ask about Dissonance

[kienmid]

I've known that a note that called "Dissonant" is half step higher than chord tone.
Ex: "F" is "avoid" note of C major, it is half step higher than "E" of Cmajor.

So my question is: Why higher half step but not lower half step? (Why F# is not "avoid" note?)
Thanks..

 

[philippe]

At 12:40:13 24/03/06, kienmid wrote:
I've known that a note that called "Dissonant" is half step higher than chord tone.
Ex: "F" is "avoid" note of C major, it is half step higher than "E" of Cmajor.

So my question is: Why higher half step but not lower half step? (Why F# is not "avoid" note?)
Thanks..

 

[Pete Thomas]

This is a very complex topic, how long have you got. Dissonance is very subjective and any rules about F over a C chord being an avoid note are more sort of guidelines than rules. A couple of hundred years ago a dominant seven chord was considered dissonant I believe.

An F (or an F#) on a C is fine as a passing note, and as a dissonant note is also useable in many contexts if (a) it doesn't last long and (b) it's resolution is down to the E (either directly or maybe indirectl e.g. F to G to E).

An F# can also work on a C major if the chord is extended to become a C major 9 (#11). But of course it all depends on context, you probably wouldn't do that in a country song.

F is called avoid because it is a note of the C scale to avoid on a C major, I think whoever coined that term assumed that all other notes (ie not in the C major scale) were also assumed to be avoid. Oh, I just see Philippe said that too so perhaps it's right.

To confuse things a bit more:

An F over a C7 is technically wrong, although if the E is not there it's fine because it's a sus 4 or an 11th. However it does seem to work in a block harmony with an E provided (a) it is a semitone interval not a b9 (octave + semitone) and (b) it is not at the top of the chord.

I said it was a long subject.

 

[philippe]

An F over a C7 is technically wrong, although if the E is not there it's fine because it's a sus 4 or an 11th. However it does seem to work in a block harmony with an E provided (a) it is a semitone interval not a b9 (octave + semitone) and (b) it is not at the top of the chord.

Basically, the rule is: "it's an avoid note except when it isn't"

 

[matt_evans]

it seems to me that when improvising a melodic line, it might be a good idea to keep in mind the mentality of "avoid" notes, but in my experience of writing and listening to music, if you have a pre-written melody, any dissonance could be handled in a graceful and pleasing manner. it's all about how you phrase the line.

p.s. sorry to sound off on my first real post. I'm just happy to find a web page and forum like this!
-matt-

 

[Mikey]

At 4:24:45 PM 24/03/06, Pete wrote:
This is a very complex topic, how long have you got. Dissonance is very subjective and any rules about F over a C chord being an avoid note are more sort of guidelines than rules. A couple of hundred years ago a dominant seven chord was considered dissonant I believe.

An F (or an F#) on a C is fine as a passing note, and as a dissonant note is also useable in many contexts if (a) it doesn't last long and (b) it's resolution is down to the E (either directly or maybe indirectl e.g. F to G to E).

An F# can also work on a C major if the chord is extended to become a C major 9 (#11). But of course it all depends on context, you probably wouldn't do that in a country song.

F is called avoid because it is a note of the C scale to avoid on a C major, I think whoever coined that term assumed that all other notes (ie not in the C major scale) were also assumed to be avoid. Oh, I just see Philippe said that too so perhaps it's right.

To confuse things a bit more:

An F over a C7 is technically wrong, although if the E is not there it's fine because it's a sus 4 or an 11th. However it does seem to work in a block harmony with an E provided (a) it is a semitone interval not a b9 (octave + semitone) and (b) it is not at the top of the chord.

I said it was a long subject.

What about improvisation through this, if he is playing a solo, couldn't he scale up to the F# while including the F within? Or are you presenting this through direct context of the piece itself. "The Textbook analysis?"

 

[lee_]

If we're talking improvising in jazz, my opinion is that rules are there to be broken. Of course, it always pays to provide some resolution for whatever far out thing you have laid down.

Generally, what sounds good to you is likely to be working, but the reverse isn't necessarily so. There an old truism to the effect that if you play a glaring wrong note while improvising everybody will know it's a wrong note, but if you go back through and play it that way again everybody will start thinking "now that's a cool way to get it done".

 

[rebellion117]

I agree with Lee.

I saw a quote over on Sax on the Web that I immediately memorized and took to heart (in addition to putting it on both of my horn cases and the door to my room as a reminder):

"A wrong note played timidly is a wrong note.
A wrong note played with authority is an interpretation."

It all depends on how you play it and in what context you play it. For instance, you can be as dissonant as you want in blues. Blues and dissonance are bosom buddies, really. The blues scale has a minor third, a perfect fourth, and a tritone in it. You play these notes over a dominant seventh chord, which has a major third and a perfect fifth. Sounds like a recipe for disaster, doesn't it? Not so. Blues has a natural acceptance of dissonance, and it sounds really cool.

Sorry to digress (I play blues, can you tell?)

Cory

 

[justpiano]

<quote>Sorry to digress (I play blues, can you tell?)
</quote>

god i love playing blues! but every time i sit down to learn more about "jazz", i end up fooling around with blues scales and harmonies instead. i hope/expect that someday i will enjoy playing "regular" jazz as much as I currently enjoy blues, but i don't know.

i'm guessing the improv i just recorded below would be considered blues, not really jazz:

http://www.justpiano.org/uploads/Piano-Improv-2.mp3

 

[tootsweetz]

justpiano

Ok, talk about an in depth subject....

Thank you for posting your improv. I liked it enough to

listen to it more than once and place it in my regular

mp3 collection.

Since you asked, the first think I thought after listening

to you is,why worry about how to categorize your improv?

This question comes up often for me because I teach

improvisation techniques to my sax and flute students.

First of all, jazz and blues are closely related because

of course jazz grew out of the blues, but not the other

way around.

It is interesting because if you hear a blues player like

BB King we all call him a blues player but if we hear

John Coltrane playing the blues, then that is definitely

jazz.

Another thing is that the blues is more than a scale, it is

also a harmonic progression. In truth you used the blues

scale like twice at the start of your improv and that was

the least creative part of your improv. You definitely

went deeper as you played on. and just because you

used the blues scale to get going, I am not sure you

were playing the blues much at all. (others please chime

in if I am wrong and BTW this is all just my take on the

subject and certainly not gospel)
You never stuck to a progression at all much less a blues

progression. Another thing is that as a teacher it is very

easy to introduce improvisation with the blues

scale because of its melodic nature but when trying to

explain theory and some rules as to what to play and what to avoid,the blues messes things up big time. Am I

right teachers? Why the blues works makes almost no

theoretical sense. It's beauty is in the dissonance.

To me The essence of jazz is in the improvisation,the

spontaneous conversation-like spirit. So what I heard

from you was indeed jazz and in fact more like jazz than blues.

I like to even consider my culinary approach as jazz and

I do quite well.

The term jazz has changed and continues to change as it should I think.

This is not my first post but probably only my second. I

hope nobody is offended. Isn't this forum much like a

jam session anyway?

Keep playing and digging deep. Try to hold the balance

between freedom and discipline. That is what makes

great art as far as I am concerned.

Please post more noodling.
respectfully,
tootsweetz (Arthur)

 

[Bobby G]

Great post Arthur. As a 'layman' with some theoretical knowledge but more of a 'feel' player, I know where you're coming from when you talk about dissonance making the blues beautiful.

It's sometimes easy to get tied up in labels, like where blues becomes jazz, or r'n'b, or rock'n'roll. It's handy as an indication about where in the musical spectrum you are, but ultimately the label doesn't matter, it's whether you love playing it or listening to it that counts.

For example, Chuck Berry; he's a rock'n'roller. Or, if you accept rock'n'roll as a marriage between r'n'b and country, made by and for a predominantly white audience, that makes him an r'n'b artist. Then again, his performance in Jazz on a Summer's Day (jamming with a clarinettist, I can't remember who) would make him at least jazz-rooted. The labels are confusing sometimes....

Dissonant or consonant (?) if it comes honestly from the heart it's going to connect somewhere.

Cheers, Bob

 

[justpiano]

hi Arthur,
thanks for the feedback and i'm glad you liked my little recording. i have a lot to learn about not just jazz theory, which i find fascinating, but jazz history as well, and your reply contained some helpful comments in both areas.

you listened to one of 4 improvs i have posted online so far, since i create my improv site last week. each one is quite a bit different so far. one is definitely not jazzish at all. anyway, all four are located here:

http://justpiano.org/uploads

my site's home page is chronicling my attempts to learn jazz,

http://justpiano.org

thanks a lot for listening and i really enjoy the feedback and other resources here.