Talk:Coltrane changes

Formatting

Please do not render section titles as paragraphs: they are very confusing. Please use title or subtitle markers, as with Giant Steps.

Please could someone re-format the examples in the section "Giant Steps:" why is there title/explanative/caption text in a pre-formatted display container? It makes the intended focus of the box - the chords - very hard to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.113.215 (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

First appearance of coltrane changes

Hyacinth wrote, ...and first appearing on Giant Steps and appearing in many tunes. I'm not certain that is correct. Coltrane appears to have been using the changes with Miles Davis and Thelonious Monk, at least two years prior to Giant Steps. --Viriditas | Talk 13:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How do you know? Hyacinth 23:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, as I erroneously assumed you were familiar with my sheets of sound article ("sheets of sound" is the non-technical description of coltrane changes), where I covered this point. According to music critic Ira Gitler [1], musician McCoy Tyner, and John Coltrane himself [2], Coltrane began playing the sheets of sound/matrix/changes in the late '50's (1957-1958) with Miles Davis and Thelonious Monk. Before Coltrane honed the technique in songs like Giant Steps and Countdown, he was experimenting with it on Milestones (April, 1958) and at the Newport Jazz Festival that same year, in Straight, No Chaser. --Viriditas | Talk 02:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Either I am confused or you are conflating two seperate musical techniques. I did not conclude from reading both articles that they are the same technique. Hyacinth 03:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They refer to the same thing, except one is a description of the arpeggiated structures that are based on coltrane changes (sheets of sound) and the other is a term that musicians use to refer to the order of the chord progression itself (coltrane changes). The former is more of a music history article with room for expansion regarding jazz history (sheets of sound as a period between 1958-1960), while the latter is intended as a technical article on music theory, with room for growth. Here's what Coltrane had to say about it:

About this time, I was trying for a sweeping sound. I started experimenting because I was striving for more individual development. I even tried long, rapid lines that Ira Gitler termed "sheets of sound" at the time. But actually, I was beginning to apply the three-on-one chord approach, and at that time the tendency was to play the entire scale of each chord. Therefore, they were usually played fast and sometimes sounded like glisses...I found there were a certain number of chord progressions to play in a given time, and sometimes what I played didn't work out in eighth notes, 16th notes, or triplets. I had to put the notes in uneven groups like fives and sevens in order to get them all in. [3] --Viriditas | Talk 08:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I don't read the quote above as equating 'sheets of sound' with 'Coltrane changes'. I've always understood these to wbe two different things; one harmonic and quite specific, the other stylistic and consequently vaguer. The major-3rd root cycle is a harmonic idea. You could play this chord cycle slowly and apply a lyrical solo style and it would still be a set of 'Coltrane changes', but nobody would say you were employing the 'sheets of sound' style. On the other hand, one could take the whole-scale approach to playing on, say, I Got Rhythm and you would be playing 'sheets of sound'; but you certainly wouldn't be playing 'Coltrane changes'. I don't see the quote above contradicting that. Ornette 09:28, 4 April 2006

I'm quite certain that Coltrane changes and sheets of sound are to distinct things. One is a chord change, and the other is a rapid succesion of notes up a scale (as heard on Kind of Blue and Milestones, etc.). I think what 'Trane is saying in the above quote is that he was using the "sheets-of-sound" technique with keys related by major thirds early on. Also, I might be wrong but I think that "Limehouse Blues" (with Cannonball) was the first appearance of the changes in their mature form. Also, "Fifth House" was an early recording (before "Giant Steps"?)Jazzzguy (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is valuable material - don't you feel it worth including in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.113.215 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by 69.254.88.237

(Side note argument)

• "Have You Ever Met Miss Jones" doesn't follow the root movement by 3rd pattern in the Coltrane matrix. Most charts available (for Miss Jones), regardless of the starting key, go from a (the note is interchangeable depending on key, and the songs starts on what's known in jazz as a "turnaround - 2-5-1 or a 6-2-5-1) (F)Maj7, (D)dom7b9, (G)m7, (C)dom7.

The article refers specifically to the bridge. - mako 08:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

This paragraph is confusing and could be better:

- The changes serve as a pattern of chord substitutions for the ii-V-I progression (supertonic-dominant-tonic) and are noted for the tonally unusual root movement down by major thirds (as opposed to the usual minor or major seconds, thus the "giant steps").-

"Giant Steps" refers to the whole-tone bass movement, not the major third tonic relationship. Also, in jazz fourth root movement is more usual than major or minor second. The term "root" can be ambiguous in this context, meaning either the bass note (which is not always the root of the chord) or the toninc of the "temporary key," etc.Jazzzguy (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Giant Steps.ogg

The image Image:Giant Steps.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger or deletion

The short story is this article is unencyclopedic, unverifiable, uncited, inexpert and unprofessional. (Not to be harsh, or anything.) Uncited and unprofessional are clear enough, and I assert unverifiable and inexpert because I am an expert and I know the difference in this jazz folklore between the facts we know and the assumptions we've made. My primary objection is its total unencyclopedic nature...I can't really put into words how much of a non-topic this is, so I think I'll just list tell you why and assume you'll agree with me.

The concept of "Coltrane changes" is usually a reference to a few types of ii-V-I cycles specifically in John Coltrane's music or derivations thereof. That's, first of all, not a "part of jazz harmony," but a subject of it; furthermore, it's not a technical term in any way, it's a colloquialism used to describe the hairy improvisation structures of tunes like Giant Steps, Moment's Notice, Countdown and so forth. You'll also hear it just in reference to chord changes Coltrane wrote elsewhere, because his practice of writing changes like this bleed into his - yes - more serious work. In what may be tangential, I'd like to mention that it's commonly believed Coltrane originally wrote the Giant Steps family of tunes to practice on.

However, none of these aspects to his work have a specific measurable commonality whose mention would not detract from understanding exactly the complexity that he toyed with in his chord changes. Moreover, while all of these things are true and I would, and on a daily basis do, risk my career on them, at the end of the day I'm just a guy who knows that, and so are all the other people who do. Well, a lot of them are girls, but my point still stands. There is no standard intepretation of his chord changes, or even a definite agreement on what they are.

Let me put it this way: There are three possible interpretations I see for the phrase "Coltrane changes." Either they're the cycles Coltrane is known for in work like the Giant Steps album, for which this term is unencyclopedic, or they're simply chord changes written by the man, in which case the topic is not encyclopedic - I'd compare it to a page on Richie Beirach's chord changes, or Thelonious Monk's, both of which I would call more worthy of a space in Wikipedia, but still definitely not fit - or, in the greatest stretch of all, you could call Coltrane's reharmonisations of others' tunes the "Coltrane changes" as in the "Coltrane version" or "Coltrane's alterations." The point is, whichever one of these points the article shoots for, it completely misses.

My answer to this problem is to first of all clean up the article (to which, I don't know where to start) and call for verification, and, once the information here is distilled down to information that is suitable for this encyclopedia, merging it with John Coltrane. Barring the production of material that would make a useful addition to that article, however, I move for deletion on any or all of the following criteria (from WP:DP):

• Content forks (unless a merge or redirect is appropriate)
• Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions ...
• Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
• Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, ...)
• Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia (see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

With love, Dextrose (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The article needs inline references as it was written before they began to be widely adopted. The rest of your comments are absurd. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fanciful Claims

"The ability to blow over the Giant Steps/Coltrane cycle remains one of the standards by which a jazz musician's improvising ability is measured."

Come on! Precisely which Jazz University is it that measures and accredits this mythical benchmark of skill? Has 'Jazzy Ability' it got its own unit? "The Monk Metre" perhaps. Or maybe its "Davis Atmospheres"? "Parkers per m²"? Eungh. --IRONY-POLICE (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Substitutions?

This article refers to the changes as "Substitutions." From my experience, a chord substitution must in the very least substitute one chord with another that has a similar function. The examples provided show chord insertions via Coltrane Changes, creating elaborations of the original progressions, but they are never substituting for any chords. Can someone clarify this? Jmckaskle (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OR

Is it just me, or does this whole article seem full of original research? Luminifer (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate external link?

I'd like to add the article Giant Steps, Central Park West, and Modulatory Cycles as an external link, and would welcome discussion on its appropriateness for this Wikipedia page. The article is an in-depth exploration of the Coltrane Changes itself: the Changes derive directly from the innovative (in jazz) harmonic techniques that Coltrane most powerfully realized in Giant Steps, and, later -- in an entirely different way -- in Central Park West, and the article, Giant Steps, Central Park West, and Modulatory Cycles, goes into unusually great depth and thoroughness on precisely this subject.

(I'm new to Editing Talk, so my apologies, in advance for any errors in protocol or etiquette that I may have committed.)

Maberly (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Added to the external links section. Coltrane changes#External links. Hyacinth (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you, Hyacinth! Maberly (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The link seemed appropriate and not prohibited per Wikipedia:External links. Hyacinth (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Image: Circle of fifths vs. chromatic

An augmented triad will appear as an equilateral triangle on the chromatic scale (when arranged in a circle) and the circle of fifths. Any reason why it should be displayed on the circle of fifths? Hyacinth (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional citations (refimprove)

Presumably the article needed or needs additional citations for verification in regards to the concerns discussed above re: #Fanciful Claims and #OR. However, has the article improved enough since those discussions to remove the tag? If not, what still needs to be fixed? Hyacinth (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Coltrane substitution

In this section of the article it lists Ab to B7 as being a minor third. This is impossible because A to B is a second. What they probably mean is it's enharmonic to a minor 3rd, same number of semitones. A minor third up from Ab is Cb, not B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfabeet (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Giant Steps graphs need improvement

All of the visuals in the Giant Steps section could use improvement. In the written-out chord sequence, the meaning of the highlighting is totally unclear; furthermore, the "SeeChord" chart has no meaning for anyone not familiar with the specific program. I think we can do better. HamartiaProsciuttoPharos (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Author of Tune Up?

Two authors are mentioned in this article, Miles Davis and Eddie Vinson!

My understanding is that Vinson is the correct author, but it was attributed to Davis to get more attention, being a more prestigious musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxmad99 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)