Thanks a lot Rus for that link above showing piano chords. That is excellent. That is one of the things I find good about forum discussions. They often lead to interesting links.

These voicings are essentially in root position and as I mentioned in one of posts the next thing to do once you have your progression is to voice the chords themselves. A book that I found very useful is:

Jazz/Rock Voicings for the Contemporary keyboard player by Dan Haerle

http://www.amazon.com/Jazz-Voicings-Contemporary-Keyboard-Player/dp/0769233252

You learn how to move the inner voices with very little movement and yet cater for the chord progression itself. He often adds the 6th or 13th into dominant chords to replace the 5th. It sounds nice when a three note voicing is spaced quite wide between the three notes and then three notes over a root bass note can virtually represent every chord type. It is nice when the three notes form a major triad. eg D Major over a C bass note spells out C Maj 9 /#11/with 13th added.

I also have found books like Contemporary Piano Styles by John Mehegan are great for analysing how several different piano players voice the same chords.

http://www.amazon.com/Jazz-Improvisation-Contemporary-Piano-Styles/dp/0823025748

I tend to write in terms of chords being in root position but later work out voicings and voice leading before tracking parts.

Thank you, Bob.  If there were more like you around, this world would be an extremely happy place. :)

Thanks again, guys.  Before you go too far explaining crazy chords to me....I just pulled that chord out of a previous post.  It could have been any chord with 3 or more numbers behind it.  I can figure them out.  But I certainly can't just sit down and play them without figuring it out.  Maybe sometime I will actually make myself do that and 'own' them.   

What irks me is when they explain some crazy chord in some complicated way.  It's probably absolutely beautiful, but when I look at my hands, it's just an F, 2nd inversion, over a G, or something similar.   As a teacher, one of my primary goals is to make the unknown easy to understand and access.  I guess I'm that kind of learner too.  

But carry on...this is fascinating and some rainy day I hope to really delve into this.  And I realize it will probably take my music to the next level.

jsaras


Hi Rus,

I'll keep my comments as brief as possible.

You were so busy trying to impose the "forest" of rules that govern tonal harmony onto my piece that you missed the "sun".

Measures 3-10 were composed using major triads descending by major seconds; C, Bb, Ab, Gb, E, D, C.  Similarly, measures 15-22 are major triads descending by minor seconds; C, B, Bb, A, Ab, G, Gb.  Neither of those progressions exist in tonal harmony.  Major and minor triads have eleven possible root/bass structures that can be placed underneath them.  Mine were chosen randomly without any deference to a tonal center.

I used correct voice leading with the triads (no parallel intervals) so I managed to completely deceive you.  You may want to analyze the passing tones I used to see if there's any other symmetry involved.

Gotcha! ;-D

Hmmm, not so sure :-)
 
This conversation is slightly funny as both of you seem too intent on one position to see the other. While you may be right that Rus didn't wow you with an explanation, you equally appear to not see the forest for the trees. Perhaps I presume wrong but I saw no response from you considering my previous simplification/analysis (post #140).
 
So you derive a harmony from a specific approach, in this case there is a counterpoint of half-whole diminished versus a whole tone scale. And then you suggest someone is "fooled" because they didn't see the "logic" behind the coposition tool. However, as I pointed out before, just because it is not your intent to travel well known waters that doesn't prove you aren't. The method by which a composition is achieved, while it can be fun, novel, creative, unique, nonetheless produces a harmonic structure which in turn can be analyzed - it is the end result that really matters, not the method by which it is achieved.
 
So one might argue that while you were focused on creating a structure thru a methodology that also incorporates slash chords, or polytonality if you prefer, you were inadvertantly creating a relatively simple structure as far as jazz goes.
 
From measures 3-11 :
Fmaj9   F13/C   D7b9   D7#9
Abm11   G13b9   Em11   F#7b5b9
Bmaj9
 
or, simplified :
Fmaj7   F7   D7alt.   D7alt.
Abm7   G7alt.   Em7   F#7alt.
Bmaj7
 
I would suggest this is hardly unique. Slightly modal with some common phrases. Not really different from much of Jobim really. Cleverly composed, maybe, but not exactly ground breaking. Of course this is a cursory analysis - if I actually played around with this for two weeks I might see it differently, but if I did it would likely be in a simpler context.
 
As you said, three cheers for new chord progressions, whatever they may be.
 
Really what would concern me with most pieces is melody. Where's the melody? Melody is a huge indicator, along with the harmony, of the structure. As far as I'm concerned chords are a dime a dozen. Often they have little use except to serve the melody. Does an audience want to listen to two hours of chord playing sans melody? If you performed the chords of the Star Spangled Banner for a sporting event, without any melody, would the crowd be inspired? Yet you could have the crowd cheering with the melody alone.
 
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy studying harmony, but to me it's all about the melody. Write a melody over that ballad that sticks in my head and I'll be impressed. Do the Dolphin Dance.
Edit: Rus, I just read your previous post (your analysis). Apologies for being redundant, but I was determined to look at it myself before I read another analysis. The fact that we came up with essentially the same result is kinda illustrative.

Oh, I don't mind the long discussion at all.  I'm picking up tasty tidbits here and there and really do appreciate all the insights and help and I really don't care who jumps on to comment, or about what. :)  Hopefully this winter I'll have time to digest some of it.  In the meantime, it's beginning to give me some new ideas, and that's fun.  

So, carry on.  And bring on lesson 2 whenever you're ready.  Looks like I'm not the only one looking forward to it. :)

Anyone else I've missed...I'm not ignoring you...this thread is definitely on my to-do list! :) 

SToons

Janet


Thank you, Bob.  If there were more like you around, this world would be an extremely happy place. :)

Thanks again, guys.  Before you go too far explaining crazy chords to me....I just pulled that chord out of a previous post.  It could have been any chord with 3 or more numbers behind it.  I can figure them out.  But I certainly can't just sit down and play them without figuring it out.  Maybe sometime I will actually make myself do that and 'own' them.   

What irks me is when they explain some crazy chord in some complicated way.  It's probably absolutely beautiful, but when I look at my hands, it's just an F, 2nd inversion, over a G, or something similar.   As a teacher, one of my primary goals is to make the unknown easy to understand and access.  I guess I'm that kind of learner too.  

But carry on...this is fascinating and some rainy day I hope to really delve into this.  And I realize it will probably take my music to the next level.

Well, as a teacher myself I can tell you it's not a secret plot nor (hopefully) a means for people to try and make themselves look smart. You are absolutely right, it's much easier to see "E/G", an E major with a G bass, than to see "G13b9".
 
The issue ultimately becomes context. Neither name is right or wrong and some players will choose to see it one way or another. For a jazz improvisor, seeing the "E/G" can result in a a delay as one has to break that down into a "functional" role - why is this chord here? Seeing the chord as G13b9 is a fairly strong roadmark for a jazz player and is usually easier to grasp quickly. "E/G" is much simpler if you play keyboards and your only interest is to play the chord. However, in terms of trying to understand how the harmony is functioning, and therefore how to also improvise over a piece, it's often necessary to figure out what a slash chord is actually implying. Of course, outside of jazz something like F#7b5b9 is also a pretty uncommon chord...
 
So unless you start getting into some serious jazz really soon this is wayyyyyy too nuts. It can take years to truly digest this stuff. I for one apologize and vow to get back to the subject for now. As a sometimes jazz player myself it's all too easy to get wrapped up in these discussions, and of course they are fascinating in their own way, but it's a massive distraction from the subject and, after all, this was your thread.

SToons: There are chords used in jazz, but there is no such thing as a jazz chord. The term jazz chord is a "euphamism" (that's probably the wrong word) as is the term "power chord" by guitarists; however, it doesn't solely belong to guitarists.


The power chord is nothing but the P4/5 in-between the octave. Classical voice-leading rules say to avoid this (This isn't the point though) And it's also not uncommon to see this outside the rock genre. Many piano styles - especially solo piano - use the power chord - or at best the P5 part of it, to imply the absent bass player's root especailly on extended chords (dominant/altered 9s, 11ths + 13ths).


CMaj9 = Em7/C; however, the low C or low C and G have to be established (sustain pedal) to get the CMaj9 sound. This leads to getting such chords in one hand, freeing up the other to use strict melody or improvise.


Here's a video explaining what to do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hky-maohY58&feature=plcp (This is ninths, but he covers the 11th and 13th as well) I recommend subscribing to his channel