Contrabass Digest
To subscribe or unsubscribe, email gdgreen@contrabass.com

 
 

2000-01-13

 
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:16:27 -0700
From: Grant Green <gdgreen@contrabass.com>
Subject: New Index page
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com

OK, probably not incredibly exciting to *everyone*, but I've updated
the index to the Contrabass Digests.  Even threw in some JavaScript
for digest navigation.  Still a few loose ends to tie up, but already
posted as http://www.contrabass.com/contra-archive/c-arch.html.  Any
programmers with helpful hints to improve it further?

Thanks,

Grant

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Grant Green            gdgreen@contrabass.com
                     http://www.contrabass.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1983 00:37:17 -0500
From: jim and joyce <lande@erols.com>
Subject: all that Jazz
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com

Kadamasuta@aol.com wrote:
>What bugs me is people take the time to write out changes
>on jazz charts expecting you to read chord changes without full-figured harmony
>while expecting it to come out the way they hear it. Bitonal arpeggios come
>out to be either a transmutated arabian scale, a min/maj, alt, a diminished
>whole tone, aumented 7 with a raised 9 and/or augmented 5 or +4, or you
>might use  a Major 6th chord, or keep the 6 and add the b13th not but
>just dont't call it a M7 in cycle of a third--your choice...  I wish they would
>just write what they want, or decide on a way to make ALL the chord symbols
>to a uniform code, or just use simple conservatory style figured harmony
>specified to each part...  I'm having nightmares with + signs and the numbers
>9,5, and 4 while trying to figure out if there are suspended semitones or
>does the + sign mean "add" whatever's in the harmonic progression.

I used to think I couldn't read music real well.  Now I know for sure.

---------------------------------------------------------

From: Colin.HARRIS@dfee.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Bb Subcontrabass Recorder
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:26:01 -0000
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com

Bb below 16 foot C.  Without a mouthpiece or a reed, how does a human get
that size column of air to vibrate?
 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Howell [mailto:John.Howell@vt.edu]
Sent: 12 January 2000 21:33
To: list@contrabass.com
Subject: Bb Subcontrabass Recorder

Take a look at the instrument at
http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/Libera_Me/consort.htm.  Of course, like
paintings of angel bands, we don't actually know how tall the player is,
but it's still pretty impressive.  (Of course since recorders functions as
open pipes, that low Bb would actually be only the Bb below bass clef
(contra Bb in Helmholtz terminology), but for a recorder that's low indeed!

John

John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411   Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell@vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html

---------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:31:53 +0100
From: Hans Mons <Hans@hansmons.com>
Subject: Re: Bb Subcontrabass Recorder
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com

>Take a look at the instrument at
>http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/Libera_Me/consort.htm.  Of course, like
>paintings of angel bands, we don't actually know how tall the player is,
>but it's still pretty impressive.

Adriana Breukink is about 1m80 tall.  You can find a bigger picture on my
web site at www.hansmons.com/recorders/breukink.htm
 

Hans Mons
dulcianist/shawmist/recorderist

---------------------------------------------------------

From: Kadamasuta@aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:40:18 EST
Subject: Re: all that Jazz
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com

In a message dated 1/13/00 12:34:28 AM, lande@erols.com writes:
>I used to think I couldn't read music real well.  Now I know for sure.
>----------------------
Sorry, I was off on a tangent regarding how theory can be confusing with
regard to the previous post about notation conflicts. I origionally started
out with the many ways one chord may be written.  Pehaps I'm missing
something in my self-taught studies in Jazz. I like playing it by ear and it
just seems that jazz theory is only a way to explain choices; natural,
mimicked, experimental, incidental, and others in a vocabulary. For me it is
confusing and only seems to slow my development, yet I find some of it
interesting. Of course most of this is moot in bass but I find it bassically
interesting to justify strange passing tones and even weirder pedal notes, or
successions of pedal notes which suspend then resolve themselves through
passing, or simply alternating pedals. And I'm not sure if anything I write
about music makes senses because thay didn't really teach this in traditional
music theory at mannes...  I suppose in jazz it helps to know what they are
thinking/doing up top. And because I dopn't play string bass anymore and now
keeping with the single reeds it helps with the upper voices. Here is one way
of looking at something that is also accomplished more readiliy by ear:

The following is thanks to M. Behar (M/Phila., PA) and educational free use
doctrine"
              I Tjought this was an interesting (new to me) concept.
  Triads over a C dominant chord, commonly known as upper structures.
  Here I have the chord, its spelling followed by its relationship to C7.
 


  For anyone new to this concept of upper-structures,
  I suggest playing on the piano a C7 in root position in the left hand
  then adding each triad one at a time
  with the right hand.

---------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:21:41 -0500
From: John Howell <John.Howell@vt.edu>
Subject: Chord symbols
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com

>From: Kadamasuta@aol.com
>What bugs me is people take the time to write out changes on jazz charts expec
>ting you to read chord changes without full-figured harmony while expecting
>it to come out the way they hear it. [snip]  I wish they would just write what
>they want, or decide on a way to make ALL the chord symbols to a uniform
>code, or just use simple conservatory style figured harmony specified to each
>part...  I'm having nightmares with + signs and the numbers 9,5, and 4 while
>trying to figure out if there are suspended semitones or does the + sign mean
>"add" whatever's in the harmonic progression... what ever happened to b9, #9
>and good old add9 but which key, the new one or the tonicisation that we're
>into?

OK, this is all a little confusing (or maybe it's just me!), but let me try
to answer.  What do you mean by "chord changes without full-figured
harmony"?  Chord changes are a shorthand way of telling you exactly what
the harmony is.  You may choose to add extensions to what's in the chord
symbol, and that's your right.  When they give you the chords they are, in
fact, writing what they want.  They expect you to hold up your end of the
bargain and turn those changes into music.  That's what jazz is all about.

Now, about the difference between "conservatory style figured harmony" and
chord symbols.  The system used for theory analysis was developed
specifically for that purpose--to analyze existing music.  It is pretty
well limited to common-practice music because it MUST have a tonic to work
from.  (There must be a system that works with non-tonal 20th century
music, but thank goodness I've never had to learn it!!)

But chord symbols are NOT designed for analysis, but to provide a framework
for performance.  And they are absolute, not relative to a tonic at all.
An F#maj9 includes F#, A#, C#, E, and G# no matter what the key signature
is, and no matter what key you happen to be in at the time.  The "good old
add9" always means to add the 9th OF THAT CHORD, not of the scale of the
key.  (Most folks are using the form C2 rather than C add9 these days.)

And yes, it would be real nice if everyone used the same exact set of
symbols to mean the same exact things, but we're human and that ain't gonna
happen!!  New and helpful things like C2 or F/G or C5 (meaning no third)
come along, and some people adopt them, and other people don't, and that's
life.  I personally hate the use of plus and minus signs simply because
they are ambiguous and can be misinterpreted, but jazzers like them and use
them all the time and apparently don't get mixed up.

Reading from chord symbols is a skill that's developed by lots and lots of
practice, just like reading from notation, or guitar tablature, or 18th
century figured bass.  It's obvious from your complaints that you haven't
put in that practice yet, but that doesn't mean you can't.  Best of luck!!

John

John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411   Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell@vt.edu)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html

---------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:01:04 -0700
From: Grant Green <gdgreen@contrabass.com>
Subject: Re: all that Jazz
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com

>Sorry, I was off on a tangent regarding how theory can be confusing with
>regard to the previous post about notation conflicts. I origionally started
>out with the many ways one chord may be written.  Pehaps I'm missing
>something in my self-taught studies in Jazz. I like playing it by ear and it
>just seems that jazz theory is only a way to explain choices; natural,
>mimicked, experimental, incidental, and others in a vocabulary. For me it is

IMHO, music theory (whether jazz or classical) is only a description
of the characteristics of a particular style, not a set of rules.
Music theory helps you to decide what will sound good in a style, and
what will sound out of character (like a lot of 7b9 chords in a
Baroque-style work).  It also provides a framework for people to
analyze and discuss music.  But it shouldn't constrain you: the ear
is the final arbiter.

Grant
 

>              I Tjought this was an interesting (new to me) concept.
>  Triads over a C dominant chord, commonly known as upper structures.
>  Here I have the chord, its spelling followed by its relationship to C7.
>
>  C (C E G) Root 3 5
>  Cm (C Eb G) Root #9 5
>  D (D F# A) 9 #11 13
>  Eb (Eb G Bb) #9 5 b7
>  Ebm (Eb Gb Bb) #9 #11 b7
>  Eaug (E G# C) 3 #5 Root
>  F# (F# A# C#) #11 b7 b9
>  Gm (G Bb D) 5 b7 9
>  Gsus (G C D) 5 Root 9
>  Ab (Ab C Eb) b13 Root #9
>  Absus (Ab Db Eb) b13 b9 #9
>  Bbaug (Bb D F#) b7 9 #11

I'm trying to think of which jazz musician advocated a theory of
"polychords", chords made by combining two or more triads (or
extended chords).  Pat Metheny?  Keith Jarrett?  Anyone know off hand?

Grant

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Grant Green            gdgreen@contrabass.com
                     http://www.contrabass.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:55:07 -0700
From: Grant Green <gdgreen@contrabass.com>
Subject: RE: Bb Subcontrabass Recorder
Reply-To: contrabass@contrabass.com

>Bb below 16 foot C.  Without a mouthpiece or a reed, how does a human get
>that size column of air to vibrate?

Well, it really *does* have a mouthpiece.  The recorder has an edge
that splits the air stream in the same way that the flute embouchure
hole does - its located at the bottom edge of the little window you
see near the top of a recorder.  The recorder differs from the flute
by including an airway which directs the air stream straight at the
edge: on flute, you have to handle forming and aiming the air stream
yourself.  On the subcontrabass, the airway is a bit longer than
usual... ;-)

Grant

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Grant Green            gdgreen@contrabass.com
                     http://www.contrabass.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
***End of Contrabass Digest***

 
Next Digest ->
Previous Digest <-
Index
Top