Stricter Substitution and Reharmonization Definitions

[JonnyPac]

This post might open up a can of worms. "Substitution" and "Reharmonization" are pretty vague in some contexts and tend to overlap, which is ok, I think they often get confused as to which is which and when each should be used appropriately. Mind you, my students are not always jazzers, so my two ideas here are defined in a more musically universal way.


Substitutions (IMHO) usually can be made without altering the original sheet music (or chart), and/or informing your fellow musicians if you are playing in a group setting. They are tasteful chord-scale alternatives that have a very high probability of fitting into the existing music without causing unwanted dissonances. Many substitutions are more or less the original chords with extra extensions or embellishments. Notes from the parent scales can be added or exchanged as long as no "avoid" aka “handle with care” notes are used, and as long as the new notes do not clash with any preexisting melodies or parts.

It is important to familiarize yourself with the harmonic foundations and limits of the musical genre at hand, and to use good judgment before making any substitutions. Some forms of music are far more restrictive than others. In jazz an F6 might get replaced with an Fmaj13#11/B and sound marvelous, whereas merely adding a major 7th to a G chord in a bluegrass tune might earn you some dirty looks from traditionalists.

Substitutions are frequently used in situations involving polychords. For instance, C Major Ninth has a complete E Minor Seventh chord within it. Cmaj9 is C E G B D, and Em7 is E G B D. In this case Em is the iii chord of C Major (the I chord). iii chords are common diatonic substitutions for I chords. If another musician completes the chord by adding the C bass note (Em7/C), C Major Ninth is the result. It ends up creating the same overall sound in many cases.

Here is an example chord progression:

|C |Am |F |G7 |C |
And now with some very basic diatonic embellishments and substitutions:
|Em7 |Am11 |Dm9 |G13 |C6/9 |


Reharmonizing usually requires writing out new sheet music (or a new chart), and/or informing your fellow musicians if you are playing in a group setting. They are rearrangements of the material that may be as drastic as a completely new chord progression with numerous “borrowed” chords and/or modulations. Often the original melody is the only thing that remains partially intact.

Oftentimes, diatonic chord-scales with one or more “Avoid” (though I dislike the term) notes get reharmonized with similar ones that have fewer restrictions. For example, A Minor (Aeolian) might get replaced by A Dorian, or A Melodic Minor. This can free up the chord-scale and add many more interesting possibilities.

Of course, some jazz and fusion players like to make reharmonizations on the spot to create outside sounds, or to challenge their fellow players to scramble and attempt to follow them. Unless the musicians are virtuosos, this approach has a very low probability of sounding good to the average listener.

Here is an example chord progression:

|Dm7 |G7 |Cmaj7 |Cmaj7 |
And now with some John Coltrane Giant Steps style reharmonizations:
|Dm7 Eb7 |Abmaj7 B7|Emaj7 G7 |Cmaj7 |

If a soloist played one while the accompanist clearly played the other, things wouldn't really sound "good" until the final C chord. It would sound "outside" in a structured way I suppose, but it might result in making one or the other sound like they made a series of mistakes. They should both agree on which set of chords to perform if harmonic cohesion is desired.

I like to think of probabilities in music. If a chord, bass-line, and melody all come from the same source, then there is a very high probability that the spontaneous counterpoint/homophonic result will be favorable on a beat for beat basis; whereas if each improvising musician chooses a different route the music will resolve on a measure for measure basis (which is ok: consonance-dissonance-consonance aka inside-outside-inside).

I hope this helps give you some ideas...

One more note. In jazz, since there are so many borrowed chords and drastic tonal changes subbing a C with Am or Em makes almost no dent, whereas in pop/rock C Am Em might actually be the progression and reversing the process into four measures of C would ruin it... no progression! It's important to choose the appropriate amount of harmonic motion for the given performance/song.


'nuff said! Over to you!! Let's hear the various viewpoints!

[ksjazzguitar]

To me, a substitution is where the function of the chord doesn't change. A diatonic sub like playing Dm7-G7 instead of G7 or playing Em7 for CMaj7 does not change the harmonic function. Even a tri-tone sub doesn't really change the harmonic function.


A reharm (to me) is where the harminic function changes. Coltrane changes are a good example. Landing on an Ebdim on beat 1 of "Misty" and or starting "Night and Day" on a bVIMaj7 is changing the basic harmonic function.

That's how I like to think of it. Some things get a little subjective, but you get the idea. I don't think that it contradicting what you are saying.

Peace,
Kevin

[JEdgarWinter]

I think that this sub/reharm distinction is useful.

A strictly diatonic sub does indeed seem too unexciting to really merit being called a "reharm," but once you add, for example, a non-diatonic V in front of a diatonic sub, things can get pretty interesting fairly quickly.

For my own purposes, it occurs to me as I type that it might be useful to distinguish between reharms over static harmony, and reharms over active harmony-- (which sometimes boils down to spicing things up for the former, and simplifying things down for the latter) also between slow and fast in general. I must admit that ballads (and blues) still seem to me the most useful terrain for reharmonization; uptempo tunes always seem to have more than enough going on without getting sneaky with the changes!

Two other areas that I think could be interesting to explore are: 1) tritone subs (with or without chord quality changes) on chords other than dominant 7ths, which I understand are fairly common in modern reharmonization/subbing practice; and back-cycling/tonicizing, or what have you--where (ideally) the ear hears the superimposed chords over the original changes?

[M-ster]

I'd suggest an even stricter definition of substitution that excludes the mere addition of extensions or "tensions."

For instance, in your first example:

Here is an example chord progression:
|C |Am |Dm |G7 |C |

And now with some very basic diatonic embellishments and substitutions:
|Em7 |Am11 |Dm9 |G13 |C6/9 |

Only the Em7 (1st bar, second set of chord symbols) qualifies as a substitution (IMHO). The rest are just voicing choices of the same fundamental harmony. No substitution happening there at all.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by M-ster

Only the Em7 (1st bar, second set of chord symbols) qualifies as a substitution (IMHO).

I agree with that. I further call that a diatonic sub as it is really just a chance in root within the chord/scale. The others change neither root nor chord/scale, therefore I don't think they can be called subs but are just different voicings or extensions.

Peace,
Kevin

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

I agree with that. I further call that a diatonic sub as it is really just a chance in root within the chord/scale. The others change neither root nor chord/scale, therefore I don't think they can be called subs but are just different voicings or extensions.

Peace,
Kevin

Guys, I agree as well. but again, some of my guitar students are not all hip with jazz extensions. Also, bluegrass players, rockers, and others might think that a polychord being used as a diatonic extension is grounds to call is a "substitute" of sorts.

I love playing extended upper partials instead of complete voicings when I play and arrange tunes: using a diatonic "so-what" stack for Cmaj13 i (C) E A D G B on the 7th and 8th frets is a fav, but sounds inappropriate in many non-jazz influenced settings. Of course, this is a JAZZ forum and we are all cool with these ideas.

Mostly, I am looking to define the two terms in a universal way that includes all contemporary genres.

****

Tritone subs are a HUGE can of worms. Let's indulge and debate a bit.
I think there should be "Tritone Substitution" and "Tritone Reharmonization" based on the above mentioned definitions.

A same-scale tritone sub makes sense as a true substitution. For example, Galt (Ab MM super locrian) and Db13+11 (Ab MM lydian dom.) can be used interchangably on all levels without harmonic discrepancies. Whereas, G13 (G Mixolydian) and Db13+11 (Ab MM lydian dom.) come from completely different scales and the Db13+11 would pose a b9 #9 b13 right next to the natural mixolydian extensions. This would be very dissonant in a bad way if each was played clearly. Taking a moment to change the chart or inform you fellow musicians that a Db13+13 is replacing the unaltered G13 would be a good move, for the song's sake.

The Diminished Octotonic scale (dim half-whole-half, etc version) also can make same-scale tritone substitutions. For example G13b9+11 can interchange with Db7#9 (w natural 5th and +11) because they are the same beast. In fact any crazy Dim Octotonic chord can sub. They all resolve nicely to tonic major chords. (the natural 13th implies an upcoming major chord.)

Y'all dig where I'm comin' from? It's using the best jazz scales in a very inside way. Things sound good on a beat for beat basis, the way most brains and ears hear music, according to most musicologists. EDIT: This it totally up for debate since inside-outside-inside stuff was not really considered.

'Nuff said! Tear it up, boys!

[ksjazzguitar]

Thank you for your kind words.

Peace,
Kevin

[M-ster]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

... Things sound good on a beat for beat basis, the way most brains and ears hear music, according to most musicologists.

This sounds like an off-the-cuff statement without basis in fact. Really? Most brains hear music "on a beat for beat basis"?

That's probably fodder for a much bigger debate that what to call a tritone substitution.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by M-ster

This sounds like an off-the-cuff statement without basis in fact. Really? Most brains hear music "on a beat for beat basis"?

That's probably fodder for a much bigger debate that what to call a tritone substitution.

I agree it is pretty subjective. I know plenty of musicians that hear the larger arch of the harmony and rhythm. I think the book I am thinking of was based on "average listeners", not heavy jazz players/listeners.

Musicians who interpret rhythm on the lager arch, for example "feeling whole notes" can play wilder tuplets (ie 7 in the place 2, etc) of than musicians "feeling eighth notes".

I think most listeners have a bit of ADD, and they expect instant gratification harmonically and rhythmically. That's all. It's not a huge overstatement. I wouldn't get too upset by it. If only the whole world loved jazz as we do. lol.

[JonnyPac]

Music the Brain and Ecstasy is the book I am pulling from. It's a fascinating read. It's filled with real statistical data, legit sources, and the whole bang. It covers classical music interpretation and the Pink Panther theme in most of it's examples though. Check it out!

[JonnyPac]

This was kind of a fun topic... I've learned more since the OP. There are a lot of new members here no who might share more thoughts. Let's hear 'em.

[cosmic gumbo]

What can we say? You want to generalize, and this is a jazz forum.

[Reg]

Hey JP... As always... it usually comes down to the level of the player to what the difference is, I hear what many may consider re-harms as simple subs. To me re-harm is true change of tonal center. Here's a re-harm of "How Insensitive"... I did on the spot and has a few weak spots... but has a different tonal center with original melody...Reg

YouTube Video

[Reg]

Hey JP... here's a sample of what I hear as subs... not a reharm...Reg

YouTube Video

[mr. beaumont]

I like overly simple definitions when it comes to this stuff.

To me, a substitution can stand on it's own. It can be dropped into place with a minimum (if any) altering to what's around it.

A reharmonization requires a restructuring of the tune to fit.

Like I said, overly simple, but it works for basic conversation...now once you get into what exactly's changing--well then things can get hairy...

[fep]

I like it when folks use three categories:

Alterations
Substitutions
Rehamonizations

[Reg]

Hey Frank... good to hear you again... I like The Three... I sort of hear Alterations and subs as the same thing... that being versions of the same tonal center... and the re-harm being a new tonal center..
and jeff good straight ahead explanation... funny how you used same words as Frank... sub and alteration as compared to re-harn. I tend to, as I said make reference to the Harmony when talking about subs, reharms and maybe now alterations... I guess I don't really think of rhythmic variations as in that discussion. If the tonal center... doesn't really change... it's hard for me to hear as re-harm... but that's probable just me... I mean if you simply change the root... it's a re-harm to someone. big gray area... I don't think there's a right or wrong... but it's interesting to, as JP introduced, hear different players "default harmony"... Reg

[JonnyPac]

This idea of "inside choices" really rings with me (from the other thread). I'm curious to hear more on it. Thanks for posting, y'all.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by JonnyPac

This idea of "inside choices" really rings with me (from the other thread). I'm curious to hear more on it. Thanks for posting, y'all.

http://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/theor...-thoughts.html