function of A13b9 in G major

[vintagelove]

MB was okay in the 60s, when there were no other books available, but there are so many tons of better books around today.
No one would ever call that chord an A13b9, because that voicing would conflict with an A played by a bass player.

Call it a Bbdim.w/F#, call it a rootless voicing of an Eb7#9 chord; both would sound fine with a bass player playing a Bb or an Eb as the bass note, but calling it an A13b9 is just counter productive.

MB was a good blues/R&B player, but he was no jazz player. Just putting on sunglasses does not make you a jazz musician.LOL!

I will have to sort of disagree and say there is a lot to be learned in there and it is a great book, especially for people new to jazz. It is what you make of it.

[vhollund]

Thanks Reg
I read up on it now
I'd call it a Bbdim(b6) like vintagelove a.o. also suggested it
Because of the Bb in the bass and because it doesent go directly to D7 but to ii
Somewhat a classic turn around

The F# on top could likely be caused by the melody

[Jonah]

It is also impossible to determine function with out the harmonic context around the chord

That's out of question... it's system of relation..

If somebody calls ma a nepphew it really means I have parents and one of them has brother or sister...)))

Problem might be when there's another culture with absolutely different family relations - like what it could mean socially to be a nepphew - hey in bombundandian culture all nepphews inherit their unculs and aunts - so it's really inportant to know that you are a nepphew...))))


In classical harmony - in real classical harmony - there are no passing diminished chords - so when we speak in jazz from point of view of functional tonality we often speak fron approximate points of views - each one corrects traditional functionality more or less according to his ear.... actually because functionality is not established in jazz...

We can reduce to triads as I suggested... but when we reduce to triad classical it keeps its character and meanings... when we make this reduction in jazz in most cases we just lose it. Even in early jazz... something essential gets lost.

It says in that harmony in jazz using often the same realtions in general treated in a different way.... (I do not want to say how exactly here - it's not just colouristic or modal or whatever - it more complex, more vivid)

A nepphew is still in a sibling's son but in this tradition it does not matter much because he will not get his share in a will... (exceuse me that stupid analogy))))


PS
I never read Mr. Baker's book.. but now I got into some of the samples... he deffinitely tends to treat everything as diatonically as possible... that is closer to classical functionality.

[vhollund]

I never read it either

But i've studied both Classical and Jazz functional analysis.

The main difference I find, is that classical music describes how the listener percieves and what he expects to hear after a given harmony (disappointing/surprising cadences)

Where in jazz the focus is on improvisation (not composition), and on understanding how to interpretate the changes. So function is descibed in a more technical /a less psychlogical manner

[johnhall]

That's out of question... it's system of relation..

In classical harmony - in real classical harmony - there are no passing diminished chords - so when we speak in jazz from point of view of functional tonality we often speak fron approximate points of views - each one corrects traditional functionality more or less according to his ear.... actually because functionality is not established in jazz...

Just one of countless thousands of examples. In classical harmony this diminished seventh chord is labeled as being a #viidim7 of something (in this case #viidim7/V) rather than a passing diminished seventh chord as in jazz. Same thing, different name.

John
John Hall | Music for Guitar | Home

[Jonah]

Just one of countless thousands of examples. In classical harmony this diminished seventh chord is labeled as being a #viidim7 of something (in this case #viidim7/V) rather than a passing diminished seventh chord as in jazz. Same thing, different name.

Hi John,

thank you.

that's what I meant actually.

To me the idea of 'passing' dim chord is quite a step away from diatonic concept...
In jazz you cann put passing chords practically wherever you want - to me there's chromatic paralel movement behind it.. and finally it comes to what we see in Corcovado or Night and Day or Someone to Watch Over Me when they get practically the same quality of stability as the chords between which they should be 'passing...'

In classical harmony we cannot do that it is always connected with functionality... usage of diminished chords I believe is strictly connected with concept of lead tones within the functional relations.. If I had to call them I'd rather call them 'lead chords'... it shows better the idea that it really leads, it has clear and strong tension-release function...
And in jazz it is just passing - it's like smoothe connection - the meaning of these changes is just different to my ear, more relaxed, non-obligatory, it is much more about embelishment of harmony...

Of course in jazz especially in early we can also treat like in classics.. but from my point of view that will not be essential for this music

[Jonah]

The main difference I find, is that classical music describes how the listener percieves and what he expects to hear after a given harmony (disappointing/surprising cadences)

Where in jazz the focus is on improvisation (not composition), and on understanding how to interpretate the changes. So function is descibed in a more technical /a less psychlogical manner

!!!
Exactly what I tried to point out a few times here...
Lots of misunderstandings are caused by this fact actually
On the other hand I think it could be good for jazz musicians to approach jazz music from audial point of you too.. this practical theory is often mistaken as 'actual' theory.. and it's a mess then..
There was a thread on improvization here too, and I felt that I was kind of out of it.. becasue everybody tried to define improvization as something like intention of player, and I tried to approach as a listner like 'why I can hear it is improvixed'.. and frankly I think the last point is more important for understand of music (as the first is probably more important for understanding of people's motivations))

I believe we are all first of all listners.. music is what we hear first of all... as painting is what we see first of all...