PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Woodshedding - Learning to Play! Chords don't tell you what you need to know

Ok some might see this as a rant (and they would not be wholly wrong)...

The more I learn about standard notation the more I realise that it is unnecessarily obscure and makes learning so much harder. For example doesn't the whole idea of Myxolydian augmented 5th sound so complex and confusing, frightening even, it must put off so many learners.

I am sitting here looking at the chord symbol A7b9. How many altered notes are there? My first reaction would be to say one a b9? Well, what I have not said, is that this chord appears as the second chord in a 1,6,2,5.

The key thought is that the 6th mode in a 1,6,2,5. is an A minor not A Major, so the 3rd of the chord is altered - not just the 9th as indicated.
Converting to Roman numerals does no good, the chord simply becomes VI7b9, Nashville is no better.

I sort of knew this before, but I have been trying to sight read chords on the piano, and it is plain that one must discern the structure, before one reads - making the whole process harder.

There is so much like this in music making our life harder for no good reason - do re mi fa sol .... but what of a minor third in this system? No word at all, much less for a #4.

Why not a notation system that actually tells us what we need, in an obvious way!



Z

A7b9 tells you exactly what you need to know. A C# E G Bb. You're thinking in an abstract way. No one thinks of the chords that way. Experienced players have no problems with standard chord notation. The only chord open to different interpretations would be a chord like C7alt. You just need more basic chord study. Ray

Ray, you could be right, (and I guess your more of a pianist than me) I come from a melodic instrument background and think in scales. I see things like the scale syllabus and find sometimes they call for unusual scales. When I see a chord I also need to know about the inbetween notes. Some people say the flat 9 calls for a diminished starting on the semitone.
But what does Am tell you about a sixth? Would it be a flat 6 or a natural one?

Z

Generally speaking, the in between notes would be in the key of the song. There are always exceptions though. Ray

Z
If the 7b9 appears as a VI chord in a I VI II V progression then it's being used as a secondary dominant of IIm7. Jazz is fundamentally a chromatic music and secondary dominants are one of the oldest chromatic devices in music.

Secondary dominants, usually chromatic types as you know are used all the time to lead into diatonic scale degree chords. So the major third leads into the bVII tone of IIm7 by a half step resolution and the root of IIm7 by the same half step in the opposite direction.

They can have the effect of turning the chord they resolve into a temporary tonic; a kind of transient modulation.
You can choose to relate to that temporary tonic or treat the whole 1 6 2 5 sequence as a passage in the key to which the 5 chord resolves.

Jazz works this way melodically as well, with chromatic embellishments or enclosures leading up to or placed around a target chord tone. In each case its a matter of tension and resolution occurring at a high rate in the accompaniment and the improvised line.

HTH

Alan

thank you Ray..

That was my point Ray, the chord symbol does not tell you this, it only tells you some of the notes you need. The other notes need to be derived by looking at the key and working them out. This mental calculation has to take place, where as if we had a symbol that showed the complete preferred scale options, inc 6ths 9ths, fourths...


Z

Yes, Alan, understood, but this does not explain the presence of a flat 9, is this simply a chromatic passing tone? As a function of the IIm functioning as the one its a flat 6th, though this position (IIm) would indicate a dorian minor


Just musing...

You have to learn what the "avoid" notes are. For instance, a G# in an A7b9 would be played, (generally speaking), as a grace note. Ray

Is there any way to study the "avoid notes" - I seem to find them all the time lol. What I need is a book with some exercises that then asks me "Find the avoid note" - and of course doing this with 'academic studying' will be a far cry from doing so in real time during improvisation.

http://tamingthesaxophone.com/jazz-scales Here's one site for avoid notes. Google is full of them. Ray

Z

Yes it has no reference to the dorian II other than to provide chromatic voice leading to the II chord. That's my understanding anyway.

Ray and Joe

I prefer the 'grace note' as opposed to the 'avoid note' explanation and sometimes even that doesn't apply nowadays when there's so many post-bop or neo-bop players playing freely with the chords using interval sequences rather than chords/scales and even stressing tensions on the strong beat(in Dolphy or Brecker style) rather than resolving into consonance.
It's certainly still think it's a valid approach for older swing and bop styles though where overt use of stressed or prolonged dissonance is still avoided like the plague.


Alan

The b9 is there because the composer wanted it there at that particular time and to make sure the improviser plays a b9 instead of a natural 9. Ray

Well, yes that's true, but it does not constitute an explanation of the sound's place in the harmony - maybe there isn't one of course.

In early Jazz - Dixie and similar, the fourth was treated like an avoid note, the seventh was also treated with caution, so you get a pentatonic sound.

Personally, I like to think of all 12 tones in a chromatic heirarchy in a chord from sonority to dissonance - the more dissonant being treated like passing tones. 'Avoid' notes and even avoid chords can sound great - if - resolved, tension and release

Just my opinion.

Z

Zero Zero,

As a lifelong music student, I've paid much, much, money for lessons - and unfortunately, I don't have a natural musical ear for harmony - melody and rhythm yes, but not harmony.

As I approach 50, I have had one music teacher (the gentleman that publishes the VGEdiciones.com series - Enrique Vargas) who is an absolutely amazing musical analyst (as you can see if you take a look at his books and transcriptions) open my eyes to the level of analysis you describe. Though a flamenco specialist, he has an extensive background in jazz also, and has played with some of the greats.

For years, I thought that 'learning songs' was the thing to do - and I did not progress in learning and applying theory in the context of those songs.


Now, everybody learns differently - but I will say that studying with this great teacher has brought me EXACTLY to the place you are in your thinking and the 'complication' of soloing and understanding the harmony WITH RESPECT TO THE MELODY AND TONAL CENTER.

I'm not sure if this has been so hard for me (and maybe you too) because:

a.) I studied only guitar - and as a positional instrument makes it too easy to play songs without understanding these concepts

b.) I did NOT major or minor in music

c.) I had guitar teachers that were unaware of the importance of this view of harmony/melody

...probably a combination of the above.

But I will say that the point you're making is definitely NOT clearly and directly taught in any of the music theory books I've studied...and I've collected many, many of these books.

I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with your analysis, but I'm not sure they may not think this level of analysis is even necessary.

How about you Ray and Alan - is this level of analysis even important to you ?

Would also love to hear feedback on this one from some of our great musicians and players out there.

In a word Joe Yes.

I too began by playing things I did not understand- they often sounded fine but I could not transpose them, or use them in different settings.

One of the things I am trying to achieve at present is the ability to sight read any chord in any key.
In order to do this I ONLY play notes I understand. By understand, I mean something different to the ordinary use of the word, I mean understand musically.

An example:

To 'understand' the concept of a triad

1] Know the intervals involved in terms of names, steps, know the minor, major, diminished and augmented forms.
2] Know how to play these notes in their inversions instantly in any key, in any pattern. This involves muscle memory and the use of different fingers (according to where you come from and where you are going finger placement wise). It involves many different ways of the fingers transversing the keyboard - all this muscle memory must be automatic
3] To know aurally - that is to play a note because one can hear it.

Knowing in this sense is both intellectual and muscle memory. It is a great deal of work (!)
When this is achieved then there is freedom - emotional freedom.

Of course it is possible to achieve all this without learning to read music, but it's the long way to go. It's about mental categorisation and planning.

My first piano piece was a Minuet by Bach. I learnt this piece 'off by heart'. What I noticed was that even though this piece exposed me to muscle memory runs, these runs were not appearing in my improvisation. I figured out there were two reasons. Firstly, I did not know the relationship between the run and the chord, and secondly I was not thinking of this relationship quickly enough to implement it.


Z

Joe: Have you ever downloaded Earmaster Pro? It really helped me to develop my ear. Be prepared to fall flat on your face for a month or two, but it does grow...the ear that is, just like the callouses on your fingers. You can develop a great ear using this app.

I also think that the whole concept of ear training being confined to interval recognition and chord recognition is too limited. Counting beats, feel of styles, the ability to discern an instrument in a mix, all have to be learnt too. I class this as ear training too


IMO

Z

Yes - downloaded Earmaster Pro over a year ago, and it is sitting there laughing at me. I will try to wipe the smile off its little face by allowing your reminder and encouragement to open it up and start using it. My problem is I 'buy' the things I want to eventually use, while taking years to use them. It should really be the other way around, but I've got this American disease of wanting 'things' I like regardless of if I have an immediate need for them - or maybe there is a better way to describe the condition. (don't be disrespectful on opening I've provided - you know who you are).

Double-Zero, my music teacher and I just had an incredibly passionate discussion about just how much one needs to memorize the things you mention in order to be a good player - and his point was that I'm over-memorizing some things (included in your list) that are overkill and actually counterproductive to your goal, given other things you could be practicing instead. Yours are great goals, but if every player put themselves through such rigor - they may not have become the good players they are. The hard part of getting good at something is learning from the 'greats' at what point you are spinning your wheels with respect to your goal - and this is usually something you don't know you "dont' know". Many of the people that insist you must know these things inside out and consciously are not themselves half the players that actually CAN'T do the things you mention.

Just my two dollars and two cents for the point I'm at in my music learning - yet I still idealize being able to do the things you've mentioned.

Good luck with Earmaster, ten minutes a day with no results for at least a month, was my start.

My aim is different to many, I consciously intend to make all 12 notes available, in all keys, at all times. I am currently about two thirds there IMO. I am not really interested in playing like the 'greats', not that these studies are not absolutely legit. I do have a teacher, do learn some jazz standards, though. At present I am focussing whole on technique, but that's ok for now, for me.

Just curious Zero, my ultimate aim is to actually be able to more easily play with others, learn new tunes, and accelerate the rate at which it takes me to learn new tunes and improvise.

I've thought that doing exactly what you stated would get me there - but for me this became an end in itself to the neglect of enjoying music and playing songs - sort of like losing the forest...

Is yours and end goal in itself, simply for the matter of the pure pleasure of saying "I can do this"...or is it a means to an end more similar to those I've created ?

Just curious at what motivates different people to spend long hours practicing monotonous music studies.

My aim is similar to yours. I took up piano late after playing saxand other instruments.

I once asked my sax teacher what chords to learn first, he just said 'them all, your going to need them all'.

When you think about it, if yo were teaching a math student multiplication tables and they asked the same question, the answer would be the same.

I had a bass player visit my studio the other day, a pro. He got out the Real Book sight read a few songs, first recording a bass part, then recorded a harmony track (all on the bass!) then a melody track - using bass again (upper register). He did this without even thinking about it, without making errors and without breaking a sweat.
Playing with bands (on sax) I remember being laughed at for asking the key (with good players) I was expected to hear it and jump in. Baptism by fire, I know, and there are other bands that would not do this.

The key to all this is to keep it simple, learn something within your grasp, but something you can use as a building block in a methodical way. Always play with feel and accuracy - this is where BIAB is so useful. I use it three to eight hours a day, I want to achieve freedom on the piano, I am in my seventh year. I do play tunes, I memorise them all. This hampers my sight reading for the piano, but I dont really need this except for Real Book level. I find that it also pays to work on a tune down to its very core, not only the straight melody as played, but also lots of variations based on theory. I learn a lot this way.

When I was young I played trumpet and cornet. I used to sight read everything and I got really fast at it. I remember doing all of the Beethoven Symphonies and lots of the competition pieces for Brass bands, however I could not play a note without a sheet of paper. I always wanted to play freely, from the heart, without barriers. None of my Band members (well respected players - some of them world cornet champions brass band style) could improvise. Its a different culture, the classical training, I believe it robs the player of creativity.
On sax, my reading is mediocre (and jazz is harder to read than classical because of syncopation) but my impro skills are fine now. I play hundreds of standards.

Z