The bV7#11 Chord

[Christian Miller]

It's more engineering than math. Meaning, that part of math where there's an exact right answer vs that part of engineering where you get close enough for the thing to work and you don't worry about little pieces that don't fit.

Levine gets you in the ballpark. You learn which notes are likely to work because they've worked before. And, if you can read a little bit on piano, you can hear what he's talking about.

The idea of music theory being a branch of physics goes back to JP Rameau BTW, who we can think of as the father of our modern functional harmony system. He thought it was all emergent from the laws of acoustics. So it's quite embedded in there culturally. I would classify most academic music theory as a branch of pseudoscience tbh. I don't think anyone practicing it has an interest in having their pet models put to the acid test.

I know little about engineering, but I do see music as being at least at the learning level as being very much a craft. I think there's a big issue with people entering into jazz being told they can improvise jazz right away using this or that method. Which is not true as I think most people appreciate ager a while. You have to apprentice yourself to the music before being able to improvise idiomatically. That's true of any style - it's not like jazz has the monopoly in improvisation.

TBH I see it mostly as cookery. And there is a scientific/theoretical element to cookery TBF.

You don't necessarily learn how to fit any note into any harmonic situation. He makes it clear that lofty thing can be achieved, but the bulk of it is in the troposphere.

TBH that sort of sentence seems a bit quaint to me. It's all context. Mostly, chromatics are just linking notes going from A to B. Maybe even that cheeky F#. It's not a big deal. They are all over classical music for instance, let alone jazz. But you have to understand where you are going and how you are getting there.

I don't really want to make it about you, but I can't help but notice that your language when writing about improvisation is so often characterised by talking about NOT doing things. For instance, "I want to make sure I don't play clams." I think that's where you end up with Levine, because his language is so often 'don't too this', 'handle this with care', 'do this, or you are being lazy' etc. I would say that rather than spending all that CPU time thinking about things that sound bad, it may be a cleaner and more helpful process to focus on what sounds good from day one. Ask for forgiveness, not for permission - if you must ;-)

But that starts with being given things to play that sound right, either by checking out the records, or by someone like Barry Harris who wasn't really interested in your musical contribution in class, and why would he be? In a trade or craft you start as an apprentice.

And a lot of of people see that (incorrectly) as being in tension with improvising. But you have to learn how to play the music. The sense of freedom the chord scale system appears offer is illusory, at least until you know enough to be able to use it within the music well. It's how I started myself, so I'm looking back on my own journey with this stuff.

I started off at CST because that's what was being taught at the base level, underwent a Damascene conversion to chord tones, and took far too long to get to regular transcription, then back to Barry Harris through Charlie Parker, and now have come around full circle to messing with CST again. Only now I can make it sound good whereas when I starting I was just noodling aimlessly.

The kicker is Aebersold, Levine etc all knew that this was the way. In Aebersold's case he was looking for a way to get people in - the scale approach is still used for that.

[rpjazzguitar]

I don't really want to make it about you, but I can't help but notice that your language when writing about improvisation is so often characterised by talking about NOT doing things. For instance, "I want to make sure I don't play clams." I think that's where you end up with Levine, because his language is so often 'don't too this', 'handle this with care', 'do this, or you are being lazy' etc. I would say that rather than spending all that CPU time thinking about things that sound bad, it may be a cleaner and more helpful process to focus on what sounds good from day one. Ask for forgiveness, not for permission - if you must ;-)
.

I don't see it that way. The most helpful thing I found in Levine is about doing something. It's the way he suggests treating melodic minor.

And, even for the major scale, he's recommending 6 notes and suggesting that 1 note be handled with care. Seems like a 6:1 ratio of doing to not-doing <g>. Apparently, that's an arguable point, but Levine's approach makes sense to me.

His musical examples are all about what to do. Is there even a single musical example designed to demonstrate something to avoid?

My comment about avoiding clams was, as I recall it, pointing out that I resort to theory when forced. In what I do, I'm often faced with soloing over an unfamiliar harmony, on a tune I've never heard, and often, uncomfortably fast. In that situation, I may resort to thinking about arps/scales/modes/substitutions or whatever, to avoid clams. A friend once said, "It may not be art, but at least I'll avoid clams".

[Christian Miller]

I don't see it that way. The most helpful thing I found in Levine is about doing something. It's the way he suggests treating melodic minor.

And, even for the major scale, he's recommending 6 notes and suggesting that 1 note be handled with care. Seems like a 6:1 ratio of doing to not-doing . Apparently, that's an arguable point, but Levine's approach makes sense to me.

Arguable? It’s not about arguing with anything. It’s meant to be about playing music, either you like the way something sounds, or you don't.

His musical examples are all about what to do.

He tells you what scales you 'can' play the "available pool of notes that you can dip into", as he puts it. That's not quite what I mean.

Barry would tell you EXACTLY what to play, and then the whole class would do it together. He'd also explain how he came up with it out of scales. Many players learn by copping licks directly from the records and then inserting them directly into their playing. The former is kinda of old fashioned and the latter became a but frowned on or unfashionable at one point, among the more progressive jazz minded educators, but I think they are important steps in learning how to play music.

Levine is more like 'you can use any or all of these notes, except maybe that one, it's a bit dissonant.' He does mention sequences and so on a bit later.

That's good info if you can already play. Which I kind of think is kind of the person that the JTB was originally aimed at.

Is there even a single musical example designed to demonstrate something to avoid?

You mean aside from literally using the term avoid notes?

(That isn't at all fair, he does say it's not a very good term, but carries on using it anyway despite his misgivings.)

That is quite a big part of it. It's an issue for people using this book as an improvisation method, chiefly.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

The problem with looking at Levines text for anything specific is that I keep getting sidetracked by the things he says. Like here's one:

"Charlie Parker, Bud Powell, Thelonious Monk, and other pioneers of bebop often raised the 4th, as shown in Figure 3-11, in their improvising, chord voicings, and original tunes. It’s hard to believe now, but the raised 4th was a very controversial note during the 1940s."

He's specifically talking about major chords here. I can't recall an example of Bird using the #4 on a major chord. On a dominant, sure, but I can't think of an example on major.

Now, obviously I haven't transcribed all the Bird, so if this is the case, it's an interesting thing I don't know. But he doesn't seem to provide any examples... so...

[rpjazzguitar]

The problem with looking at Levines text for anything specific is that I keep getting sidetracked by the things he says. Like here's one:

"Charlie Parker, Bud Powell, Thelonious Monk, and other pioneers of bebop often raised the 4th, as shown in Figure 3-11, in their improvising, chord voicings, and original tunes. It’s hard to believe now, but the raised 4th was a very controversial note during the 1940s."

He's specifically talking about major chords here. I can't recall an example of Bird using the #4 on a major chord. On a dominant, sure, but I can't think of an example on major.

Now, obviously I haven't transcribed all the Bird, so if this is the case, it's an interesting thing I don't know. But he doesn't seem to provide any examples... so...

My inclination is to credit Levine for the things the book does well. It presents a very broad subject. It organizes it. The text is mostly crystal clear. The format makes it accessible -- the pages are not cluttered and are easy to read. He presents a great many examples from respected artists to illustrate his points. If there's another book with this combination of strengths, I haven't seen it.

He had to make a lot of decisions in organizing and presenting this material., Those decisions can be debated. I think he did an amazing job -- as good as any text I've seen on any subject.

I took a quick look at the omnibook. Page 12, bar 18. Chord is Bb. Beat 4 is an E natural. So it happens. Does it warrant Levine's statement? If not, Levine made a mistake. Many textbooks have second editions with corrections. Some even have errata issued with the first edition. The issue involves a big baby and a small amount of bathwater, IMO.

[Christian Miller]

I took a quick look at the omnibook. Page 12, bar 18. Chord is Bb. Beat 4 is an E natural. So it happens. Does it warrant Levine's statement? If not, Levine made a mistake. Many textbooks have second editions with corrections. Some even have errata issued with the first edition. The issue involves a big baby and a small amount of bathwater, IMO.

I don't know that he's wrong about Bird or Bud, and imagine he's probably right about Monk. I think he knows his Monk. But I would disagree with potted history. I don't think #4 was super controversial before the boppers came along.

In fact I would say leaning into that #4 note on the major before resolving it up to 5 is actually an iconic Swing Era thing. Think Benny Goodman! It's in the riffs in Benny's Bugle for instance, and that's definitely not bebop. For example:



So far from super controversial, this note was actually super commercial in the 1940s...

To my ears this has more a blues feeling than a Lydian sound. (You could play a Bbo7 under it). It's still a lower neighbour tone - just a very heavily emphasised and accented one.

I can't think of an example of Bird doing this? Maybe someone else can. I would say Bird does stick a lot to the I triads in general. He does play the blues, obviously, including minor blues on I. But the fun stuff tends to happen more on the dominants, and I don't associate him with the lydian tonality at all really.

BTW your example is a lower neighbour tone on the Bb triad, the very next note is F, the 5, the whole phrase is a neighbour tone/chord tone pattern.

I've been wailing on it for pages but in fact I do (uncontroversially) think that specifically as a study of post-modal jazz harmony techniques the book is very strong - although '60s post-modal jazz is pretty eclectic when you get into it. (Not everyone is playing melodic minor harmony for instance). Levine's expertise is centred in the 60s, and yet he keeps on talking in very broad terms about earlier times. It does make it very hard for me to read this book, though when every few paragraphs I bump into another factoid.

To be fair to him, I think it was quite common among jazz teachers of his generation to insert these sorts of weird lumps of pseudo-history into their teaching. But I gather there was more of a cultural divide back then between the trad musicians and the modernists, so often you get these ignorant yet authoritative statements. Ritchie Hart recounts hearing a Berklee professor say they didn't use the diminished chord until the modern era. You can only assume that person had never really listened to Louis Armstrong's 1920s music for instance, and that's probably not unreasonable, in fact. David Leibman told a friend of mine at a masterclass there was no point going back further than Charlie Parker. I don't think these were unusual attitudes.

Levine to his credit does discuss a Louis solo in the book, and lo and behold, he finds out that he is more modern than he thought.

So I think one has to overlook that as a product of its time and the way modern jazz musicians of that era were conditioned into thinking about the older music.

TBF you sometimes hear older trad musicians saying the exact same things lol.

One of the really positive things Wynton (and a bit of time) has done is help knock that iron curtain down.

[rpjazzguitar]

It feels a little like "he had a hat", if that reference makes sense.

[Christian Miller]

It feels a little like "he had a hat", if that reference makes sense.

I'm sorry, I'm not with you?

[pcjazz]

I prefer David Berkman’s jazz harmony book, especially as he takes Barry seriously.

[Christian Miller]

I prefer David Berkman’s jazz harmony book, especially as he takes Barry seriously.

I like that one

I also like Dariusz Terefenko’s book but it goes DEEP. It’s a brilliant source book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pcjazz]

I like that one

I also like Dariusz Terefenko’s book but it goes DEEP. It’s a brilliant source book.

At USD$300+ it should go DEEP !

[Christian Miller]

At USD$300+ it should go DEEP !

Oh yeah something something internet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mick-7]

This book? It's $48 here, but that's still financially deep.

Jazz Theory, 2nd Edition by Dariusz Terefenko - Amazon.com

[pcjazz]

This book? It's $48 here, but that's still financially deep.

Jazz Theory, 2nd Edition by Dariusz Terefenko - Amazon.com

The cheaper paperbound and ebook editions don’t seem to be available here at present. Just the hardback at $300+. But there is currently a 20% discount on the publisher’s website. And there are a few used copies of the first edition knocking about.

[Mick-7]

The cheaper paperbound and ebook editions don’t seem to be available here at present. Just the hardback at $300+. But there is currently a 20% discount on the publisher’s website. And there are a few used copies of the first edition knocking about.

I see that it's over twice the price in Canada, what a scam -- BookFinder.com: Search Results

[Christian Miller]

It’s an academic publisher


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pauln]

The title in "Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions" reads
"The bV7#11 Chord"

The title of the thread page reads
"THE BV7#11 CHORD"

The first post text reads
"7#11"

Taking the last of those as the chord in question, I've read this thread twice through and still have no idea of what chord is being discussed.

I use a chord that is 79#11 all the time rooted on the flat two resolving into either a major or minor one chord. Without the 9, the 7#11 is an ugly sounding chord, so I have the feeling this is not the chord in question.

All the examples in notes and fingering throughout this thread are comparing chords that are not this 7#11 chord. Even the mighty and majestic online chord namer just spits out gibberish when I try to reverse engineer this chord to find something called 7#11...

Could someone indicate what is being called the 7#11 either as notes or fingering?

[Mick-7]

Could someone indicate what is being called the 7#11 either as notes or fingering?

The op quoted a few examples, however, I do not see the chord in the lead sheets he mentioned, just dominant chords. I think he means a dominant 7b5 chord?

"We have it in Skylark (Ebmaj7 - Ab7#11 - Abmaj), Pannonica (Ebmaj7 - A7#11 - Ab7)."

[ragman1]

Paul -

3X333X ----- Gm7

2X231X ----- F#7#11

1X221X ----- FM7


The F#7#11 is the tritone sub for C7. You can see the chord is a C7 with an F# bass instead of the C. The chromatic bass line G-F#-F is attractive.



I wouldn't call this a passing chord, as I've seen it done. It's not, it's an integral part of the ii-V-I, albeit a substitution.

[pauln]

Paul -

3X333X ----- Gm7

2X231X ----- F#7#11

1X221X ----- FM7


The F#7#11 is the tritone sub for C7. You can see the chord is a C7 with an F# bass instead of the C. The chromatic bass line G-F#-F is attractive.



I wouldn't call this a passing chord, as I've seen it done. It's not, it's an integral part of the ii-V-I, albeit a substitution.

Thanks, I do play that chord, usually like this

3X331X <-- to hold the top voice through the resolution
2X231X
1X221X or 1X001X

[ragman1]

Absolutely. That's a Gm11 with the C at the top. Sometimes it suits the tune to be played that way, sometimes it doesn't. All depends :-)

[Mick-7]

The F#7#11 is the tritone sub for C7. You can see the chord is a C7 with an F# bass instead of the C. The chromatic bass line G-F#-F is attractive.



I wouldn't call this a passing chord, as I've seen it done. It's not, it's an integral part of the ii-V-I, albeit a substitution.

That's a F#7b5 & C7b5/Gb. It's not a F#7#11, which would include the 5th of the chord, i.e., both C & C#.

[pauln]

That's a F#7b5 & C7b5/Gb. It's not a F#7#11, which would include the 5th of the chord, i.e., both C & C#.

Interesting...

Without the fifth



With the fifth

[Mick-7]

Interesting...

With the fifth

Yes, that's precisely why you never see that chord form used for a dominant chord, there are no decent sounding voicings for it.

We have:

C7#11 | x-3-4-3-5-3 | ~ | (8)-10-8-9-7-x | ~ | x-x-8-11-8-12 | ~ | x-10-10-11-11-12 |

C7#11/Bb | x-1-2-0-1-2 | - awfully dissonant unless you replace the root (C) with the b9th or 9th:

C7b9#11 (no root) | x-1-2-0-2-2 | or | 3-x-2-3-2-2 |

C9#11(no root) | 3-x-2-3-3-2 | .... etc.

[Clausstrom]

I blame iReal, which calls it 7#11, but yes I think 7b5 is better terminology. There is definitely not a fifth in this function