jdjazz

@ojs, the voting buttons and comment feature provide mechanisms for articulating specific disagreement in a manner that is not unfriendly or unkind. When you read an answer and disagree with it, are you not voting, leaving a comment, or writing an answer of your own?

@ojs, it's fine to disagree with someone. The way to express that is by calling out specific statements you think are wrong rather than by saying the person is wrong.

@ojs, your statement, "You certainly seem to be able to convince yourself" is a personal attack, rude, and extraneous to any substantive conversation about music practice and theory. If you disagree with specific statements, limit your disagreement to those statements and please refrain characterizing the author as "unaware" or making broad statements that a person is usually wrong.

I think the conversation is currently focused on the people in the room and what they think / want to control / how they appear / whether they unreasonable expectations / etc. No one is going to be persuaded that they are a bad/ lazy/ tyrannical/ etc. person. I think what we can be persuaded of is that everyone is owed (a) respectful dialogue (even in spite of disagreement), and (b) an understanding of how / why things work.

@JugertMucoimaj, I think it's easy as a new user to feel attacked when a question is criticized and then closed, especially if done so in a tone that is not particularly gentle. It's understandable to become defensive, but the best course is to remain respectful.

I tend to think classroom morality is best viewed from the lens of "what can the teacher do to most help students be most successful [within the bounds of the teacher's time and resources]?" (What's helpful to one group can be harmful to another group.) And I think students usually appreciate knowing that the classroom practices (even tough love and accountability) come from a place of caring about them and their academic success.

I think any approach has problems, which IMO makes these questions a matter of prioritization. I think finding the right balance depends really heavily on the students, their age/maturity, the course, etc. For example, giving "completion" points prioritizes incentivization over additional feedback, and I think there could be scenarios where students' lack of personal incentive is a larger barrier to their learning than lack of additional feedback.

I've seen a variation where all 10 problems are collected, 2 are randomly selected and graded for accuracy, and the other 8 receive full credit if an honest attempt was made (eg, it's not missing). Any weighting could be used, but I think I saw the 2 problems being worth as much as the other 8. Awarding "free" points just for submitting work has its own problems, of course, but this could e.g. replace a participation grade if the balance was off.

@MichaelCurtis said his mind was made up. I don't appreciate the accusation of evading. I'm trying to have a real conversation. I feel like this isn't productive.

@MichaelCurtis, it sounds like you would describe Ceora as changing tonal centers 9 times during the first 16 measures (AbM, DbM, CM, BbM, AbM, BbM, CM, BbM, AbM). That feels like the wrong paradigm to be using, given what a tonal center is supposed to be.

@MichaelCurtis, those players invented chord/scale theory. There's a 0% chance they thought about their improvisations exclusively in terms of tonal centers. Modal jazz was based on the notion of eschewing traditional tonal centers. The work of those musicians is what led to a chord/scale description of jazz.

@MichaelCurtis, when I respond to the specific issues you raise, and you reply "I've read the chord/scale stuff and abandoned it. Did Lee Morgan learn from the chord/scale system?" it sounds like you've made up your mind and aren't interested in a substantive discussion about it.

@MichaelCurtis, what I said was "No one should go practice 80 modes in all 12 keys; this type of practice does not engender musicality. But if that's the issue people have with chord/scale theory..." I was trying to guess at the underlying problem you have in chord/scale theory. I thought maybe your distaste came from the way some teachers say "spend 30 min each day practicing these 7 modes in all 12 keys." But clearly your issue with scale/chord theory is something deeper, which I think we're making progress on.

@MichaelCurtis, if you're going to understand chord/scale theory, you'll need to read a little more carefully. I didn't say "C∆7 is a scale," and I don't think chords = scales. I said the collection of notes implied by the chord symbol form a scale. I think you've articulated the crucial misunderstanding: "In most songs those progressions of chords will come from some tonality and that would be the source of improv." There is a LOT of jazz where this idea simply doesn't work. Even songs with an underlying tonality, like Ceora, regularly deviate outside that tonal center.

@MichaelCurtis, your idea to use the tonal center is on the right track. But what about the measures where the tonal center doesn't offer guidance? What about scenarios where we want to add alterations to a dom7 chord even though it's not in the tonal center? Are we constrained to only describe those choices in terms of new tonal centers? That seems extremely unwieldy in a song that might go through a series of chromatically descending ii-V's. The requirement to tie the notes back to a tonal center is too strict for much of jazz.

No one should go practice 80 modes in all 12 keys; this type of practice does not engender musicality. But if that's the issue people have with chord/scale theory, then their criticism is with the teaching methodology, not with the notion that the set of notes which are compatible with a given chord collectively form a scale.

@MichaelCurtis, a C∆7 chord symbol does imply an underlying scale: C ionian. Or maybe a soloist sees C∆7 and wants to play a Lydian sound with that; in that case, they're choosing to interpret C∆7 as C∆7(#11). Do you disagree that the collection of intervals spelled & implied by a chord symbol form a scale? What else would you call that collection of notes? When a soloist looks at the chord symbol C∆7, what would you call the set of notes the soloist is considering using in their improvisation, which they believe will be compatible with the chord C∆7? Is that set of notes not a scale?

There's nothing constraining or illogical about describing the various sets of notes that are compatible with a given chord. The chord/scale system is merely about giving names to those different sets of notes. The chord/scale system does NOT mean that, once you start playing one particular scale, you can't switch to another one. I don't understand the supposed controversy. Is the number of different modes overwhelming? Does it seem detached from how musicians think about their improvisations? Maybe the cataloging of options seems to promote a bad form of practice involving lots of monotony.

@MichaelCurtis, you did reference scales. I was responding to your comment: "Of course if you take a chord/scale view there is no point in calling it altered. It isn't called altered, because it derives from an altered scale." This makes it sound like you think every mode should be described only as 1-2-3-4-5-6-7. Your idea that chord spellings refer only to intervals and not scales overlooks the fact that the intervals form a scale. This isn't just hypothetical, because those other scale tones are implied by the chord symbol. A C∆7 chord can include the other scale tones (♮9, ♮13, etc.).

@MichaelCurtis, it sounds like you're suggesting that the scale steps of every mode should be identified only as 1-2-3-4-5-6-7. This suggestion is wrong because we need a way to define different modes relative to some common baseline (the major scale). In some contexts we might refer to the scale steps of a particular mode using 1-2-3-4-5-6-7, but obviously this cannot serve as a definition.

But isn't all of this dissonance you describe purely hypothetical? How does it relate to a ii-V-I progression? For example, a ii-V-I in the key of C Major has these chords: | D minor (D-F-A-C) | G dominant 7th (G-B-D-F) | C Major (C-E-G-B) |. Those chords are entirely composed of notes occurring in CMaj. None of them introduce the hypothetical dissonance you've described. For instance, F# doesn't appear in any of those chords. How does the prevalence of the ii-V-I progression depend on hypothetical dissonance that doesn't occur in the progression?

Got it, thanks for the clarification. So, I think the word "dissonant" is going to throw many people off since F# isn't in the key of C. You're saying "while playing a song in C Maj, it would be dissonant to add notes outside the key of C Maj. The amount of dissonance we add would increase as we select notes from key centers that are farther from C Maj on the circle of 5ths."

There was one last thing I was confused by. In your answer, why did you start the circle of 5ths on F? Were you saying this is the most consonant note in the key of CMaj? But the opposite is true--of the notes in the CMaj scale, F is the least consonant. Are you saying the ii-V-I is used in jazz because it introduces increasing amounts of dissonance? If the criterion is 'increasing amounts of dissonance,' then why isn't the VII-III-IV progression equally popular in jazz? VII-III-IV is more effective at introducing increasing dissonance than the ii-V-I.

This statement raises a bigger issue IMO: "As you move up keys you're adding a dissonant note, the accidental, each time." Let's set aside the question of relevance. In what sense is the new note (F#) dissonant if we've changed to the key of G? Again, dissonant makes it seem you're imagining playing the two keys simultaneously (the new key of G and the old key of C). Or, are you simply saying that neighboring key centers on the circle of 5ths have more shared notes, & distant key centers have fewer shared notes? How is any key center other than CMaj relevant to a ii-V-I progression in CMaj?

I was also confused why notes outside the key of CMaj are relevant to the question. You mentioned the circle of 5ths as involving different keys, but there isn't any key change in a ii-V-I progression. It's a diatonic progression that remains in CMaj the whole time. In its most basic form, a ii-V-I chord doesn't have any notes outside the key of CMaj. (So I don't understand why notes like F# are relevant if they don't appear in a ii-V-I progression in CMaj?)

But on that topic, the qualities that make a chord sound "out of place" do not include "how would the chord sound if we also played the I chord at the same time?" Rather, a chord sounds out of place relative to our expectation, which depends entirely on the neighboring chords and the chord progression at large. These ideas are described in theory through concepts like the subdominant, the dominant, etc. In this sense, the ii-V-I is probably the least dissonant progression in all of jazz.

A few things you said seem off to me. This is one: "So the dissonance of each chord against the I is changing as you go through keys." This seems wrong because the bass is changing; the chord is not dissonant "against the I" because the I chord isn't being played simultaneously with the chord. When we play | Dmin | G7 | C∆7 | the bass doesn't stay on C the whole time. Maybe you're trying to describe how "out of place" the chord sounds, but dissonant isn't the right term for that because dissonance usually refers to simultaneous notes.

A purely theoretical answer inevitably will overlook the historical and cultural factors that led to the ii-V-I being so prevalent in jazz. Patterns in music don't exist because they are theoretically logical. I think it's the other way around: theory is written down to describe trends/patterns that exist within a musical tradition. Those trends and patterns vary from one tradition to the next, and so do the theoretical structures and frameworks.

Did you replace the G with an F# or add an F# to the existing E-G#-D-G chord? I was adding F# and A to the existing chord (and playing with different voicings to try and get them to mesh). To my ear, A seemed to work better than F#, but I would need to experiment more.

@piiperiReinstateMonica, in my mind, the question was asking, essentially, "if these two chords spell out the same notes, then how do we evaluate which is correct? Is information lost by using one vs. another?" That's commensurate to asking "what's the right way to spell the chord, but more importantly, what criteria dictate the 'right' answer?" Those answers will discuss properties of the symbol naming system. But I didn't see the question as particularly asking "what are the limits to chord symbols?" though that's interesting too. I just sat at the piano, & F# sounded odd to me in the chord.

Those statements about scale tones are all true, and I definitely see how they are helpful in clarifying one's thought on this topic, but I'm not sure they reach the full scope of everything you mentioned in your original question. For example, to the extent that E7#9 clearly implies major and Em7b11 clearly implies minor, there's still a follow-up question "why does it matter, harmonically, if both the maj spelling and the min spelling convey the exact same notes?" That's where the context of the song comes in, for example.

@piiperiReinstateMonica, it's a simple but also very complicated question. Your question provides a lot of good things to think about/comment on. I was reading it as containing all of these questions: can E7#9 be called Em7b11? Does Em7b11 misrepresent the harmony of the chord used in Purple Haze? Does Em7b11 have different harmonic implications from E7#9? Are both chords valid? If both chords are valid, how does one distinguish between their use? Is the chord more self-evidently more major than minor? And for each Q, the follow-up of "why?" is also usually required for a good answer.

In all honesty, I didn't totally appreciate what you meant when I first read your answer. The reference to notes (as opposed to scale degrees) was throwing me off. For example, you could alternatively write: E7#9 says (1) there is a #9, (2) there shouldn't be a ♮9 or any other 9, (3) there is a M3, (4) there shouldn't be any other 3 (eg b3 or #3). (5) It doesn't specify the nature of the 4th degree. On the other hand, Em7 add b11 says (1) there is a b3, (2) there isn't a ♮3 or any other 3, (3) there is a b4, (4) so there should be ♮4 or any other 4. (5) Nothing is said about the 2.

@piiperiReinstateMonica, I think there's a compelling case to make supporting your conclusion that Hendrix is moving between major and minor sounds here, and thus the notes are functioning as 3rds rather than 9ths or 11ths. IMO the evidence in favor of this position isn't obvious, and it would take some non-trivial analysis to make the case convincingly (especially since so many people think of the chord as being E7#9).

@piiperiReinstateMonica, it's a long discussion to explain why #9 and b9 are exceptions based on unique circumstances that don't apply to the 10. One important difference to notice, though, is that both 9's are altered, which is an important distinction from what you've proposed (of including both an altered 10 and an unaltered 10). When you say "So I must conclude that our theoretical model is not a very good fit for describing this kind of practice of music" it seems like you're ignoring the use of "add," which is helpful in precisely this type of scenario.

I don't understand why F## is obviously wrong. What's your reasoning? Are you thinking Jimi wasn't aware of 7#9 chords? Similarly, what's the reason why Ab is ridiculous? The only reason we'd prefer one enharmonic spelling over another is b/c of its theoretical implications. So "F## is obviously wrong" is equivalent to saying "7#9 is obviously wrong," which seems to be assuming the conclusion. I do think some of what you've written is on track. And clearly you're thinking a lot about this. If you add some good justification for your claims about why F## & Ab are wrong, I'll remove my downvote.

But the analysis and positions I offer really aren't personal. I downvoted user45266's answer too and upvoted several of the comments posted there.

I am sorry I've come across strong. I've interpreted some of your past comments about scale-chord theory as inflammatory and took it personally given the exchanges we've had. I'm sorry about that.

I also think you're an invaluable member of the site. But in this instance (and in other instances, specifically chord-scale theory as it applies to jazz), I disagree with the analysis your answers present.

I've upvoted tons of your answers. This isn't any personal beef

You didn't clearly make the same point as the other answer. The other answer wasn't ambiguous to me because it spelled out exactly what it meant by giving an example in context of what the chord was.

I wasn't the only person who misinterpreted your answer. I removed my -1, but another one is still there. My comment about conflating enharmonically equivalent chords was up-voted by two others. I know you were trying to make a point by writing a two-sentence answer, but it just wasn't clear.

Truly, if you really don't believe differences exist between jazz analysis and classical analysis, then this might be the reason we have disagreed. If your training is only in classical music, then trying to apply those ideas will often lead you astray in jazz contexts, and this apparently is one good example. You've posted comments disparaging scale-chord theory in the past, and I think that is another example.

It can't be anything deeper: I explained very clearly why the rationale of chromatic movement doesn't make sense when naming chords in the context of jazz. However, I know you have deep knowledge of classical analysis that surpasses mine, and I don't pretend to think that my understanding of jazz extends to all musical forms, which is the reason why I put that caveat.

And the middle chord is still G7b9 in both cases, regardless of whether the Ab is part of a descending voice leading line or an ascending voice leading line. So the way to think about the question is: what's the harmony. Here, we realize that Ab is a b9, and so we write it that way, not G#.

But we could just as easily take the exact same voice leading and reverse it: we could play | D-F-A-C-E-G | G-F-B-E-Ab | C-G-B-E-A.

@user45266 very wild! Who would've thought!

@user45266, I think the way to approach this is to consider "if I were going to add a 5th, a 9th, or a 13th, would I want them to be natural, flatted, sharped? What does this tell me about the harmonic structure of the song at this moment?"

@Daniel, you sometimes see A7alt but it depends on the publisher. In my experience, A7#5 is commonly interpreted as implying the altered scale too, whereas A7#11 is (as you know) is only interpreted as lydian. The question, then, is which one A7#4 fits into. You're spot on that A7#4 leaves the door open for diminished.

@user45266, I think ignoring the difference between 7b5 and 7#11 is the same as ignoring harmony altogether, because 7b5 and 7#11 imply different harmonic structure. Answering this question requires harmonic analysis, and so we can't ignore that harmony, IMO. I think Daniel is absolutely right that V7+4 often is written interchangeably with V7#11, but I don't think that's the only possibility. For ex, few people interpret V7#11 as being H-W diminished, whereas that door is open for V7#4. V7#4 could be whole tone (as in V7#4#5), whereas V7#11 isn't. V7#11 implies a ♮9th, and often a ♮13th.