I've confused myself with modes!!

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='672957' date='Dec 3 2009, 10:50 AM']Whist I agree with most of the content of your analysis I would offer you this point for your consideration, it's philosophical more than technical...
The [i]concept[/i] is modal. And taken in historical context that is all that's required for this to be the seminal album we all (seem to) agree it is. I think Paul Chambers achives a good deal of modal playing as does John Coltrane and Bill Evans, whereas Cannonball is relying on changes that aren't there to get from point A to point B in the charts. You might argue that I'm pointing out the obvious, but when faced with an analysis such as yours I think it's easy for the reader to overlook this core concept and so it's pertinence needs to be added in to the mix.
Whatever the players do (and I agree much of it strays from the stated harmony) the structure is a modal one.[/quote]
Sorry Jake - I'm yet to be convinced (please convince me!).
Yes you can analyze various bits of chord sequences and maybe say they are modal, but its a very tenuous connection.
The first 16 bars of So What is in the key of C (the melody has no sharps or flats) the chords are clearly in C major. The only reason we say its in the Dorian mode is because the first note D feels like it is the tonic or root note. Is this a ground-breaking modal concept ?

Please please convince me that Kind of Blue is based on a modal concept. (I do love a heated debate !).


The Major

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='674074' date='Dec 4 2009, 12:15 PM']Please please convince me that Kind of Blue is based on a modal concept. (I do love a heated debate !).


The Major[/quote]
To my mind it's largely to do with the historical context, Miles sought to cool everything down, the 10 years prior to Kind of Blue was faster higher faster and yet faster with more changes and more improvisational gymnastics than at any time since Bach. So the idea was... how can we move away from all that freneticism and still retain an improvisational integrity? the answer apparently was not more but less changes... So how few can we have? well why don't we try just one chord for a while... can we blow on it? yeah of course the chord is just the template... what happens when we run out of steam? we'll just move the chord up a semitone and see what happens.... and so on (a fictional conversation obviously)
As XB pointed out chromaticism is a hallmark of jazz so it follows that it would be retained in this much cooler version of what had gone before.

As I said in my original post it is true that (as you pointed out) there is a minimum of adherence to strict modal expression but to my mind that is irrelevant when trying to grasp the idiom, and the guys who do grasp it well will have a facility of all of the history of the music. And love it or hate it (the term that is) it's deemed to be playing modally.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='672972' date='Dec 3 2009, 11:05 AM']I guess the label doesn't really matter. Its the noises they are making that count![/quote]

In truth this, of course, is all that needs to be said on the matter

[Sibob]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='674171' date='Dec 4 2009, 01:55 PM']In truth this, of course, is all that needs to be said on the matter[/quote]

Indeed.
It could also be considered a bit of an 'chicken-egg' moment. Was music first?, or written theory?. Most would say music was being made by humans before the species could write. So historically, one could argue that all theory is put in place retrospectively to explain what has creatively preceeded it. It would be interesting to know if anything musical has been written theoretically before it has been performed creatively, like some other 'conventional' scientific experiments.

Si

[leftybassman392]

[quote name='Sibob' post='674210' date='Dec 4 2009, 02:48 PM']Indeed.
It could also be considered a bit of an 'chicken-egg' moment. Was music first?, or written theory?. Most would say music was being made by humans before the species could write. So historically, one could argue that all theory is put in place retrospectively to explain what has creatively preceeded it. It would be interesting to know if anything musical has been written theoretically before it has been performed creatively, like some other 'conventional' scientific experiments.

Si[/quote]

One of the things that came out of my work on the Greek modes was the extent to which music theory was in flux throughout the period, with ideas about harmonic relationships being particularly susceptible to constant revision. This makes me think that throughout the ancient Greek period (by common consent one of the most creative periods in the history of western civilisation), music was first and foremost a performance activity - the only time musical ideas would need to be written down would be so that they could be either recorded for posterity or disseminated more widely from their source (fellow musicians in one's own area would most likely have learned by observation and demonstration in much the same way that folk music of all kinds has been passed on over the centuries). Either way, writing it down it would be a secondary activity. It also helps to bear in mind that a universally accepted notation format was still a long way off.

Not exactly an exhaustive analysis I know, but it does give a pointer as to how musical ideas would have developed in ancient times.... and then the Medieval church tried to set it all in stone and nothing much changed for a thousand years!


Later edit: Science works in an inherently different way. You observe things that happen and then devise a hypothesis that you think might explain what you've observed; then you devise experiments to test whether your hypothesis works; if your hypothesis passes all the tests, it then becomes a theory. Music, on the other hand, is inspired (quite literally for the Ancient Greeks) by The Muses. Explanation is not part of the creative process.

Edited December 4, 2009 by leftybassman392

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='674167' date='Dec 4 2009, 01:52 PM']To my mind it's largely to do with the historical context, Miles sought to cool everything down, the 10 years prior to Kind of Blue was faster higher faster and yet faster with more changes and more improvisational gymnastics than at any time since Bach. So the idea was... how can we move away from all that freneticism and still retain an improvisational integrity? the answer apparently was not more but less changes... So how few can we have? well why don't we try just one chord for a while... can we blow on it? yeah of course the chord is just the template... what happens when we run out of steam? we'll just move the chord up a semitone and see what happens.... and so on (a fictional conversation obviously)
As XB pointed out chromaticism is a hallmark of jazz so it follows that it would be retained in this much cooler version of what had gone before.

As I said in my original post it is true that (as you pointed out) there is a minimum of adherence to strict modal expression but to my mind that is irrelevant when trying to grasp the idiom, and the guys who do grasp it well will have a facility of all of the history of the music. And love it or hate it (the term that is) it's deemed to be playing modally.[/quote]
I think you've hit the nail on the head here Jake. The meaning of words changes over time, and changes differently within different musical disciplines, so clearly a jazz musician's use of the word "modal" is now very different from its universally accepted meaning from 60 years ago.

I've just listened again to Freddy The Freeloader, and bass man Paul Chambers (who you cited as achieving modal playing) gets about as far away from modality as its possible to get (using the traditional meaning of the word). So if his playing is, for you, an example of modality, we need a new definition of the word, one that clears up some of the confusion as stated in the original post on this thread.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

While i can accept the changing of word meanings, I still fail to see how we can help those new to the modal concept to meaningfully incorporate this in their musical development and bass playing without an understanding of the historical development of modes over thousands of years.

Another word that is changing its meaning in some music sectors is "arrangement". I think some of us that actively do arranging / composition etc know exactly what that word means traditionally in the music biz. However, I recently read in a high tech music magazine that "arranging" was:
(and I paraphrase): Deciding the order of verses and choruses in a song (!!)
Now that REALLY bugs me !

The Major

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='Sibob' post='674210' date='Dec 4 2009, 02:48 PM']It would be interesting to know if anything musical has been written theoretically before it has been performed creatively[/quote]
Most of the orchestral repertoire !

[Sibob]

[quote name='Major-Minor' post='674807' date='Dec 5 2009, 10:55 AM']Most of the orchestral repertoire ![/quote]

Sorry, I meant musical concepts as opposed to pieces of music!

Si

[Sibob]

[quote name='leftybassman392' post='674458' date='Dec 4 2009, 07:51 PM']Explanation is not part of the creative process.[/quote]

I wholly agree with this!

Si

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='Sibob' post='674210' date='Dec 4 2009, 02:48 PM']It would be interesting to know if anything musical has been written theoretically before it has been performed creatively, like some other 'conventional' scientific experiments.[/quote]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleatoric_music"]Aleatoric[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_music#Music"]stochastic[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_music"]generative[/url] musics by their very nature have to be defined theoretically before they can be performed (or even composed).

Of course, some of these things push the boundaries of what people think of as "musical", and the type of "theory" we're talking about here moves way, way [s]beyond[/s] outside "normal" music theory. But you get the drift.

[Sibob]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='674860' date='Dec 5 2009, 12:13 PM']Aleatoric, stochastic and generative musics by their very nature have to be defined theoretically before they can be performed (or even composed).[/quote]

They might be pushing the boundaries of this particular discussion lol, but even here, surely the theory that is being used to define these pieces is the same theory that has been retrospectively applied to previous, already created, musical ideas!?

Si

[Major-Minor]

[quote name='leftybassman392' post='674458' date='Dec 4 2009, 07:51 PM']Explanation is not part of the creative process.[/quote]
While I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, it doesn't half make it easier to BE creative of you at least have some detailed knowledge of what others have done before you. That's how you can avoid cliches and accusations of plagiarism. It can also give you a starting point from which you will probably stray wildly, but will at least get you going, avoiding the writer's block syndrome.

Having said that, "explanation" is what we get in bucket-loads from young composers whose works we perform at our annual SPNM (Society For The Promotion Of New Music) concerts. Drives me mad ! Bullshit, bullshit and yet more bullshit ..... every time.

The Major