-
True, what if there’s another lockdown and you need some toilet paper?
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
mostly I use the old real book for sight reading practice. (This is what we have in the UK instead of learning music properly btw.) there’s some interesting tunes in there which I might learn properly one day.
I mean I guess one takeaway is don’t go to Pete with a tune you aren’t sure you know? (Although you probably thought you knew it before right? Haha)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.
He’s mr repertoire anyway. A friend saw him play a whole solo gig of Cedar Walton tunes the day Cedar passed away. It’s just on another level.
I suppose the way I’d look at it is that it’s important to play something you feel connected to and motivated enough to really check out rather than something from the jazz school repertoire list that you were told to learn. I don’t know about you but I have a lot of tunes in that category lol. But there are tunes I know in a lot more depth.
professional musicians obviously often have to do things they don’t really care for with a high level of detail and precision of course, and I’m sure Pete knows even the tunes he doesn’t care for to a very high level; but while may not all end up knowing thousands of tunes and be able to play them at the drop of a hat, surely we can all find things to play that we care about?
moreno makes a similar point as well.
-
05-27-2023 10:54 AM
-
Yeah he’s next level even by that standard. And you got that right … I did think I knew it. Whoops. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
And to be fair, I do love all those old tunes. I’d rather learnt he obscure American songbook tunes than the sixties hard bop stuff. So I guess I should learn them correctly
-
yeah… learning a tune is a journey. It can take years to drill down into stuff. I think at least if you are using your ears and you make mistakes they are your mistakes as opposed to mistakes a Berklee student made 50 years ago or something. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Yeah he’s next level even by that standard. And you got that right … I did think I knew it. Whoops.
And to be fair, I do love all those old tunes. I’d rather learnt he obscure American songbook tunes than the sixties hard bop stuff. So I guess I should learn them correctly
-
I don't quite understand this thread. Your original post seems to conflate two unrelated things and the whole discussion seems to have drifted away and become buried under a mound of technicalities. Originally Posted by mokapot
First, tritones 'work' because they share the same notes. Only the roots change and don't clash with each other. But not ordinary dominant chords, only 7b5's.
7b5's a tritone apart share exactly the same notes, which ordinary dominants don't. Not 7#11's, because a 7#11 properly still contains the original 5th of the chord with the #11 added on top as a colour note.
So A7b5 (A C# Eb G) and Eb7b5 (Eb G A Db) have identical notes only in a different order. Generally, what can be played over one can be played over the other, dependent on context, which is not to say they sound the same.
Nor are tritones a m3rd apart, they're not. They're actually a m6 apart but that's besides the point. So the m3rd idea has nothing to do with the interchangeability of tritones.
-----------------
However, the notes of diminished chords are a m3rd apart.
The notes of A diminished, for example, are A C Eb F#. That certainly contains two tritones, A/Eb and C/F#, but it has not much to do with 7b5 chords.
The dominants of those four notes can be linked by thinking of them as 7b9's but it's tenuous because the roots clash. Dom7b9's can't be substituted for each other like diminished chords can.
There are two possible substitutes using those dominants. One is the 'backdoor' substitute. So A7 - DM7 can be replaced with C7 - DM7.
Also Eb7 if it's used as a tritone, so Em7 - Eb7b5 - DM7 is good.
But F#7 doesn't really work at all.
Hope that's clear :-)
-
It's sad to see that some posts are claiming that theory ends here... Well, it doesn't. There's a perfectly rational theoretical reason for the substitutions that use the next higher frets, but you have to know the theory behind it to make it work, because not all chord qualities or frets work out right. It's just not that simple. If one tries such a thing as playing chords on any fret, the audience would go home early.
But to explain the theory here would only end up in endless squabbles with those who want to believe that there is no theory. They are the atheists of music... I posted earlier but had to remove it when I caught a troll. I'm only posting this so that any beginners who come across this thread won't get discouraged. Understand that there is a theory here that encompasses countless chord substitutions. Yes, almost every chord can sub for another and you get a good sound, a different sound, but you can't just do it willy-nilly. There's a method. They knew it at the turn of the century, but it seemed to die out with the banjoists in jazz. It took me years to figure it out in my spare time. It even explains the Barry Harris stuff. There must be quite a few others on the forum here that know it too, but they never seem to speak of it. Maybe it's a teachers' secret.
Keep working at it and you will find gold. Avoid those who think that we can play anything, anywhere and get away with it. NSJ is very close, but folks keep arguing with him.Last edited by StringNavigator; 05-28-2023 at 12:18 AM.
-
So I think you’re missing some things here. Originally Posted by ragman1
F#7 can absolutely work as a substitution for A7. It’s a bit of a black sheep, but people use it. And the reason is what you describe — the common tones implied by the diminished relationship hiding inside dominant chords that are minor thirds apart. It seems like you’re getting a little hung up on the theory adding up too perfectly. For example, you’re correct about the 7b5s a tritone apart having the same notes but I’m not sure why you say regular dominants don’t work. They work just fine.
A C# E G … Eb G Bb Db (C#).
The latter implies a #11b9 sound over the former. It’s weird, but it works. Part of what I think you’re missing is that diminished substitution is tied to a diminished scale, which has *eight* notes, not seven. That means that you can get really unusual clashes that wouldn’t make sense in some contexts, but which would still make sense in the context of this kind of substitution.
A Bb C C# D# E F# G A
Gives a b9 and a #9 which is weird. It gives a b5 (or #11) and natural 5. It gives you a natural 6 along with those altered tensions. It’s weird, but gives you some awesome sounds. So for that reason regular old Eb7 absolutely does work as a sub for A7, as do C7 and F#7.
You add the corresponding ii chord in with the dominant chord just for some added flavor.
Theory and practice are a bit fuzzy and jazz really loves to take theoretical concepts and find that middle ground where they shouldn’t work but the ear still follows them. One iron clad rule of harmony for example is that half-diminished chords can’t be tonicized — but tell that to the last eight measures of Stella by Starlight.
-
First of all, I'm not arguing with anybody, I'm just stating stuff. It's up to you.
Frankly, I'm inclined to say the whole idea of using a diminished chord as a basis for dominant subs may be seriously suspect. A good theorist can invent almost anything, like statistics.
F#7 does not resolve in the example I gave. That's not theory, it's a simple fact. You can say, relative to the A7, that F# is the 13, Bb is the b9, and C# and E are already in the chord. Therefore it works!
It doesn't. F#7 - DM7 is musical nonsense. Play it and see.
To make it work you'd have to put an A bass on it. Then you could claim you are hearing an A13b9. But that's not what was being floated, nor is it an F#7 any longer.
-
I'll tell you what does work in relation to m3rds. Minor 3rds are the basis of diminished chords, not dominant chords. Nor are diminished chords the same as 7b9's.
Playing the ii of a dominant is a recognised sub. It provides acceptable upper structures, so Dm7 over G7 is pleasant. Move the Dm up a m3rd and you have Fm. That also works because it gives, relative to G7, the b9, 11 and b13. Playing F melodic minor over G7 resolves very neatly to CM7.
Move the Fm up a m3rd to Abm and use Ab melodic minor and you have the altered scale. As we know.
But to say substitute Db7, E7 or Bb7 for the G7 is very dubious. Dominants are not minor chords. The Bb7 before the CM7 might sound okay because it's bluesy but you can't just shove them in anywhere.
-
I didn’t mean to offend you. This is just pretty settled theory. Originally Posted by ragman1
F# - F#
A# - A
C# - C#
E - D
The voice-leading is quite smooth.
Anyway, this isn’t really much of a question. This is a kind of weird theoretical concept, but diminished substitution has been pretty standard practice in jazz for a very very long time. I mentioned that the dominant chord a minor third down from the V is kind of an oddball one, but the minor third up is everywhere:
Just Friends, I Should Care, Lady Bird, Stella, Yardbird Suite, Time After Time, etc.
And as for the minor third down … Cecil Alexander says he uses it all the time, so if it’s good enough for him it’s probably good enough for me.
It’s fine if you don’t care for the sound, but that doesn’t really make it nonsense.
Anyway … as you were.
EDIT: an excerpt from “Jazzology.”
-
Also it’s worth mentioning that chord substitution is not the same as an upper structure. I fell into the same trap up there.
Upper structure would be to use a related chord to imply an extension of the same chord.
Substitution would be to actually sub out one chord for another that can function in a similar way.
Though I guess to be fair I use the concepts kind of interchangeably in practice.
-
I know the theory backwards, have done for years. I'm only interested in what works in practice. Not all of it does. Of that there's no doubt. I didn't say don't do it, I said they can't just be shoved in anywhere.
-
Happy Birthday:
C - G7 - % - C
C7 - F - C/G7 - C
1) G7 and C7
2) Db7 and A7
3) Bb7 and F#7
4) E7 and Eb7
I suppose if you like it, you like it :-)
-
I don’t know man. Originally Posted by ragman1
Sounds pretty hip to me.
-
Pardon the Jazz Face. Tried to put a bunch of those m3 up and m3 down things in there, but it’s early on a Sunday morning so I was hunting.
-
That's what I was worried about :-)Sounds pretty hip to me.
This is one way I'd possibly do it:
C6 - Bm7b5 - Do - CM7
Bbo - FM7 - G7/Db7b5 - C6
-
Nice lines but, personally, I can't tell without a backing whether it's 'connecting' or not. Others might be able to. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
I accept this trade off. Originally Posted by ragman1
But really the idea is how the theory works in practice so “nice lines” is sort of the name of the game.
And if you had a track you would hear the same lines but probably hear all the Weird a bit more. Which isn’t necessarily in good taste. Subs like these build tension and that isn’t always what the situation calls for.
So you said you can’t shove these subs in any place you want, and honestly I probably disagree.
It might be more correct to say you can’t shove these subs in any *time* you want.
I don’t know. Anyway … thank you for the birthday wishes (early though they are).
-
I'm posting this for any beginning JG's who may stumble across this thread and not to become part of the unabashed exhibitionism and jousting preceding it.
Jazz guitarists need to listen carefully, especially when using these subs, and arrange the harmony to fit the given melody. Otherwise, it will sound sour. If you choose a chord substitution, listen to the melody to avoid confusion.
You can't blindly use chord subs; or should I say, "deafly". You must pay attention to voicing, inversions, bass notes, top notes, extensions, alterations... In fact, you may have to reduce before you can embellish. Otherwise, you can end up with Unhappy Birthday.
Of course, you could work R's-backwards and alter the melody to fit the subs, but then you're well on your way to composing a new song... Depends on your goal. Depends on whether your ensemble or bandleader will ever let you use a substitution. Often you're stuck with the stack you're given...
Listen to pianists. Unlike most guitarists, they take voice leading seriously. They select voicings that invite the soloist or vocalist in. They don't just follow some manual muscle habit or use a diminished sub to prove a point. One needs to be responsible as an accompaniment musician. Even as a soloist. In the past, 90% of guitarists spent 90% of their bandstand time on chording. Today, guitarists only want to noodle their way through a tune. They call it improvising...
Always start with the melody first. Then arrange the harmony to suit it and support it.
Use your ear.
The banjoists at the turn of the century were masters of diminished chords and the subs that they present. We should never forget that the jazz guitar style was born from the jazz banjo. Many of the top jazz guitarists were banjoists first.
Give a listen. You can easily lose your heading when you don't know where you came from.
If you could only research NSJ's post No.21, you'd find that diminished subs require a specific inversion... Any inversion won' do, but one will sound best. Always ask yourself if you can then perform this before an audience. Not all of us want to sound like we dropped a quarter million at Berklee.
::Last edited by StringNavigator; 05-28-2023 at 01:09 PM.
-
I’ve noticed Berklee is very unpopular on this forum
-
Does that include the posters who actually went there? :-)
-
Somebody probably already did this, but I didn't read the entire thread.
Against C7:
Eb7 is Eb G Bb Db, or #9 5 b7 b9. So, you get the altered ninths sound.
Gb7 is Gb Bb Db E or, #11 b7 b9 and 3. Tritone sound.
A7 is A Db E G or, 6 b9, 3 and 5. That's kind of a 13b9 sound.
From another point of view, what note doesn't work over a C7? The options are R b9 9 #9 11 #11 5 b13 13 b7 and nat7. Of those, the nat7 is probably worth avoiding (although Wes has played it) and the 11 might lose the dominant sound if you're not a little careful, although C7sus works quite often.
If we decide that we're only going to avoid Bnat against C7, then there are 4 seventh chords to avoid. B7 G7 Db7 and E7. The others are going to work. What are they?
D7: D F# A C, or 9 #11 6 b7.
F7: F A C Eb or 11 6 b7 #9 -- the 11 is the questionable one.
Ab7: Ab C Eb Gb or b13 R #9 #11.
Bb7: Bb D F Ab or b7 9 11 b13.
How useful this this? Not very, unless you learn the sounds and their applications one at a time and get them into your ears and your playing.
The point of looking at it this way is that there are four that sort of don't work and all the rest kind of do work.
-
Berklee grads all seem to be able to play… I have one in my quartet. sometimes they say things that make you think ‘what?’ like stuff they don’t teach and ways of doing things that seem very convoluted. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
If I had to say it - I think people confuse the influential Berklee syllabus with the value of Berklee as a concentration of talent and knowledge where it’s always been up there. And it has a lot of great teachers (including some like Richie Hart who are pretty down on stuff like chord scales.) you probably end up learning as much from the students too…
Barry referred to it as ‘that dumb old school’ probably because they invited him to teach there once, he told the students that everything they were being taught was wrong and was, strangely enough, not invited back.
The syllabus - as in the theoretical information - in isolation is often, well, not that much use imo, and open to critique. But tbf info is rarely the most important aspect of music edu. And the syllabus represents one person or set of people’s choices as to what to emphasise and how to present it.
Jordan Klemons talks about the ‘jazz industrial complex’ … ah it’s complicated
-
Two pages of a book, 106 and 107. If the other pages are as dense as these, that's a lot of information. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
I find that I can only learn these things one sound at a time. I have to get that sound in my ears in the context of different tunes and then work out how to access it on the fingerboard. These two pages encompass dozens of options, which leads me to wonder about pages 1-105 and how many pages there are in the entire book.
What I end up with is feeling overwhelmed and I go back to finding sounds based on tunes in a much less organized, but more manageable, way.
Apparently, others are much more successful with the combinatorics approach.
As far as Berklee goes, I would imagine that the full immersion nature of the program would be immensely valuable, although perhaps emotionally challenging. The academics can't hurt unless you neglect other material.
-
Ha! Yeah … it’s definitely dense, but then … it’s a theory textbook. So it’s not exactly enjoyable reading. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
And I’m with you on the one sound at a time kind of thing. Or maybe a small group of sounds? Too much to get to if I don’t focus on stuff that sounds good to me, I guess.
-
That, he does. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Reply With Quote
2 new & excellent Jazz Comping Truefire...
Yesterday, 10:22 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions