 |
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments.
Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
|
|
42 members (Animisha, alexcomoda, benkeys, Burkhard, 20/20 Vision, AlkansBookcase, brennbaer, 10 invisible),
1,145
guests, and
318
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,203
7000 Post Club Member
|
OP
7000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,203 |
In response to your question, from my little Jazz history, I learned that this rhythmic displacement thing started with Bud Powell (who was also an influence to Evans). From an effect point of view, it seems that it was not intended to create upperstructures. Instead, it sounds like you're going 'outside' for a couple of beats.
So to me this is a tension/release thing. From the examples I've seen of this, it's just playing the next chord or the prior chord. So I can't imagine any other mystic purpose.
There is no mystic purpose. I don't think I alluded to one did I? All I'm suggesting is that it is sometimes easier, for me at least, to look at possible upperstructure chords that will result from the rhythmic displacement. I really don't care what people call these things, but I do like the ideas that spring from them, and those ideas to me suggest richer chords. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, wasn't that the whole explanation of chord tones on downbeats? To identify some moving harmony layer above the regular chords? And I was just making an observation, not arguing with you, which is that in the case of an identifiable "chord anticipation" move in rhythmic displacement, then it just seems that it is conceptually easy to duplicate, without having to take the next step of thinking of the upperstructures. But for fun, let's do that in the two cases I've practiced it on VE. If I'm on G7#5 and I play the next chord, which is BMaj7 on the B section, then I'm adding G7#5(b9)(#9). Sounds good. Since there really is no wrong note on a dominant here, perhaps this could lead to a general application of rhythmic displacement that you can do it easily on the a dominant and then anticipate the next chord. Now let's try it on Bb7 -> D in the A Section. (adding 11, but the Maj 7 tone would really make it go out). So looks like it's case by case here. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,203
7000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
7000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,203 |
Scep, let me assume I understand what you're saying. Shoot me down if I'm misinterpreting you. Let's take part of the A section for a moment. | CMaj7 | Bb7 | EbMaj7 | Ab7 | DMaj7 | G7 | C | As pairs, yes they don't make much sense as a progression. | CMaj7 | Bb7 | | EbMaj7 | Ab7 | | DMaj7 | G7 | | C | Bb7 | But take out the CMaj7 (which was the most important to you) and what do I see? | Bb7 | EbMaj7 | V-I | Ab7 | DMaj7 | V-I | G7 | C | V-I If you started to convert some of these to dominants that shouldn't be, it wouldn't sound like V-I to me. The tricky part of what Evans did here I think is by starting the tune on CMaj7, it sounds like the music is offset by a measure. Could that be what you're hearing differently? So to me VE is less of a weird progression as it is a rhythmically confusing one. It's like one giant rhythmic displacement 
Last edited by jazzwee; 05/11/10 01:23 AM. Reason: error - I said ii-V instead of V-I
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,461
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,461 |
To me it sounds like you guys are over-analyzing things.. what's the point of thinking which upper structure chords are created when using rhythmic displacement/playing over the barline? To me they are two different things.
I think ultimately rhythmic displacement/playing is about thinking more linearlly than from chord to chord. It's not an outside thing so much, because usually you are just anticipating or delaying going to the next chords with your lines. In the end any line you play will work as long as you make it work, and displacements is just one of the things you work on to free up your lines.
And besides what works on theory on what sounds good doesn't always mean the same thing. I guess talking about upper structure/rhythmic displacment can help, but I personally think it would be more beneficial to transcribe Bill Evans or someone else, and actually figure out what is it that they do that makes it sound good. I am sure they use all these techniques described above, but what makes them special is that they make it sound like music, like it's telling you something..at that point it's not theory, its just part of their musical language. having that kind of facility&ears priceless, theory is only an aid to get to that IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,392
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,392 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,203
7000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
7000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,203 |
To me it sounds like you guys are over-analyzing things.. what's the point of thinking which upper structure chords are created when using rhythmic displacement/playing over the barline? To me they are two different things.
I think ultimately rhythmic displacement/playing is about thinking more linearlly than from chord to chord. It's not an outside thing so much, because usually you are just anticipating or delaying going to the next chords with your lines. In the end any line you play will work as long as you make it work, and displacements is just one of the things you work on to free up your lines.
And besides what works on theory on what sounds good doesn't always mean the same thing. I guess talking about upper structure/rhythmic displacment can help, but I personally think it would be more beneficial to transcribe Bill Evans or someone else, and actually figure out what is it that they do that makes it sound good. I am sure they use all these techniques described above, but what makes them special is that they make it sound like music, like it's telling you something..at that point it's not theory, its just part of their musical language. having that kind of facility&ears priceless, theory is only an aid to get to that IMO.
Now let it be clear that this is not practice. This is just thinking time away from a piano. I find nothing wrong with thinking about this a little. As long as I don't get hung up on it while playing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,477
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,477 |
I
I think you need to ask yourself why you play jazz. What gives you enjoyment to the music. Are you having fun.
I think Mr. Oz is maybe on to something here. Actually, the fun comes for me when I play. The absolutely horrendous part is when I'm misunderstood by others to the point of being told I am OVER analyzing anything. On the one hand I offer advice (ie don't believe the changes in the book), and state that learning it by ear might be best. And then in reply I'm told that I ought to stick to classical?!?! How does that follow? For what it's worth, I've been an improvising musician for about 35 years now, but have just recently decided to look deeper into what some jazz composers have done to arrive at their compositions. At what point is this overanalyzing? I've not fought with anyone here, but I have tried to explain myself because I seem to be the only one who understands what I am saying, and appear to be the only one who finds it useful (so what's new?) For the record, I am really really tired of others NOT understanding what I have to say only to attack some small bit of the overarching principals behind what I do. If anyone cares to discuss the ideas at hand, please let's continue, otherwise I really think I'm wasting my time here.
Recordings of my recent solo piano and piano/keyboard trio jazz standards.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,461
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,461 |
jazzwee excellent point. scepticalforumguy, On the one hand I offer advice (ie don't believe the changes in the book) The best way to settle the score is by actually transcribing the tune, write out the voicing Bill Evanactually uses. and sharing it with us. That's what I do when I am not sure about something. otherwise I am just making conjectures about things with no solid material to work on.
Last edited by etcetra; 05/10/10 08:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 617
500 Post Club Member
|
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 617 |
did you just quote yourself etc? lol
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,461
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,461 |
Klinkklonk
I hope not!! i am having problem using quotes..lol
I also wanted add that in my experience composing is more organic/instinctual than it is analytical/cerebral. I often look at my tune and realize the structure after I write them. Sometimes I don't even notice it until someone else point it out.
My friend had a chance to talk with Aaron Parks and apparently he writes tunes that way too..She asked Aaron how he wrote the tune he just told her he doesn't know, and it just sort of came out of him.So in that respect it might not be all that helpful to think about what the composer was thinking at one point because they might not be thinking as much as we are right now.
Last edited by etcetra; 05/10/10 08:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,392
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,392 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 873
500 Post Club Member
|
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 873 |
scep, when you post a massive list of chord changes to Very Early, I see that as over analyzing. Bill Evans can play 10 changes to how it is in the fake book, that's his interpretation. This is jazz, play what you like and what sounds good. No one's going to say no or stop you.
You did the same with Nef, arguing over details like whether to add the #4 to a chord or keep it maj7....
If you are being misunderstood, perhaps it's the way you say it.
You figured out some chord changes by listening to the record. Others may play something else. Neither are right or wrong, it just is. I could reharm Happy Birthday with ten key changes just for fun, or play it straight. Which one is right?
If you think you're wasting your time here, maybe it's best to take a break.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,392
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,392 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,604
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,604 |
My friend had a chance to talk with Aaron Parks and apparently he writes tunes that way too..She asked Aaron how he wrote the tune he just told her he doesn't know, and it just sort of came out of him.So in that respect it might not be all that helpful to think about what the composer was thinking at one point because they might not be thinking as much as we are right now.
Or at least thinking in a very different way. When I write stuff I try to make it sound good to me and not just conform to some set of rules that say what chord should go with another chord and what scale to use, I use my ear first and theoretical knowledge a distant second. The theory of music never stops, you can go on for ever with it, but it is not necessary to do so. Having said that though many ideas do come to me through the study of theory, combinations of notes or concepts that couldn't really arise in any other way. Bill Evans is quite an interesting case in this respect as the tunes he wrote are very different than the tunes he usually played, and many are quite groundbreaking and use unorthodox ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,392
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,392 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,461
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,461 |
I was thinking, maybe people can do demonstrations instead? like if scepticalforumguy can solo on VE where he can play it the normal way once, and second time with the "other harmony" that bill Evans was implying.. it would be more helpful than having these discussion that seem to go nowhere. I think demonstrating is probably the best way to clarify things..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,477
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,477 |
jazzwee excellent point. scepticalforumguy, On the one hand I offer advice (ie don't believe the changes in the book) The best way to settle the score is by actually transcribing the tune, write out the voicing Bill Evanactually uses. and sharing it with us. That's what I do when I am not sure about something. otherwise I am just making conjectures about things with no solid material to work on. This makes sense. Only I'm really too lazy to transcribe chords from recordings. I suppose this is where I'm taking it on faith that what I've found makes more sense than what I've read in the fake books. So where does that leave me? I'm quite happy to play the way I do, and to progress the way I've currently been doing. I suppose if I find something that works for me I just ought not to share it on this thread without some cautionary disclaimers stating 'use at your own risk.'
Recordings of my recent solo piano and piano/keyboard trio jazz standards.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,461
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,461 |
This makes sense. Only I'm really too lazy to transcribe chords from recordings. I suppose this is where I'm taking it on faith that what I've found makes more sense than what I've read in the fake books. So where does that leave me?:)
I guess that's the problem right there, and why some people think your analysis of the harmony may seem flawed. I know you mean well, but at this point all we have is conjectures or faith or whatever we call it.. I don't think people are personally attacking you, maybe some people are, but I think it's important to let you know if something seem way off. Having said that, maybe it's important to ask yourself just what kind of standard you hold your playing in. Are you really willing to just settle for "faith"? or do you think there is a value in really doing the homework, transcribe, study the piece inside out and find out exactly what's going on? The answer is right in front of you, it's just matter of whether you are willing to put the time to unlock it. In my experience transcribing gave me much deeper insight into a tune than I would have ever came up with on my own. I am sure you'll see the tune very differently after transcribing it too ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,477
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,477 |
Klinkklonk
I also wanted add that in my experience composing is more organic/instinctual than it is analytical/cerebral. I often look at my tune and realize the structure after I write them. Sometimes I don't even notice it until someone else point it out.
My friend had a chance to talk with Aaron Parks and apparently he writes tunes that way too..She asked Aaron how he wrote the tune he just told her he doesn't know, and it just sort of came out of him.So in that respect it might not be all that helpful to think about what the composer was thinking at one point because they might not be thinking as much as we are right now.
I do not disagree with not trying to see what the composer was thinking (if that makes sense), but I think that seeing what INFLUENCED the composition in the first place makes sense. I too have composed stuff in the past and have done extensive recordings recently of improvisations, but everything I composed whether I like it or not was informed by my musical experiences, and also what I was trying to achieve at the time (ie jazz tune, classical sounding, ballad, etc). So, to be clear, yes I'm sure it's probably impossible to read a dead or live composers mind, but it's not so hard to hear what they intended with their note and chord choices. Would you disagree with this?
Recordings of my recent solo piano and piano/keyboard trio jazz standards.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,477
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,477 |
If you are being misunderstood, perhaps it's the way you say it.
That could be true.
You figured out some chord changes by listening to the record. Others may play something else. Neither are right or wrong, it just is.
Read my post again. I never said others were wrong exactly. Reading everything I write is important before you respond to just one sentence.
I could reharm Happy Birthday with ten key changes just for fun, or play it straight. Which one is right?
The one that sounds enough like Happy Birthday that others would recognize and appreciate the tune. I rather doubt you could do it though within the parameters I suggested. I'm sure anyone can cobble any number of chords together and call it music, but to make them musical is another story. Care to rise to the challenge? I'll do it if you will. Could be fun to try.
If you think you're wasting your time here, maybe it's best to take a break.
Yes, that's what I was thinking too. I'm just waiting to see how this all pans out. Internet/forum aggression is one of the weakest displays of intelligence, IMHO, and I'd rather not get into pissing matches with people that don't care to understand what I say, but instead get angry and defensive about something I didn't say, or take something completely out of context and dissect it for it's flaws in isolation.
Recordings of my recent solo piano and piano/keyboard trio jazz standards.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,461
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,461 |
So, to be clear, yes I'm sure it's probably impossible to read a dead or live composers mind, but it's not so hard to hear what they intended with their note and chord choices. Would you disagree with this?
well, I remember doing hours and hours of discussion on what the composer "intended" in a theory class. Some of it was helpful, but most of it wasn't. Like Dave said, when I analyze things I try to put it into much simpler terms. The tune makes a lot of sense as series of V-I's moving non-functionally rather than thinking about an complicated underling structure that may or may not be there. Again a recording of you demonstrating this is much more helpful than words. Because if it sounds radically different than how most of us approach it and if it sound really good, then we know you are onto something. otherwise I feel like your approach makes things more complicated than it is.
|
|
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,384
Posts3,349,173
Members111,631
| |
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
