Playing Natural 3 on Minor 7s and Major 7 on Dominant 7s

[bluewaterpig]

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

Because I think there might be an oversimplicity to the assertion that "these extremely 'wrong' notes are key to sounding like the giants, Coltrane specifically" as you haven't really given credit to the arguments M and I presented about the presence of these notes being more related to reharmonized changes, rather than simply forcing these certain "out" notes onto the change.

I felt like I had a pretty fair critique (that I took time to try to state clearly) of your use of that Coltrane lick as an example of your point, I am surprised you didn't have a response.

No, I completely agree with that post you had. I don't think these wrong notes are just randomly placed in there by chance. Most often, they're part of some sort of super imposed harmony.

A prime example is playing B minor over G7, F# being the 5th of B and the major 7th of G.

Just because I didn't respond to you doesn't mean I disagree.

[Waso]

Originally Posted by bluewaterpig

You absolutely can play them on strong beats, right out there in the open. I'm not talking about using these notes as passing tones.

Coltrane would blow a C# on a D7 for an entire measure, 4 beats long. He didn't stick them in as a quick passing tone and hide them away.

It's his conviction that prevents you from hearing it as being "wrong".

Think about it. There was a time in jazz when a #4 over a dominant chord was very "wrong". Miles put an end to that. We can now all agree that a #4 is really hip in that situation. Master jazz musicians strive to make good use out of the wrong notes.

In the example that you posted (the Coltrane lick) I see the Maj3 as a Passingnote resolving to the Min3 just as JakeAcci explained with his post. In this case it´s nothing really special. It would be great if you could post a lick where someone really emphazises a Maj3 against a minor chord or the Maj7 against a dominant chord. That would help me a lot to maybe make up my mind concerning these notechoices. And please don´t post an Archie Shepp line or something like that...

[Waso]

Originally Posted by bluewaterpig

No, I completely agree with that post you had. I don't think these wrong notes are just randomly placed in there by chance. Most often, they're part of some sort of super imposed harmony.

A prime example is playing B minor over G7, F# being the 5th of B and the major 7th of G.

Just because I didn't respond to you doesn't mean I disagree.

What´s the harmonical concept of playing B minor over G7?

[bluewaterpig]

B Minor over G7 is something Coltrane did somewhat often. He played minor runs based on the 3, 5, b7, and b9 of a Dom7 chord. So Bmin would be based off of the 3rd of G7.

You end up getting: B(3) C#(#4) D(5) E(13) F#(Maj7) G(1) A(2)

Basically a lydian scale over a dom7 chord. Now remember this, Coltrane, Miles, Wes, etc. made this stuff work because of the way that they played it. If you go home to your guitar and get a sequencer to play a G7 and you run up and down a Bm scale, of course you're going to say it sounds horrible.


Waso, listen to Wes' solo in 'No Blues'. Get out your guitar and play these lines over the given chord and I'm sure you'll think that they sound gross. Listen to them in Wes' solo, and you can see that when played in context, they're extremely hip.

This is a great example in this topic because Wes demonstrates both a Major 7th and a Major 3rd that would be considered "wrong".

At :45, he plays an F#Maj7 arpeggio, and the chord is D7. That means a C#, and it's on a strong beat, and it isn't resolving by step.

Almost immediately after that, he plays a little run of A - B - D over a Gmin7. That's a major 3rd over a min7 chord. Same deal, it's on a [b]strong beat, and it isn't resolving by step[b]

YouTube Video

[brwnhornet59]

Originally Posted by bluewaterpig

B Minor over G7 is something Coltrane did somewhat often. He played minor runs based on the 3, 5, b7, and b9 of a Dom7 chord. So Bmin would be based off of the 3rd of G7.

You end up getting: B(3) C#(#4) D(5) E(13) F#(Maj7) G(1) A(2)

Basically a lydian scale over a dom7 chord. Now remember this, Coltrane, Miles, Wes, etc. made this stuff work because of the way that they played it. If you go home to your guitar and get a sequencer to play a G7 and you run up and down a Bm scale, of course you're going to say it sounds horrible.

This is actually a part of the double lydian process. Bill Evans pioneered this. Since lydian is a common sub over dom, taking it out in degrees in the cycle of 5ths gives you varying tensions. Great stuff and very much used by the masters.


Double Lydian Concept: How a Mistake Led to a Practice Room Breakthrough | MattWarnockGuitar.com


Put in context, this is a very powerful idea.

[bluewaterpig]

Originally Posted by brwnhornet59

Double Lydian Concept: How a Mistake Led to a Practice Room Breakthrough | MattWarnockGuitar.com


Put in context, this is a very powerful idea.

Very interesting read.

So basically C "Double Lydian" would include the notes: C C# D E F# G A B

Correct? Basically a lydian scale with a b9/#1 added?

[brwnhornet59]

Yes sir, you got the idea. For B lydian, you need to extend out in the cycle of 5ths until you have F#, (Gb), as the parent key, 6 whole steps away from C. So you are a tritone away playing lydian. Make sense?


I discovered this idea myself about 6 moths ago. I did a ii V I into A. Then made A M7 into M7#11. Then I played a B pent against it. From there on out I was able to suspend the B major scale very nicely against AM7#11. It sounds great if done correctly. I was playing an E triad add #4 as well as D# -7 pent but playing with the b9, b13 here and there for proper tension. Very cool sound.

I also was playing extended Lydian against it by throwing in the IV triad add #4 and the other devise I described and kept going further and further out in the circle of 5ths.

Try it.

[bluewaterpig]

Then again, playing B minor over G takes care of all of this, doesn't it?

Ha, I didn't understand what you said in the first part, about taking B major a tritone away.

The way I see it, if you want to make a major scale a "double lydian", you just add a #1 and the normal #4...

[brwnhornet59]

Sure, and now you see the guiding principle behind it. Being able to invoke double, triple lydian, etc.. is cool. Each has its own sound and is an awesome tool.

Knowing the bigger picture allows you to do this in steps, giving you more in your arsenal and a set of rules or guidelines to go by. Understanding where it came from and how it is used is key.

Like I said, the idea you are conveying is valid and has a solid background to its usage. Having a system makes it accessible for all.

[bluewaterpig]

I totally, totally agree. It's good to know a scale, but knowing where it came from is what separates players from musicians.

So let's see if I have this right:

C Lydian: C D E F# G A B

C Double Lydian (Borrowing from D): C C# D E F# G A B

C Triple Lydian (Borrowing from A): C C# D E F# G G# A B

C Quadruple Lydian (Borrowing from E): C C# D D# E F# G G# A B

Think I got it now.

By the time you get to like Lydian x8, you basically have a chromatic scale lol.

[Waso]

Originally Posted by brwnhornet59

This is actually a part of the double lydian process. Bill Evans pioneered this. Since lydian is a common sub over dom, taking it out in degrees in the cycle of 5ths gives you varying tensions. Great stuff and very much used by the masters.


Double Lydian Concept: How a Mistake Led to a Practice Room Breakthrough | MattWarnockGuitar.com


Put in context, this is a very powerful idea.

thanks for this insight, that clears up a lot for me. The b9 over the major chord makes sense to me. It reminds me of playing a I-vi-ii-V Progression where I often treat the vi chord as a dominant chord. In CMaj it would be CMaj (or Emin7 as a Substitute) to A7. This would follow the rule "make a ii-V out of everything". The Ear can follow the b9 over the Maj chord because it has a strong resolution in the ii-V context. Thinking about it this way it makes sense to me and it will sound just fine because of the strong melodic lines you would play using a ii-V approach.

[mattymel]

yes...another case of jamey aebersold "chord scales" are whack. its all about playing "changes". scales depend on the harmony thats being played under them to get the intended character. i.e...scales don't necessarily outline harmony.

im transcribing a wayne S. solo currently. wow. it has taken me a week to get one lick at 50% speed. likely i will never get it 100%, but doing solos that are SO removed from your comfort zone is always the most rewarding.

trane is some of the best stuff to transcribe because it is so logical and easy to apply to other tunes. Wayne stuff, not so much i think. but I've NEVER had to rethink phrasing and rhythm as much as with this one.

[bluewaterpig]

Chord scales absolutely are "whack". Richie Hart, who studied with George Benson for a decade and runs the Wes lab at Berklee, swears that to become a great jazz player, you forget ALL chord scales. I'm not saying it's the golden rule or anything, but it's definitely true that a lot of the bull shit chord scale stuff we're taught today is total crap compared to Wes' tonic vs. dominant system.

[TruthHertz]

Richie also once declared to a student that [another teacher in the department-a well respected player, theorist and instructor] played the way he does (not jazz, Richie says) because he didn't know how to transcribe. There are also teachers that say if you use your little finger on your left hand you can't play real jazz. There are also teachers that say the ONLY way you can learn to play is to take the transcription assignments of your teacher and not question anything, but take on the attitudes and prejudices of your teacher.
There are lots of things that teachers say.
It's the responsibility of the student to decide what's true for himself and the responsibility of the teacher not declare one truth to be right for everyone.
Take it for what it is.
David

[bako]

Steve Coleman, in a workshop setting, told of this exchange with Von Freeman. (my approximate paraphrase)
Von Freeman points at a line in a chart and asks "What is this?" Steve Coleman in response names the written notes on the page.
Von repeats question more insistently and Steve describes the harmonic content. Von says no it's a symbol, a representation, it's not the music.

What is it that we are looking at when we have a lead sheet? Is there anyone here when playing a tune by Monk or Herbie Hancock reading chord symbols correctly
but noticing there is some element missing? Chord symbols are an attempt to summarize the harmonic content of a song in relation to what is at times a generic presentation of the melody. Even in Classical music it is up to the performer to imbue the music with interpretation and meaning. Playing the written changes is not the whole story.
It is even possible for some to ignore them completely and still render a song beautifully.

“I don’t play chords”, said saxophone giant Coleman Hawkins, “I play movements.”
I have seen this quote around and I'm assuming he said it, but even if he didn't it is an intriguing idea.

Are the any movements that can support a Ma3 in proximity to a m7 or a Ma7 with a 7th chord

In the context of a string section sustaining a chord for 4 bars, it is true that these colors are a poor representative of the intended harmony but many rhythm sections play in a more open way than the scenario above.

What are some ideas for movements orbiting around a Cm7 chord including E?
If Cm7 is moving to some kind of F chord then C7 or Gb7 lead well. Sequences that leads to the next destination or arrive late at the present one are possible.
On a stationary Cm7 moving between Cm7 and G7 or Db7 is a simple idea. Any kind of G7 including the 13th or Db7 including #9 is a context for E.
In blues and funk it is common to slide between chords 1/2 step below or above the principal harmony.

The most obvious context for a B note in a C7 environment is the movement between C7 and G7 or Db7 with or without various extensions/alterations.

Can 2 divergent paths aiming towards a common destination coexist?
What is the nature of life beyond the realm of "playing the written changes"?

[bluewaterpig]

Bako, very well said.

I remember when I was just starting out learning jazz, I used to think that the reason all these legendary players sounded so good was because they just really knew their arpeggios, and when a G7 came, they could play a G7 arpeggio right away!

It's funny how after a while you learn that playing GBDF over a G7 is just about the lamest thing you can play, relatively speaking of course.

[brwnhornet59]

Richie also once declared to a student that [another teacher in the department-a well respected player, theorist and instructor] played the way he does (not jazz, Richie says) because he didn't know how to transcribe. There are also teachers that say if you use your little finger on your left hand you can't play real jazz. There are also teachers that say the ONLY way you can learn to play is to take the transcription assignments of your teacher and not question anything, but take on the attitudes and prejudices of your teacher.
There are lots of things that teachers say.
It's the responsibility of the student to decide what's true for himself and the responsibility of the teacher not declare one truth to be right for everyone.
Take it for what it is.
David

Good point David. Teachers are subject to human prejudice as well. And as we all know, opinions are like rectums...

[JakeAcci]

Originally Posted by bluewaterpig

No, I completely agree with that post you had. I don't think these wrong notes are just randomly placed in there by chance. Most often, they're part of some sort of super imposed harmony.

A prime example is playing B minor over G7, F# being the 5th of B and the major 7th of G.

Just because I didn't respond to you doesn't mean I disagree.

Well, that's not quite what I meant. Of course, putting two chords together is one way of arriving at something like a M7 over a dominant chord, but in my post about Coltrane that wasn't the concept I was referring to.

I think this comes down to vertical vs horizontal approaches, which I think is something Bako was alluding to.

You stack a Bm triad on top of a G7 chord and on paper there you have an F# note over a G7, lined up vertically, but what I'm talking about is having a cadence, a motion that goes from one point to the other, and vertical clashes may simply be incidental . It's not that the vertical clashes are included to be 'hip' or even melodic, it's the superimposed harmonic motion that's there to add variety and the vertical clashes on paper just happen to result, but often they aren't that important or even noteworthy. Here's an extremely simple example:

Say you have one measure of G7 resolving to a C. In a bebop context, it's pretty common to articulate a different cadence over that measure of G7, to make a more pronounced and anticipated resolution to the C. So many common cadences might be superimposed:
(two beats each)
Dm7 G7
Fmaj7 Fm7
Fm7 Bb7
D7 Db7
etc - these are all common functional cadences

This is conventional functional thinking that does result in what can seem like vertical clashes, oddities, dissonances, but they aren't necessarily - the chords resolve logically and the line resolves logically, and, depending on a lot of factors, this is what can make something that looks like a dissonance on paper sound very smooth and "normal." Because, it actually is normal, and the music is heard horizontally, from point to point, rather than the vertical stacking of notes.

Now, if you want to take that G7 chord and treat it like Bm, and play a line that is Bm to C rather than G7 to C, be my guest. My point is that the important thing with people like Wes is the motion of the superimposed harmony. Bm to C is just as fine as anything else, but I think the older players would more often play off another somewhat functional cadence like some of the ones I listed above. I mean, you could also superimpose F#maj7 to Bm7 over G7...there's no real reason not to, it's just not idiomatic to players like Wes, Bird, early Coltrane, etc, at least not in the transcription I've done.

If I had a student that was interesting in getting away from always playing the 'correct' four to seven notes over every chord, the first thing I'd encourage him to do would be to take tunes explore alternative chord progressions that resolve logically to the same points as the original harmony and not concern himself too much with the vertical clashes.

I hope I've made my distinction clear.

Speaking more generally...I also think that since music is heard in a horizontal fashion rather than a vertical one, it's important to bear the distinction in mind in all theoretical/melodic/harmonic discussions. For example, with the 'double lydian' concept, the idea was exposed to me not at all as a justification for simply playing a b9 over a maj7#11 chord, but as a way to gradually access the b9 so that when it arrives it actually doesn't sound dissonant at all. To my ears, certain intervallic patterns allow this better than others.

[bluewaterpig]

Jake, we're talking about the same thing. You're talking about implying cadences consisting of 2 chords, which is typical. The only reason I mentioned using just Bmin over G7 was because somebody mentioned Coltrane.

Either way you want to look at it, we're both talking about implying a harmony through improvisation that is not being played by the rhythm section. That's how these "wrong" notes show up against dom7 or min7 chords.

[JakeAcci]

The extra bit is just about how the superimposed harmony resolves.

[M-ster]

Originally Posted by M-ster

I believe that many (perhaps all?) of these occurrences are the result of the improvisor superimposing other harmonies on top of the stated/standard/common changes.

Could be me, but I think you guys ended up where I was in post #2.

[Double 07]

Originally Posted by M-ster

Could be me, but I think you guys ended up where I was in post #2.

Oh no you didn't? lmao funny.

Originally Posted by bluewaterpig

I remember when I was just starting out learning jazz, I used to think that the reason all these legendary players sounded so good was because they just really knew their arpeggios, and when a G7 came, they could play a G7 arpeggio right away!

It's funny how after a while you learn that playing GBDF over a G7 is just about the lamest thing you can play, relatively speaking of course.

But seriously tho...

Okay bw we have got to talk about this. Knowing your arpeggios is essential to playing jazz fluently. Whether it sounds "lame" or not really just depends on how well the player is applying them.

[JakeAcci]

Originally Posted by M-ster

Could be me, but I think you guys ended up where I was in post #2.

Hey bro, I've been on your side - just didn't think the message was getting through.

[bluewaterpig]

Originally Posted by Double 07

Knowing your arpeggios is essential to playing jazz fluently. Whether it sounds "lame" or not really just depends on how well the player is applying them.

You're 100% totally and absolutely speaking in the wrong direction of my post.

I never said anything even close to something like "arpeggios are lame". I don't think there's a player on the planet who doesn't know that they're essential to know like the back of your hand.

Substituting arpeggios over different chords is something that I do literally every single time I play.

However, I did say that playing a G7 arpeggio over a G7 isn't the hippest sound in the world.