[Dixielandjazz] Re: Dixielandjazz digest, Vol 1 #262 - 16 msgs

[DWSI@aol.com]

--part1_2d.24ae7a7c.2ad576eb_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dan Spink wrote:
Do we really need that kind of analysis? I think Dixieland and early Jazz was 
loved because it was pure, heartfelt, fun and open music. No hiding behind 
funny dissonance's."

Paul Edgerton then wrote:
I say we do. Do any of you listen to recordings and then try to copy what you 
hear? That's a kind of analysis. Do you ever try to play a familiar song in a 
different key? That requires understanding the function of the chords and 
their relationship to the melody notes. Both of these things are a lot easier 
to do if you the time to analyze this stuff.

Of course when you're playing, you concentrate on the feeling, but it always 
helps to have a big harmonic vocabulary. That's one of the things that 
separate the great players from the merely pedestrian.

I'm not specifically picking on Dan, but it really bugs me when I hear people 
suggesting that analysis has nothing to do performing jazz. That is simply 
wrong. I guarantee that the players you all admire know this stuff, in their 
ears and fingers if not in their words. All of the nomenclature and "rules" 
are there to simplify understanding and talking about the music. The music 
comes first, then the analysis. Capische?

Paul Edgerton 

Now Dan Spink writes back:

Paul, I don't disagree with you, but I prefer a slightly different 
perspective on chords.
The chord's function is determined by both the ROOT relationship in the key 
(as you indicated with your C root in the key of F example) and by chord TYPE 
which is defined by the kind of thirds added to the root.

As to chord VOICING which is what we get into when we talk about adding or 
dropping tones, I have to say that the third has to be dropped sometimes if 
it conflicts with the 11th going augmented or diminished. After all, the 2 is 
the same note as the 11 an octave apart. But the real question is what sounds 
rich and not jarring in the final voicing? There are many ways to play the 
different tones. 

You got me to drag out my old Popular and Jazz Harmony text by Daniel A. 
Ricigliano (a friend of mine too). I thought you might find this summary 
interesting.
(Quote) 
The major thirteenth is usually added to the dominant seventh chord, placed a 
ninth above the fifih of the chord and supported by the seventh and ninth, 
and if the thirteenth includes an augmented or perfect eleventh. BUT, if the 
seventh and ninth are unaltered, they may be omitted. If both are omitted you 
then have a triad with a 13th which is really just a sixth. Right?

If I see a 13th chord symbol on a lead sheet I rarely assume it ALSO contains 
the ninth or 11th as well, although I might try it for sound. In practice 
it's often just another way of saying add a sixth, higher up. 

In reality, there is no good way to indicate voicing, beyond writing it out. 
The common attempt made is to show a bass note indicated for the chord; e.g., 
Gmaj7 with B in the bass. BUT when you do take voicing into account, the 
whole picture changes sometimes. It is then that you decide to sometimes drop 
certain intervals that you don't need or want in the sound, despite what the 
text books says about the rules of chord making. In this regard, I was always 
impressed with Scott Joplin's indication of a dominant seventh chord in the 
Entertainer, using only two notes. I tried playing it with more notes and 
fewer notes and it never sounded the same. He knew what he was doing.

Sorry if I'm repeating some of the newsletters of the past with my comments. 
My excuse is I'm the new kid on the block (although I don't look that new). 

Finally, when I ask, "do we need this kind of analysis?" I'm not against 
analysis, I just think it should be to understand what happened rather than 
to dictate rules of what we should play. I also hesitate getting into all the 
analysis stuff because I've found (by playing Dixieland mostly) that any song 
can be made to sound okay in any style mainly by playing around with chords. 
This often leads to "modernizing" some of the old great songs to their 
distinct disadvantage (in my opinion); e.g., I just don't want to hear Bill 
Bailey played as Bop with flatted fifths, or the  12th Street Rag played as 
hip hop. I've heard some official jazz teachers call my kind of music (rag 
and Dixie) boring while praising the steady 4 - 4 beat of the modern stuff 
which to me is as exciting as listening to water dripping.

Anyway,  I think we'll agree to most of what we're talking about. The 
differences are allowed to live on, I hope in more and better individuality 
of expression. 

All the best,

Dan (piano fingers) Spink




For one thing, I know we would agree that popular music sheets (and fake 
sheets) are horrible at defining harmony correctly. The publishers are always 
trying to make it look easy to play, and in so doing destroy much of the 
interesting subtly.
 
The 



--part1_2d.24ae7a7c.2ad576eb_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>Dan Spink wrote:<BR>
Do we really need that kind of analysis? I think Dixieland and early Jazz was loved because it was pure, heartfelt, fun and open music. No hiding behind funny dissonance's."</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
Paul Edgerton then wrote:<BR>
</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">I say we do. Do any of you listen to recordings and then try to copy what you hear? That's a kind of analysis. Do you ever try to play a familiar song in a different key? That requires understanding the function of the chords and their relationship to the melody notes. Both of these things are a lot easier to do if you the time to analyze this stuff.</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Of course when you're playing, you concentrate on the feeling, but it always helps to have a big harmonic vocabulary. That's one of the things that separate the great players from the merely pedestrian.</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">I'm not specifically picking on Dan, but it really bugs me when I hear people suggesting that analysis has nothing to do performing jazz. That is simply wrong. I guarantee that the players you all admire know this stuff, in their ears and fingers if not in their words. All of the nomenclature and "rules" are there to simplify understanding and talking about the music. The music comes first, then the analysis. Capische?</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Paul Edgerton</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Now Dan Spink writes back:<BR>
<BR>
Paul, I don't disagree with you, but I prefer a slightly different perspective on chords.<BR>
The chord's function is determined by both the ROOT relationship in the key (as you indicated with your C root in the key of F example) and by chord TYPE which is defined by the kind of thirds added to the root.<BR>
<BR>
As to chord VOICING which is what we get into when we talk about adding or dropping tones, I have to say that the third has to be dropped sometimes if it conflicts with the 11th going augmented or diminished. After all, the 2 is the same note as the 11 an octave apart. But the real question is what sounds rich and not jarring in the final voicing? There are many ways to play the different tones. <BR>
<BR>
You got me to drag out my old <U>Popular and Jazz Harmony</U> text by Daniel A. Ricigliano (a friend of mine too). I thought you might find this summary interesting.<BR>
(Quote) <BR>
The major thirteenth is usually added to the dominant seventh chord, placed a ninth above the fifih of the chord and supported by the seventh and ninth, and if the thirteenth includes an augmented or perfect eleventh. BUT, if the seventh and ninth are unaltered, they may be omitted. If both are omitted you then have a triad with a 13th which is really just a sixth. Right?<BR>
<BR>
If I see a 13th chord symbol on a lead sheet I rarely assume it ALSO contains the ninth or 11th as well, although I might try it for sound. In practice it's often just another way of saying add a sixth, higher up. <BR>
<BR>
In reality, there is no good way to indicate voicing, beyond writing it out. The common attempt made is to show a bass note indicated for the chord; e.g., Gmaj7 with B in the bass. BUT when you do take voicing into account, the whole picture changes sometimes. It is then that you decide to sometimes drop certain intervals that you don't need or want in the sound, despite what the text books says about the rules of chord making. In this regard, I was always impressed with Scott Joplin's indication of a dominant seventh chord in the Entertainer, using only two notes. I tried playing it with more notes and fewer notes and it never sounded the same. He knew what he was doing.<BR>
<BR>
Sorry if I'm repeating some of the newsletters of the past with my comments. My excuse is I'm the new kid on the block (although I don't look that new). <BR>
<BR>
Finally, when I ask, "do we need this kind of analysis?" I'm not against analysis, I just think it should be to understand what happened rather than to dictate rules of what we should play. I also hesitate getting into all the analysis stuff because I've found (by playing Dixieland mostly) that any song can be made to sound okay in any style mainly by playing around with chords. This often leads to "modernizing" some of the old great songs to their distinct disadvantage (in my opinion); e.g., I just don't want to hear Bill Bailey played as Bop with flatted fifths, or the&nbsp; 12th Street Rag played as hip hop. I've heard some official jazz teachers call my kind of music (rag and Dixie) boring while praising the steady 4 - 4 beat of the modern stuff which to me is as exciting as listening to water dripping.<BR>
<BR>
Anyway,&nbsp; I think we'll agree to most of what we're talking about. The differences are allowed to live on, I hope in more and better individuality of expression. <BR>
<BR>
All the best,<BR>
<BR>
Dan (piano fingers) Spink<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
For one thing, I know we would agree that popular music sheets (and fake sheets) are horrible at defining harmony correctly. The publishers are always trying to make it look easy to play, and in so doing destroy much of the interesting subtly.<BR>
 <BR>
The <BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_2d.24ae7a7c.2ad576eb_boundary--