When does thoery become reality?

[Garry Goodman]

Originally posted by RicPlaya
quote:
This is why it is essential to learn the nine chord families ,their horizontal counterparts-the corresponding scales , recognize how each of these chord families FUNCTION in a tune- either as a ii , a V or a I chord

I have no clue what this is?

It's modern harmony and theory in "a nutshell"
if I were starting over,I would find a way to simplify and condense harmony and theory.
The major scale is created by isolating ,or restricting tones from the chromatic scale. Two whole steps,a half step,three whole steps and then a half step is the "formula".You start on any note and by "measuring 1-1-1/2-1-1-1-1/2 , you always get the major scale. By starting a major scale on the 3rd degree, you create a phrygian mode.By starting the major scale on the 5th degree, you get the mixolydian mode.By starting the major scale on the 7th degree ,you get locrian.

If you pile the phrygian on top of it's major scale, the mixolydian on top of that,and the locrian on top of that , you have created the diatonic four part chords of that major scale


Ex.
locrian : b-c-d-e-f-g-a-b-

mixolydian g-a -b-c-d-e-f-g

phrygian; e-f-g-a-b-c-d-e


Major: c-d-e-f-g-a-b-c
I- ii-iii-iv- V-vi-vii

You have Cmaj7th ,the one (I) chord in the key of C ,and d minor 7 (ii mi7) the two (ii) chord in C major ,and G7 (V) the five chord .These are the definitive chords of C major. They are vertical results of stacking horizontal scales. These three chords are three of the nine chord families that define tonality. You don't have a tune without the ii-V-I "gravity."



ii or iv will lead to V7 and it always resolves to I. Some chord progression you must know are I-vi-ii-V7-I (cmaj-ami-dmi-g7-cmaj ) or iv-V7-I (f-g7-c) .

So if you learn all nine chord families,or vertical stacks ,the horizontal scales that stack up to make these chords, learn how each stack funtions (ii ,V or i) and recognize the function in a progression (i-vi-ii-V7-i) , you are grasping the essence of Theory.. What good is knowing modes and their names if 1) you can't identify them by ear, and 2) knowing how they relate to music theory?

Every bass note you play is part of a chord progression .Knowing chord progressions allows you to know what notes come next .The quality of the chord, a ii or a V or a i ,tells you what chord family you are currently playing through and what your harmonic choices are.
"This" is an overview of what it is you need to know.

 

[PhilMan99]

Originally posted by RicPlaya
quote:
This is why it is essential to learn the nine chord families ,their horizontal counterparts-the corresponding scales , recognize how each of these chord families FUNCTION in a tune- either as a ii , a V or a I chord

I have no clue what this is?

One of the approaches to bass-playing involves learning ALL the chords so you can do them "in your sleep with your eyes closed". Unless you're interested in knowing the letter names C-E-G-B, etc, it becomes similar to learning the scales/modes, except you focus more on the application of the chord tones (1-3-5, etc.), than practicing scale patterns. Naturally, remembering all the letter names (C-E-G-B, C#-E#-G#-B#, etc.) takes longer than just learning the patterns for all the chords. And just to confuse matters, there *IS* an E# and a B# in standard notation for some keys...

 

[BenHack]

Hey dudes

I thought I'd chime in here. RE the original question; theory can become relevant very early in your playing. If you have a basic idea of the root movement of the progression then a knowledge of theory can make your lines so much more expressive. You don't have to play jazz of fusion etc to be able to apply theory but it does help.

A good example is myself. I started studying jazz 2 years ago. While I had a resonable technical facility on the instrument I wasn't great. Since I've learnt theory I've played support for major local jazz bands and played with some amazing musicans. The most important thing is that my ear IS NOT GREAT but I've been able to do this. OBVIOUSLY having a good ear is going to help you immencely but for me it put a lot of useful notes in my grasp so I could use them straght away. I hope this helps

Ben

PS For anyone who cares I really want to train my ears to the point I can play what I currently can without needing a chord progression. Yeah baybeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[RicPlaya]

Thanks everyone!

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by Ninestring
You don't have a tune without the ii-V-I "gravity....


...ii or iv will lead to V7 and it always resolves to I...

These two statements, while well intentioned, go a bit too far. It is certainly possible to "have a tune" without having the "ii-V-I gravity", and V does not always lead to I.

 

[ole Jason]

I like resolving the V to a diminished chord built on the leading tone to end songs.

 

[Howard K]

If you hear a chord played on a cd, you should be able to say "that's and E13 (+11) with the Bb in the bass'" . When you hear a bass line ,or see it written ,it should be as easy as reading this and hearing the words spoken in your head. The 7 (+9) chord has a sound you've heard countless times, same with a 7 (b9) or a minor 7 (b5).

I agree, and I fully recognise the importance of having a finely tuned ear... But!!!

I can hear the average bassline and usually play it to a satisfactory standard, if not perfectly, within a few minutes, and I can figure out a chord progression from most pieces of popular music in much the same time... I can hear a basic turnaround etc etc
I cant hear a chord and tell you the precise tones and I've been playing nearly 14 years!

What you're describing is is a very high level of musicianship... and is probably scary as hell to someone just starting out! Maybe just recgonising major from minor would be a good start point!

All I'm saying is let's not scare the guy half to death! You dont have to be able to notate an extended chord by ear to be a great musician!!

...theory can become relevant very early in your playing. If you have a basic idea of the root movement of the progression then a knowledge of theory can make your lines so much more expressive.

Absolutley. A an understanding of root movement and what it actually is, how root movement makes a song work and therefore what the role of bass is is theory in itself!!!!
I'd say start at the beginning rather than jumping in at the deep end with frikkin Eb7b5+9 chords!!!

It is certainly possible to "have a tune" without having the "ii-V-I gravity", and V does not always lead to I.

So what?

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by Howard K


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is certainly possible to "have a tune" without having the "ii-V-I gravity", and V does not always lead to I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So what?

Perhaps you think I'm Freeloading on the works of others, and ignoring the Milestones of so many composers who used the "ii-V-I gravity" so well, but I'm not just being Black and Narcissistic here - when I look into my Infant son's Eyes, I see truths that go beyond so many pedantic declarations one may find in print. All one need do to escape the ii-V-I gravity is to embark on the Maiden Voyage of jazz past 1950, and one can Naima quite a large number of tunes devoid of this gravity.

Anyway, those are just my Impressions...

 

[Howard K]

No no, I actually meant so what?


Show off

 

[Garry Goodman]

Everything is ii-V-I in tonal music. If that is scary,SO WHAT? It doesn't get any more basic than that." So What?" is not helping this guy with theory.

All that JAZZ in the 1950's all the abstractness still had funtion.that defines the music's emotional contour. When those musicians do other gigs, do you think they ever play a d mimor 7 or a G7 or a C major 7? Every song on the radio has a ii or a V or a I chord being played at any given moment

ii-V-I is the definition of a key area.it also represents motion, peak and resolution. all of abstract stuff has those elements


The thread was dealing with learning theory.The guy starting the thread didn't mention 1950 and later abstract modern jazz.

my earlier post does break down theory to it's most basic elements. Although it is limited to major tonality,it is a simple as it gets.It's what you need to extract from any theory book.I posted what I did because it's saying theory isn't scary.it is simple,easy and you can do it.

if I were to start over learning theory,I would first determine what my musical goals are. If you want to show up to every audition, gig,rehearsal etc. and know everything that is being played instantly,learn theory .

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by Ninestring

Every song on the radio has a ii or a V or a I chord being played at any given moment...

You don't have a tune without the ii-V-I "gravity."...


ii or iv will lead to V7 and it always resolves to I....

I'm not trying to argue your basic points, only your persistent use of absolutes. The things you mention are very common, but they are musical tendencies, not absolutes. BTW, the local classical music station is playing Bartok's "Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celeste" at the moment...not to rain on your parade, but I don't hear any ii-V-I's in there.

All I'm saying is that it's probably best not to speak of music in terms of absolutes, since to do so is inherently false (as the exceptions to the rules tend to prove).

SO WHAT? It doesn't get any more basic than that." So What?" is not helping this guy with theory.

It's helping the young gentleman in question quite a bit if he learns that it is also possible to write and perfrom great music that doesn't conform to "the rules". In my opinion, of course.

 

[Garry Goodman]

Every chord Bartok wrote functions as a 11 , a V or a I. That's what happens with the 12 tone system.

For anything anyone is going to do ,any style ,era,artist-you can't escape tonal law.


Every piece of musi -unless it is Harry Partch or Xenoxis and using 31 tones per octave or Jusat intonation follows basic. chord function.

It is as absolute as the law of gravity-and 99% of any good to excellent musicians know this.

I'd like to get you you in the studio with the guys I do TV and Film sesions with and see how your concept holds up.

I was a student of Dick Grove,Jamie Faunt and Chic Corea and went throughJamie Abersold's Books just to name a few. Why don't you contact them,and tell them theory is not absolute?

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by Ninestring
Every chord Bartok wrote functions as a 11 , a V or a I. That's what happens with the 12 tone system.


No offense, but in my opinion that statement is completely wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. For one thing, Bartok didn't write 12-tone music, although he did write quite a bit of non-serial atonality. What he often did was to turn the "rules" of consonance and dissonance on their heads as regards counterpoint when he felt like it. Beyond that, he claims in his writings and interviews (and I tend to believe him) that he simply wrote what he heard. Now, if you want to listen to his 4th string quartet and point out how each vertical sonority is functioning as a ii, a V, or a I, be my guest...but you'll be hard pressed to convince many folks who know his music well to agree with your take on his harmony, and harder pressed to keep these same folks from laughing at the notion.

Also, to suggest that the serialists of the second Viennese school who actually did write serial music (i.e. - Schoenberg, Anton Webern, and to a lesser extent, Alban Berg) were really writing nothing more than a bunch of ii, V, and I chords is - in my opinion - one of the more ludicrous statements I've heard in recent memory. But suit yourself.

For anything anyone is going to do ,any style ,era,artist-you can't escape tonal law.

So if you try to escape it, the music police will come and get you? You'd better send 'em over in droves to Africa then - before the European folks got there, all known indigenous African music contained only incidental harmony, and not too much of that - and it sure wasn't "ii-V-I", either. Sounds like the Chorale Cops have got some serious work ahead of them if they want to enforce this law. While you're at it, send a couple of platoons over to India too, so they can clean up all of the traditional non-westernized musicians over there who stubbornly keep ignoring these "absolute laws of gravity".


Every piece of musi -unless it is Harry Partch or Xenoxis and using 31 tones per octave or Jusat intonation follows basic. chord function.

It is as absolute as the law of gravity-and 99% of any good to excellent musicians know this.

I disagree. Strongly. Send one of the boys in blue out to get me... I confess!

I'd like to get you you in the studio with the guys I do TV and Film sesions with and see how your concept holds up.

I'd like that too. I suspect I'd do just fine, since I never claimed that I can't or don't play tonal music and/or traditional jazz...I'm only saying that there's more out there than that if you care to look for it.


I was a student of Dick Grove,Jamie Faunt and Chic Corea and went throughJamie Abersold's Books just to name a few. Why don't you contact them,and tell them theory is not absolute?

Name dropping now? Oh, that's lovely. In the first place, that's a pretty cheesy way to bolster your point...you "went through Jamie Aebersold's Books just to name a few?". Yes, and so have half the high school jazz players in the country, as those are useful books if you use them right. In the second place, Chick spells his first name with a "K" on the end, and Jamey uses "ey" instead of "ie". In the third place, Jamey will be the first one to tell you that theory is not absolute, and that you should play what you hear rather than what you THINK...I've heard him say it many times.

Look, I teach theory for a living, so I'll be the last one to come out and say that it's useless. But to say that all V7 chords do such and such, or that Bartok's quartets are really just a bunch of ii-V-I's because everything is all about ii, V, and I is just plain absurd. The only reason I posted here in the first place in response to your posts (much of which I find very helpful) was to point out that your points would be better served by claiming that most______ chords TEND to resolve ______ way. Once you do that, the statements are entirely reasonable. But as it is, many of these claims are completely unsupportable. You want me to name 20 instances where a V7 chord does not resolve directly to I? That would be pretty easy, no matter what style we were talking about.

 

[Howard K]

Everything is ii-V-I in tonal music. If that is scary,SO WHAT? It doesn't get any more basic than that."
So What?" is not helping this guy with theory

"So what" was a pun, kind of like a joke!

You see, it doesnt have the standard II-V-I (Although, could you say that the semi-tone drop in the root simulates a resolve based on a tritone sub of the V, so the Eb-7 acts as a bII to teh D-7 as an i chord - ???)

Anyway, the name of the song is the joke, "so what", do you see?

So What?" is not helping this guy with theory

IMO, neither does telling a guy is just starting out on theory that:

If you hear a chord played on a cd, you should be able to say "that's and E13 (+11) with the Bb in the bass'".

That's just over the top and unneccessary at this stage, IMO of course.

I was a student of Dick Grove,Jamie Faunt and Chic Corea and went through Jamie Abersold's Books just to name a few. Why don't you contact them,and tell them theory is not absolute?

Well I've heard of Chick Corea, but not Dick Grove or Jamie Faunt... and I'm working my way through some Aebersold books right now as it happens!

Anyway, I play with my my mate Dave almost every week, except when his Mrs makes him do DIY, and he knows loads of theory and stuff and he says you're wrong

 

[cowsgomoo]

interesting discussion!

and I don't want to derail it (too much), but it got me wondering your thoughts on whether harmonic relations such as ii-V-I are learnt, or something we're naturally attuned to

I can see the possibility we emerge from the womb with an innate feel for tension & resolution (a big part of it is pure physics.. wave interaction etc)

but at the same time, we've all listened to music from other cultures and sometimes the harmonic language just isn't something you can compute - but people born & raised in that culture appear to dig it right away

I know one can increase one's harmonic vocabulary to the point where once-tenuous relationships can make sense (exactly why some jazz can sound like 'a bunch of out of tune nonsense' to people who don't know the idiom) but surely the basics of harmony like ii-V-I are stuff people 'get' immediately? aren't they?

nature or nurture?

 

[Howard K]

nature or nurture?

Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

 

[Garry Goodman]

Ok-so you don't work alot. So I suggest you pick the last 1000 top teh hits,film scores ,jingles, production music libraries or any musi other than the obscure,isolated music you have mentioned and show me where a one,two or five chord hasn't been played,

Do you guys ever do "gigs;"? Are you telling me the music never has a two or five or one chord ?

Who cares how someone spells their name, you know who I mean-the guy who started this thread-if he was going in the direction of Berg,or Schoenberg or Stravinsky-would he be on Talk bass asking for input ? Any electric bass player alive knows that the electric bass is used in pop, jazz,shows , etc. not 20th century orchestral music.

Once again- everything in popular music: the songs on the radio which include Country,R& B, Rock, Funk,Jazz, Broadway musicals, N'Sync, Brittany Spears, Stevie Wonder or Elvis or Frank Sinatra or ten thousand other recording artist rely on ii-V-I. Every song you play on a gig does.

It is what makes music work. It's what you guys who want to learn theory must know.

Once again:

There are 9 vertical chord stacks or chord families. They cover the major and minor keys.each of the 9 chord families funtion as a ii or a V or a i chord. These functions end up having 119 chord progressions which you have heard a million times.The vertical stacks have horizontal scales thaat work as a melody and solo source for the chor stacks. The chord progressions fit into phttases, 2,4,8,16etc. The phrases fit into a song form such as A,A,B,A or verse/chorus. Styles of music determine the 'feel" and groove. Rhumba,Rock ,Cha Cha,swing,Punk, alternative all use the same elements. There is quarter,eigth,sixteen and triplet feels. either you can play anything and read anything,or you musically are illiterate.

This is the real stuff that any real musicians know and rely on. why try so hard to make me look like an idiot when it's not me,but reality you are fighting ? This isn't my idea, but thousands of pros who do this all the time.

 

[Slot]

I agree with Chris here 100%

To say that all V7 chords resolve is a severely flawed statement.

You only have to look at a jazz 12 bar blues to see that dominant chords can also be used soley as a tonal flavour. Not just as a pivot point for a dominant resolution.

And ive lost count of the amount of funk songs ive played on that have had the progression: 1V7---|2V7--- (c7, d7)...........No dominant resolution there either, just a tonal flavour that many musicians enjoy.

The mathematics of music are an extremely helpful composition tool, and imo should be learnt by everyone. Only laziness prevents this from happening .......But without rules being broken, there would never be any progression

 

[Howard K]

Ok-so you don't work alot.So I suggest you pick the last 1000 top teh hits,film scores ,jingles, production music libraries or any musi other than the obscure,isolated music you have mentioned and show me where a one,two or five chord hasn't been played,

I dont work at all! I'm an amateur! I suppose that makes my opinion less valid, oh well

Are you telling me the music never has a two or five or one chord ?

Not at all. Just that not ALL music uses a II-V-I. Hence "So What"!

Every song you play on a gig does.

What, every single one? Surley not?!

 

[Garry Goodman]

Originally posted by cowsgomoo
interesting discussion!

and I don't want to derail it (too much), but it got me wondering your thoughts on whether harmonic relations such as ii-V-I are learnt, or something we're naturally attuned to

I can see the possibility we emerge from the womb with an innate feel for tension & resolution (a big part of it is pure physics.. wave interaction etc)

but at the same time, we've all listened to music from other cultures and sometimes the harmonic language just isn't something you can compute - but people born & raised in that culture appear to dig it right away

I know one can increase one's harmonic vocabulary to the point where once-tenuous relationships can make sense (exactly why some jazz can sound like 'a bunch of out of tune nonsense' to people who don't know the idiom) but surely the basics of harmony like ii-V-I are stuff people 'get' immediately? aren't they?

nature or nurture?

This is why I ask,what is your musical goal. I post here because i want to make a point. If you can't play something and anticipate where it;s going next the instant you here it,you are not enjoying the language of music. It is satisfying to play a song you don't know, but can play it anyway because you hear where it is going. It's like going to Japan ,and speaking and understanding Japanese. If you want to be a bass player then you have to consider these concepts. The same goes for sight reading. And I ask "what are your musical goals? ". If it is to work professionally ,knowing this stuff is a must.

Theory isn't hard,or scarey. -I will help anyone who wants to learn theory as it applies to modern music. If you find theory to be overwhelming,send me an email and I will help you/