Re: What's the relation****p between scales and chords?

On Feb 27, 6:27 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> LJS wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 2:37 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> LJS wrote:
> >>> On Feb 27, 11:10 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> LJS wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 26, 5:26 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>> Tom K. wrote:
> >>>>>>> Using II for supertonic hasn't been done for nearly forty years.
> >>>>>> On the contrary. Most jazz harmony books use upper case Roman
numerals
> >>>>>> for all chords.
> >>>>>> We don't write simply "ii" or "ii7". We write "IIm" and/or
"IIm7".
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Joey Goldstein
> >>>>>> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> >>>>>> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> >>>>>> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
> >>>>> the only major book that I know of that uses UC/RN has been the
Piston
> >>>>> Harmoy text. I am sure that there are others, but I have not run
> >>>>> across any books in mainstream use that does not use UC/LC with
the
> >>>>> delimiters. I have also not run across the use of RM/maj-min etc.
> >>>>> either. All the texts that I have seen use the standard UC/LC RN
> >>>>> notation in the standard manner.
> >>>>> In my quest to try to keep current, an you give some examples of
who
> >>>>> is turning back the clock to use the older system based on Piston?
I
> >>>>> know you stated Jazz theory books, but in the cl***** that I have
> >>>>> taken, there was no such use of this in these cl***** either. I
don't
> >>>>> know why anyone would, so if there is an advantage to reverting to
> >>>>> this additional separation from standard theory notation, please
give
> >>>>> us some details.
> >>>>> LJS
> >>>> The Chord Scale Theory And Jazz Harmony, by Nettles and Graff.
> >>> The only vendor for this book that I can find is: Steve Weiss Music,
> >>> Percussion Instrument and Percussion Sheet Music Specialists Surely,
> >>> there must be something wrong with my Google as this doesn't seem to
> >>> indicate enough influence to set a standard.
> >>>> Modern Harmonic Progression, by Allen Michalek.
> >>> The only reference I can find for this is in an A1musicforum.com
that
> >>> says
> >>> My favorite is: Modern Harmonic Progression by Allen Michalek but it
> >>> can only be ordered on the phone from the Humber College Book Store
> >>> here in..  and then I can't find the rest of this quote. But it is
> >>> somewhere in on of your chats Joey. Maybe you can shed some light on
> >>> to this. I usually don't have trouble finding publications on the
web
> >>> or places that sell them. Usually if a text is setting a standard
for
> >>> notation, it is a bit more difficult to find. Maybe you can shed
some
> >>> light on these revolutionary new publications.
> >>>> The harmony dept. at Berklee.
> >>> Yes, the harmony dept. at Berklee and...
> >>>> Etc.
> >>> Yes, and what? other books that I can't find? and other notes by
> >>> students of cl***** without texts? Is this some kind of secret
> >>> standard?
> >>> But that is not my confusion. When I put those titles into Google, I
> >>> come up with the intro to your book in PDF format from your own book
> >>> and then I find a reference to the other jazz book in a chat or
> >>> something you have at a site called Derkeiler.com where you tout
this
> >>> one of these books as notes taken in a theory class at Berklee that
> >>> did not have a text.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Joey Goldstein
> >>>> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> >>>> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> >>>> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
> >>> But that is not my confusion. When I put those titles into Google, I
> >>> come up with the intro to your book in PDF format from your own book
> >>> and then I find a reference to the other jazz book in a chat or
> >>> something you have at a site called Derkeiler.com where you tout
this
> >>> one of these books as notes taken in a theory class at Berklee that
> >>> did not have a text.
> >>> LJS
> >> Get over it.
> >> What is with you?
>
> >> --
> >> Joey Goldstein
> >> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> >> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> >> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
>
> > Its something that you would not understand Joey. Its called truth.
> > You post some obscure writings by some of your friends and claim that
> > they set the standard for functional notation. Even if these books
> > were what you claimed them to be, they would not have anything like
> > the universal acceptance required to set a standard. Its just
> > extremely phony. There is enough misinformation and misunderstanding
> > in the world without someone making up things to sup****t silly claims
> > and statements.
> > LJS
>
> In the jazz community, when analyzing chord progressions that are to be
> used by jazz improvisers, things are usually the way I've said they are.
> I.e. We tend to use upper case Roman numerals and spell out the chord
> quality in our analyses of chord progressions. Spend some more time in
> the jazz community maybe?

I think you mean in YOUR jazz community. And then again you must mean
when relating SOME chordal information when you use the word analyzing
chord progressions. I see and understand the chordal analysis that you
are referring to. The problem is reflected in your statement. You
certainly have the right to use UC to SPELL out the chord quality.
(Why you want to do that is another consideration!) But when you
represent this as "analyzing chord progressions" is when you
misrepresent this chord spelling method as analysis!

Yes, I know a lot of jazz players that use this chord spelling
technique. They don't however represent this as an analysis. They do
it for expediency to communicate with the less schooled musicians much
the same way that a lot of rock guitar players use tab notation. Some
of the less schooled musicians in both genres then learn the music by
sound and with their other skills put the music into an understandable
format that they can work with to play what they play. This is not a
statement concerning the ultimate musician****p of the player, only of
the misrepresentation of these chord spelling techniques as
'analysis'. They are not.

If the student does not have an innate natural ability to 'sense' the
reasons why things are done, passing off chord spelling as analysis is
further inhibiting his chances of learning how's and why's that make
music work. If you want to teach your students and to communicate with
this chord spelling technique, fine. Just don't go professing that
this is the standard of analysis for Jazz as it is not a standard of
analysis for anything. The key word is analysis and to suggest that
Jazz is somewhat less im****tant than classical music and that the
musicians are innately unable to understand harmonic progression is
simply something that I find beyond belief by a "college jazz
professor'.  There is no reason to water down the proven harmonic
analysis methods for Jazz musicians, the real standard ways of looking
at this is really quite simple enough.  Even the Geico Caveman can do
it!


>
> We don't use these techniques generally to analyze pre-composed
> classical music. Generally, we would use classical conventions to do
that.

But you somehow think that they are so far apart! How many per-
composed classical music do you generally analyze anyway? I just don't
see the relevance of that statement. Am I to imply that you teach both
to your students? You teach them one way to look at function in
classical music language and then you teach them to use this
understanding and then to put it into the UC chord spelling language
so that they can explain it to their 'community' in a simple setting
that they can understand being that the Jazz Community can't
understand the simple use of UC/LC? I find that rather strange and
hard to believe, but that is what it looks like you are saying. If
that is the way your community works, well then I guess you have to
use that less complete method of 'describing' the music rather than
analyzing it. I don't, however think that this is the case. I have
know Classical and Jazz and Rock musicians with all different levels
of understanding. There are no lines. They all speak of the same
MUSICAL ideas and they all speak of them in a language that they
understand. I have found that the better ones are 'multi lingual' and
can of course speak and understand all of the methods that are in use.
(Face it, harmonic analysis is NOT rocket science!) The really good
ones even make the effort to understand the various levels that people
from the other genres 'analyze' the music. They learn a lot by the
different approaches to looking at the various levels of looking that
pass as analysis. Then they add that as another level of understanding
of thought and they add that level to the way that they look at music.
Analysis is not rocket science, but it is certainly more than spelling
chords, and to limit students to that level and to ignore the
relation****ps of various musical genres is simply a rather shallow
approach to teaching music.

I expect more than that from teachers and leaders of any community.
LJS

>
> Why you have a problem with this is way beyond me, but I'm sure it has
> nothing to do with "truth".
>
> Geez.
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca

I