On Sat Oct 3, at SaturdayOct 3 8:45 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
On 2009/10/03, at 8:29, Christopher Smith wrote:
I have to respectfully disagree with you here, Hiro, on both points.
First of all, the PITCH CONTENT of both chords is the same.
Therefore, they are the same, and any other interpretive points
(like what scale to play or what extensions to add to the voicing)
occur in the ear of the player, not prescriptively in the chord
symbol.
Secondly, there is nothing inherent in the Am7(b5) chord symbol
that dictates locrian, as there is no mention of the second degree
at all. Depending on the context, the locrian maj2 scale might be
a better choice (and I'm not even going into other choices!)
Granted, it usually shows up as a II chord in Gminor, where
probably locrian might be the first choice. But what about a VI
chord following a Im(maj7) in Cm, or an altered II chord in G
major? Both those situations might like locrian maj2 better than
locrian.
But I accept the concept that a musician from the 40s might be
more likely to choose the Bnat if he sees Cm/A rather than Am7
(b5), which wasn't common in those circles at the time. Today,
with a schooled jazz musician, it would be another matter. That, I
believe, was the original point of the question.
Oh C'mon! If you want natural 9th - as the composer of the piece -
you would had wrote A-9(b5), right?
:-)
I don't think Monk did. His changes were not that detailed. Honestly,
my changes in my own music are not that detailed, either. I write
more detail in the rare circumstances where I really need something
in particular, but usually I write as little detail as I can get away
with. But we aren't talking about MY music, are we? We are talking
about interpreting an existing set of pitches in a tune written by
someone else.
I am serious. I am tired of people writing vague instructions to
the improvisor. If your chord symbols are clear to suggest what
the composer wants, you save rehearsal time, and your composition
will sound great on sight reading. When I wrote for Mike Stern who
had no chance to rehearse with us, I gave slashes only and I wrote
"blow whatever you hear". No question was asked! And he sounded
great! This didn't work with Dave Liebman. He wanted to know all
the harmony I wrote behind his solo.
I'm not often in a position where I care that much about whether
someone will choose a natural 9th or a flat 9th on one of MY m7(b5)
chords. However, interpreting what Monk or some other composer might
have written affects my choices as an improvisor (and yes, I DO
consider them to be MY choices, not Monk's, though I try to respect
his harmonic systems as much as I am able to while being true to
myself. I could choose to be a shallow exploiter of his legacy, or I
could choose to be a true exponent of his music, as filtered through
my experience.)
I think this discussion is underlining a basic difference in jazz and
classical analysis. In classical analysis, you only interpret what is
actually there, while in jazz there is a whole lot of analysis about
what ISN'T there and what might happen in the cracks. Not everything
is a free choice in jazz, and I think we are differing on what parts
of the harmony might be considered to be more prescribed, and which
parts are more open to interpretation.
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
