-
I'm doing a research project for a university and a component of my studies involves breaking down and analysing the playing of some players.
I learned jazz improv through transcription etc. My college also used those Barry Nettles books.
It got me thinking, is there an accepted framework for analysing the language? Barry Harris' approach seems to have become increasingly popular in recent years, with discussions on strong beats and passing tone rules etc. Some advocate for chord-scale theory, others hate it.
If you were to try and communicate to a non-jazz audience why an improvised line or lick works/sounds good, how would you go about it?
-
09-17-2024 07:41 PM
-
I communicate why a thing sounds good by playing it so as to be heard.
Originally Posted by acidskiffle
Why would I treat a non-jazz audience differently from a jazz audience?
-
Did they ask you to do it? If you don't really know how to do it why did they ask you? Originally Posted by acidskiffle
If you mean you're on a course or studying for a qualification that would be different. Then, obviously, you should find out how others before you approached it. In fact, I'd be tempted to ask a tutor what they expect. No harm in that.
Like Paul, I'm a little worried about this question. Define a non-jazz audience. A die-hard classical music lover? A teenage pop fan? Someone from Outer Mongolia?If you were to try and communicate to a non-jazz audience why an improvised line or lick works/sounds good, how would you go about it?
-
Honestly I kind of like that question more than the one about analyzing. Originally Posted by ragman1
Like Paul, I'm a little worried about this question. Define a non-jazz audience. A die-hard classical music lover? A teenage pop fan? Someone from Outer Mongolia?
Trying to describe a line to a layperson can make you think about the aspects that are really important in it. Sounds like a useful exercise.
As for the analysis part … short answer is that, no, there isn’t really any commonly accepted framework. The ones you mentioned are all pretty prominent ones. I tend to think a useful commonality of the ones I’ve gotten something out of in the past would be “chunking.” Like … not analyzing single notes against a chord or whatever, but analyzing the melodic shapes — this is a scale, this is an arpeggio with an enclosure, this is the Cry Me a River lick, that sort of thing,
-
Why not go all in and communicate it to a non musician? First thing I'd do is to explain how western music is based on Simple Harmonic Motion, and the yeilding of early related harmonic pitches of a vibrating medium, hence the octave when halved, the 5th when divided by 3, the 3rd when divided by 5 etc (maybe stop short of LCC, or at least mention it as a modern alternative way to analysis). Originally Posted by acidskiffle
Explain why triads sound consonant, as do the other 4 notes in any diatonic scale that are further up the overtone series. Explain the concept of keys, and how non diatonic (chromatic) notes are used for embellishment. Explain basic principles of Harmonic movement that allow changing key centres. Briefly outline counterpoint in the time of Bach, then explain the combination of African and Western influences on early forms of Jazz, with specific mention of rhythmic quirks introduced, explorative use of Dom 7 chords and Blues scales etc.
Breakdown a Louis Armstrong solo, explain how it's different to Bach despite some similarities, how chord tones in the line sound a certain way over the chord of the moment, how chord extensions and even chromatic notes are handled to create effects, and how blues language is used for a quite different and unique effect.
Perhaps move to a Swing era player like Benny Goodman to show increased sophistication with chromatic embellishments (approaches, enclosures etc) as well as syncopation. Then onto Charlie Parker which lifts the bar again in these aspects, and where you may want to get a little more forensic regarding the elements that constitute his lines (patterns, motifs, licks, devices etc). Plenty of scholarly work exists of course (see Owens), but your brief is to show why it "sounds good", so maybe your own analytical approach could be unique in this way?
Maybe examine modal Miles to show how the music changed, and how it "sounded good" in a different way, as well as a brief examination of Post Bop / avant gard, like Eric Dolphy, although good luck trying to convince the lay person that it actually does sound good!
If it really is for the lay person, then it needs to lack the detail that musicians can handle, just go for the basic stuff. But if it's for non Jazz musicians, then go to town obviously, but then, why would you bother when people like David Baker, Jerry Coker and Jerry Bergonzi have done this exhaustively already. Or have they?....
-
If you were to try and communicate to a non-jazz audience why an improvised line or lick works/sounds good, how would you go about it?[/QUOTE]
I would use the common music theory concepts, and not the BH or CST with their limitations.
I would probably start with previously written work on Mozart, Beethoven and Bach, and see if a useable approach emerges.
-
Interesting topic, raising a few potentially generative questions.
A line or a lick that sounds good to who? To the researcher? To JGO members? To critics? To other musicians, etc., etc.?
Is the research for pedagogical purposes? Marketing purposes? Or is it a discourse analysis for developing a new theory? Etc.
To sidestep such questions, you could try playing random lines and licks (not necessarily “good” ones) to novice listeners and see how they talk about what’s good.
It might be useful, if you haven’t already done so, to give a listen to those old jazz blindfold tests. And see how what’s good was talked about in that context.
Paul Berliner’s “Thinking in Jazz” is a compendium of talking on “good.” You probably read it.
Wherever you might take this research, I wish you all the best!
-
You could take a look at Thomas Owens' comprehensive Charlie Parker dissertation which you can find in the Internet Archive.
Charlie Parker Dissertation Volume I Thomas Owens 1974 : Thomas Owens : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
https://archive.org/download/Charlie...ens%201974.pdf
-
Chord scale theory has nothing to say about vocabulary. Originally Posted by acidskiffle
Afaik most colleges use a cut and paste approach to bebop which is time honoured. Ii v licks. I don’t turn my nose up at this and I think it’s good to get good at this first before moving on (if you have done this, great.)
Barry Harris approach allows you to generate fresh bop vocabulary.
Barry does require you to really unlearn and relearn a lot of terminology. Alos there’s a million people out there now talking about Barry Harris stuff who never had any contact with the man or his teachings. I would trust Chris Parks (Things I Learned from Barry Harris), Shan Verma and Isaac Raz, who are all on YouTube, to pass on the info without their own misunderstandings or embellishments. And there’s Barry’s own workshops on YT.
Above all I’d recommend the Howard Rees DVD sets - worth the money.
There’s also David Baker (How to Play Bebop books). He’s coming more from a mainstream direction (he uses CST for instance) but his work is not unlike Barry’s.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'm pleased that at least one person has read my posts. Originally Posted by Bop Head
-
"If you were to try and communicate to a non-jazz audience why an improvised line or lick works/sounds good, how would you go about it?"
That is the very true epitome of the real jazz performance,
not a TED Talk on phenomenological existentialism of jazz.
-
Rhythm, phrasing and feel are just as important to jazz vocabulary as melody/harmony, maybe even more important. Originally Posted by acidskiffle
-
Is there not a reason on a deeper level why something sounds good beyond "because it sounds good"? Originally Posted by pauln
-
That's really helpful, thank you! Originally Posted by princeplanet
Why not go all in and communicate it to a non musician? First thing I'd do is to explain how western music is based on Simple Harmonic Motion, and the yeilding of early related harmonic pitches of a vibrating medium, hence the octave when halved, the 5th when divided by 3, the 3rd when divided by 5 etc (maybe stop short of LCC, or at least mention it as a modern alternative way to analysis).
Explain why triads sound consonant, as do the other 4 notes in any diatonic scale that are further up the overtone series. Explain the concept of keys, and how non diatonic (chromatic) notes are used for embellishment. Explain basic principles of Harmonic movement that allow changing key centres. Briefly outline counterpoint in the time of Bach, then explain the combination of African and Western influences on early forms of Jazz, with specific mention of rhythmic quirks introduced, explorative use of Dom 7 chords and Blues scales etc.
Breakdown a Louis Armstrong solo, explain how it's different to Bach despite some similarities, how chord tones in the line sound a certain way over the chord of the moment, how chord extensions and even chromatic notes are handled to create effects, and how blues language is used for a quite different and unique effect.
Perhaps move to a Swing era player like Benny Goodman to show increased sophistication with chromatic embellishments (approaches, enclosures etc) as well as syncopation. Then onto Charlie Parker which lifts the bar again in these aspects, and where you may want to get a little more forensic regarding the elements that constitute his lines (patterns, motifs, licks, devices etc). Plenty of scholarly work exists of course (see Owens), but your brief is to show why it "sounds good", so maybe your own analytical approach could be unique in this way?
Maybe examine modal Miles to show how the music changed, and how it "sounded good" in a different way, as well as a brief examination of Post Bop / avant gard, like Eric Dolphy, although good luck trying to convince the lay person that it actually does sound good!
If it really is for the lay person, then it needs to lack the detail that musicians can handle, just go for the basic stuff. But if it's for non Jazz musicians, then go to town obviously, but then, why would you bother when people like David Baker, Jerry Coker and Jerry Bergonzi have done this exhaustively already. Or have they?....
-
Sorry, but I discovered it in 2018 IIRC. Originally Posted by GuyBoden
I'm pleased that at least one person has read my posts.
-
Thank you for the info. I will check that out. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
I don't know if anyone was viewed the Rosenwinkel or Kreisberg courses but there is a lot of good information there too on line building etc. Chord tones on strong beats, passing tones in different modes to achieve this.
It seems that there is an increasing market for learning the music this way (rightly or wrongly), I find that people have an appetite to know why something works rather that just accepting it sounds good and moving on.
-
Part of what Christian is saying (I think) is that analyzing a line in that minute a way misses the forest for the trees. You can worry so much about where the chord tones are and not realize that the piano player is playing a different chord than was on the lead-sheet. Do the chord tones change, then? You can worry about where the chord tones fall in the line and miss the overall rhythm and what makes it propulsive. Originally Posted by acidskiffle
Generally the balance is thinking about slightly bigger picture stuff (diminished here, chromatic passage there) and spending more time on rhythm and how the lines resolve. Chunking things that way will probably give you a better idea of why things work than relating every pitch to the chord underneath––what makes things work is rhythm, melodic shape, movement toward a resolution, probably in that order.
It's worth remembering too that Kurt and Kreisberg are very idiosyncratic players and that their styles have been widely imitated––and for super good reason, because they rule––but that their vocabulary is extremely modern. So looking at lines in the way they describe building their own lines may or may not actually be all that useful in the task of understanding a Grant Green or a Clifford Brown line.
** ragman is also not entirely wrong here –– you might be getting good advice on this thread but we're not grading you. How do your professors expect you to analyze a line? I very distinctly remember being asked to write chord tone numbers under every note in the first solo I ever transcribed. Which, as it happens, was the first chorus of Jim Hall's "Stompin' at the Savoy." I've been going back through that whole album recently––and about fifteen years after that first attempt––and that's just not at all the way I look at it now. Which may have helped me then, but wouldn't have satisfied the requirements of the assignment. (a thread-in-progress on how I'm going at that album now, right here: Jim Hall “Jazz Guitar”)
-
On that point, I find it rather interesting how we perceive chord tones as part of a very chromatically embellished line played quickly. Of course we humans can hear how a well constructed line "sounds good" when the chord tones align with down beats (which is interesting in itself), but often a line still sounds good (to me at least) when certain 8th note lines are offset by an 8th note, so that things like enclosures etc resolve to chord tones on the up beat instead of the down beat. Mind you, this won't always be the case, many lines offset in this way may not "work", which raises the question of "why"? Originally Posted by acidskiffle
This, I feel, ventures into the realm of Music Psychology. Check out a book called Musicophilia by Oliver Sacks, it perhaps won't be much help in disseminating Jazz lines, but it does explore how the mind reacts to sound and music. All very interesting, but of course no analysis (not even with AI) can ever reduce music to formulae or equations that can predict how any combinations of sounds can elicit emotional responses in us.
I mean, all the Acoustic Science in the world cannot explain why a minor triad sounds sad, where a major triad sounds "happy"...
-
Yeah, I mean to be honest this has been a natural trend within music education, because if you have a Liberal Arts degree you need to be teaching some intellectual content? But music was always a trade, and was traditionally taught through long hard apprenticeships - and this was true even of classical music where the original conservatoires were trade schools for children who led spartan and unenviable lives, but mastered the craft and the top students could all improve fugues and write a symphonic movement in an afternoon if they had to, which often they did to satisfy a commercial requirement for instrumentalists, singers and new music from the aristocracy and the church. Originally Posted by acidskiffle
JP Rameau comes along in the 18th century and starts getting very excited about the idea of the music of rich white Europeans being emergent from the burgeoning science of acoustics and wotnot and formed a template that universities (especially in the German speaking world) came to emulate and expand upon as something you could teach confortable middle and upper class kids in three or four years, as a branch of music appreciation. The fancy word for this is of course 'musicology' and you could go and be professor in that if that floated your boat.
This is where functional harmony, Schenkerian analysis, Riemannian theory and so on and so forth comes from. These are the basis of modern mainstream music theory. Most of these theorists were also rather conservative as they were discussing the music of the Golden Past.
It has nothing to do with the way the musicians they discuss (not just Mozart and Bach, but all of them) were taught, and as has been pointed out, most people who pass functional harmony at college can't compose a String Quartet in the Gallant style. You need a bit more knowledge to say the least, and that's all practical know how.
I see chord scale theory as doing much the same thing in jazz. It's something you can teach in four years and people can go 'oh Bird plays a #9 on the D7, therefore altered scale and that's why it sounds good' or whatever, but it really has no explanation for why Bird sounds good and random notes from the altered scale usually don't (TBH I'm not sure Barry was into that either - he just showed you how to come up with good sounding lines). It's just something they can teach and you can tick a box.
Which may be enough for your assignment. Sometimes you just got to tick that box and keep the normies happy. What do they need from you? Give them exactly that and move on.
Don't mistake it as anything to do with your musical development.
Music is fundamentally inexplicable. There's always something that breaks the "rules"... It's almost like it's a social phenomenon and not in fact directly emergent from the science of acoustics.
-
OK so on a less philosophical note, Id say match the tools to the job. Originally Posted by acidskiffle
I gather a lot of what JK teaches might be not too dissimilar to Barry etc. It's quite easy to overestimate how much stuff there is out there because we often talk about it using different words.
In terms of my own learning, I find that modern jazz is a lot slower to transcribe than bebop because I don't know so many of the words, and a lot of the time one improviser will use words noone else does. I mean, Kurt plays a lot of scales I guess? (Who doesn't?)
BTW I never heard Barry discuss chord tones on the strong beats. I don't think he talked about 'notes on chords' that often in fact. The understanding of harmony was a bit more general - here's a D7 chord, lets use the D7 scale (or Ab7, or A minor, or Eb minor, or whatever) - here a bunch of really hip sounding melodic phrases based around that scale (with half steps and so on) - go.
So if your aim is harmonic analysis that might be of less use to you. Breaking down a bop line melodically on its own terms, then yes it would be useful. There's more than one way you can analyse the same line.
However as a Responsible Adult (lol) trying to give sensible real world advice - I would counsel against going down too much of a rabbit hole with this assignment. Without more info, I would guess a chord scale type harmonic analysis would do the job.
-
That all makes sense.I think m a discussion on the overall debate about jazz analysis will have to be included, which is interesting in itself. There is clearly no single way to go about it, and everyone has different opinions. I will be speaking to mostly classical musicians - though some won't have any grasp on music. I'm not sure if similar debates about analysis exist in classical music, I assume they do, I'll have to look into that, but in my experience they are mostly able to explain exactly what is happening happening in the music from a theory perspective. Overall, as suggested, I think it's more beneficial to not go too in depth and stick to pointing out musical devices more generally, "note his use of chromaticism" etc. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Someone mentioned above why major is "happy" and minor is "sad", surely that introduced though culture and upbringing. Every song and movie we watch reinforces this.
In a hypothetical world, I wonder if you could raise a child to perceive minor as the happy sound? And vice versa
-
It sounds to me like the whole thing is highly theoretical and hypothetical.
Acidskiffle hasn't said yet what he means by 'doing it for a university'. So, again, sorry, has he been commissioned or is it part of a course he's on?
-
Part of a course. Originally Posted by ragman1
I know how to analyse and internalise jazz language in a way that works for me, I hear sounds that I like and I learn them, but that's not something I've had to communicate to others before. ie teaching, presenting.
But I thought an interesting paper would be to look at the solos of certain players, that the consensus agree are great solos, and talk about what makes them so. And even more specifically look at phrases, and talk about why they work so well in that given harmonic situation.
There's no way around the fact that there is a huge amount of subjectivity in jazz, but I do also think that there is a lot of agreement on certain things.
The question is, what is the best way to explain this to an audience as there is no one way to do it, and a lot of disagreement as to how to even begin to approach the music.
To answer your question about who the audience is - it could be anyone really, the more accessible things are the better, but predominantly classical musicians.
-
Christian? Lego Bricks? Originally Posted by acidskiffle
I think especially if you’re dealing with a lay audience (even folks who are classically trained) then analyzing them harmonically is the wrong way to go.
It’s really interesting that if you split, say, a Hank Mobley solo from the backing track you could almost certainly tell what tune he’s playing, but the more I transcribe the more I’m not convinced you could see the changes from what’s written there. And to the extent you could, it’s probably more from familiarity with forms than from what’s actually written on the page.
e.g. It seems like we’ve added a flat here … so we’re probably going to the IV … must be a ii-V to IV?
or
Why is this Abm lick here? Oh it’s going to C … maybe a G7.
or
Theres a blues lick here and we’re at the end of the form … bet it’s a turnaround?
(which also brings up the problem of blues vocabulary in general not conforming to standard harmonic analysis)
So what makes a line work … there’s a shape and cadence to bebop lines (and therefore most jazz lines most of the time) and the blues gestures and the rhythm and accents that make them jump and swing. Hell, listen to early Ornette and ask yourself why that stuff swings like crazy. Play something from Shape of Jazz with something from Bird and Diz and ask the class what they hear in common. Won’t be the relationship of the pitches to the harmony.
-
Which is why analysis, or maths/whatever can't explain fully what "sounds good". But if we leave aside cultural conditioning, exposure or training etc, we have to wonder if there are just some sounds that we are almost universally (genetically?) predisposed to have a shared experience with. Regardless, it sounds like it's beyond the scope of your assignment, but one of my fantasies when younger was to find someone that would pay me $100,000 to do some deep research into exactly this kind of thing, like find an Amazonian tribe with zero contact with modern civilisation and test their responses to sound stimuli and music. Does a sequence of rising diminished chords invoke trepidation or anxiety? Will maj7 arpeggios played on a harp induce a sense of wonder or relaxation etc. Originally Posted by acidskiffle
....
Someone mentioned above why major is "happy" and minor is "sad", surely that introduced though culture and upbringing. Every song and movie we watch reinforces this.
In a hypothetical world, I wonder if you could raise a child to perceive minor as the happy sound? And vice versa
And, would they prefer Louis Armstrong to Eric Dolphy? And if so, why?
Reply With Quote
HeadRush?
Today, 11:54 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos