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

[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.