The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 58
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    As a soloist I won't appreciate if the comp plays C7 where I expect a C9.
    You'd have hated it if Jim Hall or Bill Evans comped for you I don't think you'll find that very often in jazz records that the comper always puts a specific extension chorus after chorus for the soloist and I don't think soloists expect that. If that's what you expect when you solo that's fine but it's not given by any stretch that an experienced comper will do that naturally.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 01-12-2023 at 10:23 AM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by KirkP
    In my big band days I thought of the extensions on chord charts mostly as a reminder of what the horns were doing. I could do anything I wanted with the chords as long as I didn’t clash with the horns.
    thats pretty much how I treat them

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BWV
    Sure, and how common is a chromatic approach to a major 3rd? but I dont know how productive it would be to think about it as a #9

    But this piece starts with 3 11th chords, but Brahms was almost apologetic about the level of dissonance in his letter to Clara Schumann

    quite right too, naughty boy

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    "Listen"...when it's only a matter of using our ears, we wouldn't need any chord charts...Question is what information is required to capture the essence in a piece of music? ...That would depend on the music, the player and his instrument. A horn player is primarily interested in chord scales, but the comp is supposed to provide chords.
    Many legendary compositions could be reduced to nothing by chord substitution (and it happens all the time because of sloppy notation when people don't know the "right" chords).

    For example; the chord G/D is an inversion of the G-chord, but if we would write just "G" or "G- Ionian" essential information would be lost. The guitarist could play a root G-chord, but then must avoid the drone strings. The bass player is explicitly asked to play D.
    C7 and C9 share the same mixolydian chord scale, however they are not the same chords. They are different chords that may or may not be interchanged depending on context.

    As a soloist I won't appreciate if the comp plays C7 where I expect a C9.

    As an arranger I would never write C7 where I explicitly mean C9.

    Same thing with C13 (which on a six-string always means "add13"). When I write C13, you're not supposed to play C7. And C9M differs from C7M and so on.

    -Why is this important?

    Because the essence of music is harmony. In our time of Chord Scale Theory (CRT), people are confusing chord scales with chords. It's gone too far.
    Arrangement is one thing but soloing is another. In most mainstream jazz stuff, some space is left in the chords for the soloist. The extreme example is ‘blow on an F blues’ where players might have a different set of changes that they lay on top of each other (which i think adds texture.) So there is freedom for the comper as well (which as with all freedom comes with responsibility)

    an obvious example is that the changes for a big band blues tune can look really busy due to all the horn harmonies being reflected in the guitar part, but by the time you get to the solos it clears up.

    I enjoy specificity of harmony. As you say not all chords belonging to the same chord scale are musically fungible. In some style of contemporary jazz they are (Holdsworth springs to mind) but I don’t feel that there’s always a very specific musical choice being made in bill Evans comping for instance - it’s not like he’s saying - oh it’s a minor chord, any melodic minor voicing will do. He plays what is appropriate for the musical context within his own voice.

    which is why simply learning a bunch of voicings won’t add up to a coherent harmonic approach, of course, even for contemporary players who use a lot of intervallic chord scale stuff. We all know the players who have learned a bunch of fretboard harmony but have no idea how to actually comp. one aspect of this of course is allowing space for other players and for music to happen. Allan too tbf.

    (Personally I think classical harmony is useful for teaching the idea of harmonic logic even though stylistically you might not play that way at all in anger; Bill Evans seems to have done this.)

    But that’s why we study music and train our ears and sensibility instead of just theory, of course. Theory is always a simplification of reality.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 01-12-2023 at 08:28 AM.

  6. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    You'd have hated it Jim Hall or Bill Evans comped for you I don't think you'll find that very often in jazz records that the comper always puts a specific extension chorus after chorus for the soloist and I don't think soloists expect that. If that's what you expect when you solo that's fine but it's not given by any stretch that an experienced comper will do that naturally.
    Ha, when these chords are interchangeable (many times they are) I wouldn't mind. Bill and Jim would obviously handle the changes most delicately.

    Just curious; of all your "C7-shapes", do you default to C9 most of the time?

  7. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Arrangement is one thing but soloing is another. In most mainstream jazz stuff, some space is left in the chords for the soloist. The extreme example is ‘blow on an F blues’ where players might have a different set of changes that they lay on top of each other (which i think adds texture.) So there is freedom for the comper as well (which as with all freedom comes with responsibility)

    an obvious example is that the changes for a big band blues tune can look really busy due to all the horn harmonies being reflected in the guitar part, but by the time you get to the solos it clears up.

    I enjoy specificity of harmony. As you say not all chords belonging to the same chord scale are musically fungible. In some style of contemporary jazz they are (Holdsworth springs to mind) but I don’t feel that there’s always a very specific musical choice being made in bill Evans comping for instance - it’s not like he’s saying - oh it’s a minor chord, any melodic minor voicing will do. He plays what is appropriate for the musical context within his own voice.

    which is why simply learning a bunch of voicings won’t add up to a coherent harmonic approach, of course, even for contemporary players who use a lot of intervallic chord scale stuff. We all know the players who have learned a bunch of fretboard harmony but have no idea how to actually comp. one aspect of this of course is allowing space for other players and for music to happen. Allan too tbf.

    (Personally I think classical harmony is useful for teaching the idea of harmonic logic even though stylistically you might not play that way at all in anger; Bill Evans seems to have done this.)

    But that’s why we study music and train our ears and sensibility instead of just theory, of course. Theory is always a simplification of reality.
    Yes! good input.

    -How about you Christian, do you have a favorite go to "C7"? does it happen to be a C9?

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    Yes! good input.

    -How about you Christian, do you have a favorite go to "C7"? does it happen to be a C9?
    8 x 8 x x x

    or

    x 3 x 3 x x x

    :-)

    I also like

    x 1 2 x x x

    an awful lot

    you can build things on those. 9s are good

    8 x 8 7 x x
    X 1 2 x 3 x

    classic strayhorn type voicing (C9#11)
    8 x 8 7 7 x

    Peter Bernstein showed me a couple of Monk voicings that omitted the 3rd and since then I’ve been off 3rds. Leading tones are… well fine for Mozart.

    8 x 8 x 10 x
    or
    8 x 8 7 10 x

    sounds soooo much cooler than
    8 x 8 9 10 x

    but what are we talking about? Inverted dominants are a world of wonder (esp 3rd inversion) but it all depends what the bass and melody are doing.

    Apparently this is a C9 lol

    x 5 8 5 5 x

    And that’s not getting into altered dominants
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 01-12-2023 at 09:57 AM.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    Ha, when these chords are interchangeable (many times they are) I wouldn't mind. Bill and Jim would obviously handle the changes most delicately.

    Just curious; of all your "C7-shapes", do you default to C9 most of the time?
    Not sure. Probably more than I should. 9th voicings for dominant and minor chords are easy to grab on guitar and they sound good but I'm constantly working on expanding my comping style.

    One of my favorite ways to work on a tune is start with a chord anywhere on the fretboard and move up or down the fretboard every beat or every two beats voice leading to the next voicing or to the next chord. I try to find the voicings on the fly by thinking in terms of the movement of individual voices. This is almost like a chord melody so not a very realistic way of comping but these ideas do gradually start showing up in my playing in a more measured way.

    In terms of texture, I like shell voicings that contain root in low registers and play them more percussively; big, sustained voicings in middle registers and chordal phrases in high registers. I think this is mostly an instinctive thing though.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 01-12-2023 at 10:23 AM.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    I have long thought that the related iim of F7 (or F9) is Cm7. But this post has it as Bbm7. Can anyone explain the theory behind that, or is it a typo?
    Hey Rick... yes a typo. Sorry, I guess that shows how much I'm read...LOL But Bb-7 would be the related II-7 of Eb7 or the related bVII7 of F9 . Which would also have Sub Dom function.

    You could also think of that Bb-7 as part of a Chord Pattern.... / C-7 F9 / Bb-7 Eb7 / which could be used in a Latin Blues in F.

    That's part of what I was trying to imply.... what extensions one uses can have musical organization and implications. The color thing is usually just cover for keeping it simple...

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    thats pretty much how I treat them
    I've noticed that the extensions of the chord in the guitar chart reflect the horns (as the earlier post indicates). If I can play the exact voicing specified, it will sound good. If I play just third and seventh it will sound pretty good. But, what I can't do is play a different alteration.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    To me the difference is that the 5 is part of a basic triad and anticipated in any chord, the 9 is not.
    You could also say the perfect 5th is strongly there in the overtones of the root, the 9th not so much.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    I've noticed that the extensions of the chord in the guitar chart reflect the horns (as the earlier post indicates). If I can play the exact voicing specified, it will sound good. If I play just third and seventh it will sound pretty good. But, what I can't do is play a different alteration.
    Yep, definitely.

    For trad big band stuff that's kind of academic because you are most often playing Freddie Green style voicings (actually George van Eps voicings but that's another story) so you will be playing 1 3 5 6 or 7 and pretty much ignoring anything beyond the 7th.

    For more modern big band repertoire it becomes more of an issue; but for that stuff I'll be paying much more specific attention to the alterations, and working carefully with the piano.

    NB: I usually do big band gigs with a piano, but without a piano it's a different story.

  14. #38
    It's brought to my attention that some people write C7#11 (Lydian b7) when they actually mean C9(no 5).
    The logic appears to be that since the natural 5 and #11 would clash in a chord, you simply drop both the 5 and its alteration and play the 9 instead. In other words, by this vocabulary the chord C7#11 doesn't contain any #11 at all, but a 9 (!)

    Why on Gods gray earth would anyone go to such great length and confuse matters? Well, because these people believe in a religion that proclaims that the 9th chord doesn't exist.

    This is when theory gets silly

  15. #39
    Exhibit: George Gershwin's "Love is Here to Stay"
    Here interpreted in Bb-Major by Billie Holiday & Co in the legendary "Ben Webster sessions" featuring Barney Kessel on guitar. A simple and beautiful song where it's easy to "use your ears".



    Opening chord is C9 (V7/V) for a full bar. Melody goes 9 -> 7b

    Play C7 like X 3 5 3 5 3 or 8 10 8 9 8 8 and you'll get fired.
    But if you play like Christian X 3 X 3 X X or X 3 2 3 X X maybe you could stay...

    But then why not X 3 2 3 3 X (=C9) and it's all there under your fingertips as Joe Pass would have said.

    Why anyone would write C7 here is beyond comprehension. In older charts you'll find the 9th-chord, but AI software charts would most likely have a plain 7th-chord to confuse students.

    In this exhibit it's easy to hear that the opening chord gravitates to 9 as it's in the melody. So use your ears, pick a suitable voicing and stay away from the usual "bread and butter" guitaristic C7 variants that sound awful in the context.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JCat
    Exhibit: George Gershwin's "Love is Here to Stay"
    Here interpreted in Bb-Major by Billie Holiday & Co in the legendary "Ben Webster sessions" featuring Barney Kessel on guitar. A simple and beautiful song where it's easy to "use your ears".


    Opening chord is C9 (V7/V) for a full bar. Melody goes 9 -> 7b

    Play C7 like X 3 5 3 5 3 or 8 10 8 9 8 8 and you'll get fired.
    But if you play like Christian X 3 X 3 X X or X 3 2 3 X X maybe you could stay...

    But then why not X 3 2 3 3 X (=C9) and it's all there under your fingertips as Joe Pass would have said.

    Why anyone would write C7 here is beyond comprehension. In older charts you'll find the 9th-chord, but AI software charts would most likely have a plain 7th-chord to confuse students.

    In this exhibit it's easy to hear that the opening chord gravitates to 9 as it's in the melody. So use your ears, pick a suitable voicing and stay away from the usual "bread and butter" guitaristic C7 variants that sound awful in the context.
    I tend not to compartmentalize chords and melody. Melody is just one of the voices of the arrangement. So if D is the melody voice and you harmonize it with C-E-Bb in the lower registers, what do you get?

    Yes, you can double the D on the guitar, but that's just a different texture for the same musical information if you think of it like a small orchestra.

  17. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    I tend not to compartmentalize chords and melody. Melody is just one of the voices of the arrangement. So if D is the melody voice and you harmonize it with C-E-Bb in the lower registers, what do you get?

    Yes, you can double the D on the guitar, but that's just a different texture for the same musical information if you think of it like a small orchestra.
    That's fine. But then maybe you like to take a solo and it's right there under your fingertips. C9.
    Listen to Barney's solo...so melodic. Beautiful.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    In figured bass, is the 9th chord and it’s inversions a thing?

    2/3/7
    6/5/7
    4/3/7
    2/6/7 ?

    playing around with the 4th inversion (9th in the bass), resolving to I 6/4

    x0300x - 3x201x- to V or whatever

    probably could find that in Bach somewhere

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Well we're getting into the philosophical woods here, because figured bass doesn't recognise the concept of inversions... So ... ?

    Shrugs

    EDIT: this is what I mean when I say that God made in the intervals, and everything else is the work of Man.

    Functional harmony and the concept of theoretical roots is story told about how the intervals behave; so in this case it could be an interpretation but it Schoenberg et al didn’t feel it was a thing, maybe it’s marginal?

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Well we're getting into the philosophical woods here, because figured bass doesn't recognise the concept of inversions... So ... ?

    Shrugs

    EDIT: this is what I mean when I say that God made in the intervals, and everything else is the work of Man.

    Functional harmony and the concept of theoretical roots is story told about how the intervals behave; so in this case it could be an interpretation but it Schoenberg et al didn’t feel it was a thing, maybe it’s marginal?
    sure, but it’s hard to unlearn and this language is understood by most people trained in classical theory. Thought has crossed my mind to erase the Roman numerals my son and his piano teacher wrote on his copy of K545, but don’t think it would be particularly constructive.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BWV
    sure, but it’s hard to unlearn and this language is understood by most people trained in classical theory. Thought has crossed my mind to erase the Roman numerals my son and his piano teacher wrote on his copy of K545, but don’t think it would be particularly constructive.
    haha

    no Roman numerals are great. Like all tools they are fantastic when used in the right situation and no bloody help at all when used for the wrong application. The problem only sets in when people start talking about these things as if they are the laws of physics or something… (iirc Schoenberg can be a bit like this)

    The only thing that’s unarguable are the notes and intervals…. multiple understandings exist for any piece of music.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller

    The only thing that’s unarguable are the notes and intervals...
    So Jazz forums must be free of the intonation / tuning fanatics that launch endless diatribes about just/meantime/equal temperament on classical music boards?

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BWV
    So Jazz forums must be free of the intonation / tuning fanatics that launch endless diatribes about just/meantime/equal temperament on classical music boards?
    oh don’t…. Mind you I once spent a week playing a lute in one of those sweet temperaments where everything is pretty bang on so long as you stick only to G (not a problem for the hey nonny no shit) and all your frets are set hilariously wonky

    i picked up a guitar after a week of this and it sounded hideous

    largely though I’m the sort of phillistine who thinks ‘that harpsichord’s out of tune bro’

    That said, it’s a theory of mine that extended modal harmony works because of equal temperament - you need well intonated fifths more than well intonated thirds and ET happens to have them.

    So I think jazzers tend not to think about intonation in general. Jacob Collier does obv…

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    hey Jcat...

    So the thing as Christian labeled .."Harmonic Logic" when he was talking about how Classical Harmony which becomes Maj/Min Functional Harmony... I really like that term... Harmonic Logic....

    Anyway... that would need to have some type of Musical Reference ...from which the logic would be developed.

    Chord Labels... as I mentioned above, have implications. And those implications have References, musical references, even if we don't hear them.

    Part of playing chords or implying the Harmony for a melody, soloist or an arranged melodic whatever... is using the references, which have musical organization. Such as notating or playing a C9 chord.

    There are differences between how we actually play that chord or expand and develop that 9th chord in a context and what is harmonically implied by the context.

    One is technical skills of playing that chord and developing it.... and the other is using those technical skills within
    the Harmonic Context and it's implied guidelines. Or as Christian termed... the Harmonic Logic of the tune, style and it's implied musical organization.

    The common problem for most guitarist is... first they haven't developed the technical skills of playing Chord Patterns and how to use implied Harmonic Rhythm for developing those chord patterns. Which includes actual technical skills of how to voice chords in context. What to play ...and how and where to play those notes. Generally playing from the top and bottom inward. With lead lines or melodic figures or licks on top... imply harmony.

    And then there is that Harmonic Rhythm thing.... the simple version, using Rhythmic patterns that repeat or imply repeat and reflect the harmonic rhythm. Harmonic rhythm isn't just the chords... it's where the chords are played and expanded with Chord patterns, usually within a subdivided versions of the basic rhythm implied from style and tune. And this needs to all be organized within the Form of the tune. The rhythmic and harmonic logic, (I like that Term), needs to all be developed from the basic starting Reference.

    The this doesn't mean you need to over play, part of those technical and performance technical skills are being aware of where the the tune starts and where it can go in the context... which allows one to be in the moment.

    Personally I generally use Harmonic Function as overall organizational guideline. And use melodic figures, (licks which reflect the style and tune), on top of Chord patterns which also reflect the style and tune.

    Chord Patterns allow typical functional analysis to be able to expand and create more possible choices through use of.... Harmonic Target usage ...within the implied Harmonic Rhythm.

    Obviously all this BS is one of the reasons we want to dump the theory thing and just develop our language. But it's still there...

    Here's a vid of a version of Tune up.... I used that acoustic at gig last night... anyway I'm using chord patterns and harmonic rhythm within the simple form. (the vid sucks, but I like the approach or expansion.)


  25. #49
    Hey Reg, nice playing

    You know chord charts or lead sheets are used by musicians to get a picture of the music at hand. (I'm not talking about strumming the same voicing up and down). The comp is supposed to provide a foundation for a soloist playing the melody (or maybe we are performing solo chord melody); we need to know the basic chord progression before we can improvise and express ourselves within that frame work. Only when we know the changes we could make conscious substitutions. We need to rely on someone playing the changes, right? If we don't have a swing band, a piano or a guitar backing us up, we need to do it ourselves....In worst case we would have to abide the computer playing C7.

    If I could count the hours I've spent to correct the changes, to get the harmony right...I remember, as a kid, trying to make sense of lead sheets that sounded nothing like the record. Then I remember my early days playing in a swing band, how I was trying to make sense of hieroglyphic guitar chord symbols (of which some I haven't figured out till this day) and how I was cheating my way through the charts to stay afloat.

    Students (we are all students on some level) like to expand vocabulary and expression. We practice technique, we listen, we study theory, listen, learn songs, listen, write songs, listen, rehearse with the band, listen, perform and listen. We train our ears and our muscle memory, we train our understanding of musical languages to be able to improvise and express ourselves. For as long as we live and breathe.

    "There are differences between how we actually play that chord or expand and develop that 9th chord in a context and what is harmonically implied by the context."

    True, but isn't this where C7#11 becomes unnecessary complicated? Anyone can learn a C9 (no5) or a G7add13 and internalize the sound. I never came across the C7#11 chord symbol until later in life. I can't imagine what a beginner would make out of it, but I'm sure he would probably just play C7 (that's what I would have done, cheating my way through the swing band charts. I wasn't even a beginner player, but I didn't know theory).

    The example I posted above, "Love is Here to Stay" (ranked top 50 of >1000 jazz standards) is Gershwin's final composition before he passed in 1937. That's a long time ago. (George was obviously unaware of how his song was going to be interpreted years later). He most likely didn't even use chord symbols, what's important is the sound of the changes.

    Another song among the all time greatest is "Take the A-train" (#23 of >1000), it's recognized by the second chord, a D9 when in the key of C-major. Here, one could actually include the #11 in the chord as it's in the melody, and most charts today call for a D7#11. That's all right, still it's not a plain D7 chord. The #11 is bluesy note that sounds cool together with a D9, that's all.

    Look, guitar players cannot play piano voicings (we can't play two simultaneous notes on the same string), so we need to develop a toolbox of voicings that sounds particularly good on guitar. Marc Knopfler sang "Guitar George, he knows all the chords". I'm sure he knew a few voicings of the C9 but I doubt he'd ever heard about the C7#11.

  26. #50
    One of the great names in jazz that has inspired me is Hoagy Carmichael. I'm not sure if he saw himself as a jazzer, but his song writing is so important for the development of jazz in the years that followed. Hoagy knew how to make use of the 9th-chord. -Did he write chord symbols? I don't know, it's the sound that matters. "Rocking Chair", 1929, is a good example that relies heavily on the 9th. This was one of Louis Armstrong's favorite tunes that he performed frequently throughout his career.

    The 9th chord is bread and butter in jazz. We should not pretend that it doesn't exist and make students play C7 because it's the same mixo scale.
    Being just a step away from the root, the 9 is ambiguous, possibly even dissonant to some ears. It takes some time to get used to perhaps. It's just blues you know, nothing fancy. What kills it is when somebody plays the 3rd a step above the 9.