Looking for the best book on creating chord movement to use on standards

**Jonah** · 12-14-2015, 03:08 PM

Hello, in case some are not familiar with the above, remember the diminished chord a half step above any of those dominants is also the same chor

I'd say it makes extension of it if played (or meant) over it , but it is not the same... G7 is not Abdim

**mr. beaumont** · 12-14-2015, 03:10 PM

But G7b9 is pretty close

**Jonah** · 12-14-2015, 03:14 PM

You can move other chord type around by minor 3rd for example a common move is in a II-V to just move the II up a minor 3rd in place of the V.

you min sudominant? Minor plagal cadence?

**docbop** · 12-14-2015, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Jonah

I'd say it makes extension of it if played (or meant) over it , but it is not the same... G7 is not Abdim

Sure it is who needs roots the bass player or the context fills in. Context is everything!

**Jonah** · 12-14-2015, 03:16 PM

But G7b9 is pretty close

but still different

Excuse me if it seems pedantic.. I know what is meant of course... but still for me here's enough difference to distinguish them... maybe it's just the way to look at it

**Jonah** · 12-14-2015, 03:17 PM

Context is everything!

**vintagelove** · 12-14-2015, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by docbop

You can move other chord type around by minor 3rd for example a common move is in a II-V to just move the II up a minor 3rd in place of the V.

Sure, moving ii chord phrases up a min3rd is classic.

Though if you look at that as playing off the b7 of the V chord, you can go much deeper. For instance, instead of just f minor, any minor family scale or arpeggio (and tons of other stuff) is available there and will create different extensions.

Next start playing vocabulary off the b7 of the next diminished sub. So that d minor, is now Ab minor (hello altered vocabulary).

The next dim sub from there is your tritone sub.....

I would love to go further and give examples, but it wouldn't be right of me to do. If anyone is interested, this is the stuff Willie Thomas gets into deeper into his system. To truly appreciate how it works, you should check out his stuff. That being said, even though it's a bit OT, I thought it was valuable to share as it still might spark an idea in someone's playing.

Can someone embed this video???

https://youtube.com/watch?v=fpchHuVPl0s

**Reg** · 12-14-2015, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by NSJ

Jonah,

Have a look at Jack Zucker's theory of "dododephonics", or "12 Tone theory of chord substitution". Where in any diatonic chord simply moves up a minor third. I have to say this is above my pay grade . I just think of major triads built by dominant sevens incrementing up minor 3rds. That's as much as I can handle. But Jack apparently has an entire system built upon this .

Sheets of Sound Lessons Page

A simple approach for using up a min third is tho old relative and parallel relationships
Gmaj7. Sub parallel min...G-7. Now use relative maj.... Bbmaj7
now just use the basic borrowing or modal interchange with different chords. Not as symmetrical but also works

**NSJ** · 12-14-2015, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Reg

A simple approach for using up a min third is tho old relative and parallel relationships
Gmaj7. Sub parallel min...G-7. Now use relative maj.... Bbmaj7
now just use the basic borrowing or modal interchange with different chords. Not as symmetrical but also works

Yes, that is my basic understanding of modal interchange . In C Major? Borrow from the key of Eb (up a minor 3rd).

**targuit** · 12-15-2015, 06:09 AM

"Modal interchange."

Perhaps as in this Joe Pass Unforgettable CD recording of....My Romance. Joe plays solo classical guitar here in a lovely and very playable low key arrangement in the key of C major. At around the 2:00 mark or so, perhaps a bit later, he modulates to a Cm7 then to Ebmaj7, playing the chord progression in the new key briefly, only to return back to Cmaj7.

This song also displays beautiful voice leading possibilities including the use of diminished chords. I don't know how one can faithfully play this tune without using the diminished chords and the maj/min descending sequence as well as the m7b5 in the phrasing "no Fmaj7 month F#dim7 of Cmaj7 May, no Fmaj7 twink- F#dim7 -ling Em7 - stars Cmaj7 No F#m7sus hide Fm7b5 a- Em7 -A7#5- way, no Am9 soft....."

This arrangement also works beautifully as a solo guitar with tenor vocal. As an aside, I have thought very seriously about transcribing this whole CD - Unforgettable. I don't know either if it has already been done, though my searches have not turned up transcriptions of the whole CD, lest I am in error, or if one could negotiate the rights with Joe's estate or the songs' owners. I need income. To buy the CD first of all, though I play this arrangement essentially. Anyone know anything about those issues professionally?

As for playing arrangements - it is not in the classical sense. I mean this tune has its chord progression and lyrics. Joe's interpretation is pretty straightforward, so playing the "arrangement" is pretty much playing what is written.

Anyway, when I saw the comments about "modal interchange", I immediately thought of Joe's interpretation here.

destinytot · 12-15-2015, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by vintagelove

Can someone embed this video???

destinytot · 12-15-2015, 07:21 AM

I'm recognising modal interchange chords in a lot of familiar turnarounds and endings, sounds which are already accessible to me by ear - from memory - on the spot. In other words, sounds which are already in my small bag of tricks.

I probably picked up a lot of those sounds from Joe Pass (I prefer him on nylon - my favourite recording of which is I Remember Charlie Parker). Another source - for me - is Jobim (though I notice more than a nod to Ellington).

And I'm already comfortable using those sounds; I can plod along, mixing and matching - live - singing and playing pleasantly.( Furthermore, in those contexts I'm trying to provide a service of dignified entertainment for a fee. I confess to sometimes phoning it in because the circumstances are intolerable - circumstances from which I extricate myself PDQ.)

But there are less-predictable 'modern' progressions which aren't in my bag; sounds of modal interchange that speak to me.

I may not have these sounds in my bag, but they're in my heart, in my soul.

Once understood, the sounds are simple (thank you, fellow forum members!), but they're exciting - and they're fun.

They're in my record collection - e.g Michael Jackson (well, Stevie's) I Can't Help It, loads of early Al Jarreau and Ivan Lins - but they're beyond my playing experience.

But I know how to transcribe and analyse. And I'm learning to read the fretboard - so that I never have to look at it again.

**Jonah** · 12-15-2015, 07:24 AM

Gmaj7. Sub parallel min...G-7.

The functional relations are so deeply engraved in me probably .. that it is still really difficult for me to accept that parallel minor can be taken for boorowing for paralle major....
I still keep hearing them as real major and minor...

Though I understand that in this case these are probably more just a scale as a source for building up chords...

not real maj/min realtionsi based on the quality of third within a triads and its functions...

**christianm77** · 12-15-2015, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher

Re. modal interchange, it's 99% about harmonic rhythm as far as I can tell.

Honestly, modal interchange makes zero sense on paper, just talking about it theoretically, and trying to slog through it, as a beginner, using theories. You have to see a real player doing it. I used to try to include altered chords or altered runs over dominants and just thought they sounded horrible. That's because they did. You can't play this stuff without regard to time "targets" and harmonic "targets". Usually Reg is referencing basic harmony and then, with the basic reference established, branching out. So, it's not just an arbitrary "whatever" thrown in.

Most of what he's doing (in showing basic comping) through standards gives the illusion of sounding very "inside" or diatonic, simple to the listener. That's because he's using the outside stuff to imply basic harmony. The outside stuff is on the weak beat, side of the beat, or harmonic rhythm. Again, none of this makes sense on paper or if you don't know what is going on with the harmonic rhythm. You could "lean" on the outside stuff more or less if that's the sound you want, but it's a choice. And honestly, it's more of a rhythmic choice than a harmonic one - in the beginning especially.

I think we have to stop reading so much about the stuff theoretically, and watch the videos. Go to youtube and watch a video on accessing youtube's playback speed feature, and slow them down. Some Reg stuff may go by fast, but there's a lot going on. At the same time, the basics are very doable and the parts are interchangeable. Later you can use the same ideas to simply reference different tonal centers etc., achieving new palettes of sounds. This is an area in which I have miles to go as well, but the answer is there in the videos if we really want it.

Yeah, I was feel the 'advanced' stuff sounds best as a bit of spice on the basic flavours. A little bit of altered scale, for example, goes a long way.

For me transcribing pins a lot of this down. A lot of the contemporary guys are surprisingly vanilla a lot of the time, and know when to put in just enough ear catching harmony (usually just a note or two) - the Lage Lund solo I'm studying at the moment is a case in point. I don't think you can get this knowledge purely through theory, which I sometimes think some people are trying to do.

**Jonah** · 12-15-2015, 07:30 AM

Sure, moving ii chord phrases up a min3rd is classic.

probably it's really the way we learn it and teh way we see it.. I use it all the time and I never thought of it as of ii up a minor third... always treated like I play extensions over G7...

It's like min7-5 treated as i min6 1st inversion (with 6th in bass) ... seems to be so obvious - espcially on guitar with its chord shapes.. but I did not notice it for long time...

And it opens a new perspective when you look at it in this way... you're immediately thrown into different system of relations which still work for the harmonic situation

**Jonah** · 12-15-2015, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Re. modal interchange, it's 99% about harmonic rhythm as far as I can tell.

Honestly, modal interchange makes zero sense on paper, just talking about it theoretically, and trying to slog through it, as a beginner, using theories. You have to see a real player doing it. I used to try to include altered chords or altered runs over dominants and just thought they sounded horrible. That's because they did. You can't play this stuff without regard to time "targets" and harmonic "targets". Usually Reg is referencing basic harmony and then, with the basic reference established, branching out. So, it's not just an arbitrary "whatever" thrown in.

Most of what he's doing (in showing basic comping) through standards gives the illusion of sounding very "inside" or diatonic, simple to the listener. That's because he's using the outside stuff to imply basic harmony. The outside stuff is on the weak beat, side of the beat, or harmonic rhythm. Again, none of this makes sense on paper or if you don't know what is going on with the harmonic rhythm. You could "lean" on the outside stuff more or less if that's the sound you want, but it's a choice. And honestly, it's more of a rhythmic choice than a harmonic one - in the beginning especially.

I think we have to stop reading so much about the stuff theoretically, and watch the videos. Go to youtube and watch a video on accessing youtube's playback speed feature, and slow them down. Some Reg stuff may go by fast, but there's a lot going on. At the same time, the basics are very doable and the parts are interchangeable. Later you can use the same ideas to simply reference different tonal centers etc., achieving new palettes of sounds. This is an area in which I have miles to go as well, but the answer is there in the videos if we really want it.

Yeah, I was feel the 'advanced' stuff sounds best as a bit of spice on the basic flavours. A little bit of altered scale, for example, goes a long way.

For me transcribing pins a lot of this down. A lot of the contemporary guys are surprisingly vanilla a lot of the time, and know when to put in just enough ear catching harmony (usually just a note or two) - the Lage Lund solo I'm studying at the moment is a case in point. I don't think you can get this knowledge purely through theory, which I sometimes think some people are trying to do.

I think just modern modality is much less into our cultural enviroment in general... functional realtions are taken for granted only because we are absolutely in it from our birth.... and it was really used extensively - from kid's song to complex symphonies and operas where the language was developed to a degree that it could describe comples metaphisical and philosophical ideas... the universe...

Modern modality is relatively young... and that is why its implication often might seem arbitrary...

But presumabley if we take someone who grew up absolutely out of the influence of European culture for him the rconnection between major and relative monir - so obvious for us - will be as arbitrary...

So I believe the only way to use it is to begin to hear it... I don't think that you can force yourself to do it... the best way probably is listening...

Re. modal interchange, it's 99% about harmonic rhythm as far as I can tell.

I guess any modal approach has much more about harmonic rythm involved than functional tonality.. in modality accents are much more important...

functional tonality has very strong internal connectiion per se - as harmonic system... you can - theoretically - put down chords without any meter or rythm at all and we will still hear the concept quite clearly...

but in modality if you do like this it may be treated differently depending on how the accents will be made...

But I again - I think if we play in Dorian for 50 years all round... Dorian relations will be the first thing we see..

It's all about cultural stuff after all..

Most of us hear ethnic phrygian (as Spanish folk colour) and we get these real;tions.. so why ccannot we get any other... it's just the matter of experience

destinytot · 12-15-2015, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by christianm77

Yeah, I was feel the 'advanced' stuff sounds best as a bit of spice on the basic flavours. A little bit of altered scale, for example, goes a long way.

For me transcribing pins a lot of this down. A lot of the contemporary guys are surprisingly vanilla a lot of the time, and know when to put in just enough ear catching harmony (usually just a note or two) - the Lage Lund solo I'm studying at the moment is a case in point. I don't think you can get this knowledge purely through theory, which I sometimes think some people are trying to do.

I'm not convinced that sounds - 'stuff' (notes?) - can be 'advanced'.

If I had a mind to measure music in these terms, what I'd call call 'advanced' is the competence/skill/proficiency of the musician who can apply a range of 'stuff' with control and authority.

What gets my attention is taste and flair - with regard to which, I agree that

modal interchange makes zero sense on paper

The sounds that catch my attention, are experienced in context: i value sounds through listening.

On the other hand, analysing sounds - processing them into concepts and data - takes skill(s). And I think that's what needs to be developed in order to be able to analyse in your head.

I totally agree with 'purely' in this:

I don't think you can get this knowledge purely through theory

**christianm77** · 12-15-2015, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by destinytot

I'm not convinced that sounds - 'stuff' (notes?) - can be 'advanced'.

If I had a mind to measure music in these terms, what I'd call call 'advanced' is the competence/skill/proficiency of the musician who can apply a range of 'stuff' with control and authority.

What gets my attention is taste and flair - with regard to which, I agree that

The sounds that catch my attention, are experienced in context: i value sounds through listening.

On the other hand, analysing sounds - processing them into concepts and data - takes skill(s). And I think that's what needs to be developed in order to be able to analyse in your head.

I totally agree with 'purely' in this:

Thanks for the attention to my wording and use of quotation marks - nuance often gets lost.

I also am not convinced that 'stuff' can be 'advanced' - hence the use of quotes. I would tend to think that melodic minor harmony and diminished scales for example would be something I would introduce to the student after he or she has mastered chord tone based improvisation. In that, one thing tends to build on the other... As you say...

It's 'advanced' from that perspective, but in fact, calling it 'advanced' is really falling to all sorts of traps.

**christianm77** · 12-15-2015, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Jonah

But I again - I think if we play in Dorian for 50 years all round... Dorian relations will be the first thing we see..

It's all about cultural stuff after all..

Most of us hear ethnic phrygian (as Spanish folk colour) and we get these real;tions.. so why ccannot we get any other... it's just the matter of experience

Well we've had much more than 50 years in jazz - Charlie Christian and Django were using the Dorian mode in the late 30's. I'm sure other swing players were too...
The difference is that after the 50s jazz players became self conscious about their use of modes. But the sounds seem to have always been there.

And of course there is the past few hundred years of folk music from the British Isles which is still frequently modal... Playing the lute, it's interesting to see how much continuity there is between some of the continuo parts of 16th century ballads and the harmony of modern Irish and Scottish folk music (and English too) - things such as the Dm-C-Dm or D-C-D progression... Folk music from the British Isles is an important thread in the tapestry of American music, of course, and therefore jazz.

So, if you listen primarily to pop, jazz and/or folk music you will gravitate to the Dorian tonality unconsciously. I believe this is what actually happens - a case in point is Eleanor Rigby by the Beatles. They didn't know what a Dorian mode was on paper (I am pretty certain - I am absolutely sure in the case of CC and Django) but they used the sound...

TBH I'm not convinced most guitar players have a very intuitive grounding in tonal harmony. Pianists tend to get it early on. Guitar players tend not to start with harmonic music.

I understood Bartok long before I could make any sense out of Mozart. I'm sure I'm not alone...

I suspect your background may be substantially different Jonah? Classical music upbringing? Did you play piano?

It's an interesting topic. I've heard some stories about Harrison Birtwistle teaching music to young children who then learned to hear and appreciate atonal music early on...

**grahambop** · 12-16-2015, 08:17 AM

Still working through Alan Kingstone's book with 'My Romance' in mind, it's ironic that the OP had problems applying some of the concepts to this tune.

For example, there's a page showing how to use diminished chords to approach specific diatonic chords, using the progression Bb maj, Cmin7, Dmin7 (in the key of Bb) as the example.

Then there's a page showing how to apply the various 'chord scales' to a ii-V progression, using the example Cm7 to F7 (i.e. leading to Bb maj).

Hmmm, these progressions sound a bit familiar! First 4 bars of My Romance, perhaps?

destinytot · 12-16-2015, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by christianm77

Thanks for the attention to my wording and use of quotation marks - nuance often gets lost.

I also am not convinced that 'stuff' can be 'advanced' - hence the use of quotes. I would tend to think that melodic minor harmony and diminished scales for example would be something I would introduce to the student after he or she has mastered chord tone based improvisation. In that, one thing tends to build on the other... As you say...

It's 'advanced' from that perspective, but in fact, calling it 'advanced' is really falling to all sorts of traps.

I agree

I've come across some clever explanations about the traps of language; some are helpful and worth knowing, but not all.

I think this is a good one, and - like Mr Miyagi's belt - it cuts through hierarchy. It's what Dizzy allegedly told a crest-fallen Phil Woods (brow-beaten and bad-mouthed for copying Charlie Parker). It's also the title of a great book by the wonderful Gene Lees: "You can't steal a gift - if you can hear it, it's yours!"