Song in different keys

[ColdBuffet]

Hello everyone,

I hear that whenever one learns a song they should learn the song in all different keys. And my question is how would I go about doing that? Is it as simple as just changing the key signature at the beginning of the song? Or is it more like transposing? Changing the key would mean the chords would also have to change aswell? At the moment I'm learning Autumn Leaves.

Can someone please help me out? Thank you!

(Sorry for my stupid question I'm still learning).

Oh, and while I'm here I might as well ask:

When improvising to a song, I should be changing scale everytime the chord changes, right?

[tweebinmusic]

learn the basic harmonic shell of the song, it's functional harmony, and then apply that in the new key.

autumn leaves is

|: ii-V-I (-IV), ii-V-i (rel minor):|
then
the same thing inverted (rel minor then major)
then a slightly different turn of events at the end
(I'll let you figure that out)

You don''t necessarily have to play 1 scale for each chord, it depends on the type of sound you are trying to get... for example, a more "horizontal" approach would be to play the major scale of the key on the first four bars and to play the harmonic minor scale of the key on the second four.... or you could take the more "vertical" approach and play a different scale on every chord. Really, scales are a limiting approach anyway, but it is an OK way to start. Another way is to embellish and or simplify the melody and then play around it using the chords as a guide.

[guitarjazz]

It is transposing.
If you are just starting out why not just learn about 10 tunes, keeping them in the key you learn them in. Transposing will make more sense after you’ve messed around with them for a few months, or years, and learned some more tunes.

[tweebinmusic]

I disagree

a basic understanding of harmony involves knowledge of FUNCTION. It is valuable to transpose this material at all points of development.

[Tarquin1986]

Assigning a different scale to every chord is not necessary on Autumn Leaves. Just get used to the sound of the chords (learn to sing the root motion from memory for example) and then just play whatever sounds good. This is how I do it. I reckon I probably sound a bit like I am matching scales to chords but in my mind I'm not thinking "Dorian, Mixolydian, Lydian, melodic minor". The thought process is more along the lines of "doo dooba dooba da doo":guitar:

[guitarjazz]

I disagree

a basic understanding of harmony involves knowledge of FUNCTION. It is valuable to transpose this material at all points of development.

I was thinking that it might be good to learn how to play some tunes before dissecting them. There is lots of time to analyze, take apart, rearrange. From the tone of the first post it sounded like someone just starting out.
It’s good question and transposing is an important skill, no doubt.

[Jakeweiser]

It is far better I think to know 10 tunes extremely well then 50 tunes and be barely able to get through them.

Tweeb is right on the changes, this is how I learn tunes now. Think of the melodies on scale degrees or on the relation to the chord it is under, this will let you play the melodies in any key as well. Obviously, more advanced tunes such as bebop heads are very difficult to master in 12 keys in terms of the melodies.

Many tunes also can be learned functionally in a few ways.

Tunes that move without functional harmony like a tune that has obvious key centers can be learned by root movement and quality. (first chord is F M7, root moves down a 1/2 step Dominant, up a 5th half dim etc) f

[Phil Kelly]

learn the basic harmonic shell of the song, it's functional harmony, and then apply that in the new key.

autumn leaves is

|: ii-V-I (-IV), ii-V-i (rel minor):|
then
the same thing inverted (rel minor then major)
then a slightly different turn of events at the end
(I'll let you figure that out)

You don''t necessarily have to play 1 scale for each chord, it depends on the type of sound you are trying to get... for example, a more "horizontal" approach would be to play the major scale of the key on the first four bars and to play the harmonic minor scale of the key on the second four.... or you could take the more "vertical" approach and play a different scale on every chord. Really, scales are a limiting approach anyway, but it is an OK way to start. Another way is to embellish and or simplify the melody and then play around it using the chords as a guide.


Josh speaketh the truth: if you know the functional harmony in numerical scale steps ( just like legit 1st & 2nd year harmony requires one to learn ) , you'll find applying that to any given key will be far easier.

This is one reason that the Nashville "number" system is so widely used in certain genres.

Also, count me in as another non-fan of the Berklee
scale-chord method ..it is as Josh said, eventually quite limiting to your playing.

[EdByrne]

count me in as another non-fan of the Berklee
scale-chord method ..it is as Josh said, eventually quite limiting to your playing.

ME TOO! :cheers :yeahthat: :thewave :cheers

[EdByrne]

It is far better I think to know 10 tunes extremely well then 50 tunes and be barely able to get through them.

Tweeb is right on the changes, this is how I learn tunes now. Think of the melodies on scale degrees or on the relation to the chord it is under, this will let you play the melodies in any key as well. Obviously, more advanced tunes such as bebop heads are very difficult to master in 12 keys in terms of the melodies.

Many tunes also can be learned functionally in a few ways.

Tunes that move without functional harmony like a tune that has obvious key centers can be learned by root movement and quality. (first chord is F M7, root moves down a 1/2 step Dominant, up a 5th half dim etc) f

Hey Jake,

I don't want to hijack this thread, but how's the new teaching gig goin'? (I'm certain that you are doin' great! Perhaps when you catch your breath you'll start a thread to talk about it. I'll bet this intensified experience is setting sparks off all inside of you.

[ColdBuffet]

Thanks guys, I think I'm starting to get the hang of it now. I'm also using numbers (scale degree) for the melody.

Now I would like to ask, if changing scale with the chords is a very limiting method, how would you guys go about choosing a scale for improvise off (Or do some of you guys, just improv without picking a specific scale)?

Thanks

[EdByrne]

Thanks guys, I think I'm starting to get the hang of it now. I'm also using numbers (scale degree) for the melody.

Now I would like to ask, if changing scale with the chords is a very limiting method, how would you guys go about choosing a scale for improvise off (Or do some of you guys, just improv without picking a specific scale)?

Thanks

By key. Below is an excerpt from my book, Sundry Vignettes ~ Jazz Topics (apologies to those that have seen this before):

Easy Method for Deriving Scales

While my Linear Improvisation Method is not about scales & modes, there is a much easier means of deriving them than through the complicated Chord-Scale Theory. Here’s my suggestion:

Begin by employing the scale of the key of the composition. When chords appear that contain notes which are chromatic (foreign) to that key, alter those pitches accordingly. For example, when a G7 appears in a progression in the key of F, use the F scale, only change the Bb to B (the 3rd of the G7, which is chromatic to the key of F).

While the results are often the same as with chord scale theory, they are sometimes profoundly different. For example, the last chord of the A section of Desifinado in the key of F is a GbMA7. Berklee College would call for a Gb Lydian Mode, but with my approach you have: Gb, A, Bb, C, Db, E & F. There are no Greek names, no theories necessary. An added benefit of this approach is that, rather than thinking locally (from chord to chord), you are liberated to think more globally (through the key of the entire phrase). Incidentally, the scale cited above is actually called the Persian scale, but it just came up as a natural consequence of the progression.

While Chord Scale Theory is the prevailing pedagogy in jazz, it is not the most direct path to meaningful improvisation, which would be to address the essential elements of specific compositions (melody, guide tone line, & root progression, for starters). Moreover, 7-note scales often present too much meaningless information to the listener, especially when these scales are derived from chords rather than melodies; & they tend to be too conjunct. How often, for instance, do you hear a good melody or line that moves exclusively stepwise, as with scales & modes?

Many artists agree: Joe Henderson, for example, used to say, I don't want to sound like the index of a book, meaning that the graduates of college jazz departments sounded to him like they were demonstrating their knowledge of scales out of a book, rather than improvising meaningful statements on the essential compositional material of specific songs. Good lines, moreover, are usually propelled forward by means of chromatic non-harmonic tones (as with Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Parker, Davis, et al). Also, Chord Scales don't address the blues, which can be played over virtually any harmony.

[ColdBuffet]

Thank you very much EdByrne for answering that question and thanks to tweebin music and everyone else for answering my other question.

[EdByrne]

Thank you very much EdByrne for answering that question and thanks to tweebin music and everyone else for answering my other question.

You're welcome, Buff! Glad to be of help.

[engelbach]

Begin by employing the scale of the key of the composition. When chords appear that contain notes which are chromatic (foreign) to that key, alter those pitches accordingly.… For example, the last chord of the A section of Desifinado in the key of F is a GbMA7. Berklee College would call for a Gb Lydian Mode, but with my approach you have: Gb, A, Bb, C, Db, E & F. There are no Greek names, no theories necessary. An added benefit of this approach is that, rather than thinking locally (from chord to chord), you are liberated to think more globally (through the key of the entire phrase).

This approach makes a lot of sense.

However, for an old rootless chord practitioner like me, who adds ninths ands thirteenths and their alterations to everything, it can result in quite a bit of dissonance between improvised melody and chord. For me it would mean learning to use sparser voicings.

[JonR]

By key. Below is an excerpt from my book, Sundry Vignettes ~ Jazz Topics (apologies to those that have seen this before):

Easy Method for Deriving Scales

While my Linear Improvisation Method is not about scales & modes, there is a much easier means of deriving them than through the complicated Chord-Scale Theory. Here’s my suggestion:

Begin by employing the scale of the key of the composition. When chords appear that contain notes which are chromatic (foreign) to that key, alter those pitches accordingly. For example, when a G7 appears in a progression in the key of F, use the F scale, only change the Bb to B (the 3rd of the G7, which is chromatic to the key of F).

While the results are often the same as with chord scale theory, they are sometimes profoundly different. For example, the last chord of the A section of Desifinado in the key of F is a GbMA7. Berklee College would call for a Gb Lydian Mode, but with my approach you have: Gb, A, Bb, C, Db, E & F. There are no Greek names, no theories necessary. An added benefit of this approach is that, rather than thinking locally (from chord to chord), you are liberated to think more globally (through the key of the entire phrase). Incidentally, the scale cited above is actually called the Persian scale, but it just came up as a natural consequence of the progression.

While Chord Scale Theory is the prevailing pedagogy in jazz, it is not the most direct path to meaningful improvisation, which would be to address the essential elements of specific compositions (melody, guide tone line, & root progression, for starters). Moreover, 7-note scales often present too much meaningless information to the listener, especially when these scales are derived from chords rather than melodies; & they tend to be too conjunct. How often, for instance, do you hear a good melody or line that moves exclusively stepwise, as with scales & modes?

Many artists agree: Joe Henderson, for example, used to say, I don't want to sound like the index of a book, meaning that the graduates of college jazz departments sounded to him like they were demonstrating their knowledge of scales out of a book, rather than improvising meaningful statements on the essential compositional material of specific songs. Good lines, moreover, are usually propelled forward by means of chromatic non-harmonic tones (as with Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Parker, Davis, et al). Also, Chord Scales don't address the blues, which can be played over virtually any harmony.Brilliant Ed, thanks for that. (I've seen the nice Henderson quote before.)
It basically sums up the approach I've always employed, having taught myself over some 40 years mainly from listening to records and - as a guitarist - starting improvising simply by adding notes to chord shapes that happened to be included in the other chords (and learning melodies too). It always seemed obvious to me, and it worked.
It was some while later (around 20 years ago) I encountered jazz pedagogy (in the UK, but distinctly informed by Jamey Aebersold, who is clearly a chord-scale guy). I was intrigued by all these new (to me) concepts, but never managed to play that way. And in the end, it all seemed like a colossal case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

I'm new to this site, btw, but will be lurking frequently. Nice (are rare) to see so much intelligence in one place - and I don't just mean yourself.

[EdByrne]

This approach makes a lot of sense.

However, for an old rootless chord practitioner like me, who adds ninths ands thirteenths and their alterations to everything, it can result in quite a bit of dissonance between improvised melody and chord. For me it would mean learning to use sparser voicings.

Jerry,

Believe me when I say that lines built in this way will work over virtually any style of underlying accompaniment. If I were a pianist, I would work on learning to make both my thinking and my two hands co-incidental and as independent as possible. I do this in my compositions, but that, of course, is easier than what I'm suggesting for the pianist.

I run into this with pianists sometimes, especially when my written lines are notated with accidentals that are line-based rather than using the spelling of the chord tones or chord scales. I always reply that I notate the lines with their own internal ascending or descending logic, but they see a chord symbol and have several intellectual and digital responses to them as fused units; they link the thinking of the two together in a sort of joint response.

I can't help thinking that this needn't be the only way to go.

Best,
Ed

[EdByrne]

Brilliant Ed, thanks for that. (I've seen the nice Henderson quote before.)
It basically sums up the approach I've always employed, having taught myself over some 40 years mainly from listening to records and - as a guitarist - starting improvising simply by adding notes to chord shapes that happened to be included in the other chords (and learning melodies too). It always seemed obvious to me, and it worked.
It was some while later (around 20 years ago) I encountered jazz pedagogy (in the UK, but distinctly informed by Jamey Aebersold, who is clearly a chord-scale guy). I was intrigued by all these new (to me) concepts, but never managed to play that way. And in the end, it all seemed like a colossal case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

I'm new to this site, btw, but will be lurking frequently. Nice (are rare) to see so much intelligence in one place - and I don't just mean yourself.

Thanks, JonR. While I find value in all the different approaches, I think the one-dimensional prevailing current pedagogy often is not the best place to start--or the best place to put your priorities. Oftentimes, common-sense basic paraphrase offers the best path to the most meaningful statements. I learned this way, as you did. I later studied the various other approaches, and am informed and enriched by them--but I keep coming back home to those basic priorities.

Stick around, Jon.

[Jay Norem]

I run into this with pianists sometimes, especially when my written lines are notated with accidentals that are line-based rather than using the spelling of the chord tones or chord scales. I always reply that I notate the lines with their own internal ascending or descending logic, but they see a chord symbol and have several intellectual and digital responses to them as fused units; they link the thinking of the two together in a sort of joint response.

I can't help thinking that this needn't be the only way to go.

Best,
Ed

Absolutely. You've just hit upon something I've been encountering with my own piano player. I've been trying to get him to "unlearn" his standard approach to voice-leading by getting him to play more open-voicings, playing from chord-to-chord as it were, if that makes any sense.

[EdByrne]

Absolutely. You've just hit upon something I've been encountering with my own piano player. I've been trying to get him to "unlearn" his standard approach to voice-leading by getting him to play more open-voicings, playing from chord-to-chord as it were, if that makes any sense.

That too, I guess, but I was mainly speaking to the avoidance of always having the right hand rely on the left hand to automatically prescribe the choice of scales & licks to be played. I think that they can co-exist, & the line rules for me--not the reverse.

Regarding voicing style & voice-leading, any & all of Jerry's 13th voicings, for example, will work under any lines based upon the melody, guide-tone-line or root progression. I love the resultant melodic dissonance--& it can't be wrong visa vie the chord, since everything in the line resolves around essential elements of the composition. Therefore, the voice-leading isn't really an issue, since any appropriate style will work.

[engelbach]

Jerry,

Believe me when I say that lines built in this way will work over virtually any style of underlying accompaniment. If I were a pianist, I would work on learning to make both my thinking and my two hands co-incidental and as independent as possible. I do this in my compositions, but that, of course, is easier than what I'm suggesting for the pianist.

I run into this with pianists sometimes, especially when my written lines are notated with accidentals that are line-based rather than using the spelling of the chord tones or chord scales. I always reply that I notate the lines with their own internal ascending or descending logic, but they see a chord symbol and have several intellectual and digital responses to them as fused units;they link the thinking of the two together in a sort of joint response.

I can't help thinking that this needn't be the only way to go.

Best,
Ed

The problem for me with the chord and line not agreeing is that it slows everything down. If I see a Gbm7 chord symbol written over a line that's notated with sharp accidentals it's gonna cause a comprehension break.

Here are two examples of the same excerpt from Duke Pearson's Jeannine, from two different Real Books. The key is Ab.

http://engelbachmusic.com/forums/jeannine1.jpg
I suppose there's nothing much wrong with the melody line, although strictly speaking the A natural should be Bbb and the B natural should be Cb. (Cb-Bb-Cb would actually have been easier to read than B-Bb-B). But except for the Gbm7, the chords are consistent not with flat accidentals but with sharps. "Correctly" notated, the chords B7 and EMaj should be Cb7 and FbMaj. You won't see those often; but even less would you see the A7(11) "correctly" notated as Bbb7(11)!

At any rate, when I first looked at this I found it jarring to play flats against B7 and EMaj. I found myself, after a slight delay, thinking "Cb7, FbMaj."

http://engelbachmusic.com/forums/jeannine2.jpg
This version, using sharp accidentals, makes the chords and line agree and easy to play at once, but at the expense of the flats in the original key signature, which gives the illusion that we've moved into an entirely different realm. If the original key were C, F, or Bb we wouldn't have to deal with the possibility of double flat chord symbols.

This is one of those problems that exists because of a particular key signature, testing the limits of the logic of musical notation. Obviously a choice has to be made between using what might seem best for where the tune is actually going, as played by a single line instrument -- flats -- and what's the most expedient notation for a harmony instrument -- sharps.

What's your thinking on this?

[engelbach]

Regarding voicing style & voice-leading, any & all of Jerry's 13th voicings, for example, will work under any lines based upon the melody, guide-tone-line or root progression. I love the resultant melodic dissonance--& it can't be wrong visa vie the chord, since everything in the line resolves around essential elements of the composition. Therefore, the voice-leading isn't really an issue, since any appropriate style will work.

If that's all you mean by it, I can't disagree. I consider it playing "outside." I'm all for the clash between assonance and dissonance. It's central to the growth of musical language since day 1.

But I think that you expect music students to become slavishly bound to pedagogic scale exercises in place of melodic invention unless you pull them off the harmony altogether. I wonder if the rote playing I often hear is less the result of bad training than of consciously taking the easy way out because record producers can be fooled by a big display of empty virtuosity. It sells.

The musicians I know rarely play merely technical bullshit, despite their training in chord/scale theory. I hear much melodic and rhythmic creativity.

I wouldn't knock your method: you have a complete system of teaching, carefully -- and brilliantly -- built up. I would just go about it differently, dealing only with what it takes to be melodically inventive. I suspect that some looking for instruction on this forum might be overwhelmed by the sheer volume and radical approach of your curriculum.

This is not an argument and if it were I wouldn't expect to win it. You have a whole system in place with strong principles. It's a difference about what works for me.

[EdByrne]

The problem for me with the chord and line not agreeing is that it slows everything down. If I see a Gbm7 chord symbol written over a line that's notated with sharp accidentals it's gonna cause a comprehension break.

Here are two examples of the same excerpt from Duke Pearson's Jeannine, from two different Real Books. The key is Ab.

http://engelbachmusic.com/forums/jeannine1.jpg
I suppose there's nothing much wrong with the melody line, although strictly speaking the A natural should be Bbb and the B natural should be Cb. (Cb-Bb-Cb would actually have been easier to read than B-Bb-B). But except for the Gbm7, the chords are consistent not with flat accidentals but with sharps. "Correctly" notated, the chords B7 and EMaj should be Cb7 and FbMaj. You won't see those often; but even less would you see the A7(11) "correctly" notated as Bbb7(11)!

At any rate, when I first looked at this I found it jarring to play flats against B7 and EMaj. I found myself, after a slight delay, thinking "Cb7, FbMaj."

http://engelbachmusic.com/forums/jeannine2.jpg
This version, using sharp accidentals, makes the chords and line agree and easy to play at once, but at the expense of the flats in the original key signature, which gives the illusion that we've moved into an entirely different realm. If the original key were C, F, or Bb we wouldn't have to deal with the possibility of double flat chord symbols.

This is one of those problems that exists because of a particular key signature, testing the limits of the logic of musical notation. Obviously a choice has to be made between using what might seem best for where the tune is actually going, as played by a single line instrument -- flats -- and what's the most expedient notation for a harmony instrument -- sharps.

What's your thinking on this?

This is an excellent example of the issue I brought up. I happen to very much prefer the 1st version, however. After all, the tune's primary key is Ab, so if you like sharps, transpose it to G# (8 #'s). I would use a Cb instead of the B, mainly because it limits the number of accidentals needed in the passage. For me, it is illogical to write lines locally based on individual chords, rather than the primary key. Psychologically, version 2, in its agreement with the chord symbols, fosters too close a reliance in line creation on what we've learned is acceptable to put over--& in tandem with--the chord progression. It's a straight-jacket--and it's an unnecessary one, I think.

[EdByrne]

If that's all you mean by it, I can't disagree. I consider it playing "outside." I'm all for the clash between assonance and dissonance. It's central to the growth of musical language since day 1.

But I think that you expect music students to become slavishly bound to pedagogic scale exercises in place of melodic invention unless you pull them off the harmony altogether. I wonder if the rote playing I often hear is less the result of bad training than of consciously taking the easy way out because record producers can be fooled by a big display of empty virtuosity. It sells.

The musicians I know rarely play merely technical bullshit, despite their training in chord/scale theory. I hear much melodic and rhythmic creativity.

I wouldn't knock your method: you have a complete system of teaching, carefully -- and brilliantly -- built up. I would just go about it differently, dealing only with what it takes to be melodically inventive. I suspect that some looking for instruction on this forum might be overwhelmed by the sheer volume and radical approach of your curriculum.

This is not an argument and if it were I wouldn't expect to win it. You have a whole system in place with strong principles. It's a difference about what works for me.


I don't consider it outside if the lines are inside the melody or other essential compositional target points--regardless of the chords, which I view as secondary--even non-essential--however colorful, mood enhancing and logical they may be.

I do not expect music students to become slavishly bound to pedagogic scale exercises in place of melodic invention unless you pull them off the harmony altogether, or claim that it necessarily leads to a big display of empty virtuosity: I just think that it doesn't lead to the most meaningful kind of playing for me.

I suspect that some looking for instruction on this forum might be overwhelmed by the sheer volume and radical approach of your curriculum.

It's very basic and common sense: It requires no theory or terminology--and it can be worked on creatively. I do it in clinics, lessons, and classes with students of various backgrounds, and everybody seems to be able to get it and get into it. It does, however, take hard work in the woodshed.

I don't see why you'd think that my method is anything at all like sheer volume and radical approach. All it is, is a systematic focus on traditional approaches and skills that practitioners took before chord scale theory. One of their (CST's) fundamental tenets is that jazz, after Louis, grew up and moved on to the more sophisticated form of improvising, based primarily from chord to chord (Coleman Hawkins), and then from scale to scale (Lester Young)--based on chords. While I love chords and what they offer, I don't see--or hear--the logic of placing it at the center stage, notwithstanding the greatness of the aforementioned. Coltrane, for all his sheets of sound, never stopped developing the thematic material at hand (Miles, Sonny, Monk too--among others).

That's the stuff that comunicates.

[Jay Norem]

I don't consider it outside if the lines are inside the melody or other essential compositional target points--regardless of the chords, which I view as secondary--even non-essential--however colorful, mood enhancing and logical they may be.

Not to be argumentative here, not at all. But wouldn't the chords be an essential compositional target point?
But you say, Ed, that you view the chords as non-essential. I find this to be a very challenging concept, and a very interesting one. What about theme and variation? If the melody is an essential compositional target point, then shouldn't that concept be carried through to include improvising on the changes of the tune? If not, then why spend any time putting chords to your melody? And if one does take the time to put just the right chords to the melody, then why abandon them when it comes time to improvise on the thematic material of the composition?

[EdByrne]

Not to be argumentative here, not at all. But wouldn't the chords be an essential compositional target point?
But you say, Ed, that you view the chords as non-essential. I find this to be a very challenging concept, and a very interesting one. What about theme and variation? If the melody is an essential compositional target point, then shouldn't that concept be carried through to include improvising on the changes of the tune? If not, then why spend any time putting chords to your melody? And if one does take the time to put just the right chords to the melody, then why abandon them when it comes time to improvise on the thematic material of the composition?


Non-essential is not meant here to be a pejorative term. Chords are important, but in any style of music there is always a hierarchy of notes and relationships: subject, predicate and object are more essential than adjectives, articles, etc. Throughout the history of Western music, through all the different epochs and styles, has always placed melody and its melodic rhythm as the primary elements (notice I said Western music).

On a secondary level, I very much incorporate the chords with the lines. For example, on certain types of tunes I'll combine the melody notes with the chord tones below and make a composite 5 or 6-note pitch collection. This works best, however, on tunes in which unresolved 9ths, 11ths, & 13ths primarily constitute the melody.

Different types of tunes suggest different approaches--at least on the front burner. Summertime's melody, for example, suggests making a melody pitch collection. If you put the entire melody together you get a 9 -note form of a blues scale. You could begin by improvising on that--without regard to the chords whatsoever.

In addition, I often write chord sucessions that I ignore entirely, such as on Stairway to the Blues, in which I play blues licks against some wild harmonies (see here:) http://www.freejazzinstitute.org/showposts.php?dept=analysis&topic=20070610133452_EdByrne

[Jay Norem]

Non-essential is not meant here to be a pejorative term. Chords are important, but in any style of music there is always a hierarchy of notes and relationships: subject, predicate and object are more essential than adjectives, articles, etc. Throughout the history of Western music, through all the different epochs and styles, has always placed melody and its melodic rhythm as the primary elements (notice I said Western music).

On a secondary level, I very much incorporate the chords with the lines. For example, on certain types of tunes I'll combine the melody notes with the chord tones below and make a composite 5 or 6-note pitch collection. This works best, however, on tunes in which unresolved 9ths, 11ths, & 13ths primarily constitute the melody.

I understand what you mean. Very cool.

[engelbach]

I don't see why you'd think that my method is anything at all like sheer volume and radical approach.

Some of the posts I've read suggested this to me. On the forum, some people looking for tips have been overwhelmed by the extent to which you criticize the traditional methods they've been studying. You can't be unaware of this.

It's very basic and common sense: It requires no theory or terminology--and it can be worked on creatively. I do it in clinics, lessons, and classes with students of various backgrounds, and everybody seems to be able to get it and get into it. It does, however, take hard work in the woodshed.
Of course I would expect your own students to commit themselves to the work.

Unlike some people, I don't mind rehashing the same issues. It's always interesting to hear your views anew, especially when you're challenged (I don't mean only by me).

We're having two different discussions on this thread. I wonder if it's time to start another.

[engelbach]

This is an excellent example of the issue I brought up. I happen to very much prefer the 1st version, however. After all, the tune's primary key is Ab, so if you like sharps, transpose it to G# (8 #'s). I would use a Cb instead of the B, mainly because it limits the number of accidentals needed in the passage. For me, it is illogical to write lines locally based on individual chords, rather than the primary key. Psychologically, version 2, in its agreement with the chord symbols, fosters too close a reliance in line creation on what we've learned is acceptable to put over--& in tandem with--the chord progression. It's a straight-jacket--and it's an unnecessary one, I think.

I prefer the first version also, and in written out parts this issue would never come up.

But given that we use chord symbols to indicate harmony, this case is to me problematic for keyboard players. It's either read sharp chords that are not spelled to coincide with flat accidentals, or try while reading sharp chords and sharp accidentals to enharmonically transpose in the mind from E to Fb.

Since neither of the above is acceptable, I think that if I were writing a section like this I'd have to use Cb7 and FbMaj chord symbols, however unusual. But I couldn't bring myself to use Bbb7 in place of A7. This is a real shortcoming in our notational system.

I don't take seriously the suggestion to transpose the piece to G#. Given no more effective weapons, I would definitely wish that on my worst enemy.

[EdByrne]

I don't take seriously the suggestion to transpose the piece to G#. Given no more effective weapons, I would definitely wish that on my worst enemy.
Just kidding, Jer.:tanz:

[engelbach]

Just kidding, Jer.:tanz:

I know, Ed. Gotcha, hoo haa and all that. It was 4am, fer chrissake.

And if this little @#$%:tanz:*&!± doesn't stop jumping around, (:angry3:eight sharps for you, punk …)

And a belated thanks to ColdBuffet for starting this thread.

Cordially,
Jer bb7#4

[Slant]

OK, given the discussion here between Ed and Engelbach, let's back way the hell up and start from the GROUND UP. Is there any way, at all, on the face of this planet, that you could completely eliminate the need for accidentals, even if it meant completely revising the names of our notes, how music is written, talked about, communicated, etc.??? If so, how would it happen? Now, I'm pretty confident that the answer to the question is "yes", but what we want to do is get a conception in our minds of how it could work. First idea, then action.

P.S. I don't want to hear any crap about: well, you could...but no one in music today would understand where you're coming from. Right now we'll pretend that we don't care about anyone else...

[bgp]

Sure, here are all pitches over 2 octaves in the new C12 clef:
http://www.freejazzinstitute.org/uploads/20070926072257_bgp.png

[Slant]

Sure, here are all pitches over 2 octaves in the new C12 clef:
http://www.freejazzinstitute.org/uploads/20070926072257_bgp.png

I'm sorry, can you explain this in more detail? First off: what does the "C" in "C12" stand for? Second: This looks like the same old 5-line staff to me (regardless of any markings at the left), so how are the names that correspond to the lines and spaces any different? Third: how does this translate into chordal nomenclature?

[bgp]

Sorry about that. I just meant that one could say that with "such-and-such" a clef (like this hypothetical "C12" to denote a C-clef in which all 12 pitches have a position), the lines are a whole step apart, and then that part of the problem is solved. I bet the current state of things resulted from difficulty in reading such notation, (and having a bunch of mostly unused space within a given composition). But it could certainly be done. Then of course you'd need new note nomenclature. Maybe it has so far just been easier to think of accidentals as adjustments to a smaller set of pitches. Perhaps accidentals, as they are currently notated, also highlight things that are interesting in a given key.

I don't know, maybe this kind of thing would be easier -- for strings anyway (who presumably look at things relationally). This http://www.freejazzinstitute.org/uploads/20070926080418_bgp.png is C,F,G,C in the hypothetical staff.

[engelbach]

Sure, here are all pitches over 2 octaves in the new C12 clef:
http://www.freejazzinstitute.org/uploads/20070926072257_bgp.png

Elegantly simple, bgp, and simply elegant. I especially like that if a note appears on a line in one octave it's on a line in every octave, unlike the current illogic of having the same note alternate between lines and spaces in each succeeding octave.

However, the notes are very spread out and there are a lot of ledger lines. To maintain some semblance of sanity, notation of additional octaves would require 8va and 8vb symbols and even double 8va's and 8vb's.

The question is, How can this elegant idea be compressed into less vertical space?

The other question is, Why are you forcing us to read C clef. Arrghh.

[bgp]

Thanks, but yeah, who came up with that clef?! You go get your favorite cello suite, and splat, you have to do Fourier transforms to read the dang thing. I was just trying to make sure it didn't look familiar, since we've dispensed with the variably spaced, traditional lines.

Slant was just saying "could you", and that was just one way to do it. I don't know, but I guess the staff we have was developed by people trying to sing "Happy Birthday", and the rest is appendix. How are ragas notated?

The nice thing about an even staff is (like the octave part) transposition:
http://www.freejazzinstitute.org/uploads/20070926095024_bgp.png