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!

????????????????????
 
Dude, lay off the meth.

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

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

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.  :)  

One more thought...I think the reason I'm not real excited about some of my pieces is because the melodies aren't real memorable.  That's where a lot of them fall short.  I'm not sure if better chord progressions would help or just a better sense of melody. 

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.

:)

Janet,
You are too hard on yourself.
But it's a core element of what we find so admirable in you.
It's just a plateau. You'll find your way.

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. 

Janet


One more thought...I think the reason I'm not real excited about some of my pieces is because the melodies aren't real memorable.  That's where a lot of them fall short.  I'm not sure if better chord progressions would help or just a better sense of melody. 

That may be in the case, but it depends on what you mean by better melody because the songs with the simplest of melodies can obtain very colorful harmonies underneath them.


I think this gets into composing by melody or by harmony.


It's clear that the melody iis the most important part of a song, but sometimes (just like harmony), it doesn't need to be dressed up. Improvisation is the epitome of dressing up a melody. However, the melody still dominates and notice how the performers drop hints upon all the colorful improvisation around it.


However, harmony can be used in conjunction to help dress it up. Some don't realize that you can extract a melody from a simple or even colorful progression. Something as simple as arpeggios can be used in forming melodies - whether they're diatonic  (chord tones) or non-diatonic as seen and heard when improvising. Arpeggios are a form of improvisation, too.

Happy Birthday is quite simple, but a very popular tune which is dressed up harmonically depending style of choice. Whether passing notes, altered tones are thrown in there or how each is played, it's still the same tune. In essence, melody is quite simple, but simple is too simple or dry to some people.

Also, memorable can be so many different things to different people. Even if the composer doesn't like a simple straight-forward melody or harmony, the listener might because music isn't just about what you use, but how you use it. This is where styles/genres come into play. The same song can be played oodles of different ways and neither the melodies or harmonies need to be tweaked. However, they are to make them more memorable, but again, not everyone will consider it to be such. 

 
Listen to the classical pieces, they look complicated on paper, but are they? Listen to jazz tunes, Are they complicated? What used isn't, but how it's used is what gives the appearance of it being complicated. However, if you ask someone how to play or write, I doubt they'll say it's easy. It's definitely not easy writing a symphony or something orchestral and alot more than harmonic progression are at play.

Again, it may come down to you trying to force it. You won't get anywhere doing that. Most of the time, when you force something, it sounds worse than what you had at the start and listeners/composers (because they listened) can tell.


Like I mentioned before, My Generation and Achy-Breaky Heart used only two chords. (VII-I, V-I), but other things were going on (lyrics, instrumentation, etc.) to make each memorable. Sometimes you really can't come up with anything else, but maybe you don't need to either.


Let music come to you, don't go to it.