common tone. That is 'voice leading'. As opposed to a guitar player moving parallel to the same fingering, eg., your C to F in barre chords.

[tapper mike]

Voice leading may be described as parsimonious if it follows "the law of the shortest way"[4] moving as few voices as few steps as possible and thus often retaining "common tones."
Not all the time but often.

For those whom may have actually studied open moveable chords on a guitar this make sense. It operates in the same fashion as would Smart Voicing for piano chords. The melody voice "leads" the harmony. If the harmony were static and therefore not changing it would not be lead by the voice.


English much around here?

[JumpingJackFlash]

English much around here?

Apparently not.

I just wrote a more lengthy reply but deleted it. It would just lead to another famous KVR argument and eventually descend into a flame war. I don't want this. But, I would respectfully ask you to consider the possibility that some people on here know more about this stuff than you do, and that taking onboard what they say is going to be more productive than refusing to listen and stubbornly clinging to your own misconceptions. No offence.

Quoting definitions is futile. They are not at fault, your interpretation of them is.

[jancivil]

Voice leading may be described as parsimonious if it follows "the law of the shortest way"[4] moving as few voices as few steps as possible and thus often retaining "common tones."
Not all the time but often.

For those whom may have actually studied open moveable chords on a guitar this make sense. It operates in the same fashion as would Smart Voicing for piano chords. The melody voice "leads" the harmony. If the harmony were static and therefore not changing it would not be lead by the voice.


English much around here?

Reading much? A little while I ago I called something a '2-3' in terms of a sus-resolve as a reply. Effectively, I'd told someone a D to an E [vis a vis 'C chord'] was '2-3'; while that seems intuitive, another member pointed out the common usage of '2-3, aka bass suspension' and I regarded my statement 'a misnomer'. It is a type of *voice-leading* where, eg., F in the bass, a G above it and the F moves down to E. Here is a term that is used universally in music theory class, so I didn't have to stick with my assessment, we should probably call that something else to avoid confusion.

That melody 'leads' the harmony does not make your term 'voice leading' into the_definition of voice leading. No one that has done work in 'voice leading/part writing' says this, we know the term. This meaning is unique to you. Digging in your heels has only shown you don't know this term.

You could allow the space for the term as it is used by everybody else and call what you're doing another term. But this thread has taken a certain shape, hasn't it.

[jancivil]

Voice leading may be described as parsimonious if it follows "the law of the shortest way"[4] moving as few voices as few steps as possible and thus often retaining "common tones."
Not all the time but often.

For those whom may have actually studied open moveable chords on a guitar this make sense. It operates in the same fashion as would Smart Voicing for piano chords. The melody voice "leads" the harmony. If the harmony were static and therefore not changing it would not be lead by the voice.

English much around here?

So you actually looked this up on wikipedia and didn't come away with meaning from that reading. If I had resorted to that or another source, cited and placed as though authoritatively, beyond my quite clear explanation here, you would still insist you're right.

That does the opposite of support you here. Open movable chords? not sure but I think that means one or more open strings while you move a form about in parallel? That isn't what 'voice leading' does really. There could be voice-leading afoot there in a limited case, but the parallelism after a point is going to defy voice-leading. The term for the open strings that do not move is 'pedal tones'.

[jancivil]

Quartal harmony

Generally when working around these structures the minor pentatonic scale is used for improvisation.

WHY? You're going to draw a generalization from, I guess some specific case you happen to have familiarity with? I think that is not going to provide you a good definition of 'generally'.

For instance, when Fagen talks to Warren Bernhardt about where the ideas in "Peg" come from, he brings in a stacked fourths 'E A D G' form: 'here's a major kind of sound/a more open kind of sound', having placed the whole exercise in the frame of "12-bar blues, really".
So instead of 'C7-G7', IV - I, he has that stack over the C bass. He talks of plagal cadence there such as in gospel. But it's just IV-I. Maybe this is where you got the idea that 'quartal harmony' was done all along in gospel music. I think it isn't done hardly at all, to this day. I'm kind of familiar with these musics, & not trivially.

[jancivil]

here's an example of 'quartal' from ~120 yrs ago that people tend to notice seems like McCoy Tyner.



audio: Satie Le fils des etoiles, 1-3

the melodic motif returning, hear it there in the piano solo, 'Act 1 Theme':



The second one in terms of voice leading: The D and F proceed to C# E; the Bb to A, and the C jumps to F#. The G in the bass a pedal tone. Then the next change follows that voice leading and he continues working with that.

[tapper mike]

Quartal harmony

Generally when working around these structures the minor pentatonic scale is used for improvisation.

WHY? You're going to draw a generalization from, I guess some specific case you happen to have familiarity with? I think that is not going to provide you a good definition of 'generally'.

For instance, when Fagen talks to Warren Bernhardt about where the ideas in "Peg" come from, he brings in a stacked fourths 'E A D G' form: 'here's a major kind of sound/a more open kind of sound', having placed the whole exercise in the frame of "12-bar blues, really".
So instead of 'C7-G7', IV - I, he has that stack over the C bass. He talks of plagal cadence there such as in gospel. But it's just IV-I. Maybe this is where you got the idea that 'quartal harmony' was done all along in gospel music. I think it isn't done hardly at all, to this day. I'm kind of familiar with these musics, & not trivially.

I mentions that true quartal harmony was rare with the exception of Donald Fagen. As well I had mentioned that the use of quartal harmony when writing from a melodic line to a harmonized movement in rock. As you'll notice in the vid he also explains his ideas were progression based not melodically based.

Another "Rock" (though I don't consider what he does rock) songwriter who uses quartal harmony as opposed to minor thirds is Robert Fripp.

As the focus of that post had to do with various means to take a melody and create a harmony rather then take a progression and generate a harmony I felt no need to go into length about Donald Fagen's approach to Peg. When one harmonizes in strict quartal harmony the quartal harmony is strict. Not so with Fagen's Peg where he utilizes several methods for harmony within the same song.


As for your previous assertions that you Both aren't trying to start a flame war and that you find me unqualified to express ideas on this forum because you think I'm not as knowledgeable as you. I find the latter discounts the former. I intend to move forward regardless of your assertions. You of course are more then welcome to introduce concepts yourself and or attempt to discredit mine. Of course I'll defend any statements I have and will hope that others will also take the time to review my findings and experiment with the concepts.

[ariston]

Whatever happened to mashing notes together until you get something that sounds good?

All this has reminded me of why I decided NOT to study music but keep it as a hobby. Thanks for that, y'all!

[rockstar_not]

To the OP - if you are still watching this thread. An online friend of mine has written some very nice observations about various Beatles songs called 'Tickets to Write'. I've used some of his tips when I'm in a chord progression rut, and his tips come from the Beatles' body of work.

Here's the very useful 'Tickets to Write' by Matt Blick http://beatlessongwriting.blogspot.com/ ... write.html

Try just a couple of the tips and it will get you out of your rut. I realize upon listening to your tunes that you might not think that the Beatles and your style could mesh in any way, which is all the more reason to read through the Tickets to Write for some inspiration. Think of it as a sort of Oblique Strategy.

[jancivil]

As for your previous assertions that you Both aren't trying to start a flame war and that you find me unqualified to express ideas on this forum because you think I'm not as knowledgeable as you. I find the latter discounts the former. I intend to move forward regardless of your assertions. You of course are more then welcome to introduce concepts yourself and or attempt to discredit mine. Of course I'll defend any statements I have and will hope that others will also take the time to review my findings and experiment with the concepts.

I have addressed particular statements of yours that offer any person that reads these pages bad definitions of terms, terms that ought to be useful terms we can all agree on. I tried to show you how a person can allow the space for the definition the world uses, but you can't. As per credibility to defend, 'voice leading' is a meaningful term universally and you're calling something quite different that term. I have actually gone to some length towards showing you something in music here, but you don't seem amenable to the thing, in service of "I can't be wrong!". It's not about you.

[jancivil]

I mentions that true quartal harmony was rare with the exception of Donald Fagen. As well I had mentioned that the use of quartal harmony when writing from a melodic line to a harmonized movement in rock. As you'll notice in the vid he also explains his ideas were progression based not melodically based.

Another "Rock" (though I don't consider what he does rock) songwriter who uses quartal harmony as opposed to minor thirds is Robert Fripp.

As the focus of that post had to do with various means to take a melody and create a harmony rather then take a progression and generate a harmony I felt no need to go into length about Donald Fagen's approach to Peg. When one harmonizes in strict quartal harmony the quartal harmony is strict. Not so with Fagen's Peg where he utilizes several methods for harmony within the same song.

You brought Peg in: "rare with the exception of Donald Fagen". You had another tapperism: "generally {statement as fact that is actually supposition and subjective experience}..."

And I just happened to have seen the same video and it shows something different. I don't know why there would tend to be 'quartal type chords' placed over 'minor pentatonic' as a rule or 'generally'. I think one does not define - limit - the other.

It's going to be futile to convey to you I think, but there are people that could come away from these threads with these odd notions of yours and I don't feel I am sinning in questioning them. So there is Fagen making an open major IV out of the concept, there is Satie in the 1890's stacking them over a major pentatonic tune he later treats differently (and in the bargain I showed some cool VOICE LEADING that produces a really cool jazzy effect way before its time).

I think there is no generalization you can draw from 'quartal chords' per se to determine what kind of line they go with 'in improvisation'.

So is that aspect of 'Peg' 'quartal harmony', or isn't it? "true quartal rare with the exception of Donald Fagen..." Who you subsequently say is not using true quartal. Which he isn't, now that you mention it. But now we know to make the distinction <It's strict when it's strict> so thanks for that insight.

So, I think if we're going to teach concepts, let's be concrete about them. Show why you would choose this chord for that melody note. The reasoning, the reasoning in fitting a style, et cetera. There are a lot of people here that can chart <note corresponds with chord> all day long. You can make a machine give that up.
Why does 'minor pentatonic' follow 'quartal construction vertically'? What is the musical sense, why is that a principle? If you can't answer that I think nothing is conveyed.