Chord Progression Question

[SHR]

Hi,

I was playing with chords this morning and stumbled on this progression, which sounds good (to my ears at least, which may not be saying much).

BbMaj7 Am7 D7 Gmaj7
-- starting at the 6th position for the Bb, fifth position for Am7, staying at the 5th and putting the A in the bass for D7, then the 3rd position for Gmaj7 - playing on the 6th, 4th, 3rd and 2nd strings in each case. In other words, all standard chords. I played it one chord per beat, like a turnaround.

I'm just curious to know what this progression is doing theoretically. Obviously the last three chords are a standard II-V-I, but what would be the theory behind the Bbmaj7?

Thanks!

[ksjazzguitar]

Well, what we call the BbMaj7 depends on what key we are in. If we are in G, then the Bb is a bIIIMaj7, borrowed from the parallel minor, Gm. This is a common enough technique. If you are in Bb, then the ii-V-I in G is just a key center switch from Bb to the parallel major of the relative minor.

It all depends on the larger context of the song. Is that the whole chord progression? In that case you might hear the Bb as an outside chord within the context of G. If there is a Bb key center preceding this, then they will sound like too separate key centers - remember that key centers don't have to have some mathematical relationship (but often do).

A big part of it is context and how you hear it. Remember that theory is just an attempt to explain what sounds good. If it sounds good then it is theories job to try and fit the music, not the other way around. If the theory doesn't fit the music, then it's time for a new theory. (I just don't want you thinking you have to fit what you write into the theory.) But I've given you some of the most logical choices.

BTW, have you tried an Ab in the bass under the D7?

Peace.
Kevin

[monk]

The note Bb is the flat five of the note E. As such, you could consider the Bbmaj7 as some type of b5 sub for either E7 or Em7 which would give you a vi ii V I or VI ii V I before you subbed the Bbmaj7.

Kevin's suggestion for a Ab bass note on the D7 (D7b5) would also give you a descending chromatic bassline.

Regards,
monk

[Reg]

I hear as two tonic system...root motion works with relative and parallel concepts, but works more completely with my ears with modal interchange. Add a few more changes... I already did but am more interested in how you would hear... this is not a test, there are no incorrect choices, I'm always interested in how different musicians hear... complete harmonic structures etc... best Reg

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by monk

The note Bb is the flat five of the note E. As such, you could consider the Bbmaj7 as some type of b5 sub for either E7 or Em7 which would give you a vi ii V I or VI ii V I ...

There is some logic there. We usually think of tritone subs as dominant. I've heard professors rail adamantly that they must be dominant because of the 3 and b7 exchange. But of course then you have the turn-around on Ladybird. I think that it is right that the tritone kinda should be a dominant, but the Maj7 can work by association, as a color change. So I guess it depends on the rhythm. If the rhythm is:

BbMaj7 / / / | / / / / | Am7 / D7 / | GMaj7 / / /

Then I hear Bb as a separate tonal center.

If the chord progression is:

BbMaj7 / Am7 / | D7 / GMaj7 /

Then I could buy into monk's "twisted tritone sub" idea, a color change from Bb7 to BbMaj7. (In which case, the scale would be Bb Lydian, of course.)

It all depends on context.

Peace,
Kevin

[monk]

I've heard Joe Pass use Gmaj7 Bbmaj7 Ebmaj7 D7b5 as a subbed turnaround for G Em Am D7.

The b5 sub usually is a dominant but no rule states that it absolutely has to be.

Regards,
monk

[SHR]

Thanks a lot for the replies, it's been a fascinating discussion which I've learned from.

[saponsky]

Also Ab7 would be the tritone sub for D7 so you can play Ab7 to achieve the chromatic movement too.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by monk

The b5 sub usually is a dominant but no rule states that it absolutely has to be.

Well, that depends on how you define "rule". I've had teachers who've said exactly that, so then by definition there is a "rule." There is not big ledger of jazz rules somewhere - there's only what we come up with. Technically there are no rules except for the ones we've inferred or made up.

I think you can build a good rational argument for the "dominant only" definition, but because of how the 3rds and 7ths change in the sub. But you can also build a good empirical argument that it works with the Maj7 because it sounds good.

I like to think of it as a combination of elements of the tritone sub and Impressionistic planarism. So, I think of tritone subs as being dominant, but there is this other related sound of subbing Maj7 and moving them in a parallel fashion - a sub on top of a sub, if you will. But, that's all subjective - your definition is just as reasonable.

Peace,
Kevin

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I agree Kevin. I think the first b5 subs where dominants-for-dominants (Db7 for G7). Then as time went on, ears were stretched and more adventuresome b5 subs were done.

[Reg]

There are many big jazz books of rules and as with all rules or guidelines there are interpretations and bright people who manipulate etc... What the world uses as guidelines or as Jazz Rules enforced by Jazz Police, was formulated printed and taught at Berklee during 60's and early 70's. Those rules or explanations of jazz theory and harmony are what is used around the world now. Any program which tries to deal with jazz has some influence from that period at Berklee... Unfortunately when Berk junior took over for Berk senior, late 70's... money became larger concern, he was a business major, and many of the classes were discontinued and the school went through a re-organization... I've been watching the decline of terminology and understanding of jazz theory and harmony for the last 20 years... If your unaware of those rules... it's not because they don't exist... Most are unaware of equation for logarithmically division of octave commonly used for western music... it still exists and governs most of what we consider to be music, whether one is aware or not.
Haven't you play a standard and instead of playing notated chord... play all subs, same with soloing. Or instead of notated chord, play chord of same function, with a control root motion pattern... 3rd up or down... there are millions of ways to substitute or re-harmonize both while comping as well as soloing... there is a recorded history as well as many charts with analysis... and standard practices have been established and defined as characteristic of jazz. There are theoretical explanations of those characteristics which use traditional music theory as well what is called jazz theory and harmony to explain... There are control systems for defining characteristic pitches, pitch collections, interval, resolutions, function etc... There are jazz tendencies which may be explain well using traditional theory and many that don't... I believe on a picking thread some were trying to compare classical technique to jazz technique... maybe not a good analogy.
Anyway obviously the tri-tone is functional method of explaining sub-V , what if there triads, do we give it the ok because of implications. Root motion is also a methodology for control for harmonic motion as well as constant structure, Parallelism and more to the point of jazz... modal concepts. Most of the time there many ways of explaining jazz tunes and most of the time it's best to be try and be aware of them all... Or not and simply push a square peg through a round hole... Reg

[Robertkoa]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

Well, what we call the BbMaj7 depends on what key we are in. If we are in G, then the Bb is a bIIIMaj7, borrowed from the parallel minor, Gm. This is a common enough technique. If you are in Bb, then the ii-V-I in G is just a key center switch from Bb to the parallel major of the relative minor.

It all depends on the larger context of the song. Is that the whole chord progression? In that case you might hear the Bb as an outside chord within the context of G. If there is a Bb key center preceding this, then they will sound like too separate key centers - remember that key centers don't have to have some mathematical relationship (but often do).

A big part of it is context and how you hear it. Remember that theory is just an attempt to explain what sounds good. If it sounds good then it is theories job to try and fit the music, not the other way around. If the theory doesn't fit the music, then it's time for a new theory. (I just don't want you thinking you have to fit what you write into the theory.) But I've given you some of the most logical choices.

BTW, have you tried an Ab in the bass under the D7?

Peace.
Kevin

Great answer - I like the Roman Numeral notation so it can be remembered as a secondary ( or Parallel) chord in ANY key.

I've usually found that the more theory and " rules" someone knows the better they are at "breaking" the rules and still sounding musical- jazz guys ( and some classical composition types also ) get away with murder harmonically and make it all fit together..........

[Marcel]

I could be wrong but all this gets a little confusing to me. I just look at it as a 6-2-5-1 in G. I believe that the 6 chord is often changed to a dominant chord. E7-Am7-D7-GMaj7. Then we use the tritone sub for the E7.
Bb7-Am7-D7-Gmaj7. If I read this in a chart and had to solo over it, that is how I would approach it. I try to keep it as simple as possible.

[sekeri]

I think this lesson will answer all of your questions:
ii V I Chord Progression

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Reg

There are many big jazz books of rules and as with all rules or guidelines there are interpretations and bright people who manipulate etc... What the world uses as guidelines or as Jazz Rules enforced by Jazz Police, was formulated printed and taught at Berklee during 60's and early 70's. Those rules or explanations of jazz theory and harmony are what is used around the world now. ...

I think that that's putting too much emphasis on Berklee. IT is a very respected school and was perhaps the first successful jazz program, but I've also heard many people rail against the Berklee sound. It's one (very important, but still just one) school of jazz. And of course there was a lot of jazz education before Berklee, it was just one on one and was less codified. A similar shift happened in classical music at the end of the 18th century.

But the larger point (if I understand you) that these rules are somewhat arbitrary is an important one. One of my lietmotifs in this forum has been that the "rules" are just "rules of thumb" that are created to describe practice. When people talk about the "jazz police" I think that they are not understanding the role of theory. Theory attempts to explain what sounds good, it's not supposed to tell you what to do or what not to do (and I say this as a confirmed theoryphile.) Really, we shouldn't say things like "You can't do that because it contradicts the theory." If something sounds good but contradicts the theory, then the theory must change. Practice is the mistress of theory, not the other way around.

I think that some people get this idea of theory from their intro to music theory class where they are forced to memorize all these rules of how to write a chorale in the style of Bach and get marked down if they color outside the lines. But that is a very artificial situation, trying to write in a dead style. The "rules" were simply inferred from what Bach did and are simply training wheels that help the beginner understand how that style works. Unfortunately a lot of beginners never realize that those "rules" are not meant to be there forever - they were just training wheels. No serious composer ever says, "Uh oh, 'direct 5ths', can't do that, it breaks the rule." No, if it sounds good they do it.

It's the same in jazz. The "rules" are just an attempt to explain what sounds good (and change for different eras.) Ultimately, they are meant as training wheels for beginners to guide them to the standard practice. But no advanced player ever said, "Uh oh, I can't play that scale there, it breaks the rules." The ultimate arbiter is the ear. The rules can be helpful at all levels to suggest things and to help organize thoughts.

We just need to remember that they are "rules of thumb" and once you know them, you can feel free to break them - as long as it sounds good. And if it sounds good enough, the theory will change to accommodate you.

Originally Posted by Reg

Most are unaware of equation for logarithmically division of octave commonly used for western music... it still exists and governs most of what we consider to be music, whether one is aware or not.

I'm not sure how that helps musicians understand music. Having been an engineering major, I love this stuff, but I'm not sure it helps me play. It would be like expecting a dancer to understand how the floor was built. Interesting but I'm not sure of the relevance. Maybe I should dig up my slide rule and take it on stage with me.

Originally Posted by Reg

I've been watching the decline of terminology and understanding of jazz theory and harmony for the last 20 years

I think that one could argue that over the last 80 years there has been a gradual improvement in "terminology and understanding of jazz theory and harmony." I suppose if I had come out of a somewhat homogeneous environment of Berklee and out into a jazz world that uses different terminology, then I'd probably think the same thing. No offense Reg, but you are the only person I know that uses your terminology. I've known many guys who've gone to Berklee and I've never heard anyone talk about "harmonic control systems." (I can't even find it on the internet.) If you are using your terminology as the gold standard, then yeah, jazz terminology is atrocious. But if you look at jazz as a whole more objectively, then you'll find that there has been a gradual increase of uniformity in jazz terminology. I think that it is unreasonable to expect the entire jazz community to conform to you.

Originally Posted by Reg

some were trying to compare classical technique to jazz technique... maybe not a good analogy.

Classical music theory is more than capable at incorporating jazz. Classical theory is not this homogeneous whole that the uninitiated seem to think. It is a complex Venn diagram of overlapping theories and ideas. Each new classical movement takes "some" rules from the pile and then invents some new ones that it needs to describe its specific practice. (Again, I think that people are very confused about what theory's role is.) Jazz theory, like every music movement before it, uses certain rules in common with Common Practice Period music theory, modifies a few where it needs to, and invents a several rules that only apply to it. This is completely consistent with how music theory is supposed to work. (I'm not directing this at you, Reg, but) most of the people saying that "you can't apply classical theory to jazz" are the ones that don't understand classical theory or had only the limited "write by the rules" approach you get in the beginning. Anyone who's had more advanced classical composition classes know that things get really hairy and really free very fast.

Originally Posted by Robertkoa

I've usually found that the more theory and " rules" someone knows the better they are at "breaking" the rules and still sounding musical- jazz guys ( and some classical composition types also ) get away with murder harmonically and make it all fit together..........

Well said, and that's the way it should be.

Peace,
Kevin

[fep]

Originally Posted by Reg

I hear as two tonic system...root motion works with relative and parallel concepts, but works more completely with my ears with modal interchange. Add a few more changes... I already did but am more interested in how you would hear... this is not a test, there are no incorrect choices, I'm always interested in how different musicians hear... complete harmonic structures etc... best Reg

Hi Reg, I'll bite... I think it turns out I'm in F!

||: Bbmaj7 / Am7 D9 | Gmaj7 / / / |

| Bmaj7 / Bbm7 Eb9 | Abmaj7 / / / |

| Cmaj7 / Fmaj7 / | Dbmaj7 / Gbmaj7 / |

| Fmaj7 / / / | / / / B7b5 :||