Sound Science Music Thread: Pass it on!
Sep 9, 2018 at 9:36 PM Post #256 of 609
I know the first four really well, of course, yes, lots of jazz influence, the harmonies went from straight major and minor keys to letting some jazz tones in, minor 7ths, dominant 7th, 13ths, 9ths and 6ths I would guess, nothing too grating, and the guys could all get around on their instruments. I loved the changes of Sunny, we had a bass player in our dorm and we loved to jam on those changes. Brandy, I've always absolutely loved that song so much, great story, nice vocals, nice jazz inflections, etc.

I am going to have to check out Brian Auger's Oblivion, that's group I've truly never heard of. I'm going to have to give it a good listen.

Of course my man Wes Montgomery did a version of Bumpin on Sunset when he was playing pretty for the people to support his family (who could blame him): Just a fraction of his raw talent (see videos in above posts) on display but it sold records.


And a pop tune I always loved with some jazz inflections was Moondance:



You've got jazz harmonies, a nice jazz bass line, a cool swing feeling, some woodwinds (sorry @castleofargh) and highs and lows in terms of intensity.


And Bozz Scaggs, a sort of smooth jazz infusion and very soft funk touches (listen to the bass) into his work with great vocals and expression:




I love BTO's Blue Collar...wore that song out when I was a kid. There were several jazz influenced songs like this for me when I was growing up

Like...


Always loved Burton Cummings vocal abilities...



Looking glass...



Not really an ARS fan but played this song a lot as well



Bobby Hebb..



Brian Auger's Oblivion Express...was a cool mix of jazz/rock/funk/etc...



Bonus song...(tying it back to Wes a little)

 
Last edited:
Sep 9, 2018 at 10:43 PM Post #257 of 609
your honor, I demand that this case be dismissed. the accusation tempered with the evidence after I had replied and added that video!
:yum:
I don't get most jazz stuff. the moment I feel like they're somehow jazz shredding(that's what it feels to me), I'm out. I have some affinity with a few bands, but only because they're really not that jazzy, and those who are, I usually like only their work in other genres. the side of jazz where one guy goes "catch me if you can", and the rest tries to keep up and pretend like it was all rehearsed, I will usually not listen to that. I can't really argue that I need euphony and stable melody, because there is just too many songs I like that really don't conform to such basic rules. I also can't argue that I don't like feeling attacked by the music, because yet again, I have too many songs doing just that in my library. I can only end up saying that I like or don't like stuff and that liking or not liking seems to be the consequence as much as the cause somehow. I can't think of clear factor or combination of factors. oh yeah I got one, I'm in general not a fan of wind instruments, I find them painful. I guess that's a pretty strong hit against jazz right there. I had never really thought about that.
of course even with jazz I have a few exception to confirm the rule. mostly because of family propaganda playing random guys like Chick Corea or Al Jarreau while having breakfast. those are KGB methods to turn an agent. making me have a great time while playing those musics, and playing them over and over until I'm brainwashed into a sleeper agent. I can't forgive such vicious education so obsessed with making me enjoy stuff. :deadhorse:


I agree and that's why I don't really share my preferences or try to argue them rationally(not just here, in general). because I don't have such a thing as a rational argumentation. I like what I like and most of the time I don't have a clue why. I press play, close my eyes(else I have the attention span of a puppy), and I'm gone. no thinking, no analyzing, sometimes I move like a demented person and air guitar like I'm in the band. all I can tell in the end is that I enjoyed it(or didn't, but no air guitar if I didn't^_^).
but about rational and this section, yes and because I agree I tried to ask for criteria, otherwise how can it not be entirely subjective? I'm not saying you must tie yourself up with 2 ultra specific notions like BPM and how far the melody is from a polka. and then have to stick to those 2 parameters for all songs. that clearly would be silly and unhelpful. but if you guys happen to have reasons why you like or admire a song, reasons beyond my lazy "/me likes", you should provide them clearly so people can consider those variables while listening to the song and think about (yes maybe even me). all so that we don't get the feeling that it is indeed just another of those topics where 2 or 3 people force their preferences onto others and nobody else dares to post because they like another genre for other reasons.


I get where you're coming from...jazz can get 'too far out there' at times with the improvisational stuff. Sometimes, it can sound so disjointed that you'd swear they're each 'warming up' on their own...jk!

That said, there's some terrific stuff out there...from Brubeck to Montgomery to Jamal to Monk to Lewis to on and on and on

Maybe some Brubeck might be worth listening to? The Dave Brubeck Quartet had some very talented musicians in it -- Brubeck, Paul Desmond, Eugene Wright, and Joe Morello. They are able to play very cohesively as a group and are also good soloists in their own rights.

Everybody would probably point you to the Time Out album as the starting point...a great album, no doubt! But, I really like their 25th Anniversary Reunion Album -- live performances with some nice interactions with the audience!



Listening to Brubeck got me appreciating unique time structures, polytonality, chord progressions, etc. mostly because he incorporates it without going off the reservation...

That said, I (like you) tend to relate to music in a large degree on the emotional level. If it moves me, then it's going to get on a playlist...otherwise, it'll only get played when 'shuffle' circles through it :wink:
Changing gears.

The most important part of this song and the true life lesson is the successful criminal defense of our protagonist.



Plus I have always loved the very odd phrasing of Willie Nelson's guitar. I find it endlessly entertaining.


This is the story of my life:



Plus the backup band is out of this world and this guy's voice is unbelievable. If I remember right this guy was actually severely injured defending his girlfriend from an attacker. He seems like an admirable and very talented guy from what little I know.


This song is so sadly prophetic I can't really make fun of it. One thing about country singers is that some of them are singing in character and the outcome is not good.



Again incredible vocals and a great backup band.


And this is a nice song, but this was the peak of Kris Kristofferson's singing voice which was a very, very low peak and it really really went downhill from there to the point where you were like, that's not a professional singer. I had a friend in college and I said I like this LP. And she said I am from the country and that guy is not from the country. She said I don't like it, it's an affect, he's not from the country. So I said you can tell that? And she said yeah, I can tell that. So I looked up his biography, summa cum laude in literature, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, yeah, not country. But he wrote some really good songs and the backup band was good, but honestly, to me, not great. They could play the song. Good for them.



And his voice. This was as good as it got and it only got worse. Don't listen to any other version of this song by him or you will get permanent psychological damage. He couldn't hold a single note, much less sing a song. This is really about the song and the fact that he wrote it.


Funny how music can take you down paths you never would have thought you'd head down...

I remember hearing Willie for the first time. Not being much of a country fan, I thought his 'unique' voice and simplistic guitar playing was the prototypical case for why country was a waste of time...

If I wanted story-tellers, I could listen to artists like Dylan, Springsteen and not have to hear on each song how their dog died and their girl left them. Granted Dylan and Springsteen's voices weren't any better (worse really), but I thought I could relate more to what they were talking about!

What I found was, that Nelson, Travis, Gill (can play a little guitar), etc. were all talents in their own right if I opened my mind up a little :ksc75smile:

Instead of posting the typical Willie songs...here are a couple that are less well known

Willie can sell a song!






First heard Randy Travis on his hit Three Wooden Crosses which I thought told a poignant story...

He's heavily country/gospel influenced but I do find myself emotionally connected on many of his songs...love a good story...even a simple one!






Vince and friends....

 
Sep 10, 2018 at 1:47 AM Post #258 of 609
I'll try to find a fun and imaginative Sun Ra piece that isn't just plain loopy. I think the piano solo stuff I posted was probably a bit too dense.

As to your theory about the blues, let's stop right there for a moment. I believe (I was not there at the time), that jazz arose out of highly skilled African American clarinetists being expelled from integrated orchestras during the height of segregation in the deep south sometime around the beginning of the 20th century, and this did not have much to do with the blues. You also have Scott Joplin, a classically trained pianist, profoundly influencing the music. You also have a lot more Spanish and Latin influence in the development of the rhythm than you might expect, those influences were around. You also have George Gershwin coming into the mix and introducing some chord changes, or "rhythm changes," derived from the song I Got Rhythm, that got transformed and molded in the jazz mix. You also have African influences of call and response. You also have improvisation, which was standard issue even in classical music, in Bach, in cadenzas, etc., until it started to fossilize. I would say that both the blues and jazz came out of all of this. And of course you have the influences of freed slaves and their songs--I wasn't there, I don't know how that played out. And there is jazz blues, with much more complicated chord structures than what you might think of as the original 12-bar blues. I think of 12-bar, three-chord blues as one of the simpler spin-offs from this hurricane of influences. For me what the blues did was introduce a unique feeling and some ambiguities in the harmony that last into this day in every genre of American music. In classical music if you are in C major your primary notes are the C scale. In blues your starting point is often a C dominant 7, or the dominant 7 of whatever key you are in, or maybe the major 7 of that key. If you are starting in a blues manner with the dominant 7 you have in your toolbox E-flat (the minor 3rd), E (the major 3rd), B-flat (the dominant 7), and you even have access to the flatted fifth (G-flat in this case). And not related to the blues, If you are in C major with a major 7th you have access to the major 7th chord--a very pretty chord and not really used in classical music, and that gives you more directions to go in the harmony also. I think this was an American musical development. I don't think these were in the musical vernacular before that the time. All of these give rise to more emotion and more harmonic and melodic directions you can go in. So what blues did in my mind was bring in a certain ironic feeling, with a stronger rhythm than was common, and introduce some but not all of these harmonic ambiguities or this harmonic freedom. Almost all jazz has chords that have added tones to the basic major or minor chords, just as a matter of the language. I do not think it is accurate to say that jazz was something new evolving out of the blues, or that the blues is the basis of all great American music of the 20th century. It was a strong influence, but the initial influences were a convergence of much more complexity with currents of latin, African, classical, slave songs, American composers, mixing of African American populations with different skills due to intensified segregation after the civil war, etc. And the great Broadway tunes, let's not forget those. Many of those have no blues structure at all. But the melodies of the greats are beautiful and the lyrics are beautiful and popular musicians and jazz musicians alike recognized that. The chord changes were original and innovative and beautiful and as I think of it there was that harmonic ambiguity that the blues introduced running through much of it as a tool but it had departed from the blues pretty far. As it turns out many of those composers were Jewish--just the way it worked out, I don't know why. Jazz musicians really latched on to a lot of those tunes and many became jazz standards.

So I am just trying to make you think about the idea of a premise that the blues was the basis of all of the great American music of the 20th century. This is all off of the top of my head and subject to fact-checking and correction or clarification but I think it helps us to understand the different strains of music that came out of America. It is all kind of miraculous and wonderful. It is a contribution to world cultures. This is just one person's view from where I sit in life. It could look completely different to someone with different experiences and exposure to different information, etc.

Do you have a suggestion for a Sun Ra album that is fun and imaginative but still a bit structured?



I have a theory about Modern Jazz. It's kind of complicated and requires a lot of examples, but I'll just state it here in a nutshell and I'll go deeper if you're interested...

In the early days of jazz, it was something new evolving out of the blues. . .

The blues is the basis of all of the great American music of the 20th century.
 
Last edited:
Sep 10, 2018 at 2:05 AM Post #259 of 609
And now for something completely different. . .

@castleofargh , is it cool? Can you dig it? No woodwinds. None of that jazzy stuff. It certainly blows my mind. So this individual is objectively playing a lot of complex music. This individual used this individual's fingers on some strings on a wooden instrument, having memorized the music and is playing all of the right notes and keeping the beat and staying in tune and whatnot.





 
Last edited:
Sep 10, 2018 at 11:55 AM Post #260 of 609
[1] When I created this thread, my intention was to create somewhere that music could be discussed with the same sort of rational discourse that we discuss science.
[2] My idea was to create a thread where people can state a theory about a certain kind of music, define why they think it fits that theory and provide examples from youtube to back it up. Then everyone can respond to that with challenges and counter examples to refine the theory and perhaps learn something about the music beyond just "like" and "don't care for". If changing the thread title to make it a little clearer would help, I'd be happy to do that.

1. Clearly that is impossible. With science we have objective measurements and proven mathematics. Empirical evidence is virtually never accepted on it's own, it only ever forms one corroborating part of scientific fact and even then, only under extremely tightly controlled conditions. We have developed the "Scientific Method" essentially to make it irrational to disagree with science in preference to superstition or what someone believes or feels. The arts (including music) do not stand-up to the scientific method, while there are some basic principles of music which apply to most people, there are none at all which are universally true, there are no scientific facts. The arts are based almost exclusively on personal opinion, albeit personal opinion shared by some/many others, as opinions of art are largely defined/informed from boundaries established by past and current culture/fashion. It's therefore not possible to have a rational discourse as we can with science. It's generally irrational to disagree with the vast majority of science, whereas it is not irrational to disagree with virtually anything in music, maybe just unpopular or unacceptable to a certain culture or cultural point in time.

2. You seem to be confusing the popular use of the word "theory" with the vastly different meaning of the word in terms of "scientific theory". The former just being a "thought" or "idea", while the latter is the rather complex end result of the scientific method. The likely perception of musical notes, chords and harmonic progressions is covered by what is called "Music Theory" but again this is not the scientific use of the word "theory" but more along the lines of how say the English language works, where for every rule there's usually at least one exception and sometimes so many exceptions it seems to make the concept of a "rule" pointless to start with. While an exception with a scientific theory typically means that it can't be a scientific theory. The flaw in your suggestion is that there are always challenges and counter examples which refute whatever theory you (or anyone else) tries to "refine" and while it's certainly possible to "perhaps learn something" from such a discourse, what typically happens is that challenges or refutations which fall outside of an individual's opinions/boundaries are just dismissed as "wrong", "irrational" or even "not music". At best, you end up with a "theory" which might have been somewhat true, under certain circumstances, at one period in time but most probably was never more than a vague generalisation of dubious worth!

[1] In classical music if you are in C major your primary notes are the C scale. In blues your starting point is often a C dominant 7, and you have in your toolbox E-flat (the minor 3rd), E (the major 3rd), B-flat (the dominant 7), and you even have access to the flatted fifth (G-flat in this case).
[2] These weren't in the musical vernacular at the time. So what blues did in my mind was bring in a certain ironic feeling, with a stronger rhythm than was common, and introduce all of these harmonic ambiguities or this harmonic freedom.

1. In ANY music, if you are in C Major then your primary notes are the C scale. If your primary notes are not the C scale, then you are not in C major. The confusion comes because blues is more closely related to ancient modes than to scales, although modes using the relatively new equal temperament tuning, which effectively makes the modes interchangeable with the notes found in modern scales (with the exception of the flattened, passing 5th). When analysed using traditional harmony, this accounts for the harmonic ambiguities you mention.

2. I don't think I'd have used the term "harmonic freedom" here, or implied that this freedom and "harmonic ambiguities" weren't in the musical vernacular at that time. The Blues still has very constrained harmonic rules and limited harmonic freedom, just somewhat different harmonic rules from say classical music of the Classical and early Romantic periods. But by the late Romantic period (starting roughly in the 1850's) the rules of traditional harmony were being bent/abused and by the late 1800's there were many pieces, even a whole genre (impressionism), which was entirely based on harmonic ambiguities. Trying to analyse most Debussy pieces for example is an utter nightmare because even though it sounds fairly normal tonally and perfectly acceptable/pleasant, it's actually just one ambiguous chord overlapping the next ambiguous from start to end. I think they made us harmonically analyse Debussy at conservertoire for no other reason except sadism! Here's an even more radical example from 1885 (Franz Liszt - Bagatelle sans Tonalite), which demonstrates more harmonic ambiguity and freedom than anything found in the Blues, and over the next 30 years classical music went even further and broke down ALL the rules of harmony and tonality. The blues never saw that level of harmonic ambiguity or freedom and even the wider Jazz world didn't really reach that point until some 60 years later.

G
 
Sep 10, 2018 at 12:07 PM Post #261 of 609
@castleofargh, here’s a suggestion. Put up three songs you like in at least a semi-serious way or that really make you feel good (hopefully both). Believe me, my musical taste ranges far and wide, and I think my tastes still have some plasticity, with obviously a couple of blind spots. I will listen to them carefully. I’ll tell you what I like about it musically, with brevity, and not with flowery emotions, as a piece of music. Doesn’t matter what it is. If I can pull some common threads out I’ll do that. If I can take this thread in that direction I will do that and you can see what you think.

If @bigshot has anything negative to say I will post the 5 worst synth noodling songs I can find over the course of searching for a period of 20 minutes. They will be inserted Individually, strategically and abruptly at critical points in the discussion. Retribution will be swift and devastating.
that's a super nice offer, but I can't do that. I've been honestly trying to think about it while watching my current playlist and not only I don't have 3 songs, I really disliked having to pit completely different stuff against one another to pick just 3.

please pretty please, do not stop posting Jazz or anything else for me. pleasing me is not the purpose of that topic. I shouldn't even be posting here(outside of moderation). those topics aren't for me, I don't even think about music like that. in the topic about posting our favorite line in a song I wrote "hakuna matata".
 
Sep 10, 2018 at 12:50 PM Post #262 of 609
1. Thanks. Your post made me smile. Technically if you apply strict classical definitions you are correct. But if I am at a jam session and I say let's play a blues in C, and I go soloing up and down the c major scale, everyone will look at me like I am an idiot. Not that I'm not, but they might start to catch on. I'm also aware of the flats and sharps converging over time but that's getting in the weeds. You are probably more aware of when that happened than I am, I am guessing with early keyboard instruments like the harpsichord so you didn't have a key for a c# and a D-flat. Also jazz is full of use of the ancient modes in soloing as a way of navigating chord changes to make the solos more interesting and creative. There are clever ways to use the modes to solo where a major or minor or blues scale wouldn't fit. And of course in songs like Impressions and So What people used Dorian all over the place. A little tiresome and simplistic for my taste but that's just me. If I ever have to hear Kind of Blue again I will scream. There's a Wynton Marsalis tune called Phryzzian Man where I think he is exploring the phrygian mode. Now that is cool. This is the type of thing where @bigshot and @castleofargh are probably feeling like they are having to work out a math problem when they listen. You can also listen for the different feelings coming from an uncommon mode. I was also aware of the Debussy stuff etc. and yes, you're right. I over-simplified. I actually thought about that as I was writing. Of course if you want to move to total chaos you can dip your feet into Ornette Coleman's Free Jazz, which is too much for even me to take, but the critics and academics have decided it is pure genious, Jackson Pollack painting on the cover and all.

2. The blues is pretty loose as far as the notes available to you in harmony or melody. Let's take the simple example of blues in C again. What note in the chromatic scale can I not play and have it sound good? Of course I can play a C. I can play a C# and have it resolve up or down a half step, or use it as a flat 9 which can sound good. Of course I can play a D. And I can use it in a chord as a suspended second or a ninth. An Eflat is the flatted third, a standard and essential part of the language. Whether a straight-up E or Eflat sounds best at a particular time takes experience and playing with others. I wouldn't know how to put it into an analysis or words. But there are times you might hit one or the other and just say, mmm, not so good. E can be hokey, Eflat can be too dissonant. I can use both in a chord, all kinds of rock and jazz musicians do it, C-E-G-Bflat-E-flat. Jimi Hendrix, crosstown traffic was it? Purple Haze? For sure, Wes Montgomery, four on six. F is fine, and I can use it as a suspended fourth or an 11th in a chord. G-flat (the flatted 5th) is one of the hallmarks of the blues, like the flatted 3rd, usually you want to resolve up or down a half step or you can stick on it just for the feel of it. The minor sixth or major sixth or flatted 7th, no problem. The major 7th, maybe I do a run from Bflat to B to C or vice versa, maybe I use it like a flatted third or flatted 5th and then resolve down to the B-flat to good effect. So what note can I not use in the chromatic scale to good effect in a C blues? This is the I chord in traditional blues, no fancy stuff. Can you say the same of the notes used against a C chord in the key of C in classical (before the rules broke down)?

Referenced Music:

Phryzzian Man--Early LP:



Older, mellowed out Wynton at Ronnie Scotts:

(I saw probably a hundred or more jazz concerts at Ronnie Scotts during my year in London in my teens--had a year pass, maybe it was a student pass, I don't remember, but it was cheap and I could just walk in and out except on weekends. The great acts usually stayed for one or two week stints so that was not a problem. Enough of that. Oh, and I saw Wynton Marsalis at his public coming-out with Dizzy Gillespie at the Kennedy Center way back when and got to talk to him once on an airplane. And Branford was very young and very immature at the time, and Wynton was your typical big brother--I thought, till I just looked up his age. I guess Wynton's just more serious and formal by disposition).



Free Jazz (help! somebody help me!)



Miles Davis So What (not again).



Free Jazz and Kind of Blue--two "classic" LPs where I beg to differ.:kissing_smiling_eyes:

Wes Montgomery, Four on Six--listen for the chord they hang on to the longest and loudest in the beginning.



Jimi Hendrix--Purple Haze--listen for the most dissonant chord-same chord as that chord in Four on Six (maybe transposed down a little, thinking about the way it sounded).



1. In ANY music, if you are in C Major then your primary notes are the C scale. If your primary notes are not the C scale, then you are not in C major. The confusion comes because blues is more closely related to ancient modes than to scales, although modes using the relatively new equal temperament tuning, which effectively makes the modes interchangeable with the notes found in modern scales (with the exception of the flattened, passing 5th). When analysed using traditional harmony, this accounts for the harmonic ambiguities you mention.

2. I don't think I'd have used the term "harmonic freedom" here, or implied that this freedom and "harmonic ambiguities" weren't in the musical vernacular at that time. The Blues still has very constrained harmonic rules and limited harmonic freedom, just somewhat different harmonic rules from say classical music of the Classical and early Romantic periods. But by the late Romantic period (starting roughly in the 1850's) the rules of traditional harmony were being bent/abused and by the late 1800's there were many pieces, even a whole genre (impressionism), which was entirely based on harmonic ambiguities. Trying to analyse most Debussy pieces for example is an utter nightmare because even though it sounds fairly normal tonally and perfectly acceptable/pleasant, it's actually just one ambiguous chord overlapping the next ambiguous from start to end. I think they made us harmonically analyse Debussy at conservertoire for no other reason except sadism! Here's an even more radical example from 1885 (Franz Liszt - Bagatelle sans Tonalite), which demonstrates more harmonic ambiguity and freedom than anything found in the Blues, and over the next 30 years classical music went even further and broke down ALL the rules of harmony and tonality. The blues never saw that level of harmonic ambiguity or freedom and even the wider Jazz world didn't really reach that point until some 60 years later.

G
 
Last edited:
Sep 10, 2018 at 1:55 PM Post #263 of 609
I'm going to take a rest from this thread for a bit. It's going way too fast and in too many different directions for me to have the time to follow it. It's enough to carve out the time to absorb 30 minutes of Sun Ra, but then I scroll down and there's six hours of videos of all kinds of music stacked up under it. If stuff is going to get thrown out that fast, I just can't do justice to processing it. I'll wait for the merry go round to slow down and I'll jump in again.
 
Sep 11, 2018 at 4:50 AM Post #264 of 609
[1] Technically if you apply strict classical definitions you are correct.
[2] Also jazz is full of use of the ancient modes in soloing as a way of navigating chord changes to make the solos more interesting and creative.
[2a] So what note can I not use in the chromatic scale to good effect in a C blues? This is the I chord in traditional blues, no fancy stuff. Can you say the same of the notes used against a C chord in the key of C in classical (before the rules broke down)?

1. True but then you are using strict classical definitions.

2. Again, I would be careful here. Using the ancient modes in "soloing and as a way of navigating chord changes" gives a certain flavour but as to being more harmonically interesting and creative, I can't really agree. With 12-bar Blues we're talking about an extremely simple chord progression, about as simple as it gets tbh. To make that extremely simple chord progression "more interesting and creative", blue notes, other accidentals and 7ths, 9ths, etc., are added/used as "decoration". However, we need to bare in mind that the system of modes was abandoned in classical music in the 1600's precisely because it was so harmonically restrictive! Simple chord progressions were just about all that was possible, even simple key modulations were problematic and complex modulations and modulation cycles were not possible at all. Rather than just decorating a simple chord progression to make it more interesting/creative/clever, which is effectively what 12-bar blues does, classical music invented the diatonic system which allowed far more complex harmonic progressions, modulations and structures to start with, which is arguably far more interesting/creative/clever.

2a. Following on from the previous point, "no", I can't generally "say the same of notes used against a C chord in the key of C in classical" music. However, there are three points to consider:
Firstly, a C chord would not generally last for long and a piece of classical music in the key of C wouldn't actually be in the key of C. It would be predominately in the key of C but would modulate several/numerous times into other keys, often visiting very distantly related keys or even completely unrelated keys via a series or cycle of modulations. We don't see anywhere near this number or complexity of key modulations in the Blues. Blue notes, 9ths and other accidentals/chromatic notes are pretty much exclusively "passing notes" in the Blues but that's not necessarily true with classical music because as we modulate through keys those 9ths and chromatic notes within the key of C are now the tonic, dominant, etc., of the different keys being visited.
Secondly, my "generally no" answer primarily applies specifically to the classical and early romantic periods, as I mentioned before. Before about 1750 we have the Baroque period and a very different style of composition (counterpoint). Counterpoint is characterised as thinking more horizontally than vertically, meaning that composers essentially created different melodies (technically called "subjects" and "counter subjects" or "answers"), this is the "horizontal thinking". These different subjects (melodies) were then played at the same time, creating harmony (and implied harmonies), this is the vertical thinking. As the horizontal thinking effectively took precedence, during the High Baroque period we commonly see harmonic ambiguity, chromatic passing notes, a great deal of "decoration" and dissonance (even more than we typically find in the Blues). Sometimes the subject or counter subject had to be modified to avoid really atrocious dissonances but commonly the strict rules of harmony were just bent a bit. This was the genius of JS Bach, who could have as many as 4 different melodies (subjects) all playing at the same time and it still made harmonic/tonal sense, albeit with some deliberate chromaticism and dissonance. This level of chromaticism and dissonance was massively reduced in the classical period, to reflect the different purpose of classical musical from the mid 1700's onwards, in response to the massive sea change in the socio-economic circumstances of audiences. Relatively quickly though (about 60 years), audiences got used to the sort of harmonic and structural perfection epitomised by Hayden and Mozart and we see the end of the classical period and the beginning of the Romantic era, which is epitomised by more emotionally evocative music and the use of surprise/shock tactics to entertain. This eventually leads back to more chromaticism and dissonance, as well as other tactics to tease and surprise audience expectation, such as the suspension (or prolonging) of resolution for example. I say all of this to illustrate the fact that when you effectively say "according to the strict rules of harmony" and "notes or devices which don't fit those harmonic rules", you're actually talking about a relatively small period within classical music. Outside of that period, both before and after, classical music didn't strictly adhere to those rules either, it bent them even more than the Blues does and therefore has more harmonic ambiguity and freedom!
Lastly, you say "before the rules broke down" but the rules broke down in classical music before there even was Jazz or the Blues. The "musical vernacular at the time" included pretty much anything harmonically in the classical world but this wasn't the case with contemporary (early) blues/jazz. By the first decade of the 1900's classical music had already moved on atonalism and therefore complete/total harmonic freedom and ambiguity. A level of harmonic freedom and ambiguity that the Blues never reached and that jazz only reached some 50-60 years later.

Your posted videos rather demonstrate my point. The Miles Davis, Wes Montgomery and Hendrix are fundamentally very harmonically simple, no more complex than Renaissance period classical music. However there are caveats, while Renaissance music also routinely employed suspensions and some harmonic ambiguity, some of the suspension types, uses of 9ths etc. and also importantly, the notes which are not used, are (along with rhythm and instrumentation of course) what makes Jazz sound obviously different from late Renaissance and early Baroque music. This doesn't mean that jazz is less "clever", "creative" or "harmonically free" than classical music or for that matter more so, just different. Another caveat would be Hendrix, which although is harmonically simple, this is not necessarily apparent due to distortion (and a playing style in combination with that distortion) which in effect blurs note pitches and therefore also the chords and harmony. This is an important point to consider because along with some of the more experimental pieces of the Beatles and some other artists in the mid/late 60's, he defined what became a plethora of later rock sub-genres. Which essentially were characterised by very simple harmonic compositions, made more interesting/indeterminate by the use of studio/instrument effects (such as distortion). The "odd one out" is the Ornette Coleman (free jazz), which has pretty much complete harmonic freedom and ambiguity. Again though, this is 1961, some 50+ years after complete harmonic freedom/ambiguity in classical music. It wouldn't really be fair to characterize it as 50 years behind classical music though, it's actually fairly contemporary with classical music, employing some of the same ideas of performance indeterminacy/freedom as demonstrated by classical music composers such as John Cage. Xenakis and others at the same time (mid/late 1950's onwards). Also, we're not really talking about the Blues any more but the much wider field of jazz, and in the case of Hendrix, not even really jazz any more.

G
 
Last edited:
Sep 11, 2018 at 11:25 AM Post #265 of 609
[deleted] I am just pulling back a little. I loved your post @gregorio, and thanks for taking the time. No worries. I am just letting you have the last word—not really in my DNA but I thought it best after considering things.
 
Last edited:
Sep 11, 2018 at 8:39 PM Post #266 of 609
[deleted] @bigshot , I was just saying I think it would be best to change the title in this thread to the Sound Science Music Discussion Thread and put in your explanation as worded in your prior post much word for word except not use the word theory. After thinking about it I don’t want a thread that people just say I like this or wow that’s great and it’s left at that. I think it would be nice that you make clear you would like people to explain what they like about the music or how it fits in with their broader view of that type of music or even music in general. I was just being a bit verbose and self-indulgent in my explanation. I am also hoping people who participated in the past will jump back in.
 
Last edited:
Sep 12, 2018 at 12:13 PM Post #267 of 609
I think it might also be better to post one video at a time. When there's as much as an hour of music in a day's post, it makes it hard to listen to all the videos. (I know I'm different than most people on the internet, but I actually click on the links and listen to the music.)
 
Sep 12, 2018 at 1:46 PM Post #268 of 609
I agree. Will do.

I think it might also be better to post one video at a time. When there's as much as an hour of music in a day's post, it makes it hard to listen to all the videos. (I know I'm different than most people on the internet, but I actually click on the links and listen to the music.)
 
Sep 12, 2018 at 8:30 PM Post #269 of 609
So we are on to the new Sound Science Music Discussion Thread format.

First, here is the music, with a transcription to follow along. It's Pat Martino's version of Both Sides Now:



This is a song I'm sure all of you have heard, Joni Mitchell's Both Sides Now, as made famous by Judy Collins during the time of the composition. The tune is as remarkable for its lyrics as it is for its music, but the tune is beautiful in and of itself, so I will leave it to you to ponder the lyrics. I'll post the lyrics at the end of this. Joni Mitchell has two versions of this song--the original on the album Clouds, I think (I don't really have time to go around fact-checking myself), with just her and an acoustic guitar, in her youth. And then there is a version of hers after many years had passed, on the album "Both Sides Now," and her voice was greatly altered over the years by age and smoking cigarettes, and it takes on quite a different tone. The two Joni Mitchell versions are really worth checking out, both are works of art to me. The newer Joni Mitchell version gives me goose bumps. It has strings and beautiful jazz sax and bass/synth and the singing is much more expressive, despite the change in voice, and has the wisdom of years in it.

The Judy Collins version is much more pop puffery but it's still nice. While I'm on things that are just sort of okay, I really dislike tab notation (see the stuff included below the treble clef notations). I have had people try to teach my kids stuff by tab notation, and I'm like no, write out the notes. I want them to learn to read music. There was a guy at my college who was great at bass and he got into the jazz band on the condition that he learn to read music pronto, and he did not, and so he was asked to leave, even though his talent and skill levels were really great.

Another thing about this piece to note is that what Pat Martino did here is not that hard to play for a good amateur guitarist. Playing it well is another story. There are versions on YouTube where people are playing it like, hey! I can play this the same way Pat Martino did! And my gut reaction is, go back and work on it some more! But Pat Martino's version here is original and beautiful by any standard, relatively easy to play or not. And his classic signature dark tone was part of his creative process, I'm sure. I've sat down and figured out my versions of songs I like from scratch (long lost in the mists of time I'm afraid) and then you're like, wow, I did that! The creative process for something like this isn't really about the musical technicalities, at least for me. It's about what do I want this to sound like.

My idols as guitarists were Pat Martino, Kenny Burrell, and Wes Montgomery, in no particular order, so here is one of them. One of Pat Martino's great influences was Wes Montgomery, but Pat Martino developed plenty of his own original techniques and sounds. Kenny Burrell was a peer of Wes Montgomery with a very beautiful tone and great chops. Duke Ellington said that Kenny Burrell was his favorite guitarist. So I will leave it to you guys to check out Kenny Burrell and Wes Montgomery at your leisure.

Pat Martino dropped out of music for a while and I had wondered where he'd gone. It turned out he had a brain aneurysm, lost a ton of his memory, and learned to play guitar again from listening to his own older recordings. This recording is pre-CVA performance. I think he sounds a little different now, as you might expect from someone who built back up from the ground up. But he is definitely back to being a world-class jazz guitarist. So if you think raw innate talent has nothing to do with this stuff think again. He has a post cerebrovascular event version of Both Sides Now as a duet with Cassandra Wilson which you can check out. To me his pre-CVA work was more sad. Now that's totally subjective. I wouldn't know how to describe why.

So with all of that background out of the way, I will turn to the transcription that is part of the YouTube video. As always, the transcription leaves out or cannot depict some of the subtleties of the performance. I would bet the house that Pat Martino made this arrangement up by ear in a period of deep inspiration and other people figured out how to write it down, because to me that is how the creative process for something like this goes on a guitar, at least as I relate to it.

So I won't go through the transcription page by page. The notes as written are orderly enough that I think maybe even someone who couldn't read music could follow along. You can get to hear what some jazz tones sound like. On page one you can hear what an A Major chord with a G in the bass sounds like (the pedal point G is not in the transcription but it's recognized in the notation "A/G"). That's the flatted 7th of the major chord in the bass. Dissonance but very pretty. He plays the A root in the bass in the first two measures and then descends the bass down to a G in the next measure to beautiful effect, as I remember hearing it. And then you have an F6 next, so you have the bass descending down one more whole step, which is a very soothing sound. You can get a couple measures of what a major 6th chord sounds like on the second page and then for several measures later in the piece, hanging on an F6 I think (I closed the transcription and am cleaning up my writing). In the last measure of page 3 you can get a quick glimpse of what a minor 7th chord sounds like and a A suspended 4th (A-C#-E-D) chord sounds like. On the fourth page at the beginning you can her another minor 7th chord (a minor chord with the seventh note of natural minor scale thrown in--a very basic chord in jazz and used in pop and R&B and jazz fusion a lot too) and then a more complex chord, an A7flat-9, the tones of the chord being A-C#-E-G-G#. So here you have three consecutive notes a half step apart (G-G#-A) (but spaced out). Lots of dissonance but very beautiful in the right setting, and great for the chance to modulate keys.

With all of that said, I think what you have is an extremely beautiful tune written by Joni Mitchell and an extremely beautiful arrangement by Pat Martino, and I doubt either was thinking too much about the musical technicalities of what they were doing while they were in the creative process, if at all.

And so ends my first post in the new style of the Sound Science Music Discussion Thread!

Corrections, clarifications, elaborations, disagreements, etc., are always welcome!


Both Sides Now

Joni Mitchell

Rows and flows of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere
I've looked at clouds that way

But now they only block the sun
They rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way

I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's cloud's illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all

Moons and Junes and ferries wheels
The dizzy dancing way you feel
As every fairy tale comes real
I've looked at love that way

But now it's just another show
You leave 'em laughing when you go
And if you care, don't let them know
Don't give yourself away

I've looked at love from both sides now
From give and take and still somehow
It's love's illusions I recall
I really don't know love at all

Tears and fears and feeling proud,
To say "I love you" right out loud
Dreams and schemes and circus crowds
I've looked at life that way

But now old friends they're acting strange
They shake their heads, they say I've changed
Well something's lost, but something's gained
In living every day.

I've looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all

I've looked at life from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all
 
Last edited:
Sep 12, 2018 at 8:39 PM Post #270 of 609
I think it might also be better to post one video at a time. When there's as much as an hour of music in a day's post, it makes it hard to listen to all the videos. (I know I'm different than most people on the internet, but I actually click on the links and listen to the music.)

Don't agree...:ksc75smile:

but...Will do...this One time

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top