Talk:Upper structure

Re-write
I am attemting a re-working of this article which recognises that "upper structures" are first and foremost a jazz specific method for composing and improvising. It is not a general term which gets used in discussion of western or any other kind of music apart from jazz. If it does then it is by way of an anology with jazz practice.

I've moved the article from 'upper structure triad' as that's not how Levine refers to it in his books, which are the primary written sources for students of jazz piano and arranging. Anyway, all help appreciated. Please let me know what you think. It's still a work in progress, but I'll keep coming back.Dr McV (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's true that Levine just says "upper structure," but I would be in favor of moving the article back to "upper structure triad." The term "upper structure" is used in many different ways and isn't as specific. "Upper structure triad" is clear and unambiguously refers to one type of thing. Atpal (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources and verification
I recognise that most of this needs referencing, and I plan to do this by consulting Tim Richard's books as well as the Levine when I have them handy. Will maybe some of the websites on the jazz project list too. Any help appreciated. Dr McV (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article need references? Hyacinth (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything does. People do get things wrong about music theory, as they do about anything. One has to be sure that something being presented can be backed up by a source. Gingermint (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing image


The above image, placed right [left], was removed without cause or explanation. Hyacinth (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh really? I suggest you read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and cease and desist at once. The 8753987th discussion regarding this matter can be found here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus does not apply in a dispute between two people. Hyacinth (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you requesting that the image be remade with an F♯ in place of F♮? Hyacinth (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that is a good solution. I hope we keep up in that direction. You should also specify that this example constitutes a polychord. By the way, I was referring to your repeated claims that I remove your contributions without cause, despite multiple discussions on this matter. See also WP:CANVASSING. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I took this image back off. Maybe it could belong with the polychord article, but it's not an example of the practice described by this article. Atpal (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Someone who doesn't play jazz is really proud of their work on this graphic! (And they're adding it back without cause or explanation.) It does not belong with this article. Here I am, years later, removing it again. Atpal (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Image is technically wrong
The image for ex1 is wrong despite the text explaining the E♭ and D♯ are enharmonically equivalent. With E♭ rather than D♯ we get a C7 chord (without the root) extended with a flat 10th (ie a minor third added to a 7th chord). More specifically, we get a mix of major and minor thirds. Adding D♯ is technically very different: winds and voices would actually pitch the notes in a subtly different way to make this clear. --Jubilee♫ clipman 23:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an article about a specific piece of terminology in Jazz theory, based primarily on the book by Mark Levine. As such, the example is based on Levine's work, where he emphasises the act of realising upper structures at the piano. As far as the jazz pianist is concerned, practically speaking Levine advises that when you see 7#9, you think "upper structre flat-three", despite a dominant sharp-9 chord requiring sharp-9 and not flat-10. And the reason this is acceptable is because distinguishing between E♭ and D♯on a piano is impossible. Generally speaking, the point you have missed is that upper structures are a shorthand device for realising extended harmonies; they are not theoretical concepts.


 * On another point, you seem to be questioning the whole practice of describing enharmonics as equivalent notes. Spelling with one enharmonic rather than another only applies to instruments such as voices and strings. You are looking at a piano score, an instrument for which enharmonic spellings are acceptable. 82.5.179.8 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this objection for the additional reason that in practice no performing musician pitches a note differently because it is written enharmonically (nor should they). Atpal (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the image of ex1 is wrong, but for a different reason. When playing it on a piano it sounds like a plain Cmi7 chord. Technically it is not wrong to regard this chord as a C#9, this voicing is not commonly used. The most well known voicing of a C#9 is C - E - Bb - Eb.Vanzea (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It may sound to you like a mute bald man with a goatee taking a bath, but its not, and that wouldn't be relevant to the article. See No original research. Hyacinth (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your description of the "most well-known voicing" is not an upper-structure triad voicing, so even if your characterization is correct, it's not relevant. Also, in the ex. 1 graphic, the E in the bass clef is an E-natural. If you hear the chord as Cmi7, maybe you're reading it as E-flat. If you think it's necessary, I wouldn't object to having someone rework the graphic with an explicit natural sign. Atpal (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)