Nice comments So I agree (mostly)

You said "music theory is required for composing"
I would prefer to say "music theory is required for composing in some (but not all) music genres - and not essential (but useful) in many music genres"

You said...
> becuase kids of that age have a completely different approach to theory as a confident adult,
> kids are never "theorists" like we are sometimes, the just "know" things - pardon me - like a dog.

I agree - and in there you are making the very important distinction between 'music knowledge' and 'music theory'.
I agree with that - and I think we confuse the two concepts far too often.

Clearly this very young kid already has a huge pile of 'music knowledge' acquired by assimilating music repertoire (somehow).
I doubt if he has much capacity (yet) to theorise with abstractions or discuss 'music theory'.

Our brains can and do (as you say) 'know' like a dog.
Us smarter mammals can 'know' enough to make beautiful music.
and then we can additionally (and optionally) 'theorise' about it.

What fascinated me about this kid was how he was demonstrating just how far you can reach
'WITH knowledge' and 'WITHOUT theorising'

So my only disagreement is
you said "you can be sure that this kid knows a lot of this kind of theory"
and I would prefer to say "this kid already has a lot of music knowledge"

There's an interesting unanswered question...
We don't know whether he learned these pieces from reading score or learned them by ear, or learned them by watching someone else tutor him?
Even IF he learned them by reading score, I would still think of the 'reading score' skill as only a small step towards music theorising. (I know that might be a contentious point of view)

 

not fully.

but that is only an issue of perspective i guess.

i like to simplify things and that is why i am thinking strictly dialectic.

in other words, i start breaking out in panic when we start mixing tonal systems, scales, chords, and progressions before we investigated them individually and draw lines between them.

of course i understand that eventually the crosslinks/relations between these things can be even more important in practice (of composing).

yes, you can be sure that most historic and self-invented relations between keys in scales, chords, and melodies (read: integer numbers) can also be looked at a more or less fixed term consisting of simple arithmetics and if-then-else type of expressions.

let me ignore your example and use another one:
the difference between C-E-G and C-E-G# would be strongly releated to the difference between C-E-G and C#-E-G.
they still have more in common than differences.
i am not going to list it all up, but for example one thing is obvious; the first pair has two keys in common and the second pair, too.

it mostly works to put everything into uniform formulas or beliefs because we think and use frequencies in circles (circle of fifths, or even more important, the octave system: f*4 or f/2 is reconized the "same note" in 99,9% of the music) modulus 12 of any piano key or guitar tab is always a number between 0 and 11. transpose 3 up is almost the same as 9 down and so on.

 

Last edited: May 14, 2021

yeah i think "knowledge" would be correct.

maybe, but what i tried to say is that a composer usually (there are living exceptions) needs more "music theory" than an instrumentalist.

by ear would be questionable without any prior playing capabilities. but eventually without score?

we also dont know if he really understands chopin or if he just presses the keys in the right order because otherwise his mum will beat him up or stops feeding him.

 

What's the point of theses alterations? Are you trying to invent new chords? Some of your invented ones are already parts of standard jazz chords.

 

To put it simple, I've taken the E Maj Penta and then added all the notes from Bb Maj Penta to each of its inversions, by replacing specific "degrees", having in mind the insertion of tritones against every note from E Maj Penta - always a 4th/5th apart [ B/E, G#/C#, F# ].

It's a way of creating alterations related to E tonality without thinking scale-mode-wise. How would name those resulting pentas? As you've partially guessed, you've heard them many times before, in many different contexts.

Therefore, I wish I was trying to "invent" something, but unfortunately I'm not.

Take a look at this:

 

Right. Perspective. That's what music is about.

In such case, I cannot make it any simpler. Diatonicism is a system, represented by its staple: the Major Scale = maximum number of 5th intervals within an 8va. That's why its 7 tones are enough = Major penta + tritone. Remembering that there are only 6 tritones for 12 major scales. Can you tell why? I can advance you that there is NOT to do with the overtone series.

 

I hate assuming anything but based on the amount of detail that you, the thread author went into, I can assume your familiarity with the Bebop scale? A standard seven-note scale with a chromatic passing tone to generalize . One potential answer of MANY.

Analysis is a beautiful thing, but that is exactly what it is and belongs in that category. There are countless pieces and works of music from Stravinsky to Dave Liebman to Keith Jarrett, Ornette Coleman and many more, who have placed a major seventh on a dominant structure in an improvisation or with Stravinsky in composition as either passing or not, but always, intentionally. They are but a few of too many to list.

Rather than try and tell anyone how they should do anything, I choose instead to use interviews and written documentation by authors and artists alike. In each scenario, it surmised much the same thing. That is what they heard at that specific point in time when either improvising or composing. So my answer to "how to insert the 5 "unnatural" degrees (bII, bIII, #IV, bVI and bVII) to a Major scale, yet mantaining a melodical and harmonical correlation to all its actual natural ones?" - based on people who are considered pioneers and exponents in their respective fields, is that if you hear it then it probably works and that is how. If you force it then it will likely sound like that too.

Analytically, it initially seemed you are almost super-imposing a diminished structure onto a major scale and that is realistic under certain circumstances analytically, but your selection is not exactly diminished either. For example:
If you are in C major with a structure of a turnaround like || Em7b5 A13b9 | Dm7 Db9#11 (or G7) || - This is how you can use what you have suggested with ease. The 13b9 has a natural leaning towards a diminished scale (it contains that structure) and the tritone going back to C being the Db9#11 or even a Db13#11 can contain all of what you have and work with only a few darker tones. Improvising it would not be uncommon for a soloist to harmonically substitute in Ab for the Dm7 either... so that whole turnaround basically your question could work without much difficulty.
In a scenario if you really want two tritones together simultaneously, this generally works best where the dominant chord is something like a 13#9 chord because it has two tritones in it if your goal is to remove the relationship / identity issue. Identity, however, really has little to do with making music or making a supposed wrong note sound right.

The one thing you did not mention is the speed these are played at. Some long notes will be less or more dissonant in every scale. Even in a simple C major scale everyone is initially taught that while F is the lydian and part of it, against a C it is not a great choice as a single long note against a C chord unless it is suspended.. Stravinsky with his minor 9th intervals threw that out the window...Charlie Parker and John Coltrane played many of the structures you suggest with John Coltrane particularly being known for playing a pentatonic structure a flattened fifth away. Dizzy Gillespie was also known for playing a scale exactly a half step up from the chord... so when to use? When it sounds right in context is my answer.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2021

Sure, all three: Major Bebop (b6-6-M7), min Bebop (b3-3-4) and Dominant Bebop (6-b7-M7) - justified by the ascending/descending melodies in swing sincopation, typical to the genre. Pretty much a hack to make them work as intended, although finding different uses on some other contexts, until Superlocrian fever.

No need to think in chromaticisms, or 8 tones scales. The Major Bebop on itself is a superimposition: C Harm Maj + A Harm min (Barry Harris would disagree with that nonetheless). If you blend them as such, the V chord for the I Maj is completly optional, as so as the whole harmonic content acquires that unescapable diminished-mellow quality.

The resulting effect of the proposed alterations over the major penta is that one could now play in God knows how many contexts and keys, because it's basic 5 inversions were multiplied by 5 (each inversion is now a penta on its own), moreover it contains 5 out of the 6 possible tritones, given that the one left out turns it into Ionian, that's why avoided. I've made it in E due to its presence in F, G, A, B, C, D.

|| Em7b5 A13b9 | Dm7 Db#9#11 (or G7) || = || Big F | Big D°M7 ||, to put it simple.

"...so when to use? When it sounds right in context is my answer." - Even aware that anything goes depending on the context, my true intention is to discuss, trade and hopefully improve some directions, over the traditional ones, which can then be made available for those who might be seeking such.

I appreciate your inputs and references but, to address each one of them, in my head, they trigger so many others which certainly would end up get in the way of what I presume, or wish to be, the goal of this thread.

Feel free to PM nonetheless. Best regards.

 

The point is just this in your originating post. Once you start adding additional notes, the substitution possibilities and alternative melodic and harmonic options change. . The turnaround I put up is pretty standard for any seasoned jazz musician. The turnaround is still valid for the Db dominant because being altered the E becomes the b3 (#9) which is very likely an improviser will include depending on the line they commenced or fragmentation. I mentioned the 13#9 as well. From the Dminor 7 most seasoned jazz musicians will also see a Lydian dominant on the Ab as well or an Ab altered because the turnaround is a series of tritones based on a simple cycle of fourths, E,AD,G or E,Eb,D,Db or Bb,Eb,Ab,Db (The Coltrane one) each resolving to C. In many cases the improviser will imply these even if the accompaniment does not play them.

Theory is only as good as the practical usage of it. If it cannot be used it is merely theory. Perhaps transcribing some Liebman, Coltrane, Coleman, Chico Freeman, Kenny Garret, Michael Brecker, George Garzone (who defies everything you have written here with his triadic concept) and others, might give you the answers you seek. Directions are valid and in improvisation , the only important direction is that of the leading voice (improviser) at the time, or if in an ensemble improvisation, all of them.

These threads often cause a myriad of issues in argument. Perhaps joining a professional composer, arranger forum may serve you better.

P.S. - Have a listen to McCoy Tyner's backing behind Coltrane's solo on 'My Favorite Things' on 'Live at the Village Vanguard'. The basic structure is Em to F#m. At times through using quartal voicings, Tyner is implying Fm, Gm and Bbm which bear absolutely no direct diatonic relationship to the harmonic structure or scale indicated by the originating chords. BUT - they work. The issue with your question is how. Tyner demonstrates how. Because he heard it and played it with conviction and appropriate energy matching the improviser. If you cannot play it and make music of it, then it is relegated to academic impracticality.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2021

Ok. Which one?

Thanks for your comments and suggestions once more.

 

Btw,

Em + Gm + Bbm ~ Dom Dim

F#m + Fm = Melodic min (specially if you emphasize quartal voicings)

They are profoundly related, aren't they?

 

Again, please do yourself a favour and listen to it. On paper it generates the same academia and neither of us are incorrect. Only by listening will your ears give you the "WOW" factor and will hear more than my inadequate summarisation by only demonstrating a few bars of a mammoth (long) tune - and you are welcome. As for which one for groups.... Google but if you happen to be on FB, search for the "Professional arrangers" group and "Professional composers" group. Some of the most notable harmony writers alive are on these. The FB ones are definitely more than enough because you also will find some of the best BigBand and Orchestral arrangers not only discussing techniques, you will also hear and sometimes see ensembles playing the very thing talked about. Tutors and authors from every major Music faculty in the world.

 

In matter of fact I'm listening to it right now. Many thanks for taht and for the forum tips.
Don't get me wrong. Just sharing my take on it. The least I'm interested in is to be "right".

Best regards

 

Agreed as long as we and everyone else get something positive and useful from the discussion is all that truly matters.

 

The sole and original purpose since the first post. Cheers.

 

That's really an interesting Angular type of sound,
kinda imaginable in a Modern Jazz type context like Corea, Hancock etc..

Em > Gm > Bbm
Breaking down the notes you get = Db D E F G Bb B / 1 b2 b3 b4 b5 6 b7

Which is very close to SuperLocrian, but with a nat 6 instead..
(which also makes it a bit Japanese sounding)

Or from the E note you get = 1 b2 b3 #4 5 6 b7
Which will be Dorian b2 #4, the 6th mode of Hungarian Major scale..

However if you made the chords m7 it will be:
Em7 > Gm7 > Bbm7

This makes it sound/flow even "better" to me, because the m7 makes it more Modern,
while taking away some Weight from the Root, and that makes it more Ambiguous too..

So, even tho we're adding an extra tension/flat, it kinda makes it flow easier as modern jazz chords..

Also that implies the 5th in the scale,
giving you = Db D E F G Ab Bb B / 1 b2 b3 b4 b5 5 6 b7

Which is the actual HW Diminished scale.

Very Interesting example indeed.


-Now, even tho I know/can navigate most of the theory/harmony,
I'm not a Jazzist at that level/of that kind..

Ofc I like Fusion (Rock/Funk/Jazz), but I usually prefer a more Horizontal type of approach in music,
as it allows me to Flow more naturally/by instinct.
(as a jamming Guitarist.. Composing is another story)

But I will say, this could be an example of a Part/section of a track,
rather than being the Foundation or the basis of it, and it being repeated a lot..

And (I guess) in this case if you were to Improvise over it,
your best choice would be the HW Diminished scale.


However this example is kinda like a very peculiar exception/effect,
afaik Real Jazzmen don't think too much about Scales/the Horizontal dimension,
but rather in Chord Tones and Arpeggios, the Vertical and Diagonal dimension..

Because since true Jazz can be such a Fast and Modulation-full style,
thinking in terms of Scales can become unpractical in the end..

IOW there's a limit of what you can do thinking in terms of Scales on the Spot,
because the music moves/Modulates so Fast, you cannot process the stuff efficiently/fast enough..

Of course you can break it down, and Study/prepare the different sections,
and see which scales will be more convenient for each part..

But yeah, I would say you can only go so far Improvising on the spot with only Scales,
with no prior preparation/limited knowledge of where's it going next..

A more realist Jazz approach would be improvising over those complex sections/modulations,
with a more Vertical mindset, which is -> focusing on the Chord Tones and Arpeggios instead.


-I've got a jazz friend like that,
he knows ALL the Arpeggios and Chord Tone/Triad stuff by heart/instinct,
and he can Throw it, or even Combine it in his head/hands on the spot,
finding/seeing interesting/complex harmonic/triadic relationships one would normally have to Study/prepare to realize..

But he's like an exception, he's the only person I know who's at that level
(with a Guitar tho, with a Piano it might be much easier...)

And he's so good/smart he's kinda at the limit of human capacity,
a very peculiar Analytic OCD kind of person.

But he's a Great chap,
I love playing with him, as he's the only one I can try the crazy stuff with,
not only in jazz but also in Odd-time stuff like Balkan-type music and so on..


-As for the Original topic..
(Ionian + Chromatic notes)

I don't know bro, it depends a lot on the Context,
where each one of the extra notes will imply something different depending on the moment..

But I guess I will be more on the side of seeing it as Bebop scales with passing Chromatic notes and whatnot.

The Major scale is what it is, and all the rest of scales are what they are,
each one of them will sound/express differently but in a very Defined/particular way.

If you play all the Chromatic notes you can surely evoke all the scales/colors/feels that exist,
but that kinda defeats the point of having scales in the first place,
which is just a system of organization/understanding for all those possibilities, and for easy context-dependent application..

Being aware of the momentary options, and exploiting that hole with the right notes,
or in this case with (the right) Chromatic outside notes, is perfectly OK and desirable tho,
as long as you follow logic/common sense, and respect the physics of music/reality..

But as I said, what to use, and how good/bad, inside/outside will it sound, and what Character will it add/imprint to your music.. depends a lot on the Context and the Moment.


Still tho, I don't recall a particular example right now..
But Ages ago, I remember reading about using "upper structure harmonies",
like say decorating the chord with outside Chromatic notes but -> in very High Octaves.
Which makes them more natural or say Compatible/easy-fitting with the regular underlying harmony...
but without physically implying a complete/radical change.

Which will open a lot of harmonic possibilities, and I guess Pianists can exploit more easily..
But yeah, just as with modal functional harmony, this is something that is ever hardly talked about, or Cataloged,
and comes more from empirical practice.


-On a side note,
I'd say scales that include more than two, or say with Three consecutive Semitones,
like say Neapolitan Major scale (1, b2, b3, 4, 5, 6, 7) which is part of the Locrian Major scale modes,
or Double Harmonic/Phrygian Dom nat7 (1, b2, 3, 4, 5, b6, 7) which is part of the Hungarian minor scale modes...

Are regarded and used Differently in music/harmony, just because of that fact,
even tho they're part of the Proper seven-note scales in equal temperament..

 

Last edited: Jun 10, 2021

Keep in mind Tyner was playing them as different quartal triads, not standard 1-3-5-m7 and he did not stick to a single specific pattern.
For example, at any given time you can imply around a tonal centre (The pedal was a huge thing at this point in jazz)...
Fm7 - F,Bb,Eb or Bb,Eb,Ab or C,F,Bb or......- you get the idea - Apply same principle to all others Bbm7, Gm7, Em7 and F#m7 (The actual two chords). Stacked perfect 4ths have a tonality and life of their own. Used with pedals there are no limitations, up or down.
In melody they have a unique and very unmistakable/distinctive sound (See Eddie Harris - Freedom Jazz Dance).

 

Thanks for your inputs.

That's likely the goal here, but progessively and so offering some structure behind it beforehand.

As awkward it might seem, we learn scales to not use them. What they offer instead are intervallic relations which most of us could not grasp instinctively, so that's what we should be looking for. Once getting familiar with some of that, we leave the cartesian-kind-of-thinking behind, and then start manifesting our own interpretations over such, musically.

As in this example, things that might at first seem unrelated are found to be quite the opposite, let alone McCoy Tyner is thinking scales for a single second. This very same exemple could have been done in many different ways: C/E + Eb/G + Gb/Bb, or A/G + C/Bb + Eb/Db, etc...

The actual 6 scales initially proposed on the thread are for people to realize the structure they provide altogether and later break free from them. So, harmonize them like you would in 3rds, but also in 4ths and 9ths, this last one as diatonic tetrachords. To my understanding, no scale is useful until you extract their "hidden" hamonic content. Everything we do belong in these 6 scales, no way around it. Choose a tonality ( E was my initial choice ), and lock onto that. Hopefully you will end up realizing that you're playing all the others at the same time.

Until there, I'd suggest to forget about scales containing chromaticisms.

Cheers

 

Certainly but because that specific quartet of Coltrane's with Jimmy Garrison, McCoy Tyner and Elvin Jones gained its notoriety because they had a sound of their own and it is better assessed by consistency. If you listen across the board to other tunes, especially live, like Alabama a tune that leans to the #5 and that quartet's live LP's, then when he added Eric Dolphy on Bass Clarinet while Tyner was still there.... you hear a consistent approach where the tonality and feeling/tension and release was more important than how diatonically correct it was. He stacked 4ths and he moved in whatever direction he wished at the time, whether it was in that key or relevant or not. He is pretty much famous for this type of piano comping, even in his own ensembles well after Coltrane. They weren't thinking about it. There is documented evidence to that.

A PhD brought in a transcription of Coltrane's solo on Blue Trane and showed it to him and he was grateful and thanked her. She asked him to perform it and he said he could not because he did not think about what he was going to play at the time. That is documented history.
What you are suggesting is theoretically good but most people improvising do not think about what they are going to play unless it is a chart put in front of them with unusual changes they are seeing for the first time. Once they are familiar with the changes, they tend to stop thinking about it. That is the difference between a great player and a pure technician.

P.S - If you have heard Chick Corea's 'Three Quartets' LP, Michael Brecker was not given any chords on his chart and all of his solos are truly improvised. So all the scale theory in the world in that scenario will only make someone who trys to play and think flounder aimlessly. An interactive player who learned their scales decades prior who does not think and bounces off their surroundings will flourish. Music is about what comes out audibly and is what sells, not what is written on a piece of paper, that is all purely academic and has its place, in academia. People do not listen to theory they read it and/or absorb it, they listen to audio and that is a given.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2021