-
Look I used the word "function" because it seems to be used commonly to describe this. Correct or not I have frequently read stuff where that word is used like that. I didn't make it up so whether it is correct or not is perhaps not something you guys should take up with me of all people.
And correct or not personally I have no problem in getting the meaning if someone says a sus chord in a given context functions as a tonic or a dominant or whatnot.
Like I said Levine isn't that original in his use of the word:
Jazz scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
About the second mode: "associated with D7 sus ♭9 chord, functions as a dominant".
Either way it's a shame that this whole thread stranded and lost it's meaning due the use of the word "function" (which again I didn't invent so I am not interested in defending the correct use of it). I also tried to use the word "act" instead but that was ignored too.
And I'm NOT ignoring anyone's comments nor saying that they are wrong, simply pointing out that there seems to be different opinions on the matter and/or different ways of describing the same thing (I also pointed that out earlier).
Ah another interesting thing is that sus chords in jazz are often referred to as "dominant sus chords" (in particular if it includes the 7th and extentions).
Suspended chord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.opus28.co.uk/decipheringchords.pdf
Again not saying this is correct simply that folks use that term, so I'm not going to defend that either.
I don't have more to add at this point. I explained myself to the best of my capability and I feel that everything I tried to say has been misunderstood or twisted. If we can get over the use of the word "function" I'd be happy to continue the original discussion. But that doesn't seem possible at this point.
So again thanks for your contributions. Like I said you have given me a lot to think about.
Take care y'allLast edited by aniss1001; 05-11-2012 at 01:54 PM.
-
05-11-2012 01:45 PM
-
Ok just one more thing for now...
Yes that is pretty much what I meant by "functioning as a dominant", which I also think I made pretty clear in earlier posts.
Originally Posted by JensL
Take for instance:
Dm7b5 - G7 - Cm7
and
D7b9 - G7 - Cm6
I would say that the Dm7b5 and the D7#9 has the same "function" in that case despite that they are different types of chords. The same goes for Cm7 and Cm6. That is pretty much all I meant.
I do understand that the use of the term is incorrect and can be confusing (which is why I made some effort to explain what I meant by it and even tried to use the word "act" instead). I also find it a bit strange that this whole thread stranded because of what seems to be a VERY common misuse of that term. Originally Posted by JensL
-
You know what I hear when I play D-11 DbM7#11 Db7#11 CM7?
DbM7#11 is functioning as G7sus/Db and Db7#11 is G7/Db.
The C to B movement between the M7#11 and 7#11 screams ii Vsus V to me...
-
05-11-2012, 02:41 PM #54Prome Guest
@jster, I, of course, realize that subdominant minor has s.d. b6, but over-complicating an already confusing discussion didn't seem to warrant bringing it up! : ) To me, anyway, subdominant minor is just a variant of subdominant, i.e. you alter whatever s.d. 6 you have in a particular subdominant chord to make it a subdominant minor, and of course, you can even do this in major keys (modal interchange).
-
That's is a great example! Originally Posted by aniss1001
You say that because in Dm7b5 Dbmaj7 Cm7,
You can sub Dbmaj7 with Db7 and get Dm7b5 Db7 Cm7 and therefore Dbmaj7 is dominant.
You also say that in D7 G7 Cm7 and Dm7b5 G7 Cm7 the Dm7b5 and the D7 have the same function.
So that means that you are saying that in Cm Dm7b5 and Dbmaj7 are both dominant?
Do you see how I am going to make Cm7 (ie the tonic..) dominant too like this? Or at the very least how you just removed the sub-dominant function?
That is my point in saying that your 2 defining properties are not enough, because then everything is dominant.
That you can sub a dominant with a sub dominant chord or make a sub dominant chord an auxiliary dominant is not such a terrible thing?.
Maybe I should take the time to explain how a Dbmaj7 is not a G7sus4 and how you need a Gsus chord to hear that it is a suspended dominant that works as a dominant?
Jens
-
05-11-2012, 03:01 PM #56Prome GuestLet's focus on where the misunderstandings are. First, about this example: Originally Posted by aniss1001
Dm7b5 - G7 - Cm7
and
D7b9 - G7 - Cm6
Dm7b5 and D7b9 are both functioning the same way! They are both pre-dominant chords. In terms of scale degrees, this is what we get:
2 4 b6 1 and 2 #4 6 1 b2
In both cases, the chords prepare or ear for or move it to the dominant, G7.
Cm7 and Cm6 function basically the same way in this key, but not in the key of Bb. Again, look at scale degrees. In the key of C minor, here's what we get:
1 b3 5 6 or 1 b3 5 b7
In the key of Bb though:
2 4 6 7 or 2 4 6 1
Cm6 is clearly a dominant functioning chord, not a pre-dominant one, because it has s.d. 4 and 7. This should reinforce the important notion that just because two chords are interchangeable in one key doesn't mean they are in another. It's about tonal hierarchy.
But let's go further...
The problem with this entire discussion hinges on one word: function. That word has a very specific meaning in harmony/theory studies, both in classical theory and modern jazz chord/scale theory (Nettles).
You and the other jazzers you cite use the word to mean "sub for." Even then we'd have a debate on our hands about whether, say, DbM7 is a proper substitution for G7, but let's have that debate. What we shouldn't do though is muddy the meaning of "function," expanding its sense until it has no sense at all. If function means "sub for," then we lose the nuance of recognizing different cadences, both theoretically and aurally. Many chords other than the V7 in a key can lead our ear back to the tonic, and in theory we study and categorize what those different chords are and how they work.
So, shall we shelve the function discussion for now, and move to a discussion of chord substitutions?
-
@Jens
Nope that is not what I said at all!
Why do you ignore the referrences I made to Wiki and Levine where they use the word "function" pretty much in the same way that I have been doing all along?
If we are to get past this I think that would be the place to start.
-
05-11-2012, 03:11 PM #58Prome Guest
Another important point: sometimes chords point backwards, not forwards!
We all get trained to think, "what's the next chord in this progression? That will tell me how the last chord functioned."
So, in this progression (key of C):
Dm -> D#o7 -> Em
we have no problem seeing the D#o7 as the V7/iii. But here:
Em -> Ebo7 -> Dm
So many modern jazzers (not Bird, Dizzy, or Powell, who all understood this chord well) mistake the Ebo7 as some kind of "dominant" of Dm. But really, it's better seen like this:
Em <- D#o7 , then Dm
The D#o7 is actually elaborating on the sound of Em, not pushing or preparing our ear for Dm.
In this:
Dm7b5 <- DbM7, then Cm7
We have much the same thing, i.e. DbM7 is a "prolongation" (to use legit terminology) of the subdominant sound created by the Dm7b5 -- it is not a chord meant to push our ear into Cm7 at all, other than by chromatic, downward root motion.
-
@Aniss:
Sorry, I looked a bit at your links and I don't understand what I have ignored?
One is a description of different kind of chords and the other an overview of modes. I don't find them very relevant to the discussion?
But if I missed something then you probably have to explain it to me, sorry.
Jens
-
@Prome
"The problem with this entire discussion hinges on one word: function. That word has a very specific meaning in harmony/theory studies, both in classical theory and modern jazz chord/scale theory (Nettles)."
Absolutely. But like I said it is a VERY COMMON misuse of the word and with that in mind we should be able to understand eachother nonetheless.
"You and the other jazzers you cite use the word to mean "sub for.""
Yes exactly. I tried to explain that all along and make it clear what I meant by "function as..".
"So, shall we shelve the function discussion for now, and move to a discussion of chord substitutions?"
That was sort of my question to begin with; What is the theory behind subbing a dominant for a major 7th chord (IF that is in fact the case in the examples I posted in the topic description).
Sorry my time is up for now
Take care
-
Simple, The theory is:
Taking a dominant and subbing it with a minor subdominant chord.
Happens all the time.
Jens
-
Prome,
How do you see the D#dim (D#F#AC) common tones with Dm7 (DFAC) factor into the movement between the 2 chords in either direction?
-
Now this is an extremely great point. I was just going through this this past week up until yesterday with the exact examples you just used. Originally Posted by Prome
D-7 D#dim E-7...D#dim is indeed B7b9
But the same does not hold true when descending..
E-7 Ebdim D-7...As i understand it Ebdim is now just a passing tone..interesting as you said that it is still relating to E-7 not leading to D-7..This makes a lot of sense..
Diminished chords can function in three ways as I understand it. Tonic, dominant and passing...
I still hear DbM7#11(AbM) as a G7sus and Db7#11(AbMM) as the tritone of Galt.
-
05-11-2012, 09:39 PM #64Prome Guest
Hey, Guys,
Regarding the "descending" or "passing" diminished chord. This is one of the more pernicious shibboleths of jazz theory, that Ebo7 is different than D#o7, that because we're coming from Em7 instead of going to Em7, said chord can't be a dominant of Em7. Just because Ebo7 and Dm7 have common tones doesn't mean that Ebo7 is some sort of dominant or subdominant cadential chord that leads our ears to Dm7. In CPP Theory/Harmony, we call dominant functioning chords that point backward instead of forward "back relating dominants." Been around since Bach, and probably before.
But forget about classical. Just transcribe Bird, Dexter Gordon, Bud Powell, just about any bebopper and see what they do on the following chords:
io7 biiio7 #ivo7 vio7
They treat all as #iio7, i.e. the V7b9/iii. So, on Rhythm Changes for example, where this sequence happens:
| Eb Eo7 | Bb/F |
The beboppers will think of Eo7 as A7b9 -- you'll see all sorts of A Major triad stuff in those spots (I've tried to cue it where you can hear it happening in the head to "Wail," aka "Fool's Fancy" by Bud Powell).
In "Embraceable You," the first four measures, Gershwin gave us:
| F | Abo7 | Gm7 | C7 |
Listen to what Bird plays:
| F | Bm7b5 E7b9 | Gm7 | C7 |
"But," you say, "Bm7b5 -> E7b9 is the iim7b5 -> V7b9 of iii, not of iim."
Well, you're right, but look at Gershwin's Abo7 as G#o7, and it becomes clear. G#o7 is the viio7/iii, which is basically the V7b9/iii. All Bird is doing is thinking of Abo7 as V7b9/iii and adding the related iim7b5 chord!
Gershwin's original takes advantage the relationship between F and Am7, i.e. how Am7 is a tonic chord substitute.
Or take "Stella by Starlight," the original version of which starts on a io7, like this:
| Bbo7 | Bbo7 | etc.
but everyone now plays it like this:
| Em7b5 | A7b9 | i.e. like the iim7b5 -> V7b9 of iii
Or "I Remember You," which was:
| F | Fo7 |
but is more often rendered as:
| F | Bm7 E7 |
In that case, it uses a major iim7 -> V7, but the same idea prevails. The more you transcribe, the more you'll see lines reflecting V7b9/iii where io7, biiio7, #ivo7 and vio7 usually live.Last edited by Prome; 05-11-2012 at 09:51 PM.
-
05-11-2012, 09:45 PM #65Prome GuestLOL, /thread. Originally Posted by JensL
-
Hehe.. Re-reading this thread I don't know whether to laugh or cry. 99% semantics and talking past eachother. And after all that perhaps the only valid answer to the actual topic question is a two-liner by Jens:
"Taking a dominant and subbing it with a minor subdominant chord. It happens all the time."
Ok so it's common to substitute a dominant for a minor subdominant. Didn't know that.
That leads me to a bunch of other questions:
1) I thought that the whole idea of substitution was to replace one chord for another which is capable of acting (do I dare to say functioning?) as the original in that particular progression thereby maintaining the idea behind the original movement to some extent. This will usually mean that the respective chords have several notes in common.
Here is wikipedia's version: In music theory, chord substitution is the advanced technique of using a chord in the place of another, often related, chord in a chord progression. Jazz musicians often substitute chords in the original progression to create variety and add interest to a piece. The substitute chord must have some harmonic quality and degree of FUNCTION in common with the original chord, and often only differs by one or two notes.
How would you guys describe it?
2) Is it correct or wrong to see the two original examples as derivations of minor 1-6-2-5's?
| Cm7 | Ebm7 | Dm7b5 | C#M7 | ... and ... | Fm7 | D7(#9) | C#M7 | F#M7(#11) |
3) I earlier tried to describe how I thought of the substitutions behind the two examples. JakeAcci somewhat vaguely implied that he thought of it the same way but otherwise it was neither confirmed nor denied. Respectively:
Cm
Am7b5 -> A7 -> Eb7 -> Ebm7
Dm7b5
G7 -> C#7 -> C#M7
and:
Fm7
Dm7b5 -> D7(b9)
Gm7b7 -> G7 -> C#7 -> C#M7
C7 -> F#7 -> F#M7(#11)
Is this completely off?
Perhaps something like G7 -> Fm -> C#M7 would be more correct?
Or how would you describe this?
4) I was asked earlier whether I thought these two progressions sounded similar:
A) Dm7b5 - C#7 - Cm7
B) Dm7b5 - C#M7 - Cm7
What if I added a third one:
C) Dm7b5 - Fm7 - Cm7
Which ones do you think sound most alike A and B, or B and C?Last edited by aniss1001; 05-12-2012 at 01:24 AM.
-
05-12-2012, 02:39 AM #67Prome GuestAs I said earlier in the thread, when you have:Ok so it's common to substitute a dominant for a minor subdominant. Didn't know that.
Dm7 -> G7 -> C
You can just improvise thinking:
Dm7 -> Dm7 -> C
-
You are taking the nonsense and semantics in good spirit! I'm impressed. I thought this thread was beyond repair
I think you can approach substitutions in several ways. Originally Posted by aniss1001
The most common while soloing is to use surprising and contrasting harmonical material (playing altered or mixo b9b13 is in fact a reharmonization if the song is in major). If you do that then you want the new chord to differ from the original, and the reason why you still might take something similar is that it should still be playable and it should still be changes that you can hear. But there is no reason not to change or alter the function.
Another way to approach subs is that you want to change the harmony to make a certain bass line or to move in a certain way, it does not have to be full of surprises but you are looking to f.ex fit the melody nicely, f.ex how Bill Evans often harmonizes standards can be a good example.
An example: the Dbmaj7 is mostly used in C as a replacement for the root at the ending of the song.
That is hard to say. The song is written with those changes so the basslines melody suggests that Sco wanted a minor turnaround vamp thing going but coloured the chords a bit surprising. If you listen to the melody it is almost cmin penta, and he is playing a C on the Db, so I think he wrote the melody and wanted the vamp and therefore altered the chord. There are some Shorter tunes that are a bit like that too, though Sco is often a more tonal or functional writer than Shorter IMO. Originally Posted by aniss1001
No, but again the song is written like this so the chords are not really derived. I used Dbmaj7 as a sub for G7 when soloing quite often it is a very distinct and useable sound (like an alterd sound with the root I guess ), I'd just add it to the vocabulary of what to throw at a dominant. Originally Posted by aniss1001
I think it is more useful to look at how it is to resolve and how you get there than how it is derived from a II V I.
Jazz theory often is putting to much into that simple cadence as if it is the only one that exists.
I find B C. Originally Posted by aniss1001
I would when comping the chords for B often play C because the bass is playing the Db. To me the difference between a dominant and a sub dominant is the b leading to c, so B and C don't have that movement since the c is already there (would have been nice if you called them 1,2 and 3 )
Sorry for the long post.
Jens
-
05-12-2012, 03:42 AM #69Prome Guest
@ Aniss: The problem with your line of thinking is you're totally glossing over the details and looking for formulas or tricks.
Substitution can be thought of in a few ways. I'll give you two basic frameworks for thinking about subs.
First, you can sub by function. For example, if you have a dominant functioning chord, you can use another dominant functioning chord in its place:
Dm7 -> G7 -> C
could become:
Dm7 -> Bm7b5 -> C
Next comes the "substitutions" jazz musicians use, which are actually the same techniques classical CPP composers used frequently. Think of Harmony as a continuum from simple to complex to simple, like this:
Reduction <-----> Expansion
Sometimes jazz musicans reduce complex changes to simpler changes, and other times they expand simple changes into more complex ones. Let's use the tune, "Secret Love, " as an example. Here's a highly reduced version of the A section:
| Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Bb7 | Bb7 |
| Bb7 | Bb7 | Bb7 | Bb7 | Bb7 | Bb7 | Eb | Eb |
The most common type of "substitution" for expanding a simple progression is to use the V7 of a given chord in its place, or to use the related iim7 of a V7 chord in place of the V7. Let's see how this might effect the simple "Secret Love" version above:
| Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Fm7 | Fm7 |
| Fm7 | Fm7 | Fm7 | Fm7 | Fm7 | Fm7 | Eb | Eb |
Of course, this is kind of ridiculous because I've replaced one type of uninteresting movement with another. But note, the Fm7 is not functioning like a dominant; it still is a predominant chord meant to lead our ear to Bb7 -- we're just never satisfying our ear by going there!
But suppose I want to go one step further and, following my rule above, use the V7 of Fm7 to expand the progression and make it more interesting? Why not?
| Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Fm7 | C7b9 |
| Fm7 | C7b9 | Fm7 | C7b9 | Fm7 | C7b9 | Eb | Eb |
Okay, still works, but maybe I could make it better with putting some of the Bb7 chords back in:
| Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Fm7| Bb7 |
| Fm7| C7b9| Fm7 | Bb7 | Fm7 | Bb7 | Eb | Eb |
Okay, it's better, but why not use the V7 of Bb7 somewhere?
| Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Fm7 | Bb7 |
| Fm7 | C7b9 | Fm7 | Bb7 | F7 | Bb7 | Eb | Eb |
But those dominants are looking so lonely! Why not treat them to some related iim7/iim7b5 chords?!
| Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Fm7 | Bb7 |
| Fm7 | Gm7b5 C7b9 | Fm7 | Bb7 | Cm7 F7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Eb | Eb |
Those last two measures of Eb look bored -- let's do what jazzers do when they see two measures of tonic chord at the end of an A that will repeat and start again on a tonic chord -- let's substitute a I-vim7-iim7-V7 turnaround:
| Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Fm7 | Bb7 |
| Fm7 | Gm7b5 C7b9 | Fm7 | Bb7 | Cm7 F7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Eb Cm7 | Fm7 Bb7 |
Hey, why not do that for the beginning of the A, where all of those boring Eb chords sit doing nothing?
| Eb Cm7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Eb Cm7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Eb | Eb | Fm7 | Bb7 |
| Fm7 | Gm7b5 C7b9 | Fm7 | Bb7 | Cm7 F7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Eb Cm7 | Fm7 Bb7 |
Sounds a little repetitive. Heck, let's turn some of those Cm7 chords into C7b9 chords, i.e. make them the V7 chords of the Fm7 chords -- while we're at it we can throw in a related iim7b5 of that C7b9:
| Eb C7b9 | Fm7 Bb7 | Gm7b5 C7b9 | Fm7 Bb7| Eb | Eb | Fm7 | Bb7 |
| Fm7 | Gm7b5 C7b9 | Fm7 | Bb7 | Cm7 F7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Eb C7b9 | Fm7 Bb7 |
Too busy, let's scale it back...
| Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Fm7 | Bb7 |
| Fm7 | Gm7b5 C7b9 | Fm7 | Bb7 | Cm7 F7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Eb | Fm7 Bb7 |
Maybe we can do something interesting in the first six measures still. How about a diatonic chain? That's where we just walk up the scale, I to ii to iii to IV and back down again, when we have a bunch of static tonic sound. If we don't have enough measures, we can just go as far as the measures will accommodate -- here I'll just go up to the iii and back. Every other measure will then have a subdominant sound:
| Eb | Fm7 | Gm7 | Fm7 | Eb | Eb | Fm7 | Bb7 |
| Fm7 | Gm7b5 C7b9 | Fm7 | Bb7 | Cm7 F7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Eb | Fm7 Bb7 |
That Gm7 is definitely substituting by function for Eb because it is a tonic sounding chord. I'd still like to spruce up measures 5 and 6. Maybe we can find a cool way to get to the iim7 chord. Let's back cycle from the iim7, using its V7 and its V7 chord's V7, etc.:
| Eb | Fm7 | Gm7 | Fm7 | Eb Ab7 | Gm7 C7b9 | Fm7 | Bb7 |
| Fm7 | Gm7b5 C7b9 | Fm7 | Bb7 | Cm7 F7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Eb | Fm7 Bb7 |
I used a tritone substitution for D7, the V7 of Gm7, just to make the root motion more interesting.
So, with a little creativity and logic, this:
| Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Eb | Bb7 | Bb7 |
| Bb7 | Bb7 | Bb7 | Bb7 | Bb7 | Bb7 | Eb | Eb |
Became this:
| Eb | Fm7 | Gm7 | Fm7 | Eb Ab7 | Gm7 C7b9 | Fm7 | Bb7 |
| Fm7 | Gm7b5 C7b9 | Fm7 | Bb7 | Cm7 F7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Eb | Fm7 Bb7 |
I could have reduced the original progression further to go for a Coltrane modal thing, and just made the first 16 measures this:
Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4 Bb7sus4
I mean, it's really about what you want to do, and we could spend an eternity expanding in certain places, reducing others, throwing in more subs by function, you name it! Coltrane subs! More tritone subs! But, no matter what, swapping chords from one functional category into another does not make the new chord function like the other did. That's why it's called a substitution!Last edited by Prome; 05-12-2012 at 03:54 AM.
-
05-12-2012, 03:58 AM #70Prome Guest
| Eb Eo7 | Fm7 F#o7 | Gm7 C7b9 | Fm7 Bb7 | Eb Ab7 | Gm7 C7b9 | Fm7 C7b9 | Fm7 Bb7 |
| Fm7 Gb7| Cb D7 | G Bb7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Cm7 F7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Eb C7b9 | Fm7 Bb7 |
Sorry, couldn't resist... lolLast edited by Prome; 05-12-2012 at 04:00 AM.
-
05-12-2012, 04:04 AM #71Prome Guest
| Eb Eo7 | Fm7 F#o7 | Gm7b5 GbM7 | Fm7b5 FbM7 | Eb Ab7 | Gm7 C7b9 | Fm7 C7b9 | Fm7 Bb7 |
| Fm7 Gb7| Cb D7 | G Bb7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Cm7 F7 | Fm7 Bb7 | Gm7b5 GbM7 | Fm7b5 FbM7 |
Yeah, I guess it works, lol.
-
@Prome
Is it just me or are you going completely off topic?
Why don't you just answer his questions?
Jens
-
@Jens
OK! So I presume that you agree with Prome that talking about function in relation to substitutions is completely wrong? I mean my original idea that the substitution has to somewhat function/act like the substituted in the given progression.
For instance it is simply wrong to say that a V7sus4(b9) chord functions as a dominant as mentioned in the Levine and Wiki quotes? I presume yes but I'd still like to hear it from you.
"I used Dbmaj7 as a sub for G7 when soloing quite often it is a very distinct and useable sound"
Yes I stumbled across that too and have played around with it. I must admit I never thought of it as having anything to do with a dominant being subbed for a subdominant. I kind of just though of it as creating tension that resolves well to the tonic that follows. And also I read that in the old days before the use of melodic minor became common they would play a major chord/scale half a step above the dominant to create an altered sound (eg. playing Ab major over G7). This of course is very similar to playing the altered scale (Ab melodic minor over G7) allthough the latter sounds somewhat smoother.
Anyway I though it perhaps was a derivation hereof. Either way it IS a very distinct and usable sound as you say no matter how you look at it.
"I think it is more useful to look at how it is to resolve and how you get there than how it is derived from a II V I."
I think I get your meaning but could you elaborate a bit on that?
"Jazz theory often is putting to much into that simple cadence as if it is the only one that exists."
Haha.. That sounds very likely
"I find B C."
That is odd. I would definately say A and B. Plus C does not resolve in a very satisfactory way IMO while A and B does.
"would have been nice if you called them 1,2 and 3"
Hehe.. Sorry about that. I did at first but the I realized it didn't work since I had allready used number s for my questions.
"Sorry for the long post"
On the contrary thank you for a great reply
-
@brwnhornet59
"I still hear DbM7#11(AbM) as a G7sus and Db7#11(AbMM) as the tritone of Galt."
I think I hear it the similarly. More exactly I hear the DbM7 kind of like a G7sus4(b9) and I have always heard these chords as some odd/beautyful mix of a sus chord and an altered dominant.
Besides...
G7sus4(b9) = Fm/G
DbM7 = Fm/Db
... So it sorta makes sense (I hope)
"Diminished chords can function in three ways as I understand it. Tonic, dominant and passing"
I had also understood that they can function as dominants (eg. Dm7 - Ebdim - Em7) or as a passing chords (eg. Em7 - Ebdim - Dm7). But how can they function as tonics?
-
@Prome
I was aware that II and V are interchangable. All though I usually find it more useful to think V over a II-V rather than II as you say. This is something I got from a Joe Pass instruction video some time ago where he says that whenever he sees a II-V he completely disregards the II and goes straight for the V.
I actually started a thread about this a long time ago. Later on I have done quite a bit a transcribing and found many examples of this also in minor II-V's.
For instance I transcribed Scofield's solo on the tune "Not you again" which chord-wise is a ripoff of the tune "There will never be another you". I starts:
| EbM7 | EbM7 | Dm7b5 | G7 ....
He plays a B on the one beat of the 3rd bar which he sustains for half the bar and then continues playing G altered.
Anyway very useful indeed.
I DIDN'T know however that G7 and Fm7 are interchangable in the same way. Don't know why that didn't occur to me since both Fm7 and Dm7b5 are both members of the subdominant family in the key of C minor. But it didn't.
However the rest of the subs you mention in your following post I was very well aware of.
"The problem with your line of thinking is you're totally glossing over the details and looking for formulas or tricks."
What details? What tricks? What do you mean? And how did you deduce that? I thought I was trying to understand substitution better in general and in particular how a G7 can be subbed for a DbM7.
"That's why it's called a substitution!"
Actually the word "substitution" in general (not talking music theory) implies that you replace something with something else that is capable of functioning somewhat similar. For instance you use methadone as a substitute for heroin. And also when you talk about a substitute teacher you tend to go for another teacher of the same subject rather than a nurse or a plummer or whatnot.
Just saying...
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale