On Jun 22, 3:13 am, "David Webber" <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> "Danny Schorr" <.@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:q12r54prv4c2tbdvpdgiq04chcl5i5kiad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Could you elaborate on that?
>
> I'll try.
>
> If you go back to classical analysis there are "essential notes" (those
on
> the harmony) and "unessential notes" (not "inessential"!) which are the
> others.
>
> Unessential notes against the harmony occur in assorted ways including:
>
> Passing notes: you move in steps up or down. the unessential notes you
go
> through are passing notes.
>
> Auxiliary notes: you step off an essential note and back on to it.
>
> Appoggiature: you hit an unessential note on a strong beat and move by
step
> onto an essential note.
>
> Turns: go round essential notes.
>
> [In these last two I am not talking about the decorative symbols used in
> classical music but the sequence of notes which they imply, and they
don't
> just have to be short notes.]
>
> I'll gloss over the choice between chromatic and diatonic unessential
notes,
> but obviously there are both.
>
> It may see odd or "uncool" at first but all of this is still relevant in
> jazz and blues playing :-) The upshot is that you can do almost
anything
> you like if you move in step and it can sound right - the unessential
notes
> fall into one category or another. But if you leap, and want to fit
with
> the harmonies, you should land on an essential note, or on a note one
step
> away and step off onto an essential note.
>
> Jazz improvisation before the late 1940s very much followed these
principles
> but gradually increased the concept of essential notes where things like
the
> B in Cmaj7 started to become "essential" as opposed to what it would
have
> been in classical music.
>
> A very good example is Bix Beiderbecke in the 20s: he was absolutely
> brilliant but an awful lot of his solos just ask to be analysed in
classical
> terms. "Blue notes" were not "extra notes" but a way of bending
certain
> notes (especially vocally) to give a certain feel. You should be able
to
> hear this in the older generation of Blues performers - for example as I
> mentioned Bessie Smith and Jelly Roll Morton. (The latter as you
observed
> was busily transforming blues into jazz but a lot of his early work was
> essentially blues.)
>
> It all changed in the late 40s - in jazz for example by Parker and
> Gillespie. Their approach was much more easily thought of as "playing
> scales against chords" and these days the jazz tutors are all about
which
> scales go with which chords. The chords are more complicated - eg G13
has
> all the white notes of the piano, so the idea of landing on essential
notes
> is downplayed in favour of the scales vs chords approach. But as the
> chords change, the scales played against them change.
>
> In the jazz band we play all styles from the 20s to the modern day, but
> because of what I have listened to most all my life, the older way comes
> more naturally to me. But it doesn't "work" if I get a solo in a
> thoroughly modem piece and I have to think modern.
>
> I suspect that the same sort of revolution from a what I called a
harmonic
> approach to a scale approach happened around the same time in blues
(jazz
> and blues development by now being very much interrelated, even if both
had
> their different adherents). And somewhere along the line the idea of a
> blues scale has risen to prominence. Of course in as much as blues
> performers were/are often soloists, accompanying themselves on guitar,
they
> always had less to worry about in as far as fitting in with the rest of
the
> band is concerned. But I still hear the (albeit bent) "harmonic feel"
of
> early blues, and a "scales" feel in later examples.
>
> Anyway the arrangement of background riffs in Emancipation Blues made
the
> harmonic approach fit much better for me - as I say I tried approaching
it
> from both directions in rehearsals. Sure I played minor thirds against
the
> major chords - major thirds would have sounded naff - but the E E E E
A7 A7
> E E B7 A7 E E structure was always uppermost in my mind, because the
> background riffs were nailing it to the floor :-)
>
> Dave
> --
> David Webber
> Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'http://www.mozart.co.uk
> For discussion/sup****t
seehttp://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm
What an oleo of... of what. I can't even begin to address this mis
mash of unrelated, out of context and information and mixed principles
and contexts! All I can say is that if you are a student reading this,
then please take it with a grain of salt. If you use some of the terms
and names mentioned as a source to study, analyze them and study them
on your own and make your own conclusions. This is just too much to
endure! I think that you have reached the level of absurdity here that
if a student takes this at face value, then that student will not
learn music anyway, so I will let them fend for their selves. Sorry
students! I can only do so much.
On the other hand, if anyone wants an opinion on the merits of any
part of that above tirade, just write me. I will try to provide
questions and observations that will help you to glean some truth and
to make sense of some of the points that has been brought up. I don't
have time to go into this abundance of unrelated half observations.
LJS
|
