is it just me or is trying to go through the john mehegan book of 'tonal and rhythmic priniples'(number 1) extremly difficult to understand?!  

also is it worth learning all the different numbers and combinations like; biix#5, instead of chord symbols?  or is mehegan out of date.

finally i have the whole set (except number 3) so should i do them all in order?!  

thanks  

jazz
There are no comments, leave a comment.
roman numerals identify a chord in a musical context and are most useful for understanding harmonic progressions. if you have studied music theory at the college level you should be able to follow his roman numerals.  mehegan's books are still worthy of study.
yea, i have all too except book 2. megehan books are good to have, when you ge through (if you study it right), transpositon becomes alot easier.

jv'
yes it is worth learning all the number combinations:  that is how all modern day theoretical anaylsis is done in music.
the order you learn the books in does not matter so much as that you study them all.  it has been a long time since i studied them so  i cant remember i think you would have to study the book where he explains what  
bii#5 is before you start the book that just starts using that stuff.
.  if you learn a tune in eb, how easy will it be to play it in a?  you will have to transpose the tune mentally to manage it.  if you learn the tunes with numerals and you know your keys, you can play the tune effortlessly in any key without the need for transposition.
i see, he also encourages learning notes of tunes in numbers which i suppose could be useful too.  

thanks
i find that when i'm learning a tune i think about the actual chords, but at the same time the relationship to the key center is also very present. makes it much easier to play tunes in other keys.
If I'm not back in 24 hours, call the president.

Scot is available for skype jazz piano lessons (and google hangouts, phone call, etc...)
Use the contact link at the top of the page.
so, for a typical diatonic standard which temporarily modulates to another key, which is better:

(a)  bvii7b5 | biiixb9 | bvimaj7

or  

(b)  bvi:  ii7b5 | vb9 | imaj7

?

if i recall, mehegan always includes the required sources for borrowed chords and non-diatonic progressions in his books, but does so in reference to the original key the tunes are written in.  but my question is, since neither of the options presented above are ideal for a jazz-performance  schematic (option a requires further analysis to make harmonic sense, however quickly one can perform that analysis, and option b sacrifices legibility for harmonic integrity), which is to be recommended?

also, roman numeral analysis  makes no harmonic sense in modal tunes, although i grant that it may serve as a mnemonic for people who, for some reason, need to play a modal tune in an odd key (why?  i don't know).
it depends.  by which roman numerals you use you define whether you are saying a modulation occured or one did not occur.
i suppose its all useful though
given the choice between legibility and harmonic integrity, choose the latter.

after you've played a tune once or twice you should have it memorized and not need to refer to the chart again.

the memorization process works much better if you keep in mind the order of temporary key centers.
"roman numeral analysis  makes no harmonic sense in modal tunes"

maiden voyage
v7 of g (4 bars of d7 sus)  
v7 of bb (4 bars of f7 sus)
etc.
(a)  bvii7b5 | biiixb9 | bvimaj7

or  

(b)  bvi:  ii7b5 | vb9 | imaj7

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

(b) is much clearer
jazz+ -- i agree that it's possible to break down a modal tune in terms of roman numerals, but since the chords are usually not susceptible to functional analysis, the use of roman numerals is no longer analytic, harmonically, but is more like a mnemonic for thinking about the abstract structure of these tunes.

i agree that (b) is clearer -- and, by including the extra step of analyzing the functions of the chords, is the only option which could be called *helpfully* analytic.
well, it might be good to look at an actual tune for starters.  what i meant to imply was that the rules of functional harmony simply don't apply to most modal tunes -- that is, indeed, why they are called modal, rather than simply an extension  of the diatonic progressions used in, for example, most tin pan alley-type standards.  it is, i suppose, a matter of definition, rather than my opinion or anything else, in which case, if we can agree on this point, there will be no further cause for alarm.

so -- here is one set of changes (the real book's -- i don't play this tune and am not going to transcribe the changes just for the purposes of this discussion) for the modal tune esp:

e7alt | e7alt | fmaj7 | fmaj7
e7alt | e7alt | ebmaj7 | ebmaj7
d7alt | eb7#11 | e7#9 | fmaj7 eb7  
etc.

where functional harmony is taken in its usual sense -- the changes of a tune "point" to a given tonality -- the above tune is not susceptible to analysis according to the concept of functional tonal harmony.  

we can worry about the sources of these concepts later -- i don't feel like pulling books at the moment -- but i don't agree that there are grounds for disagreement based upon the standard definitions i've employed.  

if you'd refrain from insulting me, as well, that would make for a more interesting discussion, in my opinion.
jazz + what you are missing is that modal tunes are in fact modal.
they are not based on the major scale keys (that is why in fact they are called modal).  so roman numerals work just fine.  on "so what for example  d - 7 is not  ii - 7 in c  it is  i minor in the key of
d dorian.  the example that you give in maiden voyage is incorrect analysis that is why your roman numerals appear useless.  try considering the tune to be a modal one and using the roman numerals that way and you will see they work just fine.
the analysis of "so what" is quite simply and quite functionally
a section: i-7 8 bars (key d dorian) b section: i-7 8 bars (key eb dorian)
form aaba.
each mode has its own type of functional harmony but that in no way diminishes the use of roman numerals in fact it enhances them.  none of the other modes have the i iv v cadence that dominates the ionian mode.
so composers and theorticians are always trying to figure out the most powerfull fuctions within each indivdual mode.  this quest would certainly be 100 times more difficult without a roman numeral system.
be analyzed".  

if, in fact, i misunderstood your statement, then it's highly probable that most other readers did as well.

if my trying to correct a misconception can be construed as an insult, then you've got a pretty thin skin.
okay, 7 -- now we understand each other.  yes, functional harmony, according to the sense in which i understand it (i haven't heard another use, but i grant that it may exist) used refers to major/minor harmony.  dominants, secondary dominants, borrowed chords, etc. serve primarily to establish a tonic center for a given piece.  modulations and substitutions of all sorts certainly exist, and may admittedly blur the possibility of distinguishing a home key, but, in general, this is the concept as i understand it.

this is not to say that "non-functional" = bad.  it simply isn't functional harmony according to this particular tradition of common practice harmony.  non-functional harmony might be heard in anything from berg's piano sonata to a wayne shorter tune (i realize that esp can be construed as a progression which has a disguised tonality at its core -- but surely you'll grant me that there are modal elements therein), and in many other pieces from the period of common practice, as well.  

of course i understand that there are uses of modes (although i'm not familiar with their use in jazz composition -- it's not something i've encountered) which could be analyzed according to the scale degrees of a mode employed in a given progression -- from what i understand, this is a technique more associated with medieval --> 16th c uses of modal harmony than something one might pick up from a miles davis disc.   if i'm wrong about this, i'd certainly be the first to express my interest.

i think this all boils down to a misunderstanding of the term "functional harmony" (which we've since agreed upon by clarifying that functional harmony refers to major/minor harmony of the common practice period) and, possibly, the term "modal tune."  let's say that "so what" is a modal tune, which consists of:

i (dorian)
bii (dorian)

the tonicity is established through repetition of the harmony, bar after bar -- but *not* through functional harmony.  the movement from i --> bii is probably best understood not as though it were a move, e.g., from a major key to its relative minor, but to an unrelated key.  it is in this that "so what" is a "modal tune" (according to the vernacular) -- i.e., it can't be explained or analyzed by functional harmony, but (perhaps exceptionally, compared to certain wayne shorter tunes, e.g.) retains a definite reference to a tonicity (d dorian).  

the analysis of the "other" type of modal tunes gets tricky, i think, because it's altogether possible that certain moments of some tunes can be construed as disguised references to an underlying tonality.  marc sabatella, for example, has a tune published on his website, called "shades of gray" which cannot be plausibly reduced to a functional-harmonic structure, but, perhaps, some of wayne shorter's tunes, in esp, at least, contains certain disguised cadences which are combined with chord changes which aren't readily explicable by traditional, major-minor functional harmony.  there are a few people who insist that the entire tune is really just an exercise in disguised tonality -- but when i listen to the tune, i can't honestly say that i perceive the kind of push towards a tonic that i'd associate with any kind of tonal progression.  and if you can't tell what the tonic is, what's the point of analyzing the tune in terms of functional harmony, built upon the principle of resolution towards the tonic?  without a "i" or a "i" -- you can't make a convincing case for  roman numeral analysis, and that seems to be the straight dope.  perhaps this sort of tune is better called something else than modal -- "non-tonal" or "atonal" maybe -- but i believe the vernacular has already decided this case *against* precision.
i understand modal:

maiden voyage:
d mixolydian
moves to
f mixolydian
moves to
eb mixolydian
moves to
c# dorian

d mixolydian happens to be 5th mode of g ionian (parent scale)
then u understand that the d chord in maiden voyange is not v7 as you stated in post number 14981.  this d chord is the i chord in the key of d mixolydian.  mixolydian replaces ionian as the parent scale in this case because it is a modal tune.   that is what makes it modal.  
that is what makes it so that the harmony is functioning modally and that is what makes the tune sound modal.  if the d chord was a v7 chord in this case the tune would sound very agitated indeed always wanting to be somewhere other than where it is.  but it is functioning modally and the tune is quite comfortable sitting right on that d chord forever if need be.
maybe it would clear it up if you did not think of it as a mode.
i never do any more.  i think of and call the mixolydian scale a major flat 7 scale.  when a song is in the mixolydian mode, it is really not a mode at all because it is not related to the ionian "parent scale" at all.  it just happens quite by coincidence to have the same notes.  other than that there is no relationship what so ever.
Please sign in to post.

Jazz Piano Notebook Series
Scot Ranney's Jazz Piano Notebook, Volume 1 - jazz piano tricks of the trade

Volume 1 of this educational jazz piano book contains 15 jazz piano exercises, tricks, and other interesting jazz piano techniques, voicings, grooves, and ideas Scot Ranney enjoys playing.

buy pdf version - buy coil binding version - videos

Scot Ranney's Jazz Piano Notebook, Volume 2 - jazz piano tricks of the trade you can use today
"Latinesque"

Volume 2 has 14 jazz piano exercises and tricks of the trade, and quite a bit of it is Calypso jazz piano related material, including some Monty Alexander and Michel Camilo style grooves. Jazz piano education is through the ears, but books like this can help.

buy pdf version - buy coil binding version

Tim Richards' Jazz Piano Notebook - jazz piano tricks of the trade

Volume 3 contains 12 jazz piano exercises and explorations by the acclaimed jazz piano educator, pianist, author, and recording artist Tim Richards.

Tim wrote the well known "Exploring Jazz Piano" and "Improvising Blues Piano" books and has several others to his name.

buy pdf version - buy coil binding version

Jeff Brent's Jazz Piano Notebook - jazz piano tricks of the trade

Volume 4 is by Jeff Brent, a jazz pianist, composer, teacher, and author of "Modalogy" and other acclaimed jazz theory and education books. In this book Jeff shares detailed analysis of transcriptions of live performances. He covers everything from the shape of the songs to the tricks and licks he uses in improvised lines to the ideas behind his lush chord voicings.

buy pdf version - buy coil binding version

Most Recent Discussions
Great Resource for Jazz Pianists
Scale in Calderazzo solo
analyzing Someone To Watch Over Me
Site updates
Korg SV-1 vs Nord Electro
Brad Brad Mehldau's independant left hand
more...
Articles

Piano for Adoption Scam
Aprender Jazz en Piano
BEWARE: FREE BABY GRAND PIANO SCAM
Oh Tannenbaum for Jazz Piano
Volume 5 of the "Jazz Piano Notebook Series" is Available!
LearnJazzPiano.com File Downloads News
more...

Top Sheetmusic Picks

Jazzy Christmas Arrangements
Cocktail Piano
Best Songs Ever, 6th Edition
Christmas Medley
Moana Songbook
Late Night Jazz Piano

Jazz piano education is cool.

be the main character in your own story

Rock on. Follow your passion.

Sign In

privacy policyterms of serviceabout • 50,655 messages 63,069 accounts 57,171 logins
LearnJazzPiano.com Copyright © 1995-2024 by Scot Ranney • website software and design by scot's scripts
LearnJazzPiano.com is For Sale - Serious Inquiries Only