maj7 cycle?

[frogtime]

hi guys. when i was looking at the progression of song lady bird. i saw 1 6 2 5 major cycle. as far as i know it is theoritically wrong.

..cmaj7 ebmaj7 / abmaj7 dbmaj7 | and it rosolves to cmaj7 chord at the beginning of the song

can any body tell the logic behind this or give any kind of explanation?

[bako]

It is a substitute turnaround or chord sequence for I VI II V.

3 chords with tritone root relations

cmaj7 ebmaj7 / abmaj7 dbmaj7 |
Cma7---Am7-/--Dm7--- G7

cmaj7 ebmaj7 / abmaj7 dbmaj7 |
I-------bIII-------bVI-----bII

[ksjazzguitar]

I don't know about "theoretically wrong" - if it sounds good (and it does, IMHO), then that is all that matters. After that, it is theory's job to figure out the explanation - it is never practice's job to conform to theory.

As to an explanation? One common explanation is that they are tri-tone subs that have had a change in color. Of course, I common turnaround there would be CMaj7->A7->D7->G7. If we put tritone subs on each of those, we get CMaj7->Eb7->Ab7->Db7. The we simply change the color of the chords, so we get Maj7 instead of x7. It works because the root movement is so strong and so typical in that spot. And really, those are tri-tone subs, so those M7s are really sus4s over the original harmony, so really it is just a root change of CMaj7->A7sus4->D7sus4->G7sus4.

Another way to look at it is that those Maj7s are just borrowed from the parallel minor. EbMaj7 and AbMaj7 are just the bIIIMaj7 and bVIMaj7 of Cm. The DbMaj7 is just a bIIMaj7, or an extension of the N6 chord (Neapolitan) that is also a common non-diatonic chord. So, you can label this as borrowed chords (or modal mixture, or modal interchange, whichever term you prefer.)

Another way to look at it is as planing or parallelism, parallel chords of the same type - a tool of impressionist composers.

Which is the "right" explanation? They all are from their own perspective. I think that they all come together to make it sound good. There may be other ways to look at it too.

Peace,
Kevin

[frogtime]

well you would got the point if you didn't see above i said that is 1625 already.

anyway. i understood the idea by myself. by majorizing tritone substitution of dominants we get fourths instead of thirds of the original chords.

by this way, they are imitating:

cmaj7- a7sus4 - d7sus4 - g7sus4

that's it.

also i thing we can minorise all of them. if we lover the thirds than we have:

cmaj7- a13 - d13 - g13

it would be a nice idea.

edit:ksjazzguitar thanks for explanation. my entry was for the first answer
edit2: i saw that i typed wrong chords in the last proposition. sorry

[wizard3739]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

I don't know about "theoretically wrong" - if it sounds good (and it does, IMHO), then that is all that matters. After that, it is theory's job to figure out the explanation - it is never practice's job to conform to theory.

As to an explanation? One common explanation is that they are tri-tone subs that have had a change in color. Of course, I common turnaround there would be CMaj7->A7->D7->G7. If we put tritone subs on each of those, we get CMaj7->Eb7->Ab7->Db7. The we simply change the color of the chords, so we get Maj7 instead of x7. It works because the root movement is so strong and so typical in that spot. And really, those are tri-tone subs, so those M7s are really sus4s over the original harmony, so really it is just a root change of CMaj7->A7sus4->D7sus4->G7sus4.

Another way to look at it is that those Maj7s are just borrowed from the parallel minor. EbMaj7 and AbMaj7 are just the bIIIMaj7 and bVIMaj7 of Cm. The DbMaj7 is just a bIIMaj7, or an extension of the N6 chord (Neapolitan) that is also a common non-diatonic chord. So, you can label this as borrowed chords (or modal mixture, or modal interchange, whichever term you prefer.)

Another way to look at it is as planing or parallelism, parallel chords of the same type - a tool of impressionist composers.

Which is the "right" explanation? They all are from their own perspective. I think that they all come together to make it sound good. There may be other ways to look at it too.

Peace,
Kevin

+1

wiz

[JonnyPac]

I like Ladybird a lot. It's one of the few jazz tunes I throw into live sets, though I prefer playing original stuff.

I think of it as the ultimate "modal interchange" exercise. My interpretation is as follows:

It's in "C Major" but it borrows chords from parallel keys, no crazy modulations really.

The Fm and Bb7 are from the parallel key of Eb Major. This is the relative major of C Minor, the "parallel minor" key of C Major. Chords are borrowed between these keys all the time. From Cole Porter to the Beatles.

The Bm7 Eb7 Ab is the parallel IV key of Eb, also related to C Major via C Minor.

The Am7 D7 is based around V7/V of C Major. G is the parallel V key of C Major. Very common in most music.

The Dm7 G7 C is back home in C Major.

The part you asked about is just more from Ab, the IV key from Eb. The Eb7 Ab Db is V7 I IV in Ab Major. If you are playing Ebmaj7, not Eb7, that makes sense too. Eb is I of Eb (or IV of Bb, less key signature modification), and the rest is I IV in Ab Major like before.

Fun tune.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

The Fm and Bb7 are from the parallel key of Eb Major. This is the relative major of C Minor, the "parallel minor" key of C Major.

Just as a point of terminology, "parallel" would mean that they have the same tonic. Therefore, C minor is the only parallel key to C major. Quoting Grove for it's definition of "Parallel key":

A minor key having the same tonic as a given major key, or vice versa; C major and C minor are parallel keys.

I suppose since in jazz we sometimes think modally, you could include C Dorian, C Phrygian, etc. as parallel keys - like in "Little Sunflower where we switch from D Dorian to D major (or D Lydian.) "Parallel keys" are in contrast to "relative keys" - ones that share the same key signature.

But Eb major cannot be a parallel key because it is has a different root. I would call it a related key, being the relative major of the parallel minor, as you mentioned.

And just for completeness, that Fm7->Bb7 in the key of C is often called a "backdoor turn-around" or "backdoor progression" or "backdoor ii-V" (not that what you were saying contradicted that.) Some people call it an expansion of a "minor plagal cadence", but I don't like that because it is based on a misunderstanding about what a "cadence" and a "plagal cadence" are.

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

Chords are borrowed between these keys all the time. From Cole Porter to the Beatles.

Not to mention every classical composer since the 17th century.

Peace,
Kevin

[JonnyPac]

Same key signature is good enough for me. I know the other way is more accurate, but trickier to think/explain. Thanks, KS, you are dead on as usual.

[VersatileJazzGuitarist]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

I don't know about "theoretically wrong" - if it sounds good (and it does, IMHO), then that is all that matters. After that, it is theory's job to figure out the explanation - it is never practice's job to conform to theory.

Right on, KS.

And as for your original question, the kind of theory you have in mind isn't terrible important. What matters is (1) Does the progression make sense to your ear? If not, you need to listen more. (2) Do you know what notes to use in your improvising over the chords. If not, my approach is CST (though not all would agree). The important thing is that you can improvise over the chords. (3) Do you know what variations or extensions to the chords you can use when you comp over the progression? For instance, is it legal to add sharp 11s over all the chords, or just the final DbMaj7?