[LAU] New music: And it's time for: Bach again! Bach again! :-)

Joep L. Blom jlblom at neuroweave.nl
Fri Jun 25 10:19:59 UTC 2010


Atte André Jensen wrote:
> On 2010-06-25 10:59, Joep L. Blom wrote:
> 
>> This is an interesting discussion.
>> I agree, partly, that Bach wrote music which can be interpreted as
>> jazzy.
> 
> That's not really what I meant. Also I don't think it's especially 
> tasteful to swing Bach. I'm just saying that the basic melodic 
> principles of baroque and bebop is very similar. There's a lot of 
> differences or course, but melodically and harmonically there's a lot in 
> common.
> 
>> However, the harmonic complexity we use nowadays was not invented then.
> 
> Hmmm. Complexity... I think I understand what you're aiming at, but (and 
> as I say this a a jazz pianist about my own music) jazz is for the most 
> parts quite simple harmonically speaking compared to classical music. A 
> lot of II-V and II-V-I with only a few standard secondary functions 
> (mostly dominant) and almost exclusively root position chords.
> 
> Yes, we use bigger chords and accept greater dissonance in the 
> harmonies, but that has the unfortunate effect of blurring the 
> functions. Like in C, the dominant triad is G (G-B-D) and the 
> subdominant triad is F (F-A-C), no notes in common. In jazz you would 
> often use the II as subdominant as 7th chord, Dm7 (D-F-A-C) and at least 
> a dominant 7th chord, G7 (G-B-D-F), not the two chords have two notes in 
> common. More realistically a pianist would voice this as Dm9 (F-A-C-E) 
> to G13 (F-A-B-E), now with three notes in common.
> 
> I'm also not saying that jazz is stupid, but I don't think it's fair to 
> consider it more complex than classical music in general.
> 
> And of cource we could start talking about the more advanced jazz (Wayne 
> Shorter or something), but then there's Wagner :-)
> 
>> Bach's music is primarily polyphonic (listen e.g. to the Brandenburger
>> concerts or the Goldberg variations) using, sparingly, simple chords.
> 
> You don't have to play more notes at the same time to have a chord. Even 
> a single melodic line will suggest underlying harmony. Bach used lots of 
> b9's and stuff...
> 
>> In de realm of the classical music we have Debussy to thank for modern
>> harmonies together with the extensive use of the 6-tone scale and other
>> modern musical ideas. However the use of -9, -13 and many other
>> combinations in chords are 20th century ideas invented by jazz-pianists,
>> arrangers and "classical composers" alike
> 
> ...but of course (as I mentioned) I understand what you mean :-) 
> Debussy's harmonies (or actually "chords") are different to Bachs and 
> had large impact on jazz. But I still feel that "the core of jazz" has 
> more in common with "the core of baroque" than anything else.
> 
>> The greatest difference between classical music and jazz, however, is in
>> my opinion simply the timing which is unbreakably related to jazz
>> melodies and harmonies.
> 
> Fast bebop is almost even 8ths :-)
> 
> An even more fundamental difference is the irregular phrasing and 
> emphasis on lifts in jazz. This is something that you won't find too 
> much of in classical music.
> 
>> Try playing Bach with swing (the most horrible
>> example which springs to mind is Jacque Louisier) or Chopin or even
>> Debussy.
> 
> Oh no...
> 
Nice discussion! I agree with most what you write. However, the minor 
fifth chords reharmonizing even a simple melody is not found in 
classical music (in sofar as I know), use for example C7+9 
((E-As-Bes_Es) and only change the root-note to Ges and you have the Ges 
7/9 which you can play consequently. Also the II-V-I progression (you 
even find it in Gregorian songs) sounds completely different when played 
with th minor fifth chord progression. And that's one of the simple 
things you can do.
In jazz you also often turn chords around (I mean instead of C in basic 
position you play it in first or second) and e.g. the use of a minor 
D-chord in 2nd position with a B as root(minor 7 also written as B(Ø) or 
B(-7-5) give you much freedom accompaniment, especially when playing solo.
But another point of equality between jazz and "classical" mosic that 
the old composers were all excellent instrumentalists and improvisers 
pur sang. Nowadays classical musicians cannot improvise one bar but in 
19th century it was rule that everybody improvised. Well known of course 
by Mozart but also Chopin and Liszt were formidable improvisers.
Excellent books on chords and progressions are of course the 2 books by 
Marc Levine, Jazz Piano Theory and Jazz Theory. I try (for myself!) to 
write notes (some call it a book) on chord theory as my original 
profession was neuroscientist and I have done some work on the auditory 
system, However, it is still a chaos of notes, some short length 
chapters, etc. Hopefully one time it will fall it into something I can 
understand and use in writing and arranging.
But maybe we can continue this discussion individually as we digress, I 
think, a lot from the original subject.
Joep


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list