Moving a dominant chord up a minor third

[Generalmojo]

Does anyone ever use the III7 over a V7?

So III7 in C is the notes E G# B D. Over a G7 chord that makes 13, b9, 3 and 5.

A bVII7 is Bb, D, F, and Ab. On a G7 that makes #9, 5, b7, and b9.

A bII7 is Db, F, Ab, and B. On a G7 is #11, b9, 7, and 3.

Each has its own characteristic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[christianm77]

It's a minor third from the dominant of the key. It works if you hear it. It'll make a good line if you create movement.
on the one hand, that's a sound unto itself. It always sounds like a part of a dominant cycle 4 progression (like the bridge of rhythm changes: III7 | VI7 | II7 | V7) .
On the other hand that third moves nicely down to the tonic fifth, the chord works when going to a major 9th chord of some sort.
But it's not a sound that's in my ear. The root occupies a spot that evaporates into the first inversion of the tonic chord. It starts in a position of stability for the target. I'll bet with work and good phrasing, you could make it work christianm77, if you hear it and create lines around what you're hearing.
Do you hear it?

David

I'll give it a go. I suppose you end up playing relative minor.

[medblues]

I'm not sure what you're point is.. All I said is you can play Dominant chord and move it up a minor third, as you would a diminished. C7-Eb7-Gb7-A7. Using the same grip, but moving up three Frets, i.e. A minor 3rd

I am not disagreeing with you. If moving up or down two frets also works in addition to minor third (three frets), then moving a half step works as well. So any chromatic movement would work which then makes all of these observations kind of not useful. I think this is where theory ends.

[Generalmojo]

I am not disagreeing with you. If moving up or down two frets also works in addition to minor third (three frets), then moving a half step works as well. So any chromatic movement would work which then makes all of these observations kind of not useful. I think this is where theory ends.

I believe this is where theory ends up. And it's glorious. Theory is not rules. It's labels. Rules are compositional.

But, when dealing with theory it's not where you end. It's how you got there. It's true that if you go far enough, any note is available to you. But it's the intention and ideas that count. Not the individual note.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wolflen]

I am not disagreeing with you. If moving up or down two frets also works in addition to minor third (three frets), then moving a half step works as well. So any chromatic movement would work which then makes all of these observations kind of not useful. I think this is where theory ends.

well..if you explore diminished and augmented theory..you will discover many related and implied scales and chords that can be used in many different ways and yes you can find use in chromatic movement..but its part of "all these observations" not separate..

this type of exploration is what Coltrane did to leave behind scale step thinking and diatonic harmony in general..and instead of one tonic he worked with three in the augmented approach and four tonics in the diminished approach..and all the related and implied chords and scales found within these two methods

[edh]

@medblues, thanks for that.

[Binyomin]

Some people refer to it as the "Family of four" or "group of four". I tend to think of it as the diminished group.

There's a similar kind of thing with 7#5 chords. Because the whole tone scale is symmetric, you can move a 7#5 chord around in whole steps. (You get a nat9 and a #11 as tensions).

Because a 7#5 is completely composed of notes from the whole tone scale? A 7b5 chord is also composed of notes from the whole tone scale. A 9b5 and a 9#5 are the same thing a whole tone apart, right? Basically one played the entire whole tone scale as a chord, leaving out the b5 to form the 9#5 and leaving out the #5 from the 9b5. So by moving the chord a whole step you just changed the location of the one missing tone. And a 9#5 b5 is the entire whole tone scale played as a chord, so it has 6 roots. But I never heard someone say you can move a 7#5 around in whole steps. Can you do the same thing with a 7b5?

[wolflen]

"..But I never heard someone say you can move a 7#5 around in whole steps. Can you do the same thing with a 7b5? "

as Boston Joe pointed out in his post..."family of four" / diminished group...

the 7b5 (as well as many other chords) can be found within the diminished scale and you can move it in minor thirds...

ie: C diminished has embedded in it: C D Eb F Gb Ab A B

D7b5 F7b5 Ab7b5 B7b5

now another very cool thing embedded in the C dim scale are Tri-Tone scales:

D Eb Gb Ab A C -- For D7b5 and Ab7b5
and
F Gb A B C Eb -- for F7b5 and B7b5

these scales can be used in place of diminished functions and many other places..they connect well with many different scales and arpeggios..

there are quite a few more chords to found in the scale ... explore... its really an amazing scale

[christianm77]

Because a 7#5 is completely composed of notes from the whole tone scale? A 7b5 chord is also composed of notes from the whole tone scale. A 9b5 and a 9#5 are the same thing a whole tone apart, right? Basically one played the entire whole tone scale as a chord, leaving out the b5 to form the 9#5 and leaving out the #5 from the 9b5. So by moving the chord a whole step you just changed the location of the one missing tone. And a 9#5 b5 is the entire whole tone scale played as a chord, so it has 6 roots. But I never heard someone say you can move a 7#5 around in whole steps. Can you do the same thing with a 7b5?

Of course you can. I use whole tone stuff like this all the time.

[Jonah]

Every theoretical system is system of relations...

Ideally first we hear that it works and then we imply relations.

Goethe once said: if we do not see the color it does not exist...

I like this principle based on primacy of perception...
what sounds is just sounds, it is us who imply relations to them and develope iut into language...


What was mentioned in the OP can be explained in a few ways... when I first descovered the sound (and I did myself) I tried to find some diatonic relations first, then I did not try to relate chords and thought mostly as a way of playingof extensions, then I came across Barry Harris method and he has very beautiful elaborated and logical explanation, then I got into chord-scales and it worked to...

But we should not forget that theoretical approach will effect our playing even the choice of notes and context will be absolutely the same (it will phrasing, accents, breath, articulation etc.)

Even if we do not formulize theory we have it and apply it... otehr wise we just would have been able to hear these sounds musically as an integral piece, phrases and all

[mokapot]

I like chords. Im pretty good at them, modifying them as I wish.

I don't like to think scales because it confuses me. I think theyre important but they make me confused with too many choices and too little I can actually hear. Julian Lage talked about playing scales in random order but I dont know, the guitar seems to be easier to play thinking about a couple of chord shapes.

Rather than having an altered scale I like to be in a melodic minor/minmaj mindset and then kind of go on a "move it down a major third" journey. I also dont think the root note matters, I like the tension and release concept. Major 6 chords or minor chords with the third on the bass? Same thing to me!

But hey I do play a scale sometimes. I call it an arpeggio like D minor 13

[Jonah]

[QUOTE]

I don't like to think scales because it confuses me. I think theyre important but they make me confused with too many choices and too little I can actually hear. Julian Lage talked about playing scales in random order but I dont know, the guitar seems to be easier to play thinking about a couple of chord shapes.

I see ttwo points here

1. What you say is common thing... and I suppose it is based on teh fact that we all look for the ways to do it easier way...

whereas accomplished professionals with 20-30 years of gigging (I do not say even great)... they usually speak about doing it in any way


Mostly they would specify their own preference... but again usually they can do it anyway... I saw it personally many times.. they say: some do it like this.. some play it like this ... and I play it like this - meanwhile he just played all the ways with almost the same speed accuracy musicality....


I think it's just time... you aggregate it live it through...

At the beginning it it like you just want to find a path in some unknow world... at teh end you are this world yourself... no path needed... it's all just you now.

it's really an endless journey... I remember when I was talking only about classical fingerings... (this and onbly this is efficient!) or then shapes was kind of discovery (oh this is how they do it!)... then scdales...
Then this fingering... that fingering... this slide that shift...

Once I told to one of the teacher: I play arpeggio with reference to... he almost interrupted me: ok ok... after all there should be no references, even nop arpeggio... just the sounds you want to hear right now.

Now I cannot say I am through (if it is ever possible)...
but more and more it seems just like it does not matter any more... now you feel you just begin more or less moving around without any maps or guidbooks just walking wherever you feel you want to go
Though as I said it is probably never-ending journey

2.
We should see the difference between musical theory and some practical tips players use... though both effect actul playing...
chord shapes is not theory it is a way to visualize concept on teh fretborad... maybe kind of physical approach..
but not a musical theory...
organizing scales in triads as many do, or just applying triads everywhere is not musical theory too.
after all you could actually relate scales to chord shapes to if you want...

Musical theory is first of all about listneing... it is how we hear music (being musicians or non-,usicians) and it does not matter for us he the player stack it in triads, or thisnk of chord shapes... we hear int all together and we hear musical relations.

But as I said these little player tricks could effect articulation and phrasing too

Visualization is different topic... guitar to me is mixed visual/non-visual instrument: one one hand you can see many things (more than trumpeter) but by far not like on piano or vibes, on another it is so complex that actually you just come to point that sometimes it is better not seeing it)))

I can play piano and sight-read so I mostly vizualize things not in chord shapes or whatever guitaristic things would be but as keyborad or abstract staff...

Finally I notice that visialization always gradully goes more and more on the background... usually you visualize concious things.. some new ideas or concept... but mostly you begin to do it directl 'hear and play'...

[Boston Joe]

But I never heard someone say you can move a 7#5 around in whole steps. Can you do the same thing with a 7b5?

Really? I've heard it a lot, from a lot of different sources. And yes on the 7b5 because the whole tone scale has that structure as well. But with the 7b5, you can also move it around in minor thirds because it's also found in the diminished scale.

The obvious implication of this - as someone mentioned above - is that any 7b5 can substitute for any other 7b5 provided that you mind your 9ths and 13ths. If the underlying harmony is fundamentally diminished, you wouldn't want to move up a whole step because you'll get a natural 9. But if it's fundamentally augmented, you're good.

[mokapot]

"What you say is common thing... and I suppose it is based on teh fact that we all look for the ways to do it easier way...

whereas accomplished professionals with 20-30 years of gigging (I do not say even great)... they usually speak about doing it in any way""

"We should see the difference between musical theory and some practical tips players use..."



Agreed that this is only an approach and not the only truth there is. And sooner or later I'll mostly likely have forgotten about it. But for now I am happy with this way of hearing stuff if that makes sense

[rintincop]

I could say that Barry Harris’s secret scale superimposed the backdoor scale (up a minor 3rd) over V7 and adds an additional note. This results in different phrases.
Bluntly stated: Play Bb7(Mixo) down from its 7th to B (added note) the 3rd of G7.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

I could say that Barry Harris’s secret scale superimposed the backdoor scale (up a minor 3rd) over V7 and adds an additional note. This results in different phrases.
Bluntly stated: Play Bb7(Mixo) down from its 7th to B (added note) the 3rd of G7.

I recently started working on the tune "On Green Dolphin" street and as with every new tune besides listening to as many different (especially vocal) versions as possible to learn melody, lyrics and form by heart I did a "scale outline" à la Barry Harris of the tune.

The basic chords in the B part (bars 9-16; "Green Dolphin Street supplies the setting ...") go [original key of C]

| D-7 | G7 | C | C | F-7 | Bb7 | Eb | Eb G7 |

Normally you would generalize the 2 bar II-Vs to "dominant scale up and down" ('mixolydian' up from the root to the seventh and back down to the root ending on 3 of the 2 bar phrase) but in this case the melody has both the b9 and the #9 of G7 as well as of Bb7 so that would clash with the melody.

So I ended up doing "G7 up" on D-7, "Bb7 down to the 3rd of G" on G7, then "C major up and down", "Bb7 up" on F-7, "Db7 down to the 2rd of Bb" and "Eb major up" and "G7 up" for the last two bars which suits the melody much better. [Alternatively you could do the tritones: "Db7 up" on G7 and "E7 up" on Bb7.]

[frabarmus]

I guess one page for educational purposes would not violate copyright:

Attachment 35152

What's the book?
Thanks.

[pamosmusic]

Otherwise people born after Jazz stopped, will be telling you what you should be playing... "Oh, have you heard Jack Shmuck? You should be playing like him." Meanwhile, they don't know Mingus from Armstrong.

I had a lesson once with a guy who is pretty well known for incorporating Balkan rhythms and additive meters into his own (super weird and modern) compositions.

I got ripped a new one for playing a wrong chord on It Could Happen to You. He told me “you can’t play this music if you don’t love this music.”

Which is to say that the people you’re talking about almost certainly know Mingus from Armstrong, even if that isn’t obvious to you from their music.

[ragman1]

“you can’t play this music if you don’t love this music.”.

He's not wrong. A bit brutal, perhaps, but very true.

[Christian Miller]

I had a lesson once with a guy who is pretty well known for incorporating Balkan rhythms and additive meters into his own (super weird and modern) compositions.

I got ripped a new one for playing a wrong chord on It Could Happen to You. He told me “you can’t play this music if you don’t love this music.”

Which is to say that the people you’re talking about almost certainly know Mingus from Armstrong, even if that isn’t obvious to you from their music.

now I’m wondering what that wrong chord was, and if I play and therefore deserve a good telling off.

[pamosmusic]

now I’m wondering what that wrong chord was, and if I play and therefore deserve a good telling off.

Eb E dim F min F# dim

should be

Eb - Gm7b5 C7 - F min - Am7b5 D7

so it wasn’t just a wrong chord … it was that it was a dead five away that I’d learned it from a real book and not from listening to the song.

Oops.

[pamosmusic]

He's not wrong. A bit brutal, perhaps, but very true.

Definitely not wrong. My point was just that even folks who we might think of as ultra modern and new fangled probably got there by knowing the tradition better than any of us ever will (and incorporating aspects of other traditions they know well, probably).

This was Brad Shepik too, for whatever that’s worth. He’s super nice, but he’s no joke on those tunes.

So “ripped a new one” is a better description of how it felt, than of how he said it. He’s very kind and a really good teacher. But that one cut DEEP

[Christian Miller]

Eb E dim F min F# dim

should be

Eb - Gm7b5 C7 - F min - Am7b5 D7

so it wasn’t just a wrong chord … it was that it was a dead five away that I’d learned it from a real book and not from listening to the song.

Oops.

Yeah I was wondering if it was that. I probably would have received the same bollocking all though I don’t think I learned it from the real book haha.

I do know the other ‘correct’ changes but don’t play them much. They do seem to be that way on most jazz recordings, and you’d definitely notice from playing it in a duo.

[Christian Miller]

Definitely not wrong. My point was just that even folks who we might think of as ultra modern and new fangled probably got there by knowing the tradition better than any of us ever will (and incorporating aspects of other traditions they know well, probably).

This was Brad Shepik too, for whatever that’s worth. He’s super nice, but he’s no joke on those tunes.

So “ripped a new one” is a better description of how it felt, than of how he said it. He’s very kind and a really good teacher. But that one cut DEEP

all the New York guys are like this in my experience regardless. Moreno would be the same, Kreisberg. Bernstein. Hundreds of people who aren’t well known internationally. Jordan from this forum, Adam on Youtube… Whoever, regardless of what music they are known for. New York is that environment. When they were coming up players like Brad would have got it in the neck from his teachers and mentors in the same way.

I mean we all listen to the same records but most of us I think have to be coached to pay real attention to the details and not approximate (something I’m not always the best at). Music is so much in the details once you get the basics together. So don’t feel bad, he’s just passing on what he got haha.

It depends who you run with. Tbh I could probably do with a bit more of that in my life. I don’t think players usually take the repertoire so seriously here. Sometimes I get my ass kicked on YouTube (usually by new Yorkers funnily enough.) Thanks for this weeks NY reminder.

I wholeheartedly agree that people who think those kinds of musicians don’t know this stuff have probably never dealt with professional jazz musicians of that level.

[pamosmusic]

all the New York guys are like this in my experience regardless. Moreno would be the same, Kreisberg. Bernstein.

Yeah … Yotam Silberstein posted a picture the other day of himself lighting a real book on fire, which is ………. Maybe a bit extreme?

And Bernstein blew me up on tunes once too. I don’t remember what I was doing wrong but I remember it was Like Someone In Love.

He was just like “I don’t think you really know this tune.” So that was fun.