Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner - Non Classical Fake book question

I started learning to play from fake books (can't do the real thing, so I settle for the fake stuff )

Here is this measure from a simple melody in 4/4 with 4 quarter notes (B B C B) with the following chord symbols above each note, respectively: G7 G#dim E+ E7.

How would you handle that? I can play each chord below each RH note, but is that good? I play ballad style, but trying that here with 4 chords in one measure seems odd. In case you want to know, this is a portion from Aura Lee where it says Sunshine came a long, with the word "long" in the next measure. How would you personally approach this? Ignore the chords and do something else? Play only some notes of each chord? Shift some of the notes from each chord to the melody and play some chosen chord for the entire measure? Any ideas?

Play all the four chords, but try to find a good voicing. You haven't to play each note of the chords but only the ones that could sound good . Try to play in spread position (I don't know if it's correct in English in Italian we call that "parti late"), dropped position ecc...
E+ E7 comes from the melody, so you can keep E7 without the fifth and let the melody play.

You get that sort of thing a lot in fakebooks -- there's an original set of fully-elaborated left-hand notes which make sense when played on the piano, but when translated to strict chords makes little sense.

The solution here, if it's practical, is to look at the original score (if there is one). I strongly doubt that the composer intended the chords G7/G#dim/E+/E7 to be played one after the other, and in root position -- that would sound horrible.

Lacking the score, I guess you'll have to reverse-engineer the original harmony as best you can, by trying out the marked chords in different inversion, probably with a bit of flexibility in the exact notes, until you find a pattern that works.

For example, if you play G7 as G-B-D-F', then you can move the bass to G# and thus play the G#dim as G#-B-D-F', then change the D to C (natural) to give you E+ (probably releasing the F), then move the C to a D to give you E7.

That's the complete progression with only one finger change between chords But it's just guesswork, and I'd have to sit at my piano and fiddle about to find out if there's a nicer way to do it.

Thanks alberto, I understand what you are saying and it makes sense, but see below for my main dilemma.



Do composers write chords for fake books? Or is it someone's interpretation of the composer's original score? My impression (and I'm new to all of this) is that someone with a good ear picks out the melody and assigns his/her own chords as he/she sees fit, is this about right?

What I'm hoping to discover is that the way to play from a fake book, is that you simply play the melody and use the chords to play your own left hand style, whatever that might be. But as I go through these series of chords it looks like there is no way to play your LH style by adhering to those chords! In other words, it seems that the chords may improve the harmony, but a steady rhythm seems to go out the window!

It depends -- sometimes the author will just work out reasonable chords based on listening and a good understanding of functional harmony. Other times, he or she will try to interpret another score. Or some combination of these approaches is used. I don't think this is usually done by composers, whether it's modern music or ancient, but by editors. Fakebooks vary enormously in their ability to capture subtle harmonies, and sometimes being over-zealous here can be counter-productive.

In the end, the performer has to use some judgement when interpreting fakebooks, and that only comes with practice. In my view, trying to play four, four-note chords in the left hand, in root position, when they're only a semi-quaver apart is likely to sound odd, rhythmically and harmonically. And if you're doing this prima vista you don't have time to experiment with different chord voicings. With a lot of practice, you might be able to revoice the chords on the fly with reasonable results, but otherwise you'll have to be content with getting the essential features of the harmony down.

The G#dim worries me. Are you sure it isn't a misprint?

I think there are basically just two chords in this bar, G and E. The bass line could pleasantly walk down to E via F natural. E+ merely reminds us that the melody is C, before resolving to a plainer E chord with the D.

So - LH: G,G,F,E. Something quite simple in the RH I think - perhaps just 2-note chords: BD,BD,CE,GD. Is a G# essential in the E chords? I think not, but try it both ways and see what you prefer!

What you DON'T need (and what you very rarely DO need when playing piano) is RH; melody, LH: block chord. I suggest you get some elementary piano books and discover some simple textures that work well. You say you "can't do the real thing". Rubbish! Change that attitude to "I haven't yet worked much at doing it properly, but I will!" Good luck, and do let us know how you get along.

Yes, a G# is essential. It is the 3rd of the chord.

Yup, I know that by the theory book an E major chord isn't fully defined without a G#. But play the voicing I suggested, and I'm sure you'll agree it sounds fine without one, while still managing to strongly imply the E chord. Sometimes melodic voice leading and maintaining a consistent texture is more important than filling in every note of a chord.

Thanks everyone again. I'll try Exalted Wombat suggestion onr sticking to two-note chords sometimes.

What I'm looking for (and hoping to find) is that there would be an automatic way of playing these chords so that you don't have to take a paper and pencil and plot a way to conveniently play each chord, and make it easy to play before and after each chord. I know this is all about voicing, which I'm now just beginning to study, but it does look like quite a long journey!

I don't think there is. Playing from fakebooks, particularly prima vista is something that takes a lot of experience and practice to make a good job of.

My experience is that it's much easier to learn to make a tolerable job of playing from fakebooks -- if you have a good ear a good memory you can make progress quite quickly. And if you're accompanying, or playing in a band, that may be all that's needed. But to make a really good job of playing form a fake book isn't necessarily any easier, in my experience, than learning `proper' sight-reading from a score.

I don't think there is. Playing from fakebooks, particularly prima vista is something that takes a lot of experience and practice to make a good job of.

My experience is that it's much easier to learn to make a tolerable job of playing from fakebooks -- if you have a good ear a good memory you can make progress quite quickly. And if you're accompanying, or playing in a band, that may be all that's needed. But to make a really good job of playing form a fake book isn't necessarily any easier, in my experience, than learning `proper' sight-reading from a score.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying here. After learning the basic fakebook reading recipe through Sudnow, I am now spending a good deal of time listening to solo ballad playing. Listening in a way that I have never listened before. It's all there in the music. We just have to know how to put those sounds into our own play. It's an adventure, to say the least.

I know the OP on this thread is into ballads. I would like to recommend a solo piano album that I am really enjoying -- Keith Jarrett's "Melody at Night, With You". I recently downloaded the CD. You can hear snippets of the songs here:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-music&field-keywords=melody+at+night+with+you++jarrett&x=0&y=0

Barb

Thanks Barb, but you know my opinion of Keith Jarrett, and you want me listen to him? I'll do it just for you

Yes, MiM, I know you don't care for Jarrett's grunting and body movements, but, this album will shock you. Yes, please take a listen, just for me , and tell me what you think.

It becomes automatic with practice and experience. You glance at a chord progression, recognize the patterns and your fingers go to the right place. Rather like sight-reading full notation.

Work at reading and playing from full notation. It's easier - you're told exactly what to do. When you're fluent playing other people's arrangements, you'll be better equipped to create your own. Whoever told you playing from a lead sheet is EASIER was lying :-)

Great thread here. I am glad the truth is finally coming out regarding the myth that fakebook reading is easier than playing from full notation. I don't feel you need to be a very good reader of those full notation arrangements, though. Just having some experience at the piano -- covering Alfred's Adult Level 1 should get you to the point of starting a journey into fakebook playing.

So as not to add confusion to an already confusing subject, I would like to clarify what I said above:

myth that fakebook reading is easier than playing from full notation.

What I am talking about is the learning process for both fakebook reading and reading from full notation. Both are skills that take a lot of work.

BUT -- and here is the kicker -- Now that I do read from the fakebook, I avoid doing any reading of full scores. For me, it is much easier to play from the fakebook. I proved this to myself by playing and recording on my digital piano. I made a printout of what I played. I almost fell over looking at the printout. There was no way I would be able to tackle what I had played if given the full notation to read. Has anyone else found this to be true?

Barb

This makes sense as is and it appears (without knowing the tune) that you have to pay attention to the melody and the chord quality being modified by these chords. In ballads in particular, it is best to play all the noted chords for some inner movement.

Going back to this particular music, note that between G7 and G#dim, you are being asked to keep the 3rd of the chords constant, while providing bass movement (G to G#). What it is doing here is obviously modulating to a different key and G#dim is one of those ways it is done.

So B (3rd) stays put while moving the bassline to G# begins the transition to the key of E.

Then the melody note is the 5th of the next two chords. E+ has a 5th of C and then it moves down to B as the 5th of E7.

In both sets of chords some parts of the voicing moves while the others remain constant. This is very typical and that's how these are analyzed.

So as far as what is important to voice, obviously the roots are important here as they are key to the modulation. In the first two chords (G, G#), all you need to worry about are the 7ths since the 3rds are handled by the melody.

The E chords will need the 3rd to clarify the chord qualities.

Note something interesting here: the G# stays constant for 3 beats. You might see if that can be the bottom note all throughout for voice leading (trial and error here since it all depends on the melody).

At the bare minimum in leadsheets, you attempt to define the 7th and 3rd of the chord if the melody doesn't state it. And then you define 5th of chords when you get into cases of +5 or b5.

I will sit at the piano and re-read your post jazzwee, as i think you raised some very interesting points...thanks.

Jazzwee - can you refer to the actual melody under discussion - "Aura Lee"? It's easy to find, and is of a simple folk-tune type. I think you'll be as bemused by the G#dim as I was, though if you can find a justification for it, please share!

Not sure how you read the G# in E+, E7 as signalling a modulation to E major? If it was taking us anywhere it would probably be A minor. But in this case there's no modulation, just a simple progression firmly within the key of G. G,E7,Am7,D7,G (or even Bm7,Bb9,A9,Ab7,G) doesn't modulate to any new key, they're all chords functioning in the key of G.

[quote=Swingin' For me, it is much easier to play from the fakebook. I proved this to myself by playing and recording on my digital piano. I made a printout of what I played. I almost fell over looking at the printout. There was no way I would be able to tackle what I had played if given the full notation to read. Has anyone else found this to be true?

Barb [/quote]


Oh yes!!!!! For me, absolutely.

fingers

Wombat, I don't know the tune. Don't even know where this particular snippet comes from. Did I say where it was modulating to? If so I misspoke. However, even in your example, even if it went to E7 for a beat, it has in fact modulated. Though perhaps returning. E7 does not belong in the G scale as you know.

Glad to hear I am not alone in my exuberance over this way of making music. For me, it is the ONLY way!

Jazzwee - Remember Elvis Presley singing Love Me Tender back in the dark ages? That song is based on the melody of Aura Lee.

You feel that one chromatic chord implies a modulation? C,C#dim,Dm7,G7. Do we ever leave the key of C?

You're right. In your example the tonal center is still C.

E7 in the key of G is often used as a secondary dominant as in a progression of E7, A7, D7, G.

IMO, if it doesn't establish a new tonal center, it is not called a modulation.

I believe that whole doctoral dissertations have been written on this point alone

Sure. If you asked me to accompany a singer in a piece of music that was completely unfamiliar to me, there's no doubt I'd make a better job of it with a lead sheet rather than a score.

The problem is that now that I can play from a score tolerably well, I realise that the composed harmony nearly always [/i]sounds better[/i] than I can make up on the fly using a lead sheet. This doesn't hugely surprise me -- a composer working at leisure ought to be able to produce a more convincing harmonic accompaniment than I can do on the hoof.

The better I get at prima vista sight reading, the more I find the lead sheet method unsatisfactory

Kevin – I see where you are coming from. I play solo piano and just love the creativity that fakebook reading allows. I enjoy working up my own arrangements – experimenting with different harmonies, voicings, and movement techniques. I‘m still a baby with this stuff.

By reading these threads, I see that we each find our own niche where we feel most comfortable musically. It is great that there are so many ways to have fun at the piano. The trick is for each of us to find that path that will lead to all this fun.

Barb

You define it your own way guys, if it makes you happy. If you happen to be soloing on this changes, even if the E7 is there for a microsecond, YOU HAVE TO USE A DIFFERENT SCALE. So to say it is not a modulation is fine for you. But to a soloist, the applicable scale will be different.

With this kind of logic, I can name you many tunes with dominants changing every two beats going at 300 bpm. What are you going to play then in a solo? Stick to the original scale?

I know what you're going to say, this is not jazz, etc. Well as long as you don't sing some melody or do any kind of vocal harmony inconsistent with a new scale, I'm sure you'll be happy.

But in my book, even for Cocktail piano, it is a modulation. Try to do some arpeggio flourish with a G major scale on E7.

I think y'all are arguing semantics over the question of modulation-- which is fun, but it doesn't answer the question at hand.
IMO a "key of the moment" or a secondary dominant, or some non-diatonic chords does not constitute modulation. Modulation is the establishment of a new tonal center, and it lasts for a while IMO.


The problem with some fakebooks, and with some score arrangements of tunes, is that they are written by regular people like you and me who can't make a living performing or composing, so they take a job with a publisher.

In this case- Aura Lee- whoever wrote that chart was being too clever by obscuring the very simple harmony that belongs in the song. IMO a fakebook should show us the basic harmony and leave most of the reharmonization and substitution to the musician.

The original (or at least the simple) harmony at that point in the song should be:


{G}sunshine came a-{A}long with thee
and {D} swallows in the {G} air

So the four chords are inserted in the space of the G chord, and are just a way to pull you to the A by using the E as a secondary dominant. To my mind, that G#dim is just another E7 chord (diminished substitution).

Music In Me,
I'm not sure the jazz practice of voicing the 3rd and 7th are the best choice for this folk tune. Simply playing those chords in root position would suffice. Even better would be to use 1st inversion for the E chords (G# C E) and (G# B D E), respectively. The trick is to play the chords softly so they don't overwhelm the melody.

Here is what that measure would sound like as written by Music in Me with the 3rd, 7th, and color tones added.

My ears like it, but not all ears will enjoy the sound.

http://www.box.net/shared/k7fo9ci8of

Barb

I think this goes beyond semantics but there are multiple sides to this. It all depends on your context so let me present several thoughts.

1. What do you call a tune like Giant Steps where the the TONAL CENTER changes every two beats? When is a modulation not a modulation? Or My Funny Valentine with a tonal center change every beat (4 chromatic chord changes in one bar)? IMHO, making a statement like "lasts for awhile" is going to start a new debate. So I hope we don't have to go there.

2. Modulation to me implies a new underlying scale. This is a simple enough concept. The chord fits the scale. So don't use notes not in the scale of the chord. If you don't want to call this a modulation, fine let's call it an "X". When you encounter an "X", change your idea of the underlying scale to "X", otherwise you will have dissonant notes. Doing an "X" however briefly, allows a soloist to use new notes to add color to a typical ii-V-I or I-IV-V. So if the composer gives me that ability, I would utilize it and not avoid it by saying it is not an "X".

3. In the specific case of Aura Lee, I don't know the tune but I did go through the progression last night. Going from G to G#dim to E+ to E7 actually showed a voice leading transition to a new temporary key of A so it would seem to me that for 3 beats there, the composer wanted to suggest a new key. Bringing it back to the original key afterwards is a very common manuever (Fake Cadence). Purposely lengthening the cadence to E7 suggests an intentional key change here. If I were soloing over these changes, I would take advantage of that. Although you could just avoid the issue and not play G# at all.

4. Now the other sides - Obviously there are times when you can ignore the modulation. In the case given of G#dim following a G, then ignoring the G# (not playing it) will cause no effect on the tune. But doing so now changes the composition and you have in fact reharmonized the original changes. I have no problem with that, but call a spade a spade.

5. Putting a G#Dim after a G, in this specific case could actually work without changing the scale if you think of G#Dim as a Tritone Substitution of D7. Sure there is dissonance but at least in Jazz theory, this is quite acceptable because it is a dominant (tension chord). Now I commented on the Aura Lee thing without any idea of the context of the snippet or what comes after. This Folk composer sounds like a Jazzer in hiding to me.

6. For someone not doing anything beyond playing the original melody and the chords, the discussion of modulation is perhaps irrelevant as it will not cause any change, whether or not it happened. But I suppose that's true of any tune. For singers, the idea of "modulation" is bringing the entire tune up and down a half step at a time, rather than looking at it a chord at a time. I buy the irrelevance (since I'm always thinking of Jazz soloing).

So there you go. 3 arguments for and 3 arguments against.

FYI: The chords that follow in the next bar are [Am E7 A7], D7 for the next measure which is then followed by the last measure containing only a G chord.

But semantics is exactly what you're talking about: does a new scale define modulation or doesn't it? The finer points of a word's definition and useage is "semantics". Uh-oh, now we're talking about the semantics of "semantics". But your points are interesting, and it's worth talking about.

1. In Giant Steps, the word "modulation" isn't useful to me, precisely because the tonal center is constantly changing. You can call it modulation if you want, but IMO that dilutes the usefulness of "modulation".

In "my funny valentine"-- I'm not sure what you're talking about, there are no 1 beat chromatic chord changes in any harmonization that I know of except maybe a passing tritone sub or something. It stays firmly in C minor until the bridge, when it "modulates" to the relative major.

2 There are our semantics again. But the composer of Aura Lee didn't write those chords-- the editor or author of the fakebook did. Aura Lee is a 3 chord song from the 1800's. Our modern jazz understanding of the chord-scale relationship is really a recent development-- to say that there is an "underlying scale" to it is putting the cart before the horse. There is a beautiful melody, and it can be harmonized by three simple chords-- that is what is underlying. We can use scales to improvise over those chords (or we can add more chords), and it can sound great, but that is us imposing our modern notions on the song and it has nothing to do with the composer's intention.

3. It's a very simple song.
|:G |A7 |D7 |G :|
|G | | | |
|G |A7 |D7 |G |

That G# and E business is clever, but it isn't scripture. If we can do that to the song, we can-- and should-- do whatever we want with it.

4,5,6. I usually like to reflect the changes in my playing too. "Modulation" is a different word. The textbook definition might support the Giant Steps idea if we stretch it, but not a brief secondary dominant. The concept of chord-scales is artificial; it is a useful lens that can offer us insight, but it is not inherent to the music or "underlying".

Great education for fake book idiots like me. Thanks to everyone.

Wavelength, obviously we disagree. When I analyze a tune, I have to be conscious of what scale belongs to each chord. If you don't want to call it a modulation, as I said fine, you can just refer to my reference as "X". Either way, it means a scale change which means a KEY change. My behavior doesn't change whether it changes key once in a tune or 50 times. I will change the scale. My jazz teachers in academia would refer to this as a modulation clearly. But like I said, that is a concept unimportant to a vocalist.



Simple as this is...You cannot play a G major scale over A7. If someone wanted to alter the voicings of A7, that person needs to be conscious of the underlying scale if it is to remain an A7 (for example, what to do with C#). But that's what that implies when you say it doesn't modulate, that you can somehow play G scale over A7. These kind of "literal" redefinitions does not change this underlying fact that if the scale changes, the key has changed. What you are saying here is that you choose to ignore these key changes, which I said I'm fine with.

And since we are referring to a particular Leadsheet with a particular Reharmonization, I'm responding to the fact that that arranger did in fact change key. If you disagree with his Reharmonization, that's an interesting opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. But since this is art, there is no law to reharmonization. I hope you don't subject me to similar rules when I started a recent thread on Reharmonizing nursery rhymes.

But this is my view of things and I already said, I understand the opposing views which is all in the application so I'm cool. None of these will change how you and I choose to play.

We absolutely have to go there.

My Funny Valentine, at "you make me smile..." - is that the place you're talking about? There are indeed four chord changes, but no modulation, because the song is still in the original key.

Here's a possible way to decide "is it a modulation, or just a chord change": write the chord symbols not as Cm G or whatever but as roman numerals I V and so on. When you come to a part of the song where it's not possible to figure out what to call the chords unless you declare a new chord to be called I, that's a modulation. It would be REALLY odd, even in experimental styles of music, to have a modulation that lasted less than four bars. Modulation is not just a weird progression - modulation means a large chunk of the song is actually in a different key (it's often not marked, but it's a real key change anyway).

I sincerely think you're confusing "change of tonal centre" with "weird chord change".

That's an excellent improvising tool but not true in real life. Each chord belongs to the scale that is in the key of the song. In real life, chords belong to scales; scales do not belong to chords. A tune may have just one scale or it may change scales (up to let's say maybe four or five scales total if it was a very long and complex chart), but it does not change scales with every chord or couple of chords. People wouldn't listen if it did.

Don't confuse your improvising tool with the structure of the song.

I think I've defined it over and over. THE SCALE CHANGED.

If you stay within the Circle of Fifths progression
I-ii-iii-IV-V-vi-vii
then yes, I buy that you didn't change key.

But you start saying
I-II-III-IV-V-VI-VII
or
i-ii-iii-iv-v-vi-vii

What scale are you using here?? What is the key? Or did we change the definition of Key to be notes in the scale?

Rather than attribute my comments to dumbness, I've already asserted that perhaps your context is different from mine. Because I solo over changes, every key change, however short is important to me and all other Jazz pianists.

If you're playing it as written, then you can choose to ignore what I say as it doesn't affect you.

david_a, you can argue that with my Jazz teacher. Or with Bill Evans. Or with Dizzie Gillespie. Or even with Keith Jarrett. Whether or not the player has a global (or what we call 'Horizontal') view of the music doesn't change the fact that the scale has changed. This is the whole basis of Bebop and perhaps all of Jazz. I don't know what real life is in your context because it isn't mine. I am completely aware at all times of what notes can be improvised over each particular chord and if I vary from that, I do so intentionally.

Let's debate a particular song if you want. How about one of my favorites, All the Things You Are? What "Key" is it in? Or does it belong in the category of "Weird Changes"?

That's a song where details could certainly be argued one way or another, but here's my rough analysis, calling everything a modulation if at all possible:

Whole intro is in G except last bar modulates to F minor
8 bars in F minor
8 bars in C minor
4 bars in G
4 bars in E with a lovely modulation using G sharp enharmonic with A flat to get back to F minor
and the final 12 bars start in F minor but quickly re-interpreted as A flat major and ending in A flat.



It could easily be argued that some of what I called modulations are actually not.

Well I think right there we're already at a big impasse. To Jazzers, 'All the Things You Are' is an exercise in modulations. You have clearly 'modulated' a fraction of the time I would have. Heck, I modulated multiple times in the first 8 bars alone.

So maybe we should just leave well enough alone. Obviously we are from different Genres and we look at things from a different lens.

But just so you understand where I'm coming from, let's just look at the first 4 bars of ATTYA.

|Fm7 | Bbm7 | Eb7 | AbMaj7 |

For my purposes, I look at this in these keys (obviously I refer to them in my context as modulations):

|Bb | Ab | Ab | Ab Lydian or Eb |

Whether I like it or not, I cannot mix these scales in these chords if I'm going to improvise on it. Otherwise, I will be left thinking of "avoid" notes all throughout which is very distracting. So in jazz training, we know precisely which notes are applicable to each chord.

Now we jazzers also do a "global" view of this. The global view has to do with common tones. So the visual here is that I look for a musical context (line) that extends to all 4 chords if I can. This is not always possible, such as in complex Jazz tunes like Giant Steps.

So for me the idea of a big picture scale, is there. It is less of scale really than a shape, with "avoid notes" demarcated out. In this first four chords, the "main" key or shape that I would automatically think of is Ab. And the reason is that I'm not in Bb long enough to worry about avoid notes.

Thus for me, the arguments about whether or not to call it a modulation are moot, since I MUST look at the underlying scales and look for some commonality if I can, and sometimes, it doesn't even connect to a key (although typically it's the most commonly used key).

In general, I would say that ATTYA spends a lot of time in the keys of Ab, Eb, and Bb, G and many other short trips to other keys in between (C, Db, Em, E, Cm, etc.). Now understand that this would be the typical Jazz analysis of this.

When we refer to Roman Numerals, we don't just make notations like:

I7 II7 VI7(b9) or such modifications, but we would make analysis in the context of some home key if possible.

Like the first 4 bars of ATTYA could be represented as:

|ii | ii/IV | V/IV | IV |

This is how we do it to accomodate recording modulations but keeping the context of the circle of fifths progressions clear. However, this is not an exercise I would apply to ATTYA as I think it would be unreadable. The reason is that I am at a loss to identify the "Home" key for this tune.

Anyway, I hope I'm just making my view of this clear. Obviously our context dictates what's important. In Jazz, we are arguably 'microscopic' in our analysis. But we have no choice was we have to choose the notes we choose to play. There is nothing written except for the analysis of the structure as I'm showing here.

Jerome Kern was not a jazz player, he was a songwriter. You are a jazz player. It's his song. It's your playing. Your analysis of your own "Coles Notes" of how to improvise on All the Things is absolutely brilliant but it's not an analysis OF THE SONG, and your modulations don't exist in the song - they're imaginary, you made them up. (You DID make them up for a perfectly good reason, but they're still not there in the song.) My analysis likely has serious mistakes in it, and I'd be glad to hear about them, but it's an actual analysis of the song at least, whatever flaws it has.

This is not about context. It's about whether we're analyzing the song itself, or analyzing a special method of figuring out lines while improvising.

Your jazz teacher does not want to erase the basics of music, just add to them. If you are forgetting the basics then that's your own business.

david_a, I can point out so many errors in your statements but what's the point.

You cannot even identify the difference between a minor key and a major key in this tune which Jerome Kern certainly knew about. So any reference of yours to my lack of knowledge of the basics of music is completely out of whack.

I guarantee you that Jerome Kern knew exactly what key he was in at all times BECAUSE THE MELODY PROVES IT.

Do you even know what a ii-V-I is? Do you know the contexts of ii-V-I's in this tune? Is a ii-V-I an "overanalysis"? Do you know the difference between a major ii-V-I and a minor ii-V-i?

I think I get it now. You're afraid of modulations (because it adds complexity), so the answer is to say it doesn't exist so that the music remains "basic". This is of course regardless of the intent of the composer or arranger.

Sigh...I think I'll move on now. It's been fun.

I believe an academic would refer to that as a "tonicization".

From The New Harvard Dictionary of Music:

"Tonicization
The momentary treatment of a pitch other than the tonic as if it were the tonic... The resulting harmony is most likely to be the dominant of the tonicized pitch and is in such a case often termed a secondary or applied dominant... Tonicization, which may be prolonged beyond a single chord or two, is nevertheless a local phenomenon, as distinct from modulation, which implies an actual change in tonic."

And the last sentence, annoyingly enough, confirms that we are indeed arguing semantics:

"The boundary between the two, however, is not always easily fixed in practice."

Oh, man, do I feel like a geek

Circle of fifths? Those are the chords you get if you play a major scale with triads in root inversion. And the 7 would be diminished, not minor.

Why you call this the circle of fifths, I have no clue.

Look it up in any dictionary of musical terms, or just google 'circle of fifths'.

Again, this is all about your little instruction book to yourself of how you want to play the song. Again, it's absolutely brilliant and I don't have the skill to do what you're doing. But you've forgotten what a scale is. Please don't make your kindergarten teacher cry.

This thread is like when you throw a party for your friends...they show up, get drunk and start bickering with each other Ok, we're out of nachos, we ran out of beer, and I have to go to work early in the morning...can we close shop? Thanks. Good night.

Good night. And I hope none of you ever edit your posts so we keep it here for posterity. It will be good reading for everyone studying music. Turning off the lights now.

What just happened here, are we arguing about horizontal (key based) playing vs vertical (chord/scale)?

The traditional jazz pedagogy is looking at each chord and playing the appropriate scale on top.

I prefer a more key based, where you focus on a key and any non-diatonic notes are just treated as a one time thing, unless the song modulates to a different key.

Take My Funny Valentine, it's entirely in the key of C minor, with some verses concentrating on the relative major Eb, but I would consider the whole song just in 1 key.


A tune that does have many changes would be On Green Dolphin Street. The first four bars, if played in Eb, would be Eb maj7, Eb min7, Eb/F, Eb/ E. Now, I would still consider the song in the key of Eb, with alterations. I wouldn't call it "modulation", just using all the variations of Eb (major/minor/ #4, tritone subs)

I find it easier to think key for a song, a melody usually follows one key until it changes.

A modal tune like Dolphin Dance changes key centres every few bars, but when Herbie wrote it, you can still follow which keys at what point in the melody.

Sounds like a mountain from a molehill.

OK. I've come across this before I think. Leaving out for the moment whether even the most dogmatic Berklee graduate would apply the "scale-over-chord" technique (is that the ONLY permissible improvisation tool in Boston, Mass.?) to a passing chord in a folk tune, if he uses "modulation" to mean "using a non-diatonic chord", what's his term for "moving to a new key-centre"?

Jazzwee - Take "All the things you are". Take "Giant Steps". Forget for a moment what inprovisational tools you would use on either. Do you admit a difference between taking a ii-V-I type route to resting places in varying keys (generally referred to as "modulating") and - well, whatever you'd describe "Giant Steps" as doing?
Would you see jazz theory as applicable to "Aura Lee", played in the style under discussion? Did you even check what tune we were discussing before setting off on your jazz theory hobby-horse? :-) Do you see jazz theory as the ONLY way of approaching ALL music?

interesting debate.

I see a big difference between Giant Steps, All the Things you are, or many bebop tune
And My Funny Valentine.

Giant Steps modulates. The Key changes. The tune isn't particularly "in a key", and even lacks a key signature (though one might add one).
"All the things you are" clearly modulates.
That's what makes those tunes difficult (that and tempo).

But to me, My Funny Valentine is, except for the bridge, in C minor. My favorite scale, the harmonic minor, nicely fits the entire A section.

The fact that a tune temporarily gets outside does not mean it modulates, it's just a change of tonic: tonicization. So someone may decide to add chords or scales outside, but the tune stays in the original key.
A turnaround is a good example in my view.
E-7 A7 D-7 G7 to Cmaj
That's clearly in Cmajor to me.

By the same token, you may reharmonize, change up a tune, add passing chords and such, yet the tune is the tune, you can't make it modulate. Well, unless you actually change keys, obviously.


And what about the blues?

In music theory and jazz theory, just because the scales associated with the chords are changing doesn't mean the overall key has necessarily changed nor does it necessarily mean a modulation has occured. Although it frequently is the case.

There is no "key change" or "modulation in the first 8 bars of Girl From Ipanema for example. Of course the scales can change. The Bridge does change key. Same with My Funny Valentine.

All The Things You Are is in Ab for the first 5 bars:

vi ii V I IV, then ii V I in C major, then it's in Eb major for 5 bars with again vi ii V I IV

From The New Harvard Dictionary of Music:

"Tonicization
The momentary treatment of a pitch other than the tonic as if it were the tonic... The resulting harmony is most likely to be the dominant of the tonicized pitch and is in such a case often termed a secondary or applied dominant... Tonicization, which may be prolonged beyond a single chord or two, is nevertheless a local phenomenon, as distinct from modulation, which implies an actual change in tonic."

"The boundary between the two, however, is not always easily fixed in practice."

I don't have the patience to read all the posts, but I agree that E7 here is not a modulation... minor 7 chords can be substituted as V7 chords. On Rhythm changes on C

C A7 D7 G7
C Amin7 Dmin7 G7

They are both in key of C, but I would play different scale depending on which quality I want to bring out (minor or V7). And it all depends on the melody notes and other context of the song too.

Likewise

Ebmin7 Ab Dmin7 G7
Dmin7 Abmin7 Db7 G7

They are both essentially in key of C, the first one is just sidestepping by half-step and the second one is tritone substitution. Passing chords works just like passing notes.

You have to firmly establish yourself in the new key in order to say that you have modulated.. Even , countdown, 25-2.. all those tunes with Coltrane Changes are basically variation of ii-V-I progression.

Dmin7|G7|Cmaj7|Cmaj7
Dmin7 Eb7|Abmaj7 B7|Emaj7 G7|Cmaj7

So technically you are still in key of C but you are tonicizing via major 3rds(key of E and Ab)... at least that's how I would see it.

I don't like the fact that some fake books add these harmony on top of the basic harmony... for a beginner it's hard to figure out which one is essential and which one isn't.

Other example of chords not in the harmony without modulation

Fmaj7 Fmin7|Cmaj7

You would need to play a different scale over Fmin7 but IV-iv-I resolution does not suggest a temporary modulation to key of Eb(ii of Eb)

Lady Bird Ending

Cmaj7 Ebmaj7 Abmaj7 Dbmaj7
Cmaj7 Eb7 Ab7 Db7

Again you would need to use different scale for each chord, but this is essentially a variation of I-vi-ii-V. You are playing tritone substitution of

Cmaj7 A7 Dmin7 G7

It takes a lot for me to actually consider something a modulation..A lot of standards go to the relative major/minor, the IV, or the V, and ii-V of those key but it doesn't really sound like a real modulation, since they are so closely related to the original key. (like Misty, In a Satin Doll, Black Orpheus..etc)

another example is Bach's prelude in C major, which remains in C throughout in my view.
If you have the great book 'metaphors for the musician', Randy's solar system explains each one of those chords and why they stay in the key of C.

I have a chord question if someone can help.

Eb G Bb is (of course) the Eb major chord.
Add c, and you get Eb6: Eb G Bb C

Now, C minor is: C Eb G
Add a Bb and you get Cm7: C Eb G Bb

If you do a first inversion of the Cm7, you get Eb G Bb C (which is Eb6). So, how is it possible that by inverting a chord you get an entirely different chord?

What am I missing, and does this happen with other chords?

Yes, it is the same chord. The name of the chord is derived from what we put in the bass.

If you put the C in the bass and add the Eb, G, and Bb, it is called a Cm7 chord.

Put the Eb as the bass note, and add the G, Bb, and C, it is called an Eb major6 chord.

Fun stuff, right?

Barb

You are not missing something-- you are perceiving something!

They are practically the same chord, and one is often "substituted" for the other. It happens with many different chords. Any chords with the same relationship as those two-- like C6 and Am7 (maybe that's obvious?)-- but there are others too.

An offshoot of this idea is that if you play a C chord, it makes a good funky voicing for an Am chord! (especially if there's an A in the bass somewhere).

I was going by the basic idea that inverting a chord does not change the chord, which I thought was neat, but now that inverting stuff can get you in trouble, I'm not sure what to think!

What I meant by "inverting stuff can get you in trouble" is that learning chords becomes more troublesome...having overlapping chords is not as neat as a well-structured set of chords, but I guess that's how it is.

MIM,

This is music, so, let your ears decide. Is this a fakebook tune or something you are composing? If you just play the melody in the right hand and the low bass note in the left hand, which sounds better to you -- the low Eb or the C?

I understand that Barb, but I'm trying to reconcile that with the "dictum" that inverting a chord does not change the chord. So whether you play a low Eb or a low C, you should "supposedly" get the same chord, so it shouldn't matter (to answer your question). No?

I just did an experiment. I played all four notes in the right hand. C, Eb, G, Bb. I played it in different inversions. They all have the same sound.

Then, I did it a different way and played the root down low. My ears heard a different chord when the C is the root as opposed to the Eb as the root.

Now you try it and tell me what you think.

But if you put the G in the bass, it doesn't become a "G" anything. Or the Bb. The root needs to be the 1 of a 1,3,5 triad structure.

when you take a chord and isolate it, the bass is your best tool to find out which chord it is.

But more important is the context, what comes before, and after. So if you play
D F# C
then
D E G Bb

then to me, that is D7 followed by G-6

But by itself, the 2nd chord would be an E-7b5.

Absolutely! My simplistic response was in reference to the OP's question regarding a Cm7 chord and an Ebmaj6 chord. We call it one chord when we put the C in the bass, and we call it another chord with the Eb in the bass.

Barb

I tried a couple of different ways and I thought they sounded the same, and perhaps they should? If the inverted Cm7 chord is same as an Eb6, shouldn't they sound the same? Anyway, it's interesting and I'll do some more experimenting.

When I play the low C bass note, and my right hand plays the Bb, Eb, and G (in any inversion), I hear a minor seventh chord.

When I play the low Eb bass note, and my right hand plays the Bb, C, and G (in any inversion), I hear a major sixth chord.

When I play all 4 notes together in one hand (C, Eb, G, Bb), I hear the same sound regardless of the inversion.

Have you done much ear training in the form of identifying chords? I tend to avoid the theory books and learn by "EAR".

Barb

Not much ear training for chords, although I've seen online tools that test you for that... will do that once our days change to 30 or 40 hours per day instead of only 24

You don't need anything fancy, or spend more than 2-3 minutes per day. Here is what I did:

Play a major chord. Close your eyes and listen to the sound.

Do the same for a minor chord.

Then, play one note at a time and sing those notes.

Do this for a week.

Then, have someone else play those notes for you and see how well you can identify the chords.

If all is going well, add the 7th for that major and for that minor chord.

Play, close your eyes and listen. Then sing.

Next, add the dominants, diminished and half diminished chords.

You are in no rush here. Just take it slowly. A couple of minutes every day will do the trick!

Barb

Are you just going for the type of chord here, or both the chord and the key?

I am going for chord quality only. Being able to tell the difference between a major/minor/dominant...etc.

The key is not important here.