-
Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
05-31-2024 02:48 PM
-
Originally Posted by JimmyDunlop
Bm7/A Cmaj9 Am/E Am/E } ----- D9 D9/C G6/B D7/A} -----Gmaj9 C6/F# Am/E C/E}----- Am7/G Am7 D7/B C6/G }
-
Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Originally Posted by JimmyDunlop
Unless you are bass guy like our Jim. I like the cut of his jib.
In practice to me it’s sounds so different from the root position ii V I that I don’t think of them as really being the same thing, even though in terms of the notes in the chords - they are the same.
Anyway, riddle me this, what kind of terrible monster would combine this
G G+ Cm/G G
with
F6b5 E7 Am
and then
Cm
There ought to be a law against it!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Originally Posted by Mick-7Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Last edited by Jim Soloway; 06-01-2024 at 01:26 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
In any case what I feel have learned from figured bass is that the concept of root is theoretical. It has no concrete existence beyond being a theoretical concept to unite a set of apparently diverse sonorities which may be useful, for example Rameau’s ‘fundamental bass’ that we today call ‘roots’.
This is something I had to unlearn because we learn roots from day one. Anything not in root position is a slash chord and hence a special case. For CPE Bach (and by extension his dad£ this would have seemed absurd (although Bach did have the concept of inversions he did not accept Rameau’s ideas). Bach understood the harmonic world as being contextual and normative not theoretical. Do this when the 6 4 chord moves this way, do this when it moves another way.
But it’s way we organise our music today because inversion is often down to the initiative of the bass player. AC/DC and Megadeth being of course obvious examples. The guitar is playing an A5 power chord and the bass played C#. That kind of thing. Slash chord, baby.
Anyway in the real world we write chords down in the way that seems most familiar, no? I would write Cm6/Eb (or maybe Am7b5/Eb) not because I think that’s the best way to write that chord but because that’s what I’ve seen in charts.
But this uncertainty in my head whether to write Am7b5 because of the root progresion in fourths which is theoretically satisfying or Cm6 because it looks less cluttered to me and something something Barry Harris mumble mumble shows how theoretical this whole thing can be. Rameau thought it was all physics of course; a man of the Enlightenment with all the good and bad that came with it…
Eb6b5 neatly sidesteps all of this guff.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
I suppose one could argue that the removal of the leading tone C# renders the function of the chord to be no longer dominant. subdominant. Em in the key of C is a dominant function according to Reimann and so on (it has the B.)
If I understood, in your example it’s standing in for a dominant so its function is normative. I think most jazz musicians mean function in this sense. It a practical definition, not a closed theoretic one. More like the way grammar of a language evolves rather than some immutable fact of nature the way Rameau and his followers imagined it.
(There’s a lot of this grammatical evolution in jazz that I’d love to track more. How exactly did the maj7 go from being a chord that needed to be prepared and resolved in earlier jazz to being considered a consonant tonic chord for example?)
So it’s not a cut and dried concept. You are distilling some aspect of it being different and another of it being the same. So it’s subjective, not objective. And that’s kind of interesting. I think subjectivity is underrated.Last edited by Christian Miller; 06-01-2024 at 03:16 PM.
-
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
To relate to and I guess flip over what Jim said, we chromatically alter the 6th raising the 6th and you have French Sixth/Tritone sub/whatever moving to the dominant of IIm. Which is Realbook Days of Wine and Roses. The original chord is the one Michael discusses in the video. Which Schumann stole from the Bee Gees, of course.
The augmented sixth idea is more contrapuntal. So we have in F, C C# D. But I think most jazz guitarists would voicelead the C# to C. Which is bluesy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
-
Originally Posted by JimmyDunlop
Christian asked: "Anyway, riddle me this, what kind of terrible monster would combine this: G G+ Cm/G G, with F6b5 E7 Am, and then Cm."
Maybe a very stoned Willie Nelson? (i.e., more so than his usual state of intoxication).
-
Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
D7b5 with 6th lowered = D-F#-G#-B. Ab7b5 (6th lowered) = Ab-C-D-F.
P.S. - Perhaps you mean, lower the 9th of a dominant 9th chord with no root?
Example: Ab7 (no root) = C-Gb-Bb-Eb, lowering the 9th (Gb/F#) gives you: D7 = C-F#-A-Eb - or vice versa (raise the 5th of the D7 = D7#5b9).
Yes, that must be it, in your last post you said: "If I'm going from D9 to Ab7b5," but this is the same as Ebm6-Ab7b9.Last edited by Mick-7; 06-01-2024 at 05:45 PM.
-
If we want to skip formal study of music theory that defines functional harmony very specifically, we can say that function pretty much comes down to what the listener hears. Separating function from chord-spelling can aid in adopting this mindset; i.e. chords are "sound colors" and spelling a chord slightly differently does not necessarily prevent it from adopting a particular function.
For example if you play D- G7 C, the listener hears G7 having a dominant function because it is V leading strongly to I.
If you sub the tritone of G7 and play D- Db7 C, the Db7 has a dominant function, as well, even though it is not the V chord in the key.
So lets say you play these progressions a few times to set up the listener's ear to expect that G or Db chord to be a dominant-functioning chord that leads to I. Then, for a little variety, you play Dbma7 instead of Db7 or G7; i.e. D- Dbma7 C. The listener still hears that Dbma7 as leading strongly to I; i.e., it functions as a dominant even though it is not a dominant sonority (maj triad with minor 7th.)
Similarly, you could swap in G-7 for G7 after setting up the listener to hear that spot in the progression as a dominant, and they'd hear G-7 function as a dominant, even though it is not a dominant sonority; i.e. D- G-7 C. (Not a great example, since G-7 would be the v in c natural minor, but we still hear it going to I [borrowed from the parallel major], even without the leading tone that harmonic minor would give us.)
TBH, the setup may not even be all that necessary, as a lifetime of listening to pop, rock and jazz have conditioned modern listeners' ears not to hear out-of-key chords and non-functional harmony as "weird" or "wrong."
-
Originally Posted by Mick-7
D7b5 at the 10th fret = D-X-C-F#-Ab=X
lower the 7th and you get D-X-B-F#-Ab-X
It is technically no longer a dominant because it no longer has a flatted 7th but it now has no 7th at all so it's status as a dominant is no longer really defined and the context will determine how the ear hears it. As a passing chord from the Ab7 leading to the Dbmaj7, the ear will it as a dominant.
-
Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
But I suspect you're using good substitutes but misunderstanding the theory behind them, i.e., you know what to play but not necessarily why you play it. I did that for many years, didn't understand the theory behind a lot of what I played until much later.
-
Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
-
Originally Posted by Mick-7
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLast edited by Christian Miller; 06-02-2024 at 06:56 AM.
-
Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
So you have Eb/G or Db/G on a G7 instead of a G7b9b13 or G7b5b9 for example. Or Bmaj7#5 etc.
Making functional changes less functional I guess
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
hey Jimmy get yourself a copy of Standardized Chord Symbol Notation. It's cheap and is standard starting point for notation concepts.
Standard Chord symbols and starting guidelines for notation and what the notation implies. gets into Compound and Polytonal as well as Quartal notation.
Is what most music programs, fakebooks etc... start with.
It's not complicated....
-
Originally Posted by Reg
-
Originally Posted by JimmyDunlop
The entire purpose of books like the one Reg recommends is to lay out the common practice so that a composer can communicate their ideas clearly
-
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Chuck Sher's Jazz Radio Show - Tonight! 7-11 PM...
Today, 12:20 PM in Everything Else