The discussion in another thread concerning an allegedly wrong note that Jason Ricci played in a recent recording--a note adjacent to the expected chord tone--led me to wonder where else we might find "wrong" notes. It led me also to wonder whether, in fact, they're wrong.
Just this morning, Bluesville played "Son Brimmer's Blues" by the Memphis Jug Band. The harp player--Will Shade, I'm assuming--plays a lot of 3 draws, either completely un-bent or very slightly bent, and he doesn't seem to care too much about inflecting them in specific ways relative to the chord in question.
This leads him to play the major third (un-bent 3D) over the IV chord more than once, and to play a slightly blued third (3D w/very slight bend) over the V chord.
Both of these moves create "wrong" notes in some sense. And yet everything sounds just fine. This suggests that there are sometimes melodic imperatives--logics that connect the notes in a specific melodic sequence to each other rather than to the underlying chords--that sometimes trump proper harmony.
Your thoughts? Please post examples of players who play "wrong" notes that sound kind of cool--and thus aren't wrong.
Last Edited by kudzurunner on Oct 27, 2015 12:01 PM
Miles Davis would often land on a very questionable note and sustain it. Through his musical force of will (and/or what he played next), he would change the listener's perception from "wrong" to "right".
Mind you, this was all done with intent, not mistake. ---------- The Iceman
Last Edited by The Iceman on Oct 27, 2015 1:48 PM
I read here, or somewhere else, that if you accidentally hit a wrong note, play it again! I thought it sounded stupid but was surprised it actually kind of works. Maybe it has something to do with what Iceman said.
Music is an art, not a science, and is not governed by theory. As in science, music theory is descriptive of what often goes on, and only approximately so, not prescriptive of right or wrong. This is a long winded way of restating the old adage "If it sounds good, it is good". And to take The Iceman's point, what sounds good is a moving target, with cultural differences and changes over time. I'd also go a step further and say that the artist has sovereignty over his or her choices in the creation of a piece. They are what they are and listeners' and critics' reactions are their own too. ----------
Last Edited by mr_so&so on Oct 27, 2015 2:29 PM
I attended a workshop held by Steve Baker where he talked about jugband music and as an example of music with strong major seventh chords, suggesting the use of country tuned harps.
So playing an unbent three hole draw on the four chord suggests a major seventh chord... Maybe he is playing it by habit, giving it the jug band flavour, just as blues guys push the blues scale on everything they play? ---------- Pistolkatt - Pistolkatts youtube
Great composition. Miles "invented" ambient music with this recording.
His trumpet solo is mostly exploring the upper extensions of a dominant seventh scale. He also started pushing the differences between major 3rd and minor 3rd to the fore front.
However, at around 4 min 22 seconds, he plays a slow descending idea that lands on a flatted 9th note - totally outside of everything he established to that point. Listen in amazement to how he treats this note and very quickly instills in the listener that what at first sounded "wrong" magically becomes "right".
This is intent and force of will.
He is the Dark Magus.
Feel free to enjoy how he subtly bends notes very much like a harmonica player. ---------- The Iceman
Last Edited by The Iceman on Oct 27, 2015 4:11 PM
In many ways it is hard to hit a wrong note when playing blues on a harmonica. What I notice are what I call the right notes and the appropriate notes. The later are what I go for. Most settle for right notes. Right notes in my weird world work, but that's about it. Of course you must pay attention. I never listened to the J.R. thing but wrong is definitely 'alleged' At his caliber wrong becomes a matter of taste/opinion. I don't need to hear it. Even if it was a wrong note, does it matter? I love a recording of LW. He has the harp upside down. He squeaks a 9 draw, flips the harp and hits the two draw. It's kinda cool. ---------- I'm out of the Biz for a while till I get over my burnout. You can try HarveyHarp or arzajac, or just look the page nacoran put together under Forum Search. .
@Iceman I wouldn't call that ambient music even by a long stretch!
Good points re: composition and playing but mood music would be a better and more commonly used genre tag for it.
Eno et al are generally acknowledged as "inventing" Ambient Music which has a very different music feel from Miles's mood music. "Ambient Music must be able to accommodate many levels of listening attention without enforcing one in particular; it must be as ignorable as it is interesting."[9]"
"Eno also acknowledged influences of the drone music of La Monte Young (of whom he said, "La Monte Young is the daddy of us all"[10]) and of the mood music of Miles Davis and Teo Macero, especially their 1974 epic piece, "He Loved Him Madly" (from Get Up with It), about which Eno wrote, "that piece seemed to have the 'spacious' quality that I was after...it became a touchstone to which I returned frequently."[8]"
I find it to be the first foray into ambient territory - the way it was edited and how the musicians were instructed to play. It does come into focus as being more than ambient once Miles enters on trumpet, but didn't this open the door, as it predates "He Loved Him Madly"?
Thank you, Paul, for offering your google search conclusion on music terminology and genre labeling. ---------- The Iceman
Miles Davis really weird, but interesting, blues playing on this soundtrack could be seen as providing an example of playing "wrong notes", based on the context. He certainly does not sound traditionally bluesy, in marked contrast to JL Hooker, Taj Mahal and Roy Rogers. (Pity the film was crap, but what did you expect w/ Don Johnson ...?)
I would think of a wrong note as being a pretty simplistic idea - playing something by accident.
If you play it with intention, then is it really a wrong note? What if you play it with intention AND a direction?
Reflecting on my own playing, I know that sometimes muscle memory trumps what I hear in my head (so I make a mistake). I also know that I sometimes play chromatically moving to a chord change, which is definitely a common practice.
Then there is the whole technical part where a bent 8 blow may be an "out" note, but when play with inflection or vibrato has a whole different effect.
What made me think of that is all the dip bends John Popper plays on the outro of Run Around (studio version).
Finally, there is note exclusion relative to blues and then relative to general music theory. I would not hesitate to play a major third over a D7 chord...it may not be bluesy, but it is totally an in note. ---------- Mike My Website My Harmonica Effects Blog
Yeah, if played with intent it can't be "wrong". It can be bad, though, since that is in the ear of the listener :) ...
Also, kudzu referred to the major third of the root note of the I chord. That's translates to the major seventh of the IV chord. That would be a bit sore in a dominant seven chord if you didn't use it as a chromatic passing note, no?
That said, I'm not sure that the video in the OP uses dominant seven chords (too bad ears) it could be major seventh chord(s)... ---------- Pistolkatt - Pistolkatts youtube
To the designations 'accident" and "intent" it's useful to add "unaware."
Lots of blues players don't really listen to the effect of what they do. They do what feels good or follows their habits but are unaware of the musical result in the context.
The only truly wrong notes are the ones that sound bad. Sounding bad can often be traced back to a note that clashes by a semitone with whatever else is going on. For instance, if you're playing in second position and the band goes to the IV chord, will unbent Draw 3 sound bad? it probably will if the band is playing the IV7 chord, because the 7th of that chord will be one semitone lower than the unbent Draw 3. But if the band is just playing the unadorned IV chord the note may sound fine.
An example of this is Little Walter's "Off the Wall." He will play either the unbent Draw 3 or the one-semitone-bent Draw 3 for whole verses at a time, instead of changing the inflection depending on the chord. Because the guitarist is not playing the 7th of the IV chord, it works just fine.
In the above chase, clearly Walter had intent to get a lighter (unbent) or darker and even more aggressive sound (bent) as part of structuring the tune. =========== Winslow
Listening to Son Brimmer's Blues, I hear the use of Draw 3 over the V chord two ways:
1) It pulls away from the chord, adding to the tension that the V chord itself introduces. When the chord returns to the I, he usually lands strongly on the root note of the I chord, Draw 2, helping to resolve the tension.
2) Blues has a way of hanging everything off the I7 chord no matter what chords are playing in the background, and either inflecting them or not to fit the background chord (perhaps this is a legacy of the non-chordal ancestors of blues). So even though the IV or V chord may be playing, the notes of the I chord are laid over them. This does not lead to the perception of wrong notes. Instead it emphasizes the tonality and also provides what could be called an implied drone.
More on the implied drone concept: Some instruments, such as bagpipes, sound constant drone notes along with melody. If the piper plays a tune not in the key of the drones, the conflict may at first create cognitive dissonance in the listener, but this gives way to a hypnotic effect that encourages a trancelike state that enhances the otherworldly, mythical, dreamy character of the music. That's an explicit drone.
Some early blues does the same, either staying on one chord (often an open chord) or adding a drone to a chord progression that could be explicit, implied, or a hybrid. An example of a hybrid is the Elvie Thomas & Geeshie Viley recording of "Over To My House," which keeps the E string droning while hinting at the chords going by that are clearly implied both in the melody and the form of the song.
But when the drone is implied, then the background instruments are released from droning while the foreground instrument(s) such as guitar or harmonica, instead imply the drone, in one of several ways:
-- Focusing on a single note all the way through a chord progression. For instance, a harmonica player hammering on the home note of the key, such as Draw 2 in 2nd position, or holding a long Draw 4 (the second most important note in the home chord) through 3 verses a la John Lee Williamson
-- Focusing on the notes of the I7 chord, and inflecting them as the chords go ny (Little Walter did this a lot).
-- Using a single simple scale, such as the 6-note blues scale, through the entire chord progression, even when the notes don't fit the chord. Examples of this abound among guitarists and are even taught as "easy" blues guitar lessons online. A real-life example would be BB King's playing on "The Thrill is Gone." =========== Winslow
I agree w/ Burke. That is all one needs to know. I retract all points attempted in my other post.
---------- I'm out of the Biz for a while till I get over my burnout. You can try HarveyHarp or arzajac, or just look the page nacoran put together under Forum Search. .
Last Edited by MP on Oct 28, 2015 3:52 PM
I think it might be useful to further define 'right' and 'wrong' by adding that if you are jamming on a deep track that know one has ever heard you've got a lot more wiggle room. If you are playing something ingrained in a large part of the audience like the Sesame Street theme you have to worry about 1) is the note in the song as the audience knows it, 2) is it in the scale and 3) does each time through the chorus or verse sound the same or at least close enough to be considered reasonable variation 4) does it fit rhythmically.
If you are playing a deep cut the audience has probably never heard you can ignore #1 and need to balance the other concerns against each other. Dissonance, when I hear it, is only really a killer if it sounds like it doesn't fit. If it's repeated usually you can make it sound intentional. You can balance that against how it sounds in the song, but I think the audience is more likely to notice a 'wrong' note that sticks out alone than an unusual choice. I'd lean towards trying to fit it into the tune. Almost any note choice (especially on a diatonic) can be justified depending on how you resolve it with the next note. I think it's even tougher though if you really screw up the grove.
Winslow, you're comment about how far the draw 3 is bent has got me wondering. I don't quite have a fine enough ear to hear if this is what is going on, but I know there are some harp players who are brilliant technically, who still don't sound very bluesy even when they try to show that they can sound bluesy. (Howard Levy is the first one that comes to mind.) Anyway, I've been playing around with a theory in my head about accuracy and the blues, and the other day I stumbled on a video about the physics of drums and drummers. One of the big complaints in modern music is that drum machines rob the music of it's soul. Here is a video on drumming, and a premise. Maybe some of you with perfect pitch can weigh in- premise- if you are too perfect it doesn't sound like the blues. Some of the rawness of blues is that the notes are close but a little sharper or flatter or a little louder or softer or even too on the beat. (I think there is less slop room in beat, but I listen to blues singers and the really good ones often hit notes and slide in and change the pitch a few cents and change the timbre a lot. Is it possible that you can get too much like a drum machine in your playing?)
Of course there are wrong notes. They're the notes beginners play that sound terrible. They're the notes that amateurs play when they're fumbling about trying to make a solid line. They're mistakes, they're discordant, dissonant and/or just plain not well executed. Another word for them is clams, as in "I sure hit a couple of clams tonight."
If there are no wrong notes then how do we know when we're finally starting to play better?
Last Edited by Dr.Hoy on Oct 28, 2015 6:29 PM
I was being factitious, don't you know, but I am of the school of thought that corresponds with Monk's famous quote "wrong is right". Learning the rules of the road, having a modicum of theory under your belt, and advancing your technique to the extent that you can play what you know adroitly, at will, are goals to strive for. But achieving those hard-to-achieve goals prepares one for the next step, which is leaving the text book examples at home and finding new ways of composing improvisations; new tones, new angles of attack, new mixtures of different things. Context is everything, of course, and it helps if one has the right material that allows someone to leave the reservation of accepted practice and become eccentric, experimental, more daring in what a song allows a soloist to express. Monk's notion was to have his musicians leave the established ways of making music alone and to play something that clashed, growled and perhaps grated. The value lies in how it works, of course. Arguments ensue. But I do like someone who finds another way to get to the same destination. ---------- Ted Burke tburke4@san.rr.com
The meaning of words is just as malleable as music ; Monk wanted his soloist to stop thinking about playing "wrong notes" and to actually come up with something interesting, challenging, different with the compositions and arrangements he was giving them to play. In this context, what someone would normally consider a "wrong" note is instead the right note,the right path to take, as it can compel a soloist to break new ground. Context is everything. ---------- Ted Burke tburke4@san.rr.com
The thing is, the context here is blues, not "The Shape of Jazz to Come." I could get my chromatic and play way outside with every intention of playing something hip and challenging, but it would sound terrible in the context of, say, "Hoodoo Man Blues."
You know, I am more of a guitarist than harp player anyway, but when I hear draw 5 over V of V, it sounds wrong to me. For example, blues in G on a C harp, the V chord is a D7, which doesn't exist on a C harp, it has no sharps or flats, so Joe (or Gus) plays an F note instead. Uh, that's the wrong note . . . But I may be in the minority here in "Modern Blues Harmonica" land, unless you overblow . . .
Context and idiom are extremely important. A free jazz context is obviously somewhat different than a traditional blues context. The Miles-and-Hooker stuff is great, because you've got two approaches, two idioms, that share some chromosomal material but that definitely are not "the same thing." What results is a hybrid, a fusion, a crossover; a mixed thing.
Maybe we could redirect this thread slightly and ask about two specific "wrong" notes that might occasionally turn up in a blues harmonica context: the major third (unbent 3 draw) over the IV chord (i.e., where it becomes a major seventh of the IV chord) and the flat nine: the 3 draw bent all the way down.
Winslow has given a great, detailed survey of some ways in which that 3 draw / major 3rd / major 7th might show up, and why. Since one of the best available ways of marking/implying the change to the IV chord is flatting the third, NOT flatting the third in that context is certainly notable, unusual, curious. I can imagine certain contexts in which I might hit the straight 3 (as I'll call it) on bar 5 as part of a repeated riff where I specifically WANT the dissonance that is created by playing that note over a IV7 chord. The dissonance itself is a change, in some sense. It's an inflection. It's something new and noteworthy--but only if it's done with focus and intent, deliberately.
As for the flat 9: well, that note is also the major third of the VI7 chord, and I use it quite often in that context: the 6d bent down a half step. Sounds great over the VI7 chord in Blind Blake-style ragtime blues.
Annie Raines uses that note as a passing tone in a solo that she does where she's doing a run all the way down from 3 draw (no bend) to 1 draw. It's a fantastic little run. Wish I could remember what song it's on. It's one that she sings.
Last Edited by kudzurunner on Oct 29, 2015 1:08 PM
I think that in certain musical situations "wrong" notes (defined as "bad" sounding) can be played intentionally by an expert player to create tension in the listener. That tension can then be resolved to good effect. This is akin to any other intentional creation of tension in the observer that is then released -- in music or many other forms of artistic expression.
Michelle
---------- SilverWing Leather - Custom leather creations for musicians and other eccentrics.
Great read Komuso, thanks for pointing it out. Here's another quote I found quite pertinent too the discussion here... "In music, “accidentals” are musical pitches—rather, musical glitches—that don’t belong to the scale or mode currently in use. A more sensible name for these rogue notes would be “purposefuls,” since they’re always written into a piece for a precise reason. In classical, jazz, and any other genre, accidentals subvert the listener’s expectations… on purpose."
I find this thread immensely interesting. Coming from a Visual arts background and relatively new to the music background and theory. (other than playing saxophone in Junior High) I tend to think of harmonics as closely associated with color, as they are just senses one is visual and the other auditory. With this in mind I tend to conceptualize the idea that there "is no wrong note" They only have different colors based on what is being played around them. I think of them as auditory illusions. Here is a link to what I mean by being colored by the things around a single note. It's a little long but a similar comparison to what is done with Visual Illusions of color. ---------- "The only way to get better is to play a little outside your comfort zone every time you play!"
Last Edited by FBInsMan on Nov 02, 2015 5:11 PM
