Jazz Improv Books

[szulc]

Have any of you guys (people PC) read the Lydian Chromatic Concept?(Russell) Or Intervallic Designs?(Diorio)
The New version of Lydian Chromatic Concept has come out but it is pricey (130.00 US), before I drop this on it I would like some feedback.
Also has any one read the Schillinger Method book (A mathematical approach?)
I had a teacher once that taught me about 4 factors but I still wanted to read the Schillinger book this book is over 200.00 US.
Not that I am poor or anything I just don't want to piss away my money.

James

[Guni]

My flatmate once photo copied the entire Schillinger Book (this was at Berklee a few years ago). I remember that we had a look at this and were facinated by the approach - a purely scientific and mathematical way of approaching music. I gave up after 5 pages :D

I mean at this time we were bombarded with information and this was a bit too much by then. Now, I'd like to have another look at it. I guess I'd describe it like "If you are up to throwing all you've ever learned about music overboard then go for it" - well maybe a bit harsh but this is what i do remember.

My flatmate was more into it and actually worked on some topics but after 2 weeks he gave up too......

Don't know if that is helpful - just some thoughts ....

I never had a closer look at the other 2 books .....

Guni

[Bongo Boy]

RE: Schillinger, You may also want to browse:

http://www.wannalearn.com/Reviews/136.html

Also, I used the google search engine to come up with quite a number of resources that either talk about Schillinger himself, people who studied the method, or the method. Big Berklee connection, interesting history that goes way back.

There even appears to be a connection (or someone who has created a connection) between Nikola Tesla and Schillinger, and between fractal theory and Schillinger's.

..always trying to do my part to provide additional useless information to clutter the internet. :)

[Guni]

Originally posted by Bongo Boy
RE: Schillinger, You may also want to browse:
http://www.wannalearn.com/Reviews/136.html

Thanks Bongo - this is much appreciated.

"By refering to "The Schillinger System" as a mathematical approach to music composition you give the reader a sense that your/their site thoroughly understands the work. What that statement really shows is that your/their site did very little research concerning Schillingers system."

I think he is right. I mean the Schillinger system is a technique for composing music. It takes some serious studies to get into it, as it is with all techniques, ie counterpoint ......

I think the basic question is always how somone uses such techniques: Where does science start / stop and creativity start / stop. I mention this as I've been asking myself this question a hell of a lot lately. Do I use my knowledge of theory that I have gained throughout the years to my personal musical advantage or do I use it because I know it just works?

hehe quite a weired question, I know ....

Guni

[Bongo Boy]

Not a weird question at all. Did anyone want to read a book?

For those who are "seat-of-the-pants" musicians, perhaps those who can't even read music, they might wonder why anyone cares about theory at all. To a lesser extreme, folks who simply make their living performing at clubs (doing covers) may not have the need or the time for the theory--they simply need to execute what's already been created.

Even for those who see how music theory at some level helps them compose better music, there may be the question, "Do I need another method, or do I have the time to invest in learning a comprehensive method? Will as much of 2 more years of study pay off in terms of improved material?"

Finally, there's the pervasive idea that composing something great isn't at all the same as performing something that stirs the emotions. I'll certainly bet that Schillinger never even hinted that they were the same. I've not read a single word he's written, but he probably assumed without saying it: the artistic creativity is STILL outside the realm of the Method. My analogy would be that fine furniture is outside the realm of fine hand tools.

These points are each attempts to support the idea that your question will always exist. At this point in my musical adventure, I see that theory has extreme value. Right now I practice the basics on guitar (REALLY basic--how to keep the pick from slipping, how to sit for 30 min so as to not fatigue, how to get a C chord without crippling my fingers). But, I also experiment and play with the instrument. A LITTLE theory will help me save a lot of time in say, finding chords or progressions that are 'fun'.

This is just a practical example, at the kindergarten level, of how practical theory is--I KNOW beforehand why a chord will have a particular character (because it's a minor, say). As long as I don't equate facts with Rules, I'm still free to discover things--maybe even things that 'shouldn't be'.

Here's another analogy--beermaking. As a beginning brewer many years ago, I took extreme care with measurements (temperatures are very, very important) and with logging each and every aspect of the process. Many of my fellow brewers were even more rigorous, more instumented in the brewhouse, and even more analytical. But, we always had debates and lively dialog with the 'seat-of-the-pants' brewer (that's where that phrase originally came from). These are brewers who see brewing more like making stew (or Jello) than like chemistry and biology.

Each group gets the results they need--which in one case is something other than simply the finished beer. We all approach an endeavor in a way that's the very definition of who we are.

For some it's a problem to be solved, and for some it's just making a nice bowl of chili. Both are absolutely wonderful perspectives, and thank goodness we have folks who live in each of these worlds. Zappa and Hendrix come to mind as guitar guys who both brought tears to my eyes with their creations, and I think they MAY fall somewhat into the two camps.

[EricV]

Hey Guni,

IMHO it matters how you use theory to create music. Or rather:

YOU SHOULD USE THEORY TO IMPROVE YOUR MUSIC OR WORK ON IT... DON´T WRITE MUSIC JUST AS A VEHICLE TO APPLY OR SHOW OFF YOUR THEORY-KNOWLEDGE.

What I mean is, there have been quite a few ( guitar- ) records that had some songs on it which to me sounded as if they were just written for the sake of showing off a certain technique or scale or chord or anything.

Like, a song where... I dunno, the guitarist used a guitar with a different scale-temperature ( like 19 frets in an octave ), jamming on a synthetic scale over chords based on stacking fourths, written in a 17/8 time signature ( no pun intended, just trying to show an exagerated example )
I mean, there might be musicians who write that kind of stuff from the heart and really mean it. But often, it´ßs just an experiment or some kind of "Look what I can do !"
And I usually don´t enjoy listening to that kind of stuff. I mean, it´s sometimes cool to see where you can go with your music, but to me, it matters whether it comes from the heart and whether there really is a song in there.
On the contrary, I love to listen to guys like Vai or Morse when they take a certain song and use their theory knowledge to arrange huge string parts behind it, or come up with counterpoint-stuff... when you hear it´s just a tool to enhance the song...

Does this make sense ?
Well, that´s just my opinion
Warm regards
Eric

NP: Mattias IA Eklundh- Time To Breathe ( track )

[Guni]

Hi Eric - all 100% cool with me ...... ya got my vote :D

Maybe I should be a bit more clear in what I mean. Let's not even take theory as an example - let's take playing a solo as an example: Say you throw everything overboard: your scales, rational analyses of the chords, licks, most of your technique, etc...... now what do you have left?

In my case what's left are a hell of a lot of rhythmic ideas, melodic phrases and motives. And this is what I started out with when I began this entire music quest. For sure this is different from person to person (thank god).

Now, my point is that I am really trying to focus on getting out this music within. That's why I have to watch closely where theory starts and music begins in my playing. This is a development in very tiny little steps........

I hope this makes more sense :)

Guni

[EricV]

Ok...

with me, it´s a different case. I do believe that when I play, I do get the music out that I really mean to get out.
That means, when I i.e. play "Canyon" or the new songs ( which is a ballad where I take a LOT more freedom with soloing, and actually go a bit more "through the roof " ), I think I am actually playing what I want to play, or feel like playing.
The theory ( knowing patterns, scales, arps ) helps me to find and translate it faster on the guitar. It´s like a filter, where I look at the fretboard and it´s like "K, these notes sound nice in that key, those are a bit more off..." etc.
So I kinda let go when playing and knowing this stuff helps me to find the right notes and filter out the ones that don´t fit or the ones I don´t wanna play.
"Filter" is a good definition.
So that´s my approach to it... I don´t really feel trapped or limited by it.
Warm regards
Eric

[szulc]

It has alway been a tight rope for me to walk, thinking vs mindlessness when improvising, I try to use the brain only when the inspiration is on hold. To fill in the gaps between inspired moments.

[Bongo Boy]

Well, okay, all good points. But the phenomenon of 'overkill' on a particular style, technique, sound whatever is to be expected. We're all little kids...thank goodness. We're going to learn some new thing and work it to death, probably. Hopefully, the more seasoned artist will remember how it feels to recognize that he/she himself has made this mistake, and won't make it too many times in the future or in a recording.

Two analogies from the computer world--when fonts first became available for word processing software, geeeeezus you'd think everyone was a flipping graphic artist suddenly. Everything that got printed on paper had at least 4 different silly fonts in it. It was horrible. Now, no one I know EVER uses more than two or three fonts in anyting but the most massive documents.

Then came color. Oh my god. Some theory might say repetition of color and visual balance are good things. Don't waste that speech on the early users of color graphics printers. Suddenly every flippin' memo had to have a dozen vibrant, nauseating colors in it. Now, not so much. Only the neophyte PowerPoint user uses scads of colors for the average business presentation.

I'm not an artist, I'm not a musician. I'm an idiot. But, expect to see the same thing in music you see elsewhere--the musical equivalent of a Nagel, if you will. Commercial or demonstrative "art" vs something you'd actually want to hang on your wall or...listen to. Just go ahead an appreciate it for what it is..or what you feel it is..but don't compare it to the Real Thing. If you happen to think Nagel (for example) is the Real Thing, then I'm also behind you 100%.

I personally always thought 80% of Zappa was more designed to demonstrate, have fun and experiment. A very serious lab exercise, if you will. I'm actually surprised at his comment quoted by EV in his sig.

[C13b9b11]

Hello all,

I've got an idea for those interested in the Russell and Schillinger books that could save you $300+... Go find a local public university!!! I know that the Uni I recently graduated from had both books, as well as some of the other "standards" of jazz theory, from Russo to Slonimsky. I would worry that the Russell especially would be useless to someone who has a thorough knowledge of modes. While it was groundbreaking at the time, most people are now familiar with the most useful parts of his theory.

As for Schillinger, yikes! I'd think that there are many other "esoteric" books that would be more useful both practically and theoretically. Hindemith's books on composition are real hoots. Even Schoenberg's Harmony treatise is a more interesting read than Schilly. I'd just go find your local public U, sit down in the library for 3 hours and see which ones you're actually interested in. There's just so much stuff out there, good and bad...

[pianoMan]

The topic is jazz improv books, the schillinger method, the lydian chromatic concept. Not such a strange collection, I reckon, but let me say a couple of things: I have a masters degree in music theory, been playing jazz since I learned the blues (I guess), and all that . . . if that gives me any credibility. I ran across S's book in my undergrad U library (good reccomendation that, go to a library), and couldn't get past the first chapter of it. Tried several times. I believe George Gershwin studied with Schillenger, so I suppose milage varies greatly here. I've only had a glimpse at a photo copy of the lydian chromatic method, but it made much more sense, what I glossed of it. Plus, I've heard the mans music, and it's interesting music.

As for the topic in general, jazz improv books, long before I tried Shillinger, Russell, or even Hindemith (very interest writing there, worth the reading) I'd have to recommend first to get a good grounding in the basics of music, intervals, chords, all that. Till you can do that stuff in your sleep. The 'rudiments' of music are not really the 'theory' of music. The basics are often confused with theory, no, the basics are the basics. Theory starts with a study of harmony . . . . . A good teacher is virtually indespensable.

After that, I'd highly recommend The Jazz Theory Book by Mark Levine from Sher Music, ISBN 1-8832217-04-0 for general jazz theory, and for pianist, Levine's The Jazz Piano Book Sher Music, ISBN 0-9614701-5-1. For superb book on 'classical' theory, it's Harmony and Voice Leading by Aldwell/Schacter, ISBN 0-15-531519-6. Theirs is a Schenkerian approach, but they don't hit you over the head with that fact; the book is filled with illustrations of concepts taken from the literature Bach to Brahms (give or take), and is clearly written, even if seemingly hard going. Music theory is not a thing you learn in a day.

Schenker (Heinrich) will be remembered for his mark on music theory much longer (and very much deeper) than Schillenger will be. (You might want to check out books by and about him, there are many) There are other books, other paths to the mountain top, but those are some concrete examples, very workable IF YOU:

Practice the material, play as much as you can wherever you can, whatever the venue, (live in the woodshed, come out to play a gig, go back to the woodshed. . ) nice work if you can get it . . .

Jim

[Guni]

The basics are often confused with theory, no, the basics are the basics. Theory starts with a study of harmony . . . . . A good teacher is virtually indespensable.Hi Jim,

I couldn't agree more.

Thanx for your great recommendations regarding music theory books - I will definitely check 'em out. Because I studied a lot of music theory before going to the States I pretty much only know books that are written in German :mad:

I also think it's time to finally have a look at the Hindemith book.

Welcome to iBreathe :D

Guni

[szulc]

I have a pretty good handle on classical music theory, I am interested in modern methods for improvisation, 12 tone or otherwise. I know all the Major Melodic and Harmonic scales and their modes and use as they apply to improvising over a given chord in a given context, I have studied 'Patterns for Jazz' (Coker), and several David Baker and Abersold books, I know tertiatry and quartal harmoy concepts very well.

So far the best things I have found for playing jazz are Cycle Exercises, since most chord movment is Cycle 4 (and modifying these can get you to any other key by skipping over some). To me 'patterns for jazz' is just a collection of pretty LICKS( I guess cycle exercises are as well). I want to rip over jazz changes, not be an encyclopedia of licks. I thought that the above books might give me some insight into alternative methods to do this.

I have read some of the Schillinger stuff, it is very mathematical, which is not a problem for me since I am an engineer.

What I am interested in is making interesting ( hopefully pleasing) music, I have not heard enough tone row stuff to know if I like it. So the jury is out on whether or not it would or can be pleasing.
Someone suggested that the Russell book is not very useful for those who are already well versed in modal music.

[S.Carter]

Szulc mentions the Schillinger books. Bill Leavitt, the founder of the Berklee guitar dept., (my boss for many years, but also my friend) was a fan of the Schillinger books. He attended "Berklee" when it was "Schillinger House." We had some interesting converstions about theory and jazz improv. But Bill would say, "Scales don't make music for you."

Somewhere Gunharth has my "Chord-Scale Syllabus", which he may post on this site. (Hint to Gunharth :-)) I based it on Bill's approach. But, as you've said, you want to do more than run scales.

I think the study of classical theory helps. What you want to do when you "burn over changes" is create a melody, just like Beethoven did. So ask yourself: what are the elements that make a melody beautiful to me? How can I build on that?

I like to hear a melody developed, so I work on interpolation, extrapolation, inversion -- things like that. I start with a phrase that sounds like jazz to me and then I try to build a long line out of it. Since I know what the available scales are, I know what my note choices are, so I concentrate on the arrangement of the notes.

[szulc]

I read the Bill Leavitt and Bill Fowler books when I was quite young and found them helpful ( I actually preferred the Fowler stuff). I understand the scale chord relationships, this doesn't make music for you. I have a good ear and very good feel, I can improvise over many types of changes, but I am looking for alternative methods which are less subjective, based on some mathematics or other teachable skills. I realize you can sit down with Band In A Box and learn to blow over any chord change if you are patient enough, and that will make for some level of artistry and personal style expression, however I hear things being played in the jazz idom that have some underlying meaning and structure that is not being learned by these methods. There is one piece in particular by Keith Jarrett, Gary Peacock and Dejonette (SP?) live, this stuff sound like a new language it must be based on some different concept, little groups of usually four note motives being permutated, it was beautiful it was like hearing an extraterrestrial. That is just one of many examples. There is some common thread here but it has been eluding me my entire life. I just want to find some meaning in the methods of some of the great music I hear. I thought that the Schillinger method being a 12 tone system might shed some light in this area, since nothing in my musical education has prepared me for the analysis of any 12 tone music. Sometimes I hear things with diminished scales that are very pretty for a couple of measures, but I am not sure I am recognizing atonal music when I hear it, maybe the music I think of as atonal is really based on some way out permutation of the 12 tone scale and really is having some tonal magnetism. Some times when I hear realy great improv it makes me wonder if it is just the mathematical relationships in the very odd pantonal phrases that draw me in. Like some little equation that makes it work even if the whole thing is out of key.

[pianoMan]

Thanks to all for the warm welcome. One of the, well, THE main reason, I like all three books I mention, is they all give examples from the literature, and discuss the concepts clearly. e.g., in a discussion of 'from scales to music' in Levine's theory book, one section of that chaper deals with 'sequences' and he gives examples of improvisations based on sequences actually improvized by Joe Henderson, on several different tunes, 'Bonita', 'Nutville' and 'Empathy', 'Totem Pole' and several other tunes by well known jazz composers, all improvized by Joe Henderson.

He gives interesting 'exercises' for turning scales into music in another section of that chapter . . and so on, and so forth.

The two chapters on 'basic reharmonization' and 'advanced reharmonization' are worth the price of the book alone. (38$ US when I got it). I have plenty left to deal with in it.

So that really addresses a lot of the comments made by all to my message. Steve, you talk about 'the study of classical theory helps' that's a LOT said in a very few words. The real study of theory, is the analysis of all these various technique, as you mention various things that can be done to a melody, I added sequence as above . . . the list is endless, the study of harmony, form.

The ultimate USE of all this study and analysis, is in the 'synthesis' of it all back into your own music. Without synthesis, analysis is, well, it's not music, it's music analysis, and we are all (after all) after making music. There is truth to the saying 'learn the changes then forget them' but it is only after long study, and it's really not about 'forgetting the changes' so much as it is internalizing all that you have worked with, analyzed, practiced, listened to . . . back into your own personal way of playing. This takes time, and patience, and work, and listening . . . always listen to other players, listen a lot. The thing about it, is it's a lot of fun all along the way.

szulc, you mention Coker and his 'notebook of licks' approach, and playing of patterns. I encountered Coker's Improvising Jazz as a teenager, after having played the blues for some years, just coming out with sponaneous melodies based on what I'd heard others (largely guitarists, while I'm a pianist) do, and it struck me then as now, that if you are just playing a bunch of licks you've previously memorized, then you aren't improvising. So I took what I could from his book, and left what I didn't need.

I definitely enjoy a lot of dodecaphonic (tone row) music, but to improvise in it is beyond me. It will teach you things like melodic inversion, retrograde, retrograde inversion . . and it will indeed if you work with the music you start producing, will stretch your ears such that you find you like many more kinds of harmonic entities than you might not have found or known about otherwise. I suggest listening to Schoenbergs Piano Suite, a great work, and Bergs String Quartet (every other movement is strict twelve tone, the other movements are still atonal, yet not using strict rules.) Simply improvising in an atonal fashion is hard, yet interesting (this is really playing 'outside' since there ARE no changes in a harmonic progessive sense).

Steve, back to something you mention, Beethoven . . . his melodic invention was sometimes instantaneous, he was considered to be a great improvisor by all contemporary accounts I have read; but then we also have the sketch books to study where he worked out his compositions, and these show that many of his 'tunes' went through many changes until they arrived at the final state, in which they appear in the composition itself.

In one of his most interesting piano duels, he listened to another
pianist play his latest and greatest; when it was Beethovens turn to play, he went to the 'opponents' (these were duels, like 'head cutting') piano, picked up the first page of the score, turned it upside down, played the first two notes at the NOW top of the page, NOW left side, and proceeded to burn the house down with an improvisation based on those two notes . . . . .

one final thought (long post I know, sorry), someone really worth listening to, Eliot Carter. That's all need be said. He has something to teach your ears, that your ears want to know. At least, so I have found. The String Quartets are great, difficult at first, you might try the earlier Concerto for Harpsichord and Piano and Two Orchestras . . talk about sonority, and rhythm. Extraordinary musical mind.

'nuff said for now. I'm nowhere near all these other cats, I need to practise :cool:

[pianoMan]

Guni, are you the author of that article on rhythm here on the site? I found it interesting and challenging myself, and would use it in pedagogical situations (I'd love to have my church choir try it!)
Getting it to young people would be good, but I no longer direct school bands, or do much teaching of piano to the young. Still, a good article, with interesting insight and exercises.

I note you are the site admin, may I critique the site a bit? The ease of much of the formatting of messages (i.e., font, italics, etc) is offset by the difficulty of quoting from earlier messages in the thread, which is often important in such complex threads as this one, that is to say, almost any music thread, since the subject can become deep quickly. If a way could be found to overcome that (I currently use the technique of opening two broswer windows, but this is cumbersome, though workable). Maybe there already is a way, and I'm missing it (not unkown for me to miss the obvious :o ) the thread seems also a bit out of wack when read in 'write' mode!)

Having said all that, let me get back to music. Guni, it's worth underscoring our agreement that the basics, the rudiments, of music are not the theory of music. They may be said in a way to be the facts of music, the theory starts after the fact (so to speak). I shall do that by making some remarks on an extended quotation from a post szulc:

"however I hear things being played in the jazz idom that have some underlying meaning and structure that is not being learned by these methods. There is one piece in particular by Keith Jarrett, Gary Peacock and Dejonette (SP?) live, this stuff sound like a new language it must be based on some different concept, little groups of usually four note motives being permutated, it was beautiful it was like hearing an extraterrestrial. That is just one of many examples. There is some common thread here but it has been eluding me my entire life."

I wish you would pin that one down more, most of their recordings have been done live, and all are (to me) extremely fine. There is the latest (I believe, anyway) 'Whisper Not' that contains some extraordinary improv, the entire album can seem like a 'breakthrough' sort of music, perhaps you are speaking of the 'Hallucinations' track. It seems to have a kind of motivic, largely defined by accentuation, since many of the lines are long, and Jarretts fluency is quite in evidence. But permutations of four, or some number, of notes is not unusual in the general scheme of musical things. I would point out that Jarrett is a very eclectic musician, having recorded much jazz, as well as the Bach WTC, and Piano Preludes of Shostakovich. I'm trying to find a way to speak to this 'common thread' that has eluded you, as you say. You speak about certain areas of theory with great fluency, but I find this a curious statement:

"I just want to find some meaning in the methods of some of the great music I hear. I thought that the Schillinger method being a 12 tone system might shed some light in this area, since nothing in my musical education has prepared me for the analysis of any 12 tone music."

I do not believe that Schillinger is 12 tone in his approach. That specific technique seems to be the invention of one man, Arnold Schoenberg. That many people of that era were working towards an atonal music is true, but it seems that the rather stringent 'rules' of his method were developed to achieve true atonality for extended musics, other more 'intuitive' methods failing so to do. What I find most curious about your statement, is that you say 'nothing' in your education has prepared you for analysis, and therefore, creation of dodechaphonic music. Yet expositions of the basics of the method abound in many music texts. I would point to one only, since it so completely discusses the matters of the first part of the twentieth century, including the development of 12 tone, as well as other issues (including the emergence of jazz),
Music in the 20th Century: from Debussy through Stravinsky
by William W Austin. This is a remarkable and rich book.

"but I am not sure I am recognizing atonal music when I hear it, maybe the music I think of as atonal is really based on some way out permutation of the 12 tone scale and really is having some tonal magnetism."

If you take away the word 'scale' you pretty much have a basic definition of 12 tone music, or at least it's fundamental idea: the 'tone row.' A 'tone row' can be made of all 12 notes, or better put, 'pitch classes' (since register is not a consideration), and such an entity is in fact a 'permutation' of the 12 possible pitch classes (in 12eq tuning anyway). Further, such a 12 tone row can have internal structures or partitions of 4 or 3 notes, made in various ways so that the partitions have the same intervallic structure, yet do not repeat any of the preceding pitch classes.

I don't know if, in the end, whether a piece, or even a portion of one (and by 'piece' I'm including improvisation . . let's not forget Eric Dolphy's 'Out To Lunch' which seems very atonal in places, to name only one of many jazz examples) . . . can be or even need be 12 tone in the strict sense, to be atonal in the larger sense. The music of Hindemith is definitely tonal in that it has that 'tonal magnetism' you speak of, but stretches the fabric of tonality. Bartok also does this, even more so, especially in his quartets. To return to Jarrett, much of his earlier work with the quartet made of Charlie Haden on bass (other members names escape me now) was often in an 'atonal' world. The same can be said by about Chick Corea's group Circle (esp the live recording 'Paris Concert')

"Some times when I hear realy great improv it makes me wonder if it is just the mathematical relationships in the very odd pantonal phrases that draw me in. Like some little equation that makes it work even if the whole thing is out of key.'

Achieving musical coherence in a (more or less) atonal style is difficult, and let's face it, not very commercially viable (which is not to say that it isn't artistically important). I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'pantonal' . . I know the term pandiatonic, but that is different from what you seem to imply, which is seemingly what is called playing 'outside' the changes. That whole statement is confusing to me, in fact, since I'm not sure either what you mean by 'mathematical relationships' (these exist in all music, and the math can be expressed in various ways, (cf writings of Milton Babbit, and/or Iannis Xenakis, both of whom being highly trained mathematicians, as well as composers with very different approaches).

I guess this long harangue is an attempt to discover where and what, your blockage or 'rut' seems to be, and an attempt however feeble, to suggest ways around it, or out of it. Maybe instead of improvising, trying rigorous notational composition for a while. Listen to non-jazz, yet non-tonal, yet non 12-tonal atonal music . . . I again suggest the music of Eliot Carter, and perhaps read of his methods for devising the extraordinary sounds and sound structures he makes by reading the book
The Music Of Eliot Carter by David Schiff. To make jazz, don't make jazz for while . . . to be perfectly zen about it. :)

Jim

[szulc]

I guess what I am trying to say is there might not be anything magical or mystical about the particular note choices for the the scales and modes which are in common use, other than the fact that they ARE in common use. I also am implying that it may well be that the relationship of pitches in a given line ( and yes the particular way a sequence is generated by permutation, inversion, retograde and transposition) may need nothing other than some underlying mathematical order that orders the pitches, ( and the particular rhythm) to make it interesting, and yes, possibly even beautiful.

My ignorance of duodecophonic sounds, lies mainly in the listening of pieces which are considered important, I have read the Shoenburg Method and find it curious, since if the above statement is true, the possibility exists that this strictly formulated music COULD be beautiful, given the right choice of the original series and the right choice of permutation based ont the rules. It also seems to me that maybe the rules are a bit strict and NEED to be broken at the composers whim inorder to make the piece more palletable. ie. less than 12 note sequence motives. I have even written some of this highly sturctured music according to what I believe to be the rules, mostly it seemed to make a good 'walking' bass line at least to me. But I believe that most people would not like this in its rigid form.

[pianoMan]

I understand what you're saying. Indeed, Berg was noted for 'breaking' the rules of the strict 12 tone, Webern was even stricter than Schoenberg, Stravinsky himself adoped the techniqe in his latter years, mainly from listening to Webern, yet I believe he (and other composers) have used rows of less than all 12 tones.

I don't believe the problem/solution is essentially mathematical, this or that mathematical relationship . . .

I think the operative word, make that words, here are 'listen' and 'beauty' . . if you don't listen to the music enough to make it your own, internally, then no amount of reading about it, or even applying it from the book, will help. Listen. I think Bergs piano sonata is beautiful, though I believe it was pre strict 12 tone, it is atonal . . I also believe Bergs already mentioned String Quartet (I think it may have a name) is beautiful, as is Schoenbergs Piano Suite. I have listened to them, in my younger years a lot.

I don't think it's a matter of this or that 'method' . . Schoenberg remarked toward the end of his life that there was plenty of good music left to be written in the key of C.

Let me give a final quotation from another writter/composer/teacher that to me sums up the 'problem' and the 'solution' of the music, jazz/classical/whatever, twentieth (and twenty first, since we still are dealing with them). I think this is a true statement for all categories of music:

"Any tone can succeed any other tone, any tone can sound simultaneously with any other tone or tones, and any group of tones can be followed by any other group of tones, just as any degree of tension or nuance can occur in any medium under any kind of stress or duration. Successful projection will depend upon the contextual and formal conditions that prevail, and upon the skill and the soul of the composer." (emphasis added) Vincent Persichetti, Twentieth Century Harmony: Creative Aspects and Practice page 13. That is the first paragraph of the first chapter of the book. I think little else needs to be said, his book explores a lot, but much needs to be both done and heard.

Jim

[Guni]

Guni, are you the author of that article on rhythm here on the site? I found it interesting and challenging myself, and would use it in pedagogical situations (I'd love to have my church choir try it!)
Getting it to young people would be good, but I no longer direct school bands, or do much teaching of piano to the young. Still, a good article, with interesting insight and exercises.Thanks Jim - I really had the feeling that it's time to write something about this approach as it is really a great way of developing a rhythmic feel. I got quite some feedback and I should expand upon the introduced basics. I'll have a thought about writing a series .....

With a friend of mine I am experimenting with writing an entire rhythmical score for a bigband, just based on using this approach. If we get it done together with a decent recording I might publish that on iBreathe .... it's quite interesting how many different sounds someone can create just with the hands ......

I note you are the site admin, may I critique the site a bit? The ease of much of the formatting of messages (i.e., font, italics, etc) is offset by the difficulty of quoting from earlier messages in the thread, which is often important in such complex threads as this one, that is to say, almost any music thread, since the subject can become deep quickly. If a way could be found to overcome that (I currently use the technique of opening two broswer windows, but this is cumbersome, though workable). Maybe there already is a way, and I'm missing it (not unkown for me to miss the obvious ) the thread seems also a bit out of wack when read in 'write' mode!) Yeah, I agree. It took me time too to get used to this. The problem is that there is no way at the moment to make that work, say like an offline word processor. Browsers don't support that kind of stuff. More info can be found here: http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=21758

For long posts I use Notepad and put the code around the text like QUOTE or B (in brackets). I think this is pretty fast and to me a workaround until companies come up with better browser technologies

Guni

[VidKid]

I know these are very old threads, but lately I've been creating "melodic lines" over standard changes or modal, with Pandiatonic Progression. If you keep the line moving though the changes, it forces you to create new melodic material.

If you apply Hal Crooks' approach to motif improv development (Section II) like, fragmentation, extension, variation, inversion, etc., you can extend your material from a single original thought/motif either from the Pandiatonics (Slonimsky) or from your own motif. I've been trying to apply this approach and wonder if anybody else applies this concept.

Also, I apply chord(quartal-4ths)/Octive solos built on Pandiatonic Progressions which create very melodic lines.

VidKid