Resolve to Maj7?

[Ioscommuter]

In learning jazz I'm trying to distinguish where ideas explained according to theory differ from how they are usually applied in reality.

For example in a minor ii v i the tonic is pretty much always a minor 7, although most theory books etc. would say minor/major7 because that is the tonic for the harmonic minor from which the minor ii v i is derived.

To what extent is major7 actually used as the tonic that a major ii V I resolves to? I personally find it to sound a little unstable as a resolution and prefer the sound of maj6. Is the "major 7 as tonic to resolve to" something that is widely done, or does it exist more in theory?

[henryrobinett]

Interesting. I always resolved to the major 7. I hear that. So much so that I like to hit and sit in the major7 interval, kind of like Dexter when resolving to the tonic. But recently I've been coming more inside. I like the 6th much more or even the root when ending a phrase. But I used to like it less stable. Sometimes I still do. But I'm talking more single line stuff.

[jordanklemons]

In learning jazz I'm trying to distinguish where ideas explained according to theory differ from how they are usually applied in reality.

For example in a minor ii v i the tonic is pretty much always a minor 7, although most theory books etc. would say minor/major7 because that is the tonic for the harmonic minor from which the minor ii v i is derived.

To what extent is major7 actually used as the tonic that a major ii V I resolves to? I personally find it to sound a little unstable as a resolution and prefer the sound of maj6. Is the "major 7 as tonic to resolve to" something that is widely done, or does it exist more in theory?

In general, the min6 chord will be more of a stable sound than a min7 chord. Often times when you're playing a min7, it's going to be for a chord that's moving and resolving elsewhere...like the ii chord in a ii V will be a min7. Whereas when you're using it as a tonic chord, the min6 will feel more stable and is a good resolution point.

As for using a minMaj7...that's doable as well. Obviously it will have a different color, a rather tense one to my ear...but not bad. Very beautiful sound. It's worth experimenting with all of them. Maybe try recording yourself practicing. Try working on each resolution chord separately...spend a few minutes JUST outlining and resolving to the min6, then the min7, then the minMaj7. Listen back to it. See if you can hear the difference. See if you prefer any more than the rest.

There are other variations that can be used as well...min9, min11(9), min(add2), etc. But the basic 3 variations of the min6, min7, and minMaj7 are a good place to start if you're still working through theory and application questions for yourself.

If you record yourself, I'd love to hear what you noticed...if you'd be willing to come back and share your findings here.

[goldenwave77]

I would be wary of being overly Procrustean* in trying to "figure out" what theory should tell you to do. Remember, "theory" is at best, a tool, and not the thing itself.

For e.g., take a look at the tune "Nature Boy". In the 2nd phrase "They say he wandered very far, very far", the first part of this phrase (the first "very far") ends on a maj. 7 (c #) on the Dminor, whereas the 2nd part of the phrase ends on a minor 6 (b natural) on that same chord. I think it all just depends on context.

*(def. "Procrustean": from the Greek myth where King Procrustes, had his visitors sleep in a bed of a certain length, and if their feet were too long, he cut them off, to make them fit. Or, to put it another way, "to a man with a hammer in his hand, everything in the world looks like a nail".)

[pingu]

Interesting. I always resolved to the major 7. I hear that. So much so that I like to hit and sit in the major7 interval, kind of like Dexter when resolving to the tonic. But recently I've been coming more inside. I like the 6th much more or even the root when ending a phrase. But I used to like it less stable. Sometimes I still do. But I'm talking more single line stuff.

yes this is interesting ....
i dont find the maj7 note stable/final
oftentimes i don't find even the triad
stable enough ....
i might have to resort to playing octave tonic ...
to make it sound like i've come home

(note about my ears ...
i do find the last line of many tunes
difficult to hear / get solid ...)

[KirkP]

Since the maj7 has a half-step tension, I'd typically resolve to it if I don't plan to stay there very long. The tension keeps the momentum going to move on to the next chord sequence.

On the other hand, I'll resolve to a 6th, 6/9 or triad if I want to create more of a sense of coming home. A 6/9 is formed from all the notes in a pentatonic scale, so very stable.

[JonR]

In learning jazz I'm trying to distinguish where ideas explained according to theory differ from how they are usually applied in reality.

For example in a minor ii v i the tonic is pretty much always a minor 7, although most theory books etc. would say minor/major7 because that is the tonic for the harmonic minor from which the minor ii v i is derived.

The maj7 tonic in jazz is generally considered to be melodic minor, not harmonic minor. Hence the alternative option of the major 6th extension.
(Harmonic minor really only belongs on the V chord - it's actually the name for the practice of creating a major V chord in a minor key in the first place - although it can be extended back to the ii.)

The maj7 on the min chord is definitely a strong flavour - more dissonant than on a major tonic - and 6th and 9th sound more consonant as extensions.

In my experience, you find maj7s on tonic minors in one of three contexts:
1. as part of line cliches (maj7-m7-m6 etc);
2. when the maj7 note happens to be in the melody;
3. as final chords, for dramatic endings. (Eg, James Bond theme.)

It seems to be rare otherwise, probably because it is such a distinctive flavour.

[christianm77]

In learning jazz I'm trying to distinguish where ideas explained according to theory differ from how they are usually applied in reality.

For example in a minor ii v i the tonic is pretty much always a minor 7, although most theory books etc. would say minor/major7 because that is the tonic for the harmonic minor from which the minor ii v i is derived.

To what extent is major7 actually used as the tonic that a major ii V I resolves to? I personally find it to sound a little unstable as a resolution and prefer the sound of maj6. Is the "major 7 as tonic to resolve to" something that is widely done, or does it exist more in theory?

It's good to refine one's sensibility - listen carefully to the energy of different notes and make artistic decisions based on it. There's not necessarily a wrong or right here. The important thing is the detail of your ear.

Anyway, I would personally agree with what you said, not that it matters :-)

[christianm77]

yes this is interesting ....
i dont find the maj7 note stable/final
oftentimes i don't find even the triad
stable enough ....
i might have to resort to playing octave tonic ...
to make it sound like i've come home

(note about my ears ...
i do find the last line of many tunes
difficult to hear / get solid ...)

I always hear that as a 'full stop' - you need it sometimes. Parker used it very powerfully.

[PMB]

Interesting. I always resolved to the major 7. I hear that. So much so that I like to hit and sit in the major7 interval, kind of like Dexter when resolving to the tonic. But recently I've been coming more inside. I like the 6th much more or even the root when ending a phrase. But I used to like it less stable. Sometimes I still do. But I'm talking more single line stuff.

That raises another interesting point, Henry. In classic jazz and swing, the 6th was the default tonic chord whether minor or major. Now that it's so common to resolve to major 7th chords, resolving a major-based line to the 6th step can sound more "outside", at least to my ears. Depending on context and voicing, there's a suggestion of maj13#11 with the 9th and #11th implied and the 6th acting as 13th.

[christianm77]

Further to my earlier post - I like major seventh. You can resolve to any major scale note except the 4 in jazz.

It all depends how much solidity you want to give the end of the line. I would say in a rough order of 'eyebrows raised' on the left through to 'crashing down to Earth' on the right, my spectrum of diatonic resolving notes goes on a major chord something like this:

9 7 6 3 5 1

Major seventh on a minor chord is a bit of bop cliche...

[Bobalou]

The "proper" voice leading gets you to a imin/maj7. But a min7 is usually just subbed for the imM7. The min/Maj7 chord tends to sound like it "wants to" resolve to another chord, usually a min7. So for the sake of a stronger sense of resolution in a ii V ì the m7 is used as a sub for mM7. Of course the other flavors of minor chords are fair game to sub in for the ì chord.

[destinytot]

I always hear that as a 'full stop' - you need it sometimes.

Love that image.

[christianm77]

The "proper" voice leading gets you to a imin/maj7. But a min7 is usually just subbed for the imM7. The min/Maj7 chord tends to sound like it "wants to" resolve to another chord, usually a min7. So for the sake of a stronger sense of resolution in a ii V ì the m7 is used as a sub for mM7. Of course the other flavors of minor chords are fair game to sub in for the ì chord.

Urrghh, the min7 tonic chord , the chord of harmonic apathy. Look if you are going to do that, can't you at least play a m11 or a m9 or something with a bit of character? I blame Berklee and the 'everything has to be a seventh chord' mindset :-)

Seriously, I think the tonic m7 (that is, VI-7 as opposed to II-7 or III-7) is a post modal thing, and if anything to my strange old ears the min6 (even the minmaj7) offers a far stronger sense of finality than the min7 chord in the same place. In the older music you would in general get a VI-7 only it then moved to II7. YMMV. (You can make this sub anyway, of course, classic ending cliche.)

I think in bop and certainly swing a m6 or minmaj7 sound is more common on tonic function minors (vi chords) but I may well be wrong (it's certainly how Barry teaches it and what I hear on the pre-60's recordings I've checked out in detail)...These chords do appear in gypsy jazz, but modern GJ is not the same music as Django played. (I brace myself for replies with examples of min7's from Hot Club recordings.)

Also it gives you an excuse to play the melodic minor, and this is surely always a good thing.

As far as the min7 goes, you get more of a floating 'modal' vibe. But on some tunes it just sounds wrong. Conversely, the same way a minmaj7 sounds wrong used on soul/funk tunes instead of a min7..

I have nothing against the Dorian either, actually, it's a great sound (and not that recent, even the swing guys used it from time to time.) But a min7 chord played on a tonic? I'm sure there's examples from the pre-modal era, but I do hear very much in that kind of context, hovering around like a jazzy kestrel. Makes everything sound like fecking Van Morrison.

Similarly, the major 7 chord can be a bit much in older style music when played as a chord (swing, trad) unless you resolve it to a 6, baroque style, but in terms of using major 7th as melody - no problem. Here's a classic example from 1927:

Louis uses maj7 sounds on major chords all the time.

So what goes for chords doesn't necessarily go for melody, which I find interesting.

TL;DR: sometimes things sound good and sometimes the same things sound bad, but by the same token other things may also sound bad or good depending on context.

[Bobalou]

In jazz you should not really see any difference between the different extensions of chords. That is to say a M7, or M9 for example can be subbed for each other at any time. The maj7#11 is one I use a lot. Yes use those colorful flavor tones they add so much interest to the music. As far as resolving tonic lines be adventurous but use your ear and your brain.

[jordanklemons]

In jazz you should not really see any difference between the different extensions of chords. That is to say a M7, or M9 for example can be subbed for each other at any time.

By all means Bob...if you don't want to differentiate the extensions and want to sub them at any time...that's cool. But saying that you 'should not' differentiate them might be a stretch.

To my ear, all three of the chords you mentioned sound dramatically different.

Maj7 - Nostalgic...like thinking about a lost lover
Maj9 - Relaxing...like taking a deep breath and letting go of all the stress from the day
Maj13(#11,9) - Beautiful...like standing in the most gorgeous meadow, watching butterflies circle around me
Maj7#5 - Floating...like being in the space station, pushing off the wall and slowly gliding through the air
Maj(add2) - Calm and open...reminds me of flying a kite in super slow motion

I know it's sort of the common way of teaching harmony...that you have a basic chord like CMaj...and you can add anything you want to it. That is true. But it's not the only way to think about chords and harmony.

If we think of ourselves as sonic painters, saying all the extensions are the same is like lumping all of the unique shades of blue into one category and saying they're interchangeable. Yes, they're all blue, and yes they can be switched between, if you want them to be. But to gloss over just how different each of them is, misses out on noticing just how unique each one is.

Like you said. You love the sound of the #11. That's a very specific extension that creates a very specific tonality. It sounds like you differentiate that extension from the others and that you really love it. That's kind of the point I'm getting at. For me it's worth taking the time to find that love and relationship with EACH of the extensions, because they ARE all different and elicit different emotions and energies. And exploring that gives us a greater sense of control and intent when we are improvising and composing.

[Bobalou]

By all means Bob...if you don't want to differentiate the extensions and want to sub them at any time...that's cool. But saying that you 'should not' differentiate them might be a stretch.

To my ear, all three of the chords you mentioned sound dramatically different.

Maj7 - Nostalgic...like thinking about a lost lover
Maj9 - Relaxing...like taking a deep breath and letting go of all the stress from the day
Maj13(#11,9) - Beautiful...like standing in the most gorgeous meadow, watching butterflies circle around me
Maj7#5 - Floating...like being in the space station, pushing off the wall and slowly gliding through the air
Maj(add2) - Calm and open...reminds me of flying a kite in super slow motion

I know it's sort of the common way of teaching harmony...that you have a basic chord like CMaj...and you can add anything you want to it. That is true. But it's not the only way to think about chords and harmony.

If we think of ourselves as sonic painters, saying all the extensions are the same is like lumping all of the unique shades of blue into one category and saying they're interchangeable. Yes, they're all blue, and yes they can be switched between, if you want them to be. But to gloss over just how different each of them is, misses out on noticing just how unique each one is.

Like you said. You love the sound of the #11. That's a very specific extension that creates a very specific tonality. It sounds like you differentiate that extension from the others and that you really love it. That's kind of the point I'm getting at. For me it's worth taking the time to find that love and relationship with EACH of the extensions, because they ARE all different and elicit different emotions and energies. And exploring that gives us a greater sense of control and intent when we are improvising and composing.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it.

[christianm77]

One thing that never gets mentioned is the importance of register. When you are in a higher register, more of the major family notes (including, according to Warne Marsh, the #1) sound resolved. You can use any of the lydian scale tones for sure.

But lower down, your choices for good sounding resolving notes are more limited - you may need to stick more to the triad.

I've not heard that talked about for a while, but I do remember a trombone player talking about it...

[bako]

There are some advantages to individuating the details of harmonic relationships and there are some as well
to thinking in more generalized viewpoints.

On the surface, every interval is different and the context of the song further expands the differences.
It is very useful in my opinion to fine tune our awareness of the influence each interval/note offers.
An X factor on the bandstand in improvised music, is that we are not playing with a play along recording and our
predicted intention will not always be forthcoming.

Generalizations offer a streamlined viewpoint that allows forward motion without getting lost in the details.
The result will of course differ between musicians just starting out and musicians who can hear the difference
between let's say ma7, ma9, #11 and ma13.

For me I view specification as best for lab study projects, to lend nuance to my hearing and hopefully my playing.
For real time interaction, I lack the mental space for so much detail, generalizations serve me better in this environment. I am at my best when I can let go of all technical aspects and focus on poetical aspects of existence.
My lab discoveries will either emerge or they will not.

The expression "adding chromatics to chord tones" is very popular around these parts.
It is often been said in the context of scale discussions, that all scale tones are not equal.
The scale is viewed by these musicians as too generalized. If you focus on scales, it is destiny
to land on unintended notes. Within this viewpoint, the notes are divided into 3 camps:
chord tones, scale tones and chromatics. On the specificity trail, I'd go one further, all chord tones are not equal.

[christianm77]

There are some advantages to individuating the details of harmonic relationships and there are some as well
to thinking in more generalized viewpoints.

On the surface, every interval is different and the context of the song further expands the differences.
It is very useful in my opinion to fine tune our awareness of the influence each interval/note offers.
An X factor on the bandstand in improvised music, is that we are not playing with a play along recording and our
predicted intention will not always be forthcoming.

Generalizations offer a streamlined viewpoint that allows forward motion without getting lost in the details.
The result will of course differ between musicians just starting out and musicians who can hear the difference
between let's say ma7, ma9, #11 and ma13.

For me I view specification as best for lab study projects, to lend nuance to my hearing and hopefully my playing.
For real time interaction, I lack the mental space for so much detail, generalizations serve me better in this environment. I am at my best when I can let go of all technical aspects and focus on poetical aspects of existence.
My lab discoveries will either emerge or they will not.

The expression "adding chromatics to chord tones" is very popular around these parts.
It is often been said in the context of scale discussions, that all scale tones are not equal.
The scale is viewed by these musicians as too generalized. If you focus on scales, it is destiny
to land on unintended notes. Within this viewpoint, the notes are divided into 3 camps:
chord tones, scale tones and chromatics. On the specificity trail, I'd go one further, all chord tones are not equal.

I think as long as you are able to switch off your brain when improvising, there's nothing wrong with being mega specific and technical when practicing. I use the added note rules from the Barry Harris school, for example, and they are super super specific - there's really a right or wrong.

But when I am actually playing, I have to not care or think about any of that.

[jordanklemons]

I just don't see what I was referring to as something that should require all that much thinking or analyzing when on the bandstand. What I'm talking about is an extension of hearing a minor chord vs a major chord. Or a scale vs an arpeggio. If you know the sounds, then you know them. You don't need to think about it. You just know them. If you still have to think about something, then it's not fully integrated into our ears and minds.

And that's fine. I don't have perfect pitch and don't know everything I hear the second I hear it. But I find that I am able to control and manipulate the sounds that I DO know far better than the sounds that I don't know. Not just sounds that I see the shapes for on the fretboard. But the sounds I can hear and feel before I convey them. Seeing their shape on the fretboard and having enough muscle memory to play them is important, but if we don't know their sound...it's hard to use them musically.

If you teach a beginner a scale, even if they nail the muscle memory and can see the shape...chances are good they're not going to play anything musical with it. And may feel very frustrated. Because they don't hear the notes. They don't relate to what each of the individual notes offers the big picture.

We play the way we practice. If we work on getting to know the sounds of a scale or chord tone when we're practicing, and we work on controlling it and using it musically, it will come out that way when we play. If we just practice running up and back through scales and arpeggios without slowing down to analyze what the notes sound like, then chances are very good that our improvisation will sound like we're just running scales and arpeggios.

Both can be helpful in their own ways. It all depends on what we want to happen when we start performing. What is our aesthetic preference? I just thought it was a little dangerous for Bobalou to be recommending to the OP (who seems to be in the earlier stages of figuring things out) that he "should not really see any difference between the different extensions of chords." I see that as pointing away from a VERY helpful approach. And especially since Bobalou has mentioned several extensions specifically that he love to use or has talked about how he hears them wanting to move or resolve...it seems like he himself has spent some time in this approach.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Maj7 - Nostalgic...like thinking about a lost lover
Maj9 - Relaxing...like taking a deep breath and letting go of all the stress from the day
Maj13(#11,9) - Beautiful...like standing in the most gorgeous meadow, watching butterflies circle around me
Maj7#5 - Floating...like being in the space station, pushing off the wall and slowly gliding through the air
Maj(add2) - Calm and open...reminds me of flying a kite in super slow motion

This is interesting in an ink blot sort of way. I'd like to see some other folks add their thoughts.

I've thought about the Maj7(add b6) chord for a long time:

CMaj7(add b6): x36453

...and this chord can only be Raymond Burr's eyebrows.

[jordanklemons]

That's hilarious BD.

[edh]

Exactly...to funny!

[JonR]

CMaj7(add b6): x36453

...and this chord can only be Raymond Burr's eyebrows.

Exactly right. Just as this chord - 0-10-9-8-7--x - can only be Sean Connery's eyelids:


"No, it's not a gun in my pocket. Why do you ask?"