George Benson - The first chord is a C with a flat five over a D9

[jordanklemons]

Yeah, it's pretty much what I'm talking about and where I'm heading. Definitely an organizational system. And ultimately, you and I probably agree completely on about 99% of the whole picture...I think it's always the last 1% that separates this musician from that musician from another musician. For me, this is sort of my last 1% which I envision spending at least the next decade or two exploring...if I'm so lucky (at least, I know my teacher has been at it for probably about 2 decades and is still learning and discovering things).

Prior to studying with him, and really for the first month or two of that process, I just couldn't quite wrap my mind around his point...and the point of this way of LISTENING, followed by playing (listening first). He would talk about the harmonic progression of the tune vs the melodic progression. And the melodic progression was always different than the harmonic. If I saw a D-11,9 moving to a G13b9, then the harmonic progression would be obviously Dminor7 to G7. But, not so obvious, the melodic progression would be CMaj triad moving to an EMaj triad. This actually annoyed me at first, and I called my teacher out on this. I'd spent 20 years trying to unify everything in my thought process. Why on earth should I allow him to separate and segregate things out into 2 separate entities. But his playing and compositions speak for themselves and gave me the trust and faith to follow his method. And eventually I started to see the importance, and that the two separate entities would eventually re-unify and with it would bring a greater sense of musical depth. And that's already starting to happen with the few chords that I've really had a chance to work with.

When I first start working on ear training with my own private students to help them open and develop their ears, I often start by explaining that the notes actually have desires and energies and emotions and innately want to behave in certain ways. Ways that even non-musicians intuitively and sub-consciously hear and understand. They always look at me like I'm insane. But then I play the C scale from Do up to Ti and ask them to sing what they think the next note should be. Without fail (aside from people who can't properly sing specific pitches in tune), everyone will always sing the next Do. Now when we get into creating music, we don't ALWAYS have to give the notes what they want, but for me as a musician it's imperative that I understand and feel what the notes innately want...and then as an artist I can choose whether or not to give them what they want, or to manipulate them into something different. What exploring this system has shown me is that I have drastically missed what the notes want (melodically speaking) when confronted with different harmonies beneath them. Yes, I would COMPLETELY agree that a CMaj7#11#9 chord is simply the 6th mode of an E Harmonic Minor scale. It's got all the right notes, everything is diatonic and dandy. The problem is (for me and most other musicians) the assumption carried along with this harmonic approach is that C is the tonic, E is the 3rd, G is the 5th, and so on. As you mentioned...you're concerned with the function and the movement...and I am as well. So a few months ago, that is how I would have approached this chord, functionally. I would have thought of C as the tonic, and therefore the most resolved note. However, the melodic progression (structure) of this chord is actually built on a BMaj triad. We can certainly do whatever we want, and organize however we want, but the notes innately are built this way in this chord and want to function this way, melodically...obviously not harmonically. Which means that C, the note I would have assumed was the melodic tonic, is actually going to function as Ra, the b2. E (what I used to think was the 3rd) is actually functioning as Fa wanting to resolve down to the actual melodic 3rd of D#, etc etc. I know it may seem like this is just a music theory argument being made. But I am only communicating with words and theory what is innately there in the notes. No different than playing that C scale from Do to Ti and hearing the innate urge to want to resolve to the Do above Ti. That's why, even after I understood all this stuff, it still took me a month or two of exploring and listening to be won over. I had to actually sit at the piano and try it. Unfortunately for us (and all non-piano players) the piano really is the best way to learn to hear this stuff (I know, that's blasphemous to say on a guitar forum hahahaha). There's simply something not re-creatable about playing the full voicing of a chord with the sustain pedal down, and then playing melodically over it with all the notes and their overtones singing out and dancing and intertwining with each other. I think that's why we mostly miss it. And why there are sooooo many piano players who have such an unbelievable depth of harmonic and melodic beauty to them vs not as many guitarists. We're trying to recreate what they can do. I think it's easier for them to accidentally stumble upon this way of thinking over time because they're listening to it all the time. The closest we can come to that when we're practicing is if we're using a loop pedal, and even that is still not as clear and obvious.

Even George Benson didn't get it until a piano player pointed it out. As was explained in the story from the OP. If we're playing over D9 (especially if there's no piano) it will certainly sound perfectly fine and acceptable to treat D as the melodic tonic. That's the go to for almost everyone. But as the piano player pointed out, when the D9 chord is voiced out in that way that made George's heart sing out it was so beautiful, the D is actually functioning melodically as the 2 against that CMaj triad. And it was an important enough sticking point to the piano player to actually stop a concert in the middle of the tune and start training George's ear to hear it. And it was a profound enough moment for George to not only let the piano player school him on stage in front of an audience, but then to want to share that story and tell others how amazing a learning experience it was for him. It's a huge shift. It's like the last 1% stuff for sure...very subtle...which is why most all of us can go our whole lives without noticing what's going on...but still super profound and revelatory. At least to me. And seemingly to George Benson. Hahaha...so I sort of feel in good company for getting so excited about this stuff after reading this story!

To me it's about transcending the vertical way of thinking and approaching music (harmonic)...which is perfectly valid and beautiful and amazing (I just went to a Mark Turner masterclass last week and he spent 2 hours talking about NOTHING but approaching music vertically...and he's a master of this)...and moving into a more naturally, horizontal approach (melodic). How do the notes REALLY want to behave. What notes function as the melodic tonic in a given chord. I've found that it is actually almost never the harmonic tonic. Almost every time, the notes have an innate drive and energy that causes something other than the harmonic tonic to function as the melodic tonic. I suppose it also brings with it the vertical approach as well because it does organize the full voicing of the chords in a way to tie together the harmony and the melody, again the way the piano player in the story was showing George that got him so excited and made his heart sing. To my ear, it's the hippest thing I've ever heard. And it's pretty much the majority of what I do in my practice time now. Mapping out the fretboard for specific chords. Playing them at the piano and singing along with the actual melodic progression and hearing how the melodic tension notes behave. Analyzing standards this way so that I can improvise over them with greater melodic integrity and so that I can play chords that properly harmonize the melodic structure. Etc etc. I have one more semester after this one to wrap up my masters program, and I'm planning on writing my masters thesis on the application of this system onto the guitar. The geometric, pattern oriented instrument we all know and love. It's much more challenging to spot this stuff on the fretboard than it is at the piano. For so many reasons. I really want to map all of it out. Or at least the more essential elements. I think my teacher once told me that once you analyze the chords using major, minor, diminished, and augmented upper structure triads there are something like 100 different types of chords, and each will sound and behave a little different. There's almost 30 of them just from using major triads. I'll probably try and stick to the more common ones for my thesis, as I only have 50 written pages to work with (plus music notation add-ons). Perhaps if I go for a PhD I'll try and organize all of them for the guitar for that...as I imagine that would take far more than 50 pages to work through.

[Reg]

Wow... now your really talking....

Just some difference we have... D-11 to G13b9... is definitely not D-7 to G7 they're two different worlds.

No problems with a harmonic layer working with a melodic layer or two different tonal implications working together.

The Cmaj triad could be part of the D- dorian tonal reference or can ce it's own C tonal reference.... I mean it's pretty standard practice to have different tonal references going on the same time...D- dorian and F lydian, Don't you sometimes play C tonal target over D-7 to G7 vamp, usually in blues direction... or have either D- or Gmixo as tonal reference.

That's pretty much what playing the sub game is right... not just tritones or diatonic etc... or when we play and pull from Melodic minor... we can basically use any degree of the implied Melodic Min, and use that as a tonal terget and create relationships right....there are a million possibilities... and triads or small note collections are just part of the game, there are many possible relationships and systems of organizing.

AS you said Cma triad with D-11 and Ema triad with G13b9... your just using triads as your note collection organizations and pulling from the note collections implied from the chord symbols... I'm not sure of your organization for which triads,

The Cma triad is B7,9 and 11 of D- and the Ema triad is 13, b9 and 3 so not same organization as far as which notes, but maybe the maj 3rd relationship of the triads is your organization... or you just like the sound and the organization will eventually be realized.

The implied tonic or tonal target concept seems to also be a difference how we hear or understand. I don't feel the need to follow Maj/min functional harmonic guidelines... with Cma7#9#11... C is the tonic only if the tune or the music being performed implies C to be the tonic. We're Jazz players right... there are any number of tonic references that Cmaj7#9#11 chord be implying. Personally the last thing I want is for all the notes to line up and sound like functional Harmony.... super vanilla, those gigs need to pay well or are for a friend etc... I don't worry about standard resolutions and voiceleading... again that's not what jazz is about... personally.

Generally that's part of our job... being able to hear and recognize different harmonic or melodic organization.

[jordanklemons]

Hahaha...yes, now we definitely ARE talking.

One thing worth remembering (or maybe just worth knowing, as I don't think I stated this yet)...the 'system' I'm talking about is not a music theory concept or set of rules. That's probably how I've been talking about it. But it's worth realizing that it ALL starts with the ears. There is not a set of rules that a guy made up that forces the notes to be organized in any such particular fashion. It starts by sitting at the piano, playing a given type of chord in the left hand (maj7, min7, whatever) and simply listening to all the individual notes above it and making a simple decision. Does this note sound harmonious within the chord? Or does it sound separate and bi-tonal, like it's sitting on top of the chord. From there we have a list of notes found purely with the ear that can then be viewed logically and analytically using theory. Just want to make sure you realize that this is coming from a place of personal listening...which is why it would be difficult for anyone to verbally offer an idea or concept that would change the way I hear any of these ideas, because it literally started in my ear and then was grown into concepts and triadic organizations from there.

So again, I think we're 99% in agreement. Just the last 1% where we disagree. Which is cool. It's not a right or wrong thing. We just seem to come from different schools of thought on this 1%. To me, the notes do have innate functions that are undeniable...and to me there is nothing square or vanilla or lame about that. I personally feel that most people that think function harmony is lame is probably because they haven't truly explored just how deep this $#!t goes. I mean, to me, all I have to do is listen to Bach, Beethoven, Debussy, Ravel, Scriabin, Bird, Bill Evans, Miles, Coltrane, Mehldau, Rosenwinkel, Mark Turner, Peter Bernstein, etc, etc to realize just how little most of us have explored these depths. To me the hippest stuff that's EVER been composed and improvised is deeply deeply rooted in functional harmony. It doesn't mean the composer/improviser always lets the notes move the way we expect...but all of those musicians clearly are drenched in the ability to hear and empathize with the notes. The gigs that I NEED to get paid for aren't the gigs where I get to play with the guys like that, but rather the gigs that are with players who don't know and/or don't care about that stuff. To each's own. But I would much rather play with, or at least listen to, those types of guys, then guys who are unaware of how the notes are interacting and don't know how to give them what they want and/or intentionally manipulate them away from what you'd expect into other worlds.

Quick, interesting/funny story. A buddy of mine that's in my program studied with the same guy I'm working with last year. He's a piano player and is monstrous. He's also a big Monk fan. He was telling me about this one Monk tune (I forget which) that he actually didn't like. He said it sounded like Monk was just playing non-sense. Like he was just hitting the piano with a flattened out hand like an annoying child. He took it upon himself to transcribe the tune though, and he found that not only was it NOT nonsense...many of the times Monk was playing off of exactly the type of stuff we've been talking about. Upper structure triad + 1 note stuff. It can be vanilla if we only use it in a vanilla way...but there's nothing written that says that this stuff has to sound boring. It's all in what the artist brings it. For me, the only way to bring anything to the table is for me to get serious about doing my homework. To open my ears up, to find lots of options, to develop lots of muscle memory, and to really experiment with burrowing deeper and deeper into tonality universes...both ones that are commonly used AND ones that are relatively rare.

Though I'm well aware that not everyone agrees with me and feels it's more important just to play. I've always thought of music as being a mirror that reflects back to us what we put into it. And there's no one thing that we have to put in front of it. For me it's important to follow my ear and my gut. And they've always led me towards more and more interesting sounds. Sounds which, even when being played "in", I don't hear as vanilla...though I'm sure others may...and others may just think they sound like useless garbage! Hahaha...such is the world of jazz. hahaha

[jordanklemons]

Here's a little video of my teacher Stefon playing vibes with the SFJAZZ Collective. If you're curious to hear what this stuff can actually potentially turn into. To me there ain't nothin' vanilla about his playing here. I think it has a melodic fluidity that most of us can envy. Again, we all have different tastes of course. I think he's KILLIN' it in this solo! Starts around 3:20 in if you're just looking to only listen to him blowing. It's a pretty short solo and a pretty short tune altogether.

[jordanklemons]

Here's a couple of killin' videos to check out of his playing if your curious. Again, not so much just about HIS playing...but with the understanding that he's been exploring harmony and melody this way for several decades. And to me his playing, his improv, and his compositions are so rich and deep.

Here he's playing with Kenny Barron. Not necessarily straight ahead, but more of a traditional, straight ahead type vibe.

Versus here he is with his own project Urbanus doing more of a hiphop/funk influenced approach

Just sharing these to get away from the logical, theoretical talk of this 'way' of approaching music and actually hear it in practice. I definitely hear a deep sense of empathy in his playing for the music and for an understanding of how the melodic notes fit with the harmony...but to me there's nothing vanilla or predictable about it. Personally, I feel like it's far more interesting than what a lot of other guys offer with their music. Not everyone. There's plenty of other guys who's music I looooooove who don't approach harmony/melody so scientifically. But this system vibes with me because, just like Stefon, I'm very balanced between my right and left brain. I love logical, reason based, scientific type approaches to understanding things. But only when it's in service to the right brain...the creative, grace filled, outpouring of beauty and art. That's just how I work. Stefon seems to be a lot like that too except way further along then me...but I think that's what draws me towards him and his way of hearing and conceptualizing everything.

[jordanklemons]

Wooooooo...so glad I was looking for his videos Reg, thanks for inspiring me to do this! I just found a little 10 minute video clip of Stefon talking about some of this process. Check it out. Maybe hearing him talk about it and showing it at the piano might help you get where I've been coming from...more so than I could do by simply typing words about music theory.

Marinsmarcos...really sorry for hijacking the thread. But I hope you can see how everything I've been talking about is really the same stuff that you were asking about. Not necessarily the same exact chord, but the same idea being applied to all chords.

[vhollund]

This is all very interesting and cool but...

Isn't it just a D9 with C in Bass he describes ?

[Reg]

Thanks Jordan for more info... So basically we're maybe even more in agreement... Your talking about creating relationships and developing them. That's what I've always done.

The theory/ harmony verbal thing doesn't really matter, you can always find an explanation that will work. I do always find it interesting to hear great players discuss what that theory, harmony, melodic etc... aspects of what they're playing. The connections which open their door for they're playing, composing etc...

Personally... I'm alright with having an explanation or not having one... I can perform either way. It's not that complicated.
Performance doesn't need to be fully explained before it happens.

The only thing I tend to get into is when we verbally discuss what the music is... there isn't that much that is really new, we tend to just create relationships with different guidelines... or at least what become the guidelines after the fact.

I'm older and have spent too much time composing and arranging... so verbally I'm always keeping things organized, somewhat like when you compose and then record... even when you leave options for the music to develop, there is still form, at least from after the fact, the recording. Everything becomes a groove...

Have you noticed how much of Stefons harmony is held together with a rhythmic groove, at least usually to help create the relationships... I'm in and from the same school.

The SF collective is a cool group get together, always interesting music.

[Reg]

This is all very interesting and cool but...

Isn't it just a D9 with C in Bass he describes ?

It could be, right that would be door # 3... I always dig that option.

[jordanklemons]

This is all very interesting and cool but...

Isn't it just a D9 with C in Bass he describes ?

Whew, we're back on topic! I may have completely misread the story and the original question, but I believe you have the chirds inverted. It's not a D9 chord with a C in the bass. It's a C major triad (with a b5) ontop of a D9 chord. So the D would be the bass note.

i don't know exactly how this dude Freddie from the story was voicing it, but if you have access to a piano you can try it by playing

Left hand: D7
D-F#-C

right hand:
E-Gb-C

As Reg has been saying, there are many ways to organize our 12 notes. It appears to me from reading this story that George was saying that he'd always though he knew how to play a D9 chord, but that what he had always thought of it as was not "good enough" for Freddie...who stopped the band in the middle of the tune at a gig to explain this triad idea to George. It's more of a pianistic way because it doesn't sit quite as naturally in the guitar, and it's actually very visual, obvious, and easy at the piano. But as George noted, even though he knew how to play D9 already, there was just something different about the way Freddie was playing it. It was so beautiful it made his heart sing. The way I just wrote it out has a D7 chord in the left hand, and a C triad with a b5 in the right hand. Might have to give that girl a shot when I get to the piano in a bit to see how she sounds.

And yes Reg, groove and feel are definitely at Stefon's core...as it is with every great musician. We can play the hippest notes we want, without a strong sense of rhythm and feel, it'll sound amateur. But we can play silly, basic stuff, and if its got a strong feel, it'll sound great. Emily Remler once said something like, "Nothing is cheesy if it swings."

[vhollund]

I think that if that was what he wanted to communicate, he would have said "on top of" and not "over" which is ambiguous
In my terminology playing something "over" a given chord
Means playing something while that chord is indicated

[jordanklemons]

I obviously wasn't there standing next to Benson and looking at Freddie's voicings on that stage, so I can't tell you with 100% certainty what notes he was playing. But to me it was pretty clear that C was not being put in the bass in this story.

The whole physical structure of our instrument is upside down. My students often talk about the top note of a chord when they're really referring to the bass note. Physically they're right. But musically, that's the bottom note. And I always try and make that point clear. As they get better and start playing with non-guitar players, there's going to be a lot of confusion if they refer to the bass note of a chord as the top note and the highest pitch note of a chord as the bottom note.

Piano is much more clear about this. You have the stuff in the left hand, which is the bottom stuff...or the 'under' part of the chord. And the stuff in the right hand which is the top stuff...the 'over' part of the chord. You can definitely use the word 'over' to refer to ideas that can be played 'over' a given chord...but it's clear in the story that George and Freddie were talking about chord voicings. And in that sense, 'over' would be used to delineate the physical placement of the notes within a chord voicing. It's not common to do this with polychords on guitar, but we do it all the time with our slash chords.

D over F#
G over C
etc

In those instances the D and G chord are sitting - as you said - 'on top of' a given root note. It works the same way with the poly chords we've been talking about the last few days, except that now it's not a triad over a given root note, but rather a triad over another chord altogether. By all means, take door number 3 and check it out. It'll give you sort of a CMa13,#11,9...with no 7th. But it will give you a different chord that what I believe George is talking about in this story.

Another cool thing is that, just like you were using the word 'over' to refer to idea that can be played on top of a chord...again like we've sort of been dancing around for the last couple of days...when the D9 is voiced in this particular way, it actually sort of brings up a strong sense of CMajb5 melodically, and it sort of will tonicize C within the melodic structure. So yes, when playing with a good pianist, you could DEFINITELY play Cb5 'over' the D9 chord and it would sound super hip. Because your melodic statement would be grounded in and growing outwards from the actual harmony at hand. So in that sense I totally agree. I just don't think that it implies putting a C in the bass. The bass would still be a D note. And the chord built up vertically would be starting off with all the basic D7 notes. Then the upper structure on top and over it. That's my understanding.

[vhollund]

Man you like to write !

We are talking about a chord voicing ...right !
Still that does not give any certainty of the term "over" as meaning "super imposed harmony" except that D9 already is Am6 with D in bass

A strong indicator is that Benson talks about the b5 and a c major b5 that is in the upper notes of the voicing, simply wont stand out as 'hip' or as b5 sound


It is on the contrary, very pianistic and hip to place a b5 in left hand, and have that b7 and M3 as lowest notes of the voicing
(I love it, and use it all the time also inspired by a piano turnaround initially)

It will still be "over" a D9 because the bassplayer is playing around D triad and the right hand will probably play A minor /upper structure stuff

[jordanklemons]

Hey man, yeah again...I can't speak to the exact voicing Freddie was talking about. The indicator to me is that while Freddie does say a C with a b 5 over a D9...he starts the sentence by saying "THE FIRST CHORD IS". To me this makes it pretty obvious that he's telling George about a chord, and a specific way to voice it. Otherwise, simply saying "Play D9" would have been enough information. And that's why when he stops him, George says "But I was playing a D9 chord"...Freddie says "Not that D9". George says, "A D9 is a D9." Freddie responds saying "No, there's lots of ways you can do it."

To me, this conversation is enough to let me know that Freddie was talking about a very specific voicing and approach to the D9 that he wanted. He acknowledges other ways to do it (like the A-6 over a D bass note that you mentioned...or simply an Aminor triad over a D7), but is asking George to play this one. And he hears them as different enough from each other. Different enough to stop the concert mid tune and start school George Benson! Hahaha...I'd have loved to have seen that.

The piano voicing I wrote out earlier is not the way it has to be played. Just like Freddie showing George several options. I'm simply spelling the entire full chord out this way as I think it's easier to hear. Though you're right, the root note D could be left out. And it could just be the 3rd and 7th in the left hand. Again...I think it's important to start with the ear. And for me the best way to hone that in is to sort of spoon feed the ear by letting it hear the entire voicing in full for a while. To really grasp what sets different chord spellings apart from each other. Then to manipulate the voicings if we choose. But that's just how I like to listen and hear things.

We will all take away from the original story whatever is important to us. I just wanted to take the time to make sure you understood that, while you could play a D9 chord with a C note in the bass like you were asking, that that isn't what Freddie was showing George in the story.

[jordanklemons]

I gotta run guys. Vhollund...I promise I won't write again for a while hahahaha...I got lots of work to do today and I gotta split. Feel free to continue without me hogging the ball. This is just a topic I'm super passionate about and could talk all day with people to clear up misunderstandings and to help educate others about how cool this stuff is. Which is why I'm planning on doing my thesis on it. Unfortunately, it's just not very present in the guitar lexicon. Anyways...gotta run to some work. Later cats.

[vhollund]

I'll just agree to disagree on the interpretation
and advice people also to check out what i described
see you later !

[jordanklemons]

Word. I would agree with vhollund that nobody takes my word for anything...or anyone's. Definitely try out every idea you can get your hands on...his, mine, Reg's. Use your ears and listen. That's really the only way to learn any of this stuff.

[christianm77]

Anyone explored polychords with the freeze pedal? I've not done much work on it, but that would seem a logical thing to have a go at.

[christianm77]

BTW, it sounds like we are really talking about a voicing of a third inversion D7 chord with a 9th in it (9th chord inversions are a bit funny to talk about from this perspective.)

I'm a big fan of putting thirds and sevenths into the bass. It can make otherwise common chords sound quite special. When I started doing this people started talking about my 'interesting chords' - but all it was was inversions... it didn't affect anything to do with what they played over the top.

For this type of thing, drop 3's always sound good. A very simple and familiar but nonetheless effective voicing for D/C might be:

8 x 7 7 7 x

Add a ninth and you could end up with this, if you drop the tonic:

8 x 7 9 7 x

This is in fact also a first inversion Am6. I like to play things like:

8 x 7 9 8 x
8 x 7 9 7 x
7 x 5 7 7 x

on a Am7 D7 G - think the middle 8 to wave. If you have throughly mastered your inversions, you can have a lot of fun playing around with bass movement, but with dominants, 3rd or 7th in the bass resolving by semitone is very effective.

Of course, you could add the tritone in the the bottom two strings, like so:

8 9 7 7 x x

This is, in fact a drop 2, 3rd inversion chord (very useful and good sounding for duo work) We can pop in an E to make it a D9/C voicing, but thats tricky:

8 9 7 7 5 x

That's kind of hard to finger, so don't forget you can use open strings:

8 9 7 7 0 0

Or a rootless voicing (same as Am6 again)

8 9 7 9 x x

It's good to get to know 3rds and 7ths all over the neck, especially for dup and trio work, which is kind of a simplified version of this. If you can do this, you can pad out your playing in the manner of a two handed pianist. A lot of the contemp guys are very good at this. For example, for a 2-5-1 in G


Ala piano left hand
8 10 x x x (3 and 7 of Am7)
8 9 x x x (7 and 3 of D7)
7 9 x x x (3 and 7 of Gmaj7)

x 10 10 x x x
x 9 10 x x x
x 9 9 x x x

x x 5 5 x x
x x 4 5 x x
x x 3 3 x x

And so on

Anyway, this might be super obvious to many on this forum, but it's great stuff to work on, and I've got a lot of mileage out of it.

[christianm77]

I learned a lot from looking at Jobim's use of inversions too, BTW. Aguas de Marco is a very nice one to look at, for example. Django also writes some very nice things with inversions - check out 'Tears.'

[christianm77]

That C D E F Gb A B C scale is really cool haha - very bluesy - two consecutive semitones... Good one for Take the A Train type progressions:

C | % | D7(#11) | % | Dm7 | G7 | C

So, play C major ideas, flat the 5 over the D7, then back to normal on dm7 g7?

I'd usually raise the fourth - F to F#, but it sounds great the other way too.

My standard move on G7 is to flat the 6 of the key A to Ab - no doubt many would interpret this as Harmonic Major, but I find it easier just to think about one note. Also BH 6th-dim scales... So:

Cmaj7 - (play around C D E F G A B)
D7 - flat yer Gs! (or C D E F Gb A B )
Dm7 - play C D E F G A B
G7 - flat yer As (or C D E F G Ab B)

Sounds good to my ears.

[christianm77]

Sorry to keep posting, but I like this for Cherokee:

6 x 7 7 6 x Bbmaj7
4 x 3 3 3 x Bb7/Ab
3 x 1 3 3 x Ebmaj7/G
2 x 1 3 3 x Ebminmaj7/Gb
13 x 12 14 11 x Bbmaj7/F
13 x 12 12 11 x Gm7/F
12 x 10 11 11 x C7#11/E (b5 really)
11 x 10 12 11 x Cm7/Eb
11 x 10 10 10 x F7/Eb
And then turnaround (two beats each)
10 x 8 10 10 x Bbmaj7/D
9 x 8 9 10 x (sort of C#o7 with a suspended top voice. Really it's just voice leading - I think of this as the Basin Street Blues chord)
8 x 8 8 8 x Cm7
7 x 8 8 7 x Bmaj7 (I always like it when Bud plays bII maj 7 on this - his version obv a bit different)

And back!

I think of this as Jobim Cherokee haha

[Reg]

Here's a short part of my 1st post.... The original question was very straight ahead with a very straight reference..."Cherokee".

So C with a b5 or #11 over a D9 is also a voicing, with reference to Cherokee, I assuming that it's just the 11th bar chord of the A section... so the root or reference would be "C" so it's a V of V or II7 and the b5 is really a #11 so C7#11 from Melodic Minor. I'm only using scale reference because that's where the chord is generally constructed from. There are other methods of deriving the chord... but with Bebop it's usually Melodic minor and blue notes.

Jordan was getting into developing relationships.... harmonic and melodic with different guidelines for developing... creating function or motion. The basic spatial form remains the same, and the harmonic, root or basic changes remains the same, but the upper structure... the notes that may be included in the note collections of each chord, have a different source for their creation and development. They're somewhat functioning on a parallel level... not polytonal... more in the direction of Blue notes, they have their own identity and stability along with a connection to the starting changes... the basic reference.

I think a simple example could be... jordan likes D-... dorian, so

You have a D-, dorian pedal. And the modal characteristic references of that Mode... D dorian, not C ionian, different note and harmonic functional guidelines, anyway you develop another layer of music from F lydian with F lydian functional guidelines... there are obviously lots of common relationships, lots of common tones etc...

But when you create more relationships and develop them from each reference, D dorian and F lydian... you can end up with different upper note or extension note collections... the result can be a somewhat new relationship between D dorian and F lydian... which could be different from the basic maj/min functional harmony diatonic relationship.

And yea... generally you can explain most of these new relationships from more advanced applications of modal interchange or borrowing etc... but new doors or even new side doors to the same rooms are great for developing fresh language...

[Reg]

Hey Christian, like your directions... we'll that Cherokee... voiceleading line, that was a little strange, but cool.

With your application or usage of b5 in A train... I tend to hear that as a dominate sub chord... D7 to Eb7, or D7 To C#7 s.
Do you really think C while your playing through the D7 chord, label the notes with relationship to "C".

The F as a #9 is a little complicated with the implied G# from melody on the D7, if really part of the tonal note collections, I dig Blue notes, do you leave out the G or G#. And then when jumping to Ab or b9 of the G7 or V chord from ?... sounds a little harmonically thick... I'm not saying wrong or lousy, the performance personally would need more changes and good rhythmical harmonic rhythm usage to stay somewhere near the harmonic and rhythmic pocket of the tune.

But I'm always up for new approaches, I'll play through and try and give some feed back... just another perspective.

[christianm77]

I tend to run the F into F# so more a passing tone than a #9