^ At least they weren't half-baked. Burnt is better than raw! *wink, wink* I really have a habit of doing so myself.

But you do bring up a good point in getting bogged down with technique. I hope Janet doesn't feel this way, but I can see how she can feel like she unindated with techniques and reasoning, etc which is all theory is regarding composition.

Exaggerations do point out some things and I do commend you for doing that

Rus W


Another example: Em7-A7b9-Dm7-Db7-C. I'm going to sub Eb7 because the Em7 before it is only a halfstep above it while the Dm7 (the target chord) is a halfstep below it. Same with the Db7. Db is in-between C-D or D-C.

Em7-Eb7-Dm7-Db7-C. (Notice the chromatic bass line making the progression smoother. E-Eb-D-Db-C)  On a guitar using the E and A strings: E: 12-11-10-9-8; A: 7-6-5-4-3

 

Of course the "reason" this works is relatively simple and should be explained: this is a common substitution called the "flat five substitution"  - any dominant 7b5 chord is IDENTICAL to the dom7b5 which has it's Root (Tonic) a flat fifth away.
example A7b5=Eb7b5
 
Notating it as you have above, while "valid" and unfortunately too common (for example many written versions of the B section of Autumn Leaves), hides the simplicity of the actual progression: it is nothing more than a II-V-II-V-I. While the chord progression Em7-Eb7-Dm7-Db7-C at first may seem "simpler" it is in fact misleading and detracts from the actual harmonic function.
 

Instead of Am, I'm going to use C#dim7 because my target chord is Dm. So, I'll walk up instead of leap.

CMaj9-C#dim7-Dm-G7-C.
 

Actually, in this case the C#dim7 is acting as an A7. C#dim 7 is simply another name for A7b9 so in reality this progression is actually CMaj9-A7(b9)-Dm-G7-C. The only reason to name it C#dim7 is to try and "suggest" that the bass is to move chromatically, which in a band situation many players would ignore anyways, however, functionally it is still a I-VI-II-V-I. Fundamentally, changing the A7 to an A7b9 (C#dim7) has little effect as far as changing the tension as the Bb would already be inherently included (the A7 literally hands you a D harmonic minor sound). So the reason the A7b9/C#dim7 "works" is that it is in fact functioning for a brief moment as the V chord of D minor. It's not a "real" modulation (I-V-I-V-I) as the Dm becomes a "Dorian" sound so essentially it's still in C major.

I point this out because the simplest way to modulate is to throw in a dominant and this is a good example of exploring how the modulation is functioning. There is usually a way to explain "why" the chord works.

The bottom line is that, for me, in jazz NOTHING exists outside of the following:
1. II-V-I or part of it such as II-V
2. I-VI-II-V
3. IV chord, V chord or I chord

In terms of harmonic functionality, diminished 7 chords are nothing more than misnamed dominants. C#dim7 can be named A7b9, C7b9, Eb7b9 or F#7b9 (disregarding enharmonic names).

As Joe Diorio taught me, every single chord of every single jazz song can be explained as one of the 3 above. Every chord is either a I, a IV, a V, or part of a II-V-I or I-VI-II-V. Of course there are a million esoteric avenues one can explore in terms of analysis of jazz, but when you're sight-reading and improvising over charts, the clearer the harmonic function is the easier it is to improvise.

Anyways, I'm sure that all this is fun, I enjoy it, but is likely of little use to the OP :-)

SToons...yes, that tension and release idea makes a lot of sense.  I do that without really having thought thru exactly which chords do what...I just know it works.  You've added some helpful ideas.  Thank you.  Bring on Lesson #2. :) 

Hey Rus!

You've inspired the beginnings of a new song tentatively titled "Rusprog": http://bit.ly/OXJu0U

I took the first four bars of the bottom line of my progression (the polytonal version), transposed it down a whole-step and used that for the intro.  I then used the "alternate roots" version for the beginning of the A section.  

Now what am I going to do? ;-D

J

Rus, you're trying to put me back in that iii-vi-ii-v-I jail again! :-D. At its core, in my way of thinking each root is its own tonal center. The root movements can be made to conform to a scale, or not, and the scale choices and vertical intervals can be arranged to conform to a key center, or not. The one thing that unifies key-centered thinking and harmonic organization that has no key center is the linear/melodic aspect i.e., the voiceleading conforms to the mathematical organization inherent within the overtone series.

The chord symbols for the introduction are Ab7+4, E7b9-5, Db maj7+4, D7#9 (and Eb maj13). The triads in the treble happen to be simple voice-lead triads in the key of Bb, but the chord progression in no way implies any key center.  Yesterday's rules don't work with today's music.

I can see that this thread is going to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and (one more time) on...........................

hey Janet, nothing much wrong with your chord use judging by the stuff you post on the songs forum! i'm sure this has been covered in the previous 6 pages but couldn't be arsed to read the whole thing. so, my main tricks are inversions (same chord, different root note); playing different chords over the same root note (so, say your bass pedal is A, what chords have A in them...of course, A, Am, but also, D, Dm, F, F#m, C6, B7,Gsus2 etc); substituting a minor chord for major (typically the 4th); and then getting a melody and adding in random chords based on the note rather than the key as a whole.

jsaras


Rus, you're trying to put me back in that iii-vi-ii-v-I jail again! :-D. At its core, in my way of thinking each root is its own tonal center. The root movements can be made to conform to a scale, or not, and the scale choices and vertical intervals can be arranged to conform to a key center, or not. The one thing that unifies key-centered thinking and harmonic organization that has no key center is the linear/melodic aspect i.e., the voiceleading conforms to the mathematical organization inherent within the overtone series.

The chord symbols for the introduction are Ab7+4, E7b9-5, Db maj7+4, D7#9 (and Eb maj13). The triads in the treble happen to be simple voice-lead triads in the key of Bb, but the chord progression in no way implies any key center.  Yesterday's rules don't work with today's music.

While this is interestingly esoteric, that's a bold statement to make. "Yesterday's Rules"? This is jazz! No rules! Never was. However, according to "tradition" it's usually possible to explain why something functions on a harmonic level. So though your intent may be to discover "new" ways to escape tradition, on the other hand tradition can find new ways to adapt to you.
 
Congratulations, you have succesfully re-invented a D7(b5), G13(b9), C11(b9#5), F13(b9) , or, III-VI-II-V cycle of fourths progression. There's a reason it doesn't sound very "abstract" or "dissonant" as far as jazz goes...it isn't.
 
You can only bend twelve notes so far. Gravity, gravity, is working against me...
 

MakeShift


Scott, you had a way of explaining Lesson 1 that really came through for me.  I have never really thought of chord progessions as tension and release, I guess I just kind of did that naturally, as Janet has said.  This gives me a new way of looking at progressions as I write....thank you.

Bring on Lesson 2.

Thanks for the comments. What's your main instrument? It makes it easier for me to get an idea how to tailor things.
 
Cheers/

@SToons: Ab7+4, E7b9-5, Db maj7+4, D7#9 is a iii-vi-ii-V?    Explain. 


I would also like to see a traditional analysis done on my ballad, measures  3-10 and measures 15-22.  There are two symmetrical cycles at work there that have nothing to do with traditional key centers (just look at the treble; Bach would approve of the voice leading).  


The fifth is the first interval (after the octave) that appears within the overtone series and tonal harmony is basically constructed around that root cycle.  However, there are six intervals that appear within the overtone series and all are equally valid foundations upon which root movements can be organized around.  


If one chooses to use the symmetry of the overtone series as the foundation of what constitutes tonality, instead of the 7-note asymmetrical scales that form the basis of the vertical structures within tonal harmony, it is possible to write 12 real parts (without doubling) without any dissonant intervals. 


Allow me to stretch your ears a little with some new sounds.  MP3 audio: http://tinyurl.com/9faas7m


If you want to analyze these structures I suggest that you look for the repeating vertical interval sets.  These structures conform to the overtone series (no b9 intervals to be found) and they all ring clearly.    


Score:





Three cheers for new chord progressions!

Regards,
J

jsaras


Hi Rus (and everyone else).

I think that this score will help you better see the nucleus of where I'm coming from.  I wrote this ballad as a bit of a musical puzzle and it's reminiscent of things that Herbie Hancock used to do back in the 60's.  The introduction, measures 3-10 and measures 15-22 should be analyzed until you see the pattern emerge.  I'll give you a hint; analyze just the top voice and see if a pattern develops.  

MP3 audio: http://tinyurl.com/9kqcsx6

Score:
 

Again, all I caught were multiple tonicizations via ii-Vs The B pedal bass, the clearly say you're in B; however, I got this from the Vs. 


Now, in terms of simplifying this, you just used different bass notes.


The first phrase is chords with the bass note a semitone higher end on a FMaj9 (C/F)


Cm9sus-D7b9 (v-VI relating to F, atm) ...

The next phrase is tonicized relating to B minor. (F#-G13b9-D/E7(Em9sus)-F#7b5b9-BMaj9) 

The B minor pedal phrase: BMaj9-Em6/B-Emaj7/B-Em6/B

Am7-D7b9 - ii-V that implies G, but a vii-I which implies E; yet, given you go to EbMaj7, the D7b9 is functioning as a Bb7b9 (V-I)

The F#m7b9 implies B, but the Fm7 immediately after implies Eb again with the obvious omitted V (Bb)

Am7-EMaj9 is a iv-I; however, the V (B) is where my ear went to fill in the gap. (iv-V-I)

Yet, the FMaj9 immediately after turns what was the I via the previous tonicization, into the IV and V  via function - even a vii of some kind since we're now back in F which was the original I from the very beginning and then the first part of the intro repeats itself.

This is all from the aural context. From the VL view, this works; however, you really didn't do anything new nor was this as "complex" as you made it out to be. (I agree with Beags regarding his critique regarding previous postings). He and I - and most here probably agree to not let what looks complicated scare you because "Things aren't always what they seem." per the adage. Yet, the idea in Janet's situation is to get away from the simplicity; however, one shouldn't be ignorant to the fact  that it'll won't vanish when complexities are piled on top of it.

An aside, but very important to point out.

 I think the wrong term is being used, that's why arguments have ensued. The idea is not to make things more complicated, but to make things more colorful. There is a big difference! That is what this entire thread comes down to. Being colorful doesn't mean only adding notes as triadic subs will do just fine. It doesn't add as much color as opposed to using extension/alterations and using subs based of those chords, but it adds color nonetheless.

So, the question is: how colorful - not complex (although it appears that way), does Janet or anyone else want to sound? Do you want one color of the rainbow or all seven or the many in-between shades of one or all? Now when you look at how to obtain those shades, it can very well seem complex; however, this is no different than a painter who dissertates regarding a fairly simple picture s/he painted. We're not even gonna touch what the picture may mean.

Improvisation is at its core, just running scales. Simple right? Anybody can do that. Yet, the ones that do use so many tricks within that core (and really know what they're doing), is the reason for it sounds so colorful. It's only "complex" in the sense because of having learned all the techniques and guidelines to accomplish something yet so simple, but do it so well.

No different from the production nomenclature from the folks who study and experiment with it. And heck, you even novices: "How can I color this particular sound?" and they tell you what usually works. (Compress this, Saturate that, etc.). Where this complex term comes in is with the arrangement/composition. In terms of what is written/played and not what does what (melodies/bass lines/chord progressions), colorful is still a much better term to use. Complex only deals with the technical side (ie: Rhythm/How many or few play). Knowing that leads to becoming more colorful.

An example of how both can be obtain in one piece: Any solo piano music - most notably anything from the Classical music genre - or improvisation from many a jazz tune - whether solo piano (as mentioned above) or where the instruments go-to-town when it's their turn to play.

Color Music - not complicate it! However, keep the distinction clear. Of course, this is hard to do without context; yet, this is what needs to be done - regardless of one's knowledge on the subject.

I realize the explanations do complicate things from the technical standpoint, but one must understand how something works before playing with it. If takes playing with it to understand how it works (music is most definitely like this), then that is what one needs to do; however, do not overlook the explanations as to why it works or what makes it work.

White is nothing but all the colors reflected off a surface while black is all the colors absorbed. I've played with prisms to figure this to be the case. (ie: CDs) I don't care for how or why this happens, but if I were to be asked - and I have been - it's good to know the answers to both questions.

Music at its core is black and white (literally when you look at the staff on notation software or such a view in a DAW), but you can abstract/reflect and absorball kinds of colors from this "gray scale" (no pun intended)

So, I will go as far to echo Beags: When you listen to this piece, you realize how simple it is!

I have another rant regarding simplicity/complexity which speaks to the generalities, but that is another post/thread for another time. In the meantime, keep coloring!


And no. I think this thread is just fine. If anything, it's as passionate as the ones pertaining to production!

^ Sorry about mini rant. It just came to me, so I wrote it down. Ignore it.

Thank you, Mark (mgh).  :)

SToons...which pieces represent me best?  Hmmm...interesting question and I'm not sure how to answer it.  How about if I mention some of my favorites:

Midnight Minuet 2

Esperanto

Softly I Go...that one may be more 'me' than any of them....not my favorite or a real winner, but it's one I like but know it could be vastly improved on.  Well, is it ME?  I guess that's the contemplative music that comes out when I'm in that mood.  I'm probably anything but calm and contemplative in real life though.  lol  

The Enemy---opposite type than Softly I Go and one of my very favorites.  Please try to ignore the quality of the recording or arrangement....I've rarely ever seen an orchestra, probably wouldn't even be able to identify all the horns, and seem to be too impatient to learn how to mix properly. But I still say "I did that?" when I hear it. :)  

Snowfall.  I especially like it because Jimmy, on the songs forum, heard it and wrote and sang words to it and called it 'My Lady.'  (farther down the page)  The recording isn't all that good, but I'm not sure I have his tracks and he passed away last year.  :( 

The Wall ---another of my favorites, although fairly dark.

When I Met You--Danny Danzi got involved with this one and it's now one of my favorites too...one of my most upbeat ones.  And since he mixed it, one of the best mixes. :)  

Anyway, enough.   Thank you for listening to some of my pieces.  I can't wait to hear your specific notes.  How do I want to see it expand?  Well, I NEED to learn more chords than just major triads, 2nds, 7ths, minors and putting a different note than the root in the left hand (are those called slash chords?).  

(This thread has inspired me to go back to some notes I took last year about more colorful chords and I had a bit of fun with that last night.  Unfortunately, I have about 15 things I'd like to do (or have to do!) at any given time (it seems) so I'm afraid it takes me awhile to learn new tricks.)

To be honest, when I see a chord like  F#7b5b9, my eyes glaze over and I go on to something else.  If I'd make myself a disciplined schedule to learn one of those crazy things at a time and incorporate it into a few songs, I could get it.  But, so far other things keep getting in the way.  

Anyway, does that help?  

Thank you again.  :)  

I doubt the expectation is to learn this stuff in five minutes. It took much longer for the ones well-versed in it.

To solve the glazing over cause it looks intimidating is to break it down. Music can be torn down as much as it can be built up.

The chord is question: F#-A-C-E-G.

What's in this chord?

 I see a half-dim (F#-A-C-E)
I see a m7, (Added 6 upon first inversion) (A-C-E-G; C-E-G-A)
I see m7b5 upon inversion: (F#-A-C-E --> A-C-E-F#)
I see a major triad (C-E-G)

So, the G when the original chord is broken down is not only the b9 (F#-A-C-E-G) but the b7 (A-C-E-G) and the 5 (C-E-G)

The E in this chord is not only the b7 (F#-A-C-E-G) but the 5 (A-C-E) and third (C-E-G)

The C is not only the b5 (F#-A-C), but it's also the minor third (A-C-E) and the root of the b5 of the original chord (F#-A-C; C-E-G)

The idea is akin to working backwards. This is how to solve the chord intimidation problem.

Sevenths all the way up to thirteenths, regardless of alterations, can be done in the same manner. One of my earlier theory postings has such a box showing the breaking down of each chord naming them appropriately. (It took a long time, so I'll spare us all the trouble). 

Many people (and this included myself until I got there) do not do this. And this reaction is reasonable; however, digging it to see what is actually it quells the intimidation factor to almost nothing. It does take time to get to that point though. I think this is why the theory posts are complex because we understand the simplicity despite "complex" nomenclature. 

Add to that, being taught using the complex nomenclature. "I was taught the hard way; therefore, I evoke the hard way." or "I was taught the easy way; therefore, I evoke the easy way." "I was taught both methods, but I prefer to use this one."

Production's the same way. Simplify the terms or use everyday examples to explain the technical language; however, not hearing such language, may not get you to really understand what is going on. It's not so much that one is better than the other, but that both languages are necessary to gain an understanding.

So, yeah, take your time. No need to swallow everything in one gulp. Take what you need, then come back to get the other stuff. It's here whenever you're ready for it.

:)

There is always a simpler explanation than the way Rus describes it . Firstly you mentioned a F#7b5b9 chord.

Rus has given you wrong info there as well as he is talking about A being in that chord to which it is not. If A was in the chord it would imply an F# minor chord which it is not. (Minor chord would rarely have a b9)

The 3rd and the 7th noted need to remain the same in order to spell out the type of chord it is. It is actually A# that is the third. So the chord is dominant. With dominant chords the 5th and the 9th can be raised or lowered to add colour simple as that. As soon as you do that it opens up some more interesting scales for improvisation. 

As I mentioned many posts ago the melody often comes first as it probably should take priority over the chord progression. Come up with an interesting melody and then work out what key you are in as a result. You may remain in the same key but you may not also. If you move a half step (apart from the normal diatonic half steps that is) you have changed key. Work out the new key and then a new set of scale chords will open up to you. It is also nice to make a temporary key change and then go back to the original key.

I also find interesting bass movements create interesting chords too.