-
I reading a book of short interviews of current women in Jazz all either well know names or younger with albums and starting to get a following. So in one of interviews of a sax player I like she's talking about her transition from a classically trained and schooled musician to Jazz world. One of the things she said was key was learning Bebop Harmony and how it was the base for everything she done since.
I've don't think I've heard the term Bebop Harmony before, but my first instinct is to think about the BH Major 6th Diminished harmony. Anyone familiar with the term Bebop Harmony and can define it???
Side note, interesting most started as classical musicians and some even starting college as classical performance majors until they discovered Jazz. Sadly there are no guitar players interviewed in the book.
-
01-25-2016 04:19 PM
-
yes, I have heard the term. It is difficult to say what a younger player would consider bebop harmony to be, but the way I use the term and how I have always understood it, it means the harmony is a product of either polytonal triads on triads or (like my 2+2=4 thread) the harmony is a result of triads of 2 keys played against each other
In the bebop era, from the way I've heard guys tell it, players played 7th chords and 6th chords, but they weren't as comfortable as we are today thinking of all the big extended chords. They played them, but they really thought about those harmonies polytonally....triad on triad
-
I don't think I've heard the term before.
-
Where's this thread at Nate? I mean, under which section. I spent a year studying with a pianist/vibraphonist learning his method to everything, which is all triadic based. I'd love to check out what you're sharing on that thread.
-
"Where's this thread at Nate?" - over in Theory. Its 2nd or 3rd down called "2+2=4"
-
Originally Posted by Nate Miller
I am going to try and get a hold of the musician from the interview and ask what she means, but having found a email address for her yet.
In the Jazz discussion group I get to listen too the subject of how the old Bebopper's thought about music comes up. The one person who runs the group and older player has talked and hung out with some of the early players and second generation of Boppers. He touch on this some, but says if such a big topic and really hard to explain doesn't go very far. From what I've picked up from hearing him and my reading is the old cats were more about ears via that had much simpler approach than the schooled musicians starting in the 60's-70's. They simplified things down based on ear so for example a I VI II V to them was just a I V. They heard in function, sub-dominant wanting to go to dominant and dominant wanting to resolve. Chord progression were series of cycles. They were into melody and melody defined harmony, but they all didn't hear the same chord coming from the melody so different bands used different changes. I hope to get the guy to talk more on his conversations with the early Boppers. Be like getting to talk to Bach because how Bach thought is probably way different than the theory books analyzed it.
-
I do remember Barry Harris saying - 'the harmony is classical!' - I get the impression for him Bop harmony and Chopin and Bach are all part of the same thing.
I would be interested to know what her definition of bebop harmony is... TBH I don't really think of bop in terms of harmony, more in terms of rhythm and melody, but there are definitely some things going on with the superposition of triads on other chords (which had been around since the at least the swing era.)
-
Yes. it is said Parker was breaking ground with playing on the upper structures of chords (triads, polychords, ???). The more I study over last year or so I'm getting into the Chords and Melody are the same thing just played differently. The early Boppers came from the Swing bands and the Parker's and other great musicians were tried of short fixed length solos and being told to stay withing the stock chords. Bebop was there way to break out of those confines. The songs they wrote for the most part were just vehicles for improv, the heads of Parker's tunes were simple versions of his improv lines. Originally Posted by christianm77
Very few of the old guys from the tail end of the Bop era are around, so be nice to learn more about how the thought in their own words and not after the fact analysis.
-
It is said, possibly inaccurately... YMMV - I feel like I need to spend some time looking into Coleman Hawkins and Tatum before I could say either for sure whether Bird's use of this was ground breaking, but some use of polytonality and upper structures was common practice by the war.Yes. it is said Parker was breaking ground with playing on the upper structures of chords (triads, polychords, ???).
In his LEGO bricks book Conrad Cork goes into some considerable research to show that the quote - 'I realized by using the high notes of the chords as a melodic line, and by the right harmonic progression, I could play what I heard inside me. That's when I was born.' is actually nothing of the kind. It is in fact a misquote of an article about Bird.
I mention this a lot, but I think it's really important because it shows that Bird's musical process (which was unfathomable of course) and the received wisdom about his work are two different things. This misquote has gone a long way towards colouring our attitude towards his music, and this is really interesting.
Obv. Bird did use triad superpositions and (quite sparing) use of upper structures, as well as the IV IVm6 I phrases over ii V7 I's and so on that were already common by Bird's time. I would regard his skilled use of scalar lines and passing tones as more divergent from swing practice, but this is may well be to do with what I have transcribed.
I think that's why I am so obsessed with Barry Harris's teaching.The more I study over last year or so I'm getting into the Chords and Melody are the same thing just played differently. The early Boppers came from the Swing bands and the Parker's and other great musicians were tried of short fixed length solos and being told to stay withing the stock chords. Bebop was there way to break out of those confines. The songs they wrote for the most part were just vehicles for improv, the heads of Parker's tunes were simple versions of his improv lines.
Very few of the old guys from the tail end of the Bop era are around, so be nice to learn more about how the thought in their own words and not after the fact analysis.Last edited by christianm77; 01-25-2016 at 06:40 PM.
-
There's a good article on be-bop harmony at Jazz Advice
Aside from the essential rhythmic and melodic characteristics of the music, the practice of reharmonizing common chord changes, whether implied melodically by the soloist or explicitly stated harmonically by the rhythm section, was crucial to the innovations of bebop.
Lots of examples.
-
Functional harmony, much of which is based on the cycle. Learning how to properly use extensions while respecting the function of the chord.
music 101 really, problem is, in the classical world, they love to talk about it, using it.... Not so much.
Edit: what I mean by that is young adults going to music school. The school itself has a large number of students with an even larger range of ability among them. Therefore the structure of the classes is aimed at teaching the group, without a ton of focus on individual ability. The classes that do focus on individual ability usually have them prepare someone else's composition. In the end there isn't a whole lot of time spent on creating music, even less on doing it spontaneously. In reality the school can't have enough face time with EVERY student to persue this (not to mention it's pretty hard to give a letter grade to art...). The burden really falls on the individual student.Last edited by vintagelove; 01-25-2016 at 08:40 PM.
-
It's short and run-on because she replied to me via a text message, but here's her reply.... Originally Posted by christianm77
Bebop Harmony is the harmony developed by Diz & Bird;things like using double diminished chords/phrases (the blending of two dim chords), b5 use on Major/Dominant chords, inserting ii v's in between chords (the tritone ii V: for ex. D-, G7, Ab-, Db7 to Cmaj...... or chromatically E-, A7, Eb-, Ab7, D-, G7 to CMaj), bebop scales, and imposing extensions over chords (think hot house, 10th bar... Dmaj triad over C7...thus again landing on the b5 harmony of the dominant chord). These are all sounds that separated bebop harmonically from the swing era. Then when post bop came along, they used these sounds a different way (like in Inner Urge, etc...) Anyhow, hope that helps
FWIW her background is New School, then full scholarship to Julliard.
-
As stated above Barry says his harmony comes from the classical players.
Referring to what he calls 6th Diminished Scales….
Paraphrase: 'They used the eight note scales, they just didn't know what to call them'.
He also talks jokingly of Arnold Schoenberg time traveling 'in the ether' to steal his ideas. Barry found similarities in a Schoenberg book years after he'd come to his own conclusions. He says the songwriting european immigrants of the Great American Songbook were in the classical tradition.
Though I've never heard Barry say Bebop Harmony (or bebop scale for that matter) the OP subject may be referring to this lineage.
I've never heard Barry refer to 'Poly' anything but a direct quote is "Chords come from scales".
-
Cheers. Originally Posted by docbop
I think jazz pedagogy is a bit confused about what bop players innovated and what they inherited. Bop scales go back to Jean Phillip Sousa, for example. I remember seeing a 'bebop major scale' in Verdi one time. It's an obvious solution to making a scale rhythmic - add in a chromatic or three to taste and I suspect composers have been doing this type of thing since at least the time of Mozart.
Double dim? This was about in the 19th century in Russian music, so predates the swing era. It's entirely possible some swing era musicians used it. I am very interested in the history of this scale in Jazz - who started using it and when. I don't think I've ever come across Bird using it...
Anyway, I doubt it the history side of it matters terribly from a playing point of view - this is academic stuff really. Even for me playing swing, I just play whatever I feel like. It's boring to be stuck in a stylistic straightjacket, and as long as you play by ear, I think it's all good....
Anyway, I do think that what we call bop is a mixture of different practices and diverse musicians under one umbrella, all swapping ideas and united in their desire to see what they could do with the materials.
As she says - Tadd Dameron's Hot House is a case study in the use of upper structure triad harmonies, but I'm struggling to think of anything comparable in Parker's output. I don't know much about Dameron. He was a bit of guru figure, right?
And then of course, you have Monk...
In my estimation, Barry Harris's teaching is a certain take on bop, but can't be complete, because everyone takes what interests them from the info around. I happen to like the single note stuff in particular because it's such a great way of making phrases out of scales... And then you listen to Bud and you are like, ding!
Anyway, I think any horn player could get some harmonic ideas by checking out Django .... That guy was doing some crazy stuff back in the '30s...
-
Don't forget that the use of the blues and elements of the blues was a big part of the bebop language. This is a big part of what distinguished bebop from classical music. Charlie Parker was a master at using blues forms, and also adding elements of the blues in standard non blues songs.
-
Very excellent definition of bebop harmony in relation to the jazz tradition. She is well informed. Originally Posted by docbop
-
"Bebop Harmony is the harmony developed by Diz & Bird;things like using double diminished chords/phrases (the blending of two dim chords), b5 use on Major/Dominant chords, inserting ii v's in between chords (the tritone ii V: for ex. D-, G7, Ab-, Db7 to Cmaj...... or chromatically E-, A7, Eb-, Ab7, D-, G7 to CMaj), bebop scales, and imposing extensions over chords (think hot house, 10th bar... Dmaj triad over C7...thus again landing on the b5 harmony of the dominant chord). These are all sounds that separated bebop harmonically from the swing era. Then when post bop came along, they used these sounds a different way (like in Inner Urge, etc...) Anyhow, hope that helps "
that sounds sort of like what I've been talking about. So can we agree that there is such a thing a bebop harmony?
and for the record, I honestly believe the jazz harmony taught today is a watered down version of the real dope
-
I believe that part of the confusion stems from the difference between jazz pedagogy and classical pedagogy.
If you've taken classical theory courses, you know what I mean. Pick up any of the old warhorse textbooks... Piston, Kostka, Schachter, even Schoenberg... and you'll see how differently they think of things.
There is no tri-tone substitution. There's no chord substitutions in general, and forget about "reharmonization." There are seventh chords, but they're treated very differently than in jazz. Very little talk about ninths, and forget about 11ths and 13ths.
Instead, you have a heavy emphasis on Roman numeral analysis. Terms like augmented sixth chords and Neapolitan chords are common, while they hardly ever pop up in jazz. Lots of time and energy on voice-leading common practice and learning counterpoint. Suspensions are the result of being set up properly, not a chord in and of itself. Even very basic aesthetic principles are different -- Schoenberg thought it was ridiculous to talk about "harmonizing a melody" since he felt that a composer should always come up with the melody and harmony together.
What's really strange is that, for a long time, classical pedagogy (at least in the West) had a gaping hole in it. It was pretty good at describing music up through Beethoven and very good at analyzing serialism, but shockingly vague at explaining the music of people like Chopin, Strauss, Wagner, Liszt, etc. A lot of times it was written off with, "Well, when YOU'RE a great composer, you can do X and Y..."
It's better now, but I can totally understand how someone trained in that tradition would find jazz theory refreshing and liberating.
-
Shrugs. Sure why not? I would tend to use that stuff if I was playing 'bop' for sure. Some of it is post Bird, some of it pre-Bird, but education is always going to involve simplification at some point. Originally Posted by Nate Miller
I think I think too much about this stuff TBH.
I have a bit of a knee jerk thing about people feeling that before bebop it was all triads and dominant seventh chord tones. I've heard modern jazz educators say some ridiculous things about early jazz that could easily cleared up if they'd actually checked out any of the original music (rather than the local pub trad band haha :-))
I also have a bee in my bonnet about people focussing on harmony as the separation between swing and bop. I would say people who play both swing and bop understand the key distinction is rhythm.
But I wouldn't say any of this is terribly important when it comes to playing music. You only have to work on your ear, and your listening and draw your own conclusions....
-
you're right about that Chris. they talk like the swing era was in 1908 or something. The swing style coexisted with bop in the 40s, too. I played with some guys that were contemporaries of Parker, but they weren't bebop players, they played swing. Standards, show tunes, that sort of stuff right out of the 30s
Its kinda like how I don't play like Scofield, yet he was probably the most influential player of the time I lived in
there were guys around in the 40s and 50s that played jazz that didn't play bebop. they played the swing style and there certainly were complex 7th chord harmonies getting played. there's an old fella that plays tenor that sits in with my trio from time to time who is right out of the swing tradition. Playing with him reminds me of when I was a kid because his approach is right out of the swing era, and its just like you are saying
seems like we both are looking back into different eras and mining out what gold we can find
-
The guys of my age and younger playing 'vintage jazz' tend not to draw the line between bop and swing, but later - around the late 50's, say. That's big split in my neighbourhood - between the contemporary post-Pat, post-Kurt guys and the swing/bop players. Personally, I can see value in both...
I think this may be in part down to the influence of Wynton Marsalis, but it also has to with more water under the bridge.
Some cats are diehard pre-war style players, but they tend to be more stylistic players.
As a result many of us play a sort of bop/swing mix... Actually I feel that way about Howard Alden, though, for example. He doesn't play like a '30s guitar player even though he is identified with that tradition...
Mainstream, I guess?
Makes it sound boring, but if it swings it ain't boring... Some of these younger guys (20s) play with a lot of energy and just want to swing.
-
I think you're right about the real demarcation zone being later these days. I think as more and more of the old guys that are left retire we will see that trend continue. I could see it becoming simply pre Bitches Brew and Post Bitches Brew
You know, when the tenor player I was talking about earlier sits in with my trio, you can see some of the differences with his approach and my guys. you see, we all have John Coltrane as an influence, but he doesn't because Trane came out while he was already in show bands blowing tenor. Kinda like me and John Scofield.
I have to remember that he's only going to take 1 chorus, and that he'll probably jump back in after I take a chorus, so those big extended solos just don't happen. And my drummer hates it because I usually give him some solo space on every tune. Not so with the old guard! Drummers got to trade maybe once or twice a night
so I think you are right about there just being more water under the bridge. The more time passes, the more details get smoothed over and the more it all looks like a reflection in a dusty mirror
-
Originally Posted by Nate Miller
Another conversation I'm in with an older Jazz sax man who spend a lot of time with Sonny Stitt is that how we look at Jazz today is completely different than Bird, Diz and other did. To quote him... "they didn't think in this II-V stuff like they do today". He's reluctant to get into it says it's too big a topic and many won't understand, but I'm hoping to get him to say more.
If I can get him to open up I'll post it, my gut tells me is they viewed things very simply melody and chord function dominant-tonic based on ear. I hear things mentioned like look at the cadences reducing changes to series of V-I's. II was part of the V. Which BH and Martino talk about, but in slightly different approach. I heard the cats so many times say... it's all about the dominants.
So maybe one day I will get more for someone who talked with Stitt and others from the era.
-
It is funny about the one chorus thing. Although I often just take one chorus these days. Originally Posted by Nate Miller
Anyway, here one of the groups I play in, the Hot Club of Jupiter, poking fun at the whole contemporary/boppityswing split:
EDIT: Oh BTW this A section (which is similar to Woody'n'You in C I'm very much looking at as:
D7 | (D#o7) | C7 | (C#o7) | Bb7 | (Bo7) | C
instead of descending minor ii-V's, you are playing the dominant a step down from the target... and then raising one note, the root of the chord - something else I learned from BH... I think that's quite old school too?Last edited by christianm77; 01-27-2016 at 02:35 PM.
-
When you see him, ask him if he ever met a guitar player named Klon von Fitz (that spelling might be whack). Klon used to play with Sonny. He's a black fella that played this white semi hollow body arch top. I met him up in Anchorage in the 80s. He let me sit in with him a number of times. He's a real nice guy.
But all of this sounds like there was a different system of harmony going on back then
When I was there at North Texas in the jazz department, I'd come back from summers up in Anchorage playing with the old guys and the stuff they were teaching wasn't even close to what I was learning from the old guys. Jack Petersen, though, knew what the real deal was, and I was always able to go to Jack's office and ask him off the wall questions. There's a post I made on 2+2=4 where I talk about the 7 notes that are in and the 5 notes that are out and how to use that to know what triad to use. I got all that from Jack, so he knew all about it, but it wasn't part of the curriculum
Reply With Quote
I found this rarity,
Today, 03:05 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos