Frank Zappa's chords and modes

[Byrdman]

I know that the modes used by FZ are not unique to his work. What I don't know to what extent he invented them and to what extent he took them from elsewhere.

 

Notwithstanding, I would like to understand them. Can anyone point to some good books (or web sites) that analyze the theoretical side of the master's music?

[Krakit]

My favorite Frank Zappa chord is the one he plays to "interupt" Jon-Luc Ponty's violin solo on the song Fifty-Fifty from the album "Over-nite Sensation"

 

To me this chord speaks volumes. It was like Frank was saying, "Ok JL, you've taken up enough vinyl for one song, it's my turn to shine"

[ISPdeRuiter]

Mister Zappa was good friends with

Nicolas Slonimsky, who wrote a "Thesaurus of

Scales and Melodic Patterns"(Amsco Publications).

I would not suggest that Mr. Zappa took anything

from there - he merely invented/discovered these

forms & patterns while instantly composing (live

improvisation) or at home at the desk.

Still there are similarities, so one might conclude that these men thought along parallel lines.

It is rumoured that John Coltrane studied these

scales & patterns -at least this is a hit in the

jazz-community- for the original outlook it gives

on the subdivision of the octave.

Hopes this helps you in your survey...

 

ISPdeRuiter,

Amsterdam

[marino]

Originally posted by ISPdeRuiter:

Mister Zappa was good friends with

Nicolas Slonimsky, who wrote a "Thesaurus of

Scales and Melodic Patterns"(Amsco Publications).

I would not suggest that Mr. Zappa took anything

from there - he merely invented/discovered these

forms & patterns while instantly composing (live

improvisation) or at home at the desk.

Still there are similarities, so one might conclude that these men thought along parallel lines.

It is rumoured that John Coltrane studied these

scales & patterns -at least this is a hit in the

jazz-community- for the original outlook it gives

on the subdivision of the octave.

Hopes this helps you in your survey...

 

ISPdeRuiter,

Amsterdam

Yeah, I was going to mention the Slonimsky book too. It is said that Coltrane studied it intensively, then worked on applying some of those scales to chord progressions. It's probable that Zappa didn't work on it as sistematically, but took a few ideas and integrated them in his composition/improvisation system.

In particular, the book doesn't deal with rhythm, and that's an important part of Zappa's phrasing.

I'd recommend to have a look at it anyway - it's excellent food for thought.

[whitefang]

Excellent examples of all this can be heard on "The Grand Wazoo". And oddly, it started early in his career. Those modes can be found on

"Freak Out" and "Absolutly Free". Most parents thought it was a bunch of hippies fartin' around with their instruments just making noise. But close listening betrays a man ahead of his time.

 

Whitefang

[ISPdeRuiter]

Rhythm in Zappa's work has to do a lot with

Varèse ("Ionisation" for example)and with

Strawinski (over the measure line polyrhythms).

Strong influences on his guitar playing were

Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown & early Johnny Guitar

Watson. About his soloing he said it mimicked

human speech (rhythm & phrasing).

Many great improvisers use the Lydian scale a lot

(Lennie Tristano wrote a book about it- please mail me the Pdf-copy ) and Mr. Zappa was no

exception; they seem to like the supermajor quality and the (dual) shifting tonal centre.

[marino]

Originally posted by ISPdeRuiter:

Many great improvisers use the Lydian scale a lot

(Lennie Tristano wrote a book about it- please mail me the Pdf-copy )

Tristano? Maybe you're thinking of George Russell's "Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization"? If not, and Tristano really wrote such a book, I would love to have a look at it too!!

[burlingame2]

Listening to those earlier recordings of his, I have to think that was where I got the impression that learning jazz was key to rocking out. With many composers the piece has harmonic appeal for a full verse or bridge without leaving the tonality. In many of the Zappa tunes there are short tonal areas set up that also serve to highten the appeal of his songs. There is use of alterred runs that could have been invented, but for the length of the passage it would have been easier to borrow the technique from another source or influence. I would be interested in what influenced his use of the chords as well as the contributions that have a lasting impression on young composers. I think alot of it has to do with putting together the different tonal areas in his inimittable manner.

[whitefang]

In 1968, WABX FM in Detroit did a trick where they went from a Mother's piece, I think it was a part in "Invocation And Ritual Dance of the Young Pumpkin", and a section of "Saturn" from Holst's "Planets" that sounded similar. I may have the Mother's of Invention song wrong. But nonetheless, it was pretty interesting. That was the point I realized that Frank Zappa was much more than a freaky looking wise-cracking hippie!

 

And I never looked back...

 

Whitefang

[ISPdeRuiter]

Hi, Marino,

 

After a frenetic Google session I think I must be

wrong on the Tristano book. I heard this mentio-

ning once on a nightly broadcast on fifties jazz.

They've probably attributed the Russel book to

Tristano without checking. I didn't check it either, that's the way Internet myths get born....

 

Mi dispiace, ma così è la vita...

Tanto mi sbaglio, tanto imparo.

 

Ciao,

 

ISPdeRuiter,

Amsterdam

[makalei]

Marino about the book http://www.georgerussell.com/storefront.html

it's a bit over priced for me.

[henryrobinett]

I swear I didn't pay that much for that book. I don't know. I'd be surprised if Zappa paid that much attention to that book. I could be wrong.

[Jojje]

Now ther is an ongoing myth in the jazz community about a book that all the great players learned from. Accually there are two books, one is the Slonimsky book and the other one is the Lydian Chromatic Concept by George Russel, a book said to be the inspiration for Miles, Tristano and Bill Evans among others. The myth is that Coltrane studied from the Slonimsky book. Well, maybe he did, and maybe he got some inspiration from it but there is no place in that book that sounds like Coltrane. It´s more from a composonal point of wiew. If you want to play like Coltrane then transpose from his records and analyze what he is accually doing and don´t throw away your money into the pockets of some greedy publishers who are ever so happy to keep the myth alive.

 

The same goes for The Lydian Chromatic Concept by George Russel. The pocket version of his theory is that over a C major chord you sound more hip if you play a C lydian scale. Thats about as far as people go when they try to digest that book. Which is ok...but then Mr Russel builds up his chromatic theory based on the lydian scale and comes up with names like Lydian Augmented for the third mode of melodic minor And Auxiliary Diminished Blues for the half whole step diminished..Nah...listen to what people do on their records instead...

 

The danger with all these theoretical book is that they introduce terminology that is foreign to the musicians who accually play the music. Study how the musicians do it is much more effective than the gospel of some theoretican.

 

But I guess this rant is useless...eager jazz students will continue to, like I did, buy these books thinking that they have some secret formula that will turn you into a real jazz musician in no time..only one thing will do it...practice, practice, practice....

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by Jojje:

But I guess this rant is useless...eager jazz students will continue to, like I did, buy these books thinking that they have some secret formula that will turn you into a real jazz musician in no time..only one thing will do it...practice, practice, practice....

Yes, yes, yes. I couldn't have said it better. I feel the same way about both of those books, 100%.

[marino]

Originally posted by Jojje:

The myth is that Coltrane studied from the Slonimsky book.

He did, unless a *lot* of sources are wrong.

there is no place in that book that sounds like Coltrane. It´s more from a composonal point of wiew.

More accurately, it's more from a melodic or intervallar point of view. What Coltrane did was to apply intervallar concepts to jazz harmony, something that's not in the book. But the book was for him an inspiration and starting point. To better understand what Coltrane did with symmetrical scales on diminished and dominant chords, for example, a look at the book can't hurt IMO.

The same goes for The Lydian Chromatic Concept by George Russel. The pocket version of his theory is that over a C major chord you sound more hip if you play a C lydian scale.

What?!?

Thats about as far as people go when they try to digest that book. Which is ok...but then Mr Russel builds up his chromatic theory based on the lydian scale and comes up with names like Lydian Augmented for the third mode of melodic minor And Auxiliary Diminished Blues for the half whole step diminished..Nah...listen to what people do on their records instead...

 

The danger with all these theoretical book is that they introduce terminology that is foreign to the musicians who accually play the music. Study how the musicians do it is much more effective than the gospel of some theoretican.

Two points here. First, Russell wasn't a pure theoretician at all - he was a composer. I heard his orchestra live a few times, with him conducting, and they played real music, not theory. He also made a few historical recordings.

Second, you have to put his work in perspective. There was almost no jazz teaching at the time. He tried to make his *method* universal, and he failed. A certain tendency to intellectualize and *explain* everything made his book a bit heavy to study. And it's not the universal improvisation text for sure; for example, it doesn't deal with rhythm at all. But saying that most musicians don't go beyond the basic concepts is not pretty to the thousands of musicians who gained knowledge from it. You don't have to stick with Russell's names for the modes, you know - there was no standardization at the time (nor today, but it's another story...) - what's important is understanding the principles. I've found the Lydian Chromatic Concept excellent food for thought, without making a religion out of it.

But I guess this rant is useless...eager jazz students will continue to, like I did, buy these books thinking that they have some secret formula that will turn you into a real jazz musician in no time..only one thing will do it...practice, practice, practice....

Um, what about practicing, listening AND reading books? I don't think it matters where you take your knowledge from.

 

A few quotes from the Russell book:

 

"The Concept does not legislate taste. Hence, there are no do's and doesn't - no laws.

By analyzing his choices, the musician may broaden his taste vocabulary - and possibly find his own concept within this one.

It is our own aesthetic judgement which must take the new resources and humanize them with our personal touch, and if that touch is strong and beautiful, make art.

To do this, one must absorb this new knowledge in his own personal way."

 

This doesn't sound to me like someone trying to impose some "secret formula", as you said, to turn us into "real jazz musicians" (what's that...) in no time.

Sorry if I sound a bit harsch - that's not my intention. But I have a lot of respect for those people who, in pionieristic times, tried to understand and transmit a new forming language. I don't see any harm in studying what they have to say, just advantages.

 

[burlingame2]

I don`t see where is the harm of studying several sources of music theory. Occassionally a mystique is created around a publication that helped to organize musicians thoughts in its day. The lydian chromatic concept would certainly be taught today if it were so beneficial. Maybe the material is too dry for todays music institutions, but I bet on the former. I think after figuring nine tetrachords with the same root we have saturated the topic without choosing to spend more time honoring a little hunch that some formulaic processes just might help musicanship either in composition or improv. I believe George Russell might agree. Leaving all that material behind is impossible, though the conventional wisdom says to do just that when creating music. There are other outmoded theories of music that may have been a contribution to the music scene, but alot of great sounds are being made without wading through stacks of notes time and again until they fit some formula. As much as this would be a real boost for those of us with questionable relative pitch.

[henryrobinett]

Good points all Marino. My problem with Russell's book is not Russell's book so much. It's that in some people's minds, especially those who've not studied it, it has become a catch all book. When I was looking at it many moons ago I was dissappointed in the manner in which it attempted to turn everything around. I already thought lydian. It seemed much more to the point and direct to study music in the more traditional manner. Good point that at the time there wasn't an educational method for jazz theory. And no, Russell was so much more than a theoretictian. I too have seen him several times, hung out with the band. I feel in love with tunes like "Ezzthetic" and "All About Rosie". Hell, that's why I bought his book. But as a theory book, there are a lot better, more convenient, more direct and concise books around. At this point there's no need, yet, to reinvent the wheel.

[D_dup3]

To me there's some confusing of the cart & the horse (or whatever metaphor you choose) here.

Studying modes/chord relations/etc. is vital to underatanding & communicating music but it is not music.

We could all study the same books and, if we have any redeeming musical "souls", all wind up applying the knowledge differently.

That's why (as Jojje says) "the Slominsky book doesn't sound like Coltrane" &, conversely, he didn't sound like just a part of the book.

It was study material for practice not the music (or even the source for the music).

This is why I personally find it disheartening to hear players describe what mode to use in relation to what chords, etc.---these are studies not music!

 

Another way of seeing this is the idea that using the same keyboard (or sounds) as someone else will lend you that player's qualities.

That's obviously false; less obvious but just as false is the idea that any formulaic approach will yield the same musical outcome.

 

"Oy, enough with the poodles already!"

[henryrobinett]

Well d I tend to disagree. I think a case can be made for the fact of theory being music. I know that sounds bass akwards, just bear with me a minute. I think of theory as being the nuts and bolts of what music is. The mind behind the music. Those things that explain not just why you play Bb in a C7 chord, but even THAT you do. It doesn't have to be the subject of modes, but it is that thing that you use to play music, be it a chord, a lick, a rhythm, set of tools used to factor in decisions for what becomes music. Theory shouldn't be anything you have to think about, not necessarily. Theory can be as simple or as complex as you want to make it. It should be intuitive. If you have to think about it, you don't KNOW it.

 

Theory has become a science of musical principles, which is not necessarily what I think it is. Theory can be as simple as somebody jamming in A and you knowing what blues scale to play, not even what it's called, but knowing where to put your fingers. Without some concept of how to put your fingers down to play a sequential row of notes, in relative time and rhythm, even if that concept is entirely of your own invention, you can't even play music. Theory doesn't have to be this course you take in school or study with a teacher or from a book. It's merely a set of principles that make music work, for you and hopefully for others. That the same words may not be used, or drills, or even concepts is much less important than does the end product communicate as MUSIC.

 

This is the way I think of it anyway. I know it's a divergence. I do understand what you're talking about. But Modes DO make up some forms of music. You don't have to understand what they are or what they're called. Modes are a pretty basic concept as far as music goes. It's pre-tonality. They've been with us a very, very long time. Chords, harmony, melody, intervals all make up what we play and hear as music. They ARE, or are segments of what is music or becomes music. Music is something that seems to fall out of the air, but it doesn't; not really. We can come to an intuitive understanding, but it is built and has a structure, whether we understand it or not.

[D_dup3]

HenryR., I think we should avoid getting into a long wrangle (like that one on the guitar forum months ago) about theory vs. music because I think it's more a matter of word connotation than difference of outlook.

My point is that often people seem to think that the "answers" to how to play music are in rulebooks.

Guidelines are for learning & for analysis but music is best when inspired & there can be infinite ways to get from points A to B; different ways may be better in varying situations---thus the magic!

No one should mistake my recognition of the value of theory & study but I believe that great music can trod any rules in the dirt.

[henryrobinett]

Cool, but I think you misinterpreted my post. Maybe not. We make the rules. That is my point.

[D_dup3]

Like I said, I think we're basically in agreement.

To me, though, how ideas occur can be (1) through development or (2) through some truly unconscious inspired new mental connection...& I always like the second sort better.

 

P.S. An interesting tangent to this might be that Zappa song (I can't recall the exact title but I'm sure---or hope---someone will post it) about the "Secret Scales of Carlos Santana".

[Steve LeBlanc]

What chord/mode did Zappa NOT use?

[D_dup3]

Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc:

What chord/mode did Zappa NOT use?

Hey, kids, remember that early poster of Zappa photographed sitting on a "chord/mode" ?!

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by d:

Like I said, I think we're basically in agreement.

To me, though, how ideas occur can be (1) through development or (2) through some truly unconscious inspired new mental connection...& I always like the second sort better.

I don't really think we're in disagreement, but I think I am saying something different. I think I know because most people have a hard time getting this point from me unless they study with me.

 

My point of view:

 

All great music, like almost all other things that happen naturally and spontaneously, occur unconsciously. Like riding a bicycle or driving a car or eating cornflakes. If you had to THINK about it it would either take a lot longer or you'd suddenly make all kinds of mistakes or it would be crappy. I think that's when most, not all by any means, mistakes occur. We suddenly put too much effort and thought into what we're doing.

 

Now here is the catch: You HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT TO GET TO WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT ANY MORE. Whether you're talking about playing Coltrane substitutions or bending the 2nd string at the 8th fret, or playing an open E chord, it's all the same thing. The only thing that's different is the volume and kinds of data you're ingesting and spitting out.

 

In order to play the blues you, at one time, would have to have learned a blues scale of some kind of or other. Then you would have had to have learned at least three chords. And then you probably would have had to have learned a handful of licks. At some point this required thinking and effort. Eventually no thinking and effort would be required. All you'd have to do would be to play INTUITIVELY. The wonderful world of no thinking. This is the world where magic happens. I'm convinced. It don't happen, by and large, with effort or with forced thinking.

 

But how do we get there? We practice. We play. We take an idea and make it our own. We put thought and effort into something until it ceases to be thought and effort. No difference with this and what some people call theory. But if you have to think about it you don't yet have it. If it takes you a split second to KNOW what mode you have to use over Eb7+11, you don't yet know it. I can't THINK which pedal is the gas or the brake. I don't THINK which leg I start out walking with. I don't have to THINK about how I chew my food. Playing music should be no different.

 

Finally I don't think it's possible, I don't care what Keith Jarrett says, to approach your instrument as a complete blank slate. Partial yes. You don't pick up the guitar and see a board with strings and brass thing-a-ma-bobs and nothing else. You bring with it what you KNOW. It's not what you THINK.

 

So I don't see any disagreement in what we're saying. Sorry for beating a dead horse deader but these details and distinctions are very important to me.

 

So as far as:

1) through development or (2) through some truly unconscious inspired new mental connection.

for me it too is number 2. As a matter of fact I have always had a very hard time playing any other way. If you've ever heard of "automatic writing", that's how I like to think of my playing approach. It's almost all, always unconscious. But I KNOW and apply theory too, without effort. But I think everyone does who plays well, no matter what style of music they play or how "learned" they are or aren't.

[burlingame2]

I was following for the most part. There is an amount of subjectiveness in saying the best music or a good deal of desireable music comes from an unconcious process. Acceptable listening experiences all falling within the realm of well worked melodies? Likely the composer has been exposed to myriad theories or has a developed lyrical sense. If using the term `unconcious` is extended to mean that we don`t react except in a learned environment the statement is not narrowly enough defined. The song is not always regarded by the listener in the manner the author wants it to be. If the enjoyable moments were attributed to an unconcious state it would neccessarily be proven from a component of the song, making it look like a concious method.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by burlingame2:

I was following for the most part. There is an amount of subjectiveness in saying the best music or a good deal of desireable music comes from an unconcious process. Acceptable listening experiences all falling within the realm of well worked melodies? Likely the composer has been exposed to myriad theories or has a developed lyrical sense. If using the term `unconcious` is extended to mean that we don`t react except in a learned environment the statement is not narrowly enough defined. The song is not always regarded by the listener in the manner the author wants it to be. If the enjoyable moments were attributed to an unconcious state it would neccessarily be proven from a component of the song, making it look like a concious method.

Well let me see. You're right. I was being too general. I'm a jazz musician and I was mainly referring to improvisation. I play and teach improvisation. But I think it also applies to composing and songwriting. I do those too. Same process but a little more "developed" or "studied". I think writing music is a lot like improvising except you can use an eraser and go as slow as you like. I think any time you have a piece that is write-by-numbers; completely methodical and contrived it generally sounds that way. It won't flow, or I haven't seen where it seems to flow in a free musical manner.

 

My use of the word "unconscious" can be misinterpreted as well. I don't mean unconscious like drunk or stoned, stupid or not aware. I mean the opposite. I'm speaking of a state of being highly aware, but not self-conscious. Like with talking. One can be highly aware of the process of communicating the idea one is communicating but unconscious of the mechanics involved with speech, sentence structure, volume, timbre, direct or indirect observation, etc.. Same with music. If you get trapped in the underpinnings of the mechanical make up, structure and techniques of music making, you'll likely not create anything too memorable. If on the other hand you work these deftly to the point of using these techniques as tools, as any other tool you can use unconsciously, without thinking about them and without effort, like words commonly known, then you can play creatively with those tools. When I refer to unconscious in this way I'm speaking of the ultimate form of creativity. This is where I believe inspiration lies. It does for me anyway. Or at least I have to be void of "thinking" in oder to find my muse.

 

Re your statement that "the song is not always regarded by the listener in the manner the author wants it to be" -- I don't know what relevance this has to anything. Whether the listener understands what the composer meant has no bearing on anything that I can see. It doesn't invalidate the artist or the listener. I don't think it's germane. What's important is that hopefully the listener got something.

 

If the enjoyable moments were attributed to an unconcious state it would neccessarily be proven from a component of the song, making it look like a concious method.

I'm not following. I'm not talking from the listeners vantage point, but rather from the music makers point of view. I can't speak for the "enjoyable" moments of music for someone else. I know when, as a player, I hit my stride and the music flows, seemingly from a well of it's own and it seems as though I'm doing little more than listening while playing. That's the apparency of magic. That's no effort. That's not thinking. That's purely music. It takes years, in most cases, to get there. That's also not a judgement of quality of music. For all I know the music could be shit. At that point that's not my job. That work went on years and years before. If I don't know, unconsciously and intuitively what's good by that point, I'm not going to get in my way now and stop those flows by being a critic too! A lot of it has to do with an implicit trust in myself and my taste.

[Jojje]

"Secret Scales of Carlos Santana".

 

And I always thought he just played blues scales...:-)

[burlingame2]

Well, in the one instance, I made an aside to a musical idea expressed in a new context (different song than where the motif originated). The other instance is from plowing through a work many years back on the process of producing (composing) music. At that reading motifs were transposed and augmented as examples of unconcious proccesses in writing music as told by Dr. Rudolf Redi. It could be I didn`t get the thrust of what he wrote. Or it belongs in the dry reading bin. The reading likely convinced me of a thoroughly concise and concious effort made in composition. An inspired moment is realized in tandem with apparent talent. It is the writing which makes the piece durable and a process of the composition, self conscious or not. Perhaps raw talent lends more of the cohesive nature that takes a tune to its completion. Otherwise the writer would probably not pursue their attempts to create. Cheers.

[D_dup3]

Originally posted by Jojje:

"Secret Scales of Carlos Santana".

 

And I always thought he just played blues scales...:-)

Actually there is a Zappa song with a title quite like the one I mentioned (guess I'll have to go check all those CDs til I find it).

 

Henry R., the way you described the "practice til it's natural" idea a few posts back is exactly my mindset... but it's also why I try to caution people against matching up modes/scales with chords as in the perennial question, "What scale would you use to solo over chords XYZ ?"---it's a necessary learning step but I think those things are always contextual in the actual performance of music.