|
|
Post by Phil on Mar 11, 2021 8:50:33 GMT -6
chords don't occur in isolation. They are coming from somewhere, going somewhere, or both. They occur as part of a progression.
It's fun to have these sort of "light bulb going on" moments. This concept has only taken me the better part of 60 years to "grok" (any sci-fi fans out there?). I first ran up against this when I dabbled with western swing long ago in my acoustical guitar days. The western swing course I studied presented this concept, and taught a series of "typical chord progressions" and encouraged thinking of these as musical phrases that are commonly used in various songs. Interestingly, some of the songs taught in that course would be considered jazz standards (Honeysuckle Rose, Old Fashioned Love, Rhythm Changes). Of course, I never made it all the way through that course... Mickey Baker also teaches "chord progressions" (never made it through that one, either...). More recently, I've "re-discovered" one of the Joseph Alexander e-books (that I'd probably bought on one of his sales at some point) "Chord Tone Soloing for Jazz Guitar: Master Arpeggio Based Soloing for Jazz Guitar". This one presents 13 "standard jazz chord progressions" and discusses basics of how to solo over them (of course, have never finished or even much looked at this one). Like I've alluded to before, I've already got a lifetime's worth of material to learn on my bookshelf. If I'd just learn half of what I already own, I'd be quite the musician! There is just something so darned appealing about buying another book or another on-line course or watching another Youtube video... Heck, even if I'd just absorb all of the BYCU series I'd be well on my way! Anyway, that's probably enough ranting for the day - I've still got to go to work (at least for a while...).  Haven't heard the term "grok" in a long time.  For a while I was watching a lot of Western Swing stuff on YT especially Whit Smith (Hot Club of Cowtown). Those guys can play more chords in a single measure than I can in 8. There are many who consider WS a sub genre of Jazz - check out Bruce Forman (Cow Bop) and Whit Smith. You mentioned Joseph Alexander. I know have a bunch of his stuff buried somewhere on my hard drive. I completely forgot about it. I should probably leave it buried. I don't need yet another distraction.  In my case I have to be exposed to certain concepts (probably most) dozens of times for a period of years before they sink in. A good teacher could have saved me a lot of years of wondering around in the desert aimlessly. |
|
|
|
Post by grampalerxst on Mar 11, 2021 14:27:44 GMT -6
Good question. Short answer - you do assume a key, at least for a section of the song.
Take a song like "Autumn Leaves." Here's the 1st 8 bars. | Am7 | D7 | Gmaj7 | Cmaj7 | | F#min7b5 | B7 | Em | Em | A 7th chord is usually the V-chord of some key either major or minor. In Jazz it doesn't have to be, but most often is. D7 is followed by G major in this song. We know that D7 is the V-chord of G so we treat the G as the I chord even though the song may or may not be in the key of G. The ii-chord of G is Am7. So Am7-D7-Gmaj7 is a ii-V-I progression. The next chord is C, the IV-chord of G. Next there are 2 chords leading to a final minor chord, Em. Now we treat Em as the I chord. That means B7 is the V-chord, and F#min7b5 is the II-chord. This gives us a minor II V I progression often written as ii-V-i. Lower case indicating a minor chord. So, if you asked me what the chord progression to the 1st 8 bars of "Autumn Leaves" is I could simply say: It's a 2-5-1-4 in G followed by a minor 2-5-1 in Em. Once you get the hang of recognizing certain common progressions like major 2-5-1s and minor 2-5-1s they become pretty easy to spot. It helps in learning new songs, figuring out the chords to a song, memorizing songs, and transposing to other keys. Thanks, I was just wondering if there was some magic that had been withheld from me.
I come at all this from a classical background and harmonic analysis (i.e., chord indications) is typically not annotated on the scores. The key signature is indicated on the staff. So whatever key Beethoven said it was in, it's in.
Looking at Autumn Leaves above I would tend to take all 8 bars together and say Em for the key. I think my ears would revolt against calling bars 5-7 a ii-V I, but that's just lack of listening sophistication I think.
And that's probably why I also love one-chord vamps. There's beauty in staying home and wallowing in the simple life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Mar 11, 2021 20:46:11 GMT -6
Gramps,
The idea behind breaking up a song into smaller chunks of common progressions and seeing them as Major 2-5-1s, Minor 2-5-1s, 3-6-2-5s, etc., is because it makes learning and memorizing songs easier. Especially songs that have key changes in them.
I'm a little confused by one thing you said, "I think my ears would revolt against calling bars 5-7 a ii-V I, ..."
If you harmonize the Em scale Em is the 1st chord, F#7b5 is the 2nd chord, and B7 is the 5th chord. That makes F#7b5 > B7 > Em a MINOR 2-5-1 progression. The B7 is "borrowed" from the harmonic minor scale or maybe the whole damn song is in E harmonic minor. I don't know for sure. I just know enough theory to be dangerous. However, there is no disputing that bars 5-8 of "Autumn Leaves" is a MINOR 2-5-1 progression.
|
|
|
|
Post by grampalerxst on Mar 12, 2021 6:24:21 GMT -6
Phil, I get why harmonic analysis is done. In pleading "classical background" I was only offering excuses for my ignorance. Regarding the confusing quote, what came after the comma was intended as clarification: "... but that's just lack of listening sophistication I think."
Mentally/mathematically I get it. But until this thread, I'd never heard of a "minor 2-5-1" (ii V i?) as a building block akin to a ii V I. In a basic regular ii V I all the chord tones are diatonic, so a combination of that and having encountered ii V I fairly often in the context of studying basic chord progressions on guitar it's comfortable to hear. A "diatonic" minor 2-5-1 triad progression I think would be ii(dim?) v i, which makes the V7 look like one of those fancy "V7 of X (in this case i)" substitutions I read about in one of the learnin' books I have in my queue.
I tested my prior prediction. Voiced with the root in the bass, I could hear 2-5-1 root movement in F#m7b5-B7-Em7, but what was going on above was chaotic for my brain to process/categorize. Using Bm7 instead of B7 made it sound a little more like what the term "minor 2-5-1" evoked, but it doesn't have the more sophisticated voice leading of a "real" minor 2-5-1, at least in the voicings I tried, and is sort of a yawner of a progression. I can see why a minor 2-5-1 became what it is.
I haven't listened to much jazz in the last 10 years and for me, sadly, it's not like riding a bike and quickly becomes very exotic-sounding (but cool). On top of that I've never internalized much of the theory that is used to describe jazz.
That's an interesting idea about using the roman numeral method as a memorization aid. I think I do it backwards. I just memorize chord sequences and only use math if I want to transpose them and I cant get away with just moving the whole thing up or down a few frets. Next time I'm grinding out chords on something more harmonically substantive than a basic 12-bar/I-IV-V progression I'll play around with that. It'll be a fun challenge. I've got a bunch of mental mappings like
E is to G like A is to C
F# is to B like G is to C
Eb is Bb like F is to C
which ties everything back to the white keys on a piano. Sort of like the key of C is a surrogate for the numerals. Just thinking about it, starting with the numbers might be more streamlined if I can overcome my old habits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Mar 12, 2021 8:34:48 GMT -6
Phil, I get why harmonic analysis is done. In pleading "classical background" I was only offering excuses for my ignorance. Regarding the confusing quote, what came after the comma was intended as clarification: "... but that's just lack of listening sophistication I think." Mentally/mathematically I get it. But until this thread, I'd never heard of a "minor 2-5-1" (ii V i?) as a building block akin to a ii V I. In a basic regular ii V I all the chord tones are diatonic, so a combination of that and having encountered ii V I fairly often in the context of studying basic chord progressions on guitar it's comfortable to hear. A "diatonic" minor 2-5-1 triad progression I think would be ii(dim?) v i, which makes the V7 look like one of those fancy "V7 of X (in this case i)" substitutions I read about in one of the learnin' books I have in my queue. I tested my prior prediction. Voiced with the root in the bass, I could hear 2-5-1 root movement in F#m7b5-B7-Em7, but what was going on above was chaotic for my brain to process/categorize. Using Bm7 instead of B7 made it sound a little more like what the term "minor 2-5-1" evoked, but it doesn't have the more sophisticated voice leading of a "real" minor 2-5-1, at least in the voicings I tried, and is sort of a yawner of a progression. I can see why a minor 2-5-1 became what it is. I haven't listened to much jazz in the last 10 years and for me, sadly, it's not like riding a bike and quickly becomes very exotic-sounding (but cool). On top of that I've never internalized much of the theory that is used to describe jazz. That's an interesting idea about using the roman numeral method as a memorization aid. I think I do it backwards. I just memorize chord sequences and only use math if I want to transpose them and I cant get away with just moving the whole thing up or down a few frets. Next time I'm grinding out chords on something more harmonically substantive than a basic 12-bar/I-IV-V progression I'll play around with that. It'll be a fun challenge. I've got a bunch of mental mappings like E is to G like A is to C F# is to B like G is to C Eb is Bb like F is to C which ties everything back to the white keys on a piano. Sort of like the key of C is a surrogate for the numerals. Just thinking about it, starting with the numbers might be more streamlined if I can overcome my old habits. I gotcha. My simple brain tends to focus on root movement in relation to the cycle of 4ths. Everything on top of that is is just gravy. I heard a guy jokingly say, "There are really only 2 chords, the 1 and the 5. Every other chord is just filler." There's a big nugget of truth in that joke if you think about it. Regarding: "E is to G like A is to C F# is to B like G is to C Eb is Bb like F is to C" I do something similar. I visualize the fret board and think E is 3 frets down from G and is the 6th. Therefore, 3 frets down from C would be the 6th of C and that's an A. And so forth with the other intervals and keys. We all have our little mental tricks to navigate this stuff. A dominant 5-chord moving to the minor 1-chord makes a stronger tension/resolution statement than a minor 5-chord does. I believe the theory nerds then invented the Harmonic Minor Scale to theoretically explain why a dominant 5-chord in a minor key works so well. This kind of stuff gives my old brain a much needed workout. |
|
