The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Posts 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    Extreme newbie question here. Be gentle with me.

    This progression is noted everywhere in course materials.

    Coming from the pop/folk/light rock world, this progression seems odd to me.

    Why is this progression used and stressed in Jazz?

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    ii is the Jazz IV, and IV V I is common in pop, etc...

  4. #3
    Thanks. Why then does the progression start with the ii (IV)? I am used to seeing a classic progression starting with the tonic like, I - IV - V then back to the I.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    ii min 7 = IV maj 6

    They both have the perfect 4th interval between the tonic and the forth (C and F in the key of C). Which is generally heard as subdominant. The forth interval creates an expectation of movement in tonal tunes (usually to the even less stable dominant or to a more stable tonic chord).

    In other words the perfect 4th interval either becomes a tritone (dominant, ie B - F interval) or gets resolved to a third (eg C - E interval) in common tonal progressions.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Photonic
    Extreme newbie question here. Be gentle with me.

    This progression is noted everywhere in course materials.

    Coming from the pop/folk/light rock world, this progression seems odd to me.

    Why is this progression used and stressed in Jazz?
    There are some rock\pop songs that used II\V\I (e.g. Devil in her Heart), but that chord progression is very common with jazz standards and thus learning how to solo over this progression is useful.

    Note that many jazz musicians cut their teeth on the standard Autumn Leaves. This features a few II\V\I progressions which is why it is a good song to learn as part of one's deveopment.

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Every song doesn't go 2-5-1 starting on the 2, it's just how the pattern is referred to. In jazz it's very common for the chords to move in 4ths and 2-5-1 is the simplest building block of that. Either in major or minor, sometimes both in 1 song. Autumn leaves is almost exclusively 2-5-1s in minor and its relative major. The chord progressions work a bit differently in jazz compared to pop/rock but it starts to make sense to your ear once you spend time with it.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by T Monk
    Every song doesn't go 2-5-1 starting on the 2, it's just how the pattern is referred to. In jazz it's very common for the chords to move in 4ths and 2-5-1 is the simplest building block of that. Either in major or minor, sometimes both in 1 song. Autumn leaves is almost exclusively 2-5-1s in minor and its relative major. The chord progressions work a bit differently in jazz compared to pop/rock but it starts to make sense to your ear once you spend time with it.
    Thank you. The fog is beginning to lift a little.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    No prob.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Photonic
    Thank you. The fog is beginning to lift a little.
    There are better and more accurate answers above, but as fellow beginner I found the following perspective interesting and helpful:

    The V-I movement is obviously a great sound and seems important to basically all western music, from folk and pop to classical. As for the ii, a simple way to look at it is from a root/bass line perspective, it's essentially a V of the V. D is a fifth up from G, which is a fifth up from C; D is also a second up from C (obviously) so when doing a ii-V-I movement you're repeating a V-I movement in the bass. Same thing for the vi-ii-V-I progression; the root of the vi chord is a fifth away from the root of the ii chord and you just keep repeating a V-I movement spinning through the circle of fifths/fourths.

    Of course this falls apart a bit as you go chordal because while a D is a fifth up from G, the V chord in G Major is not the same as the ii chord in C major; they're different D chords (F versus F#/ a major triad vs a minor triad). It's also probably better to keep in mind the internal movements of the chords as others have mentioned above as well i.e. how do all of the chord tones of a chord relate to the chord tones of where it's moving to. But, when starting out, simplifying it to roots moving in a circle of fourths pattern helped make it feel less arbitrary and easier to internalize.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Photonic

    Why is this progression used and stressed in Jazz?

    It seems that others have more technical answers for you to chew on. It seems to me that you're asking why you hear about the II V7 I so much in jazz?
    In jazz, you are creating melodic ideas with the underlying emotional impact of an underlying chord or harmonic movement. That's the landscape of a piece.
    Central to this idea of any piece is a feeling that it's a journey, that wants to and ultimately winds up at home, at rest.
    There are many "harmonic roadways" that can bring the listener from the textures of harmony along the way and announce the arrival "home". II V I just happens to be one that provides a lot of tension and announces the home chord quite elegantly. These "return" progressions function to bring you home. They're also known as turnarounds and if you run in classical circles, they call them cadences.

    Either way, they're the chords that take you by the hand and lead you home. They are so common that players can work out very elaborate, intricate and well practiced ways to execute them. Like the dismount of a gymnist from the beams, the II V I is the way you get to Ta Da!!!

    (probably not what you were looking for. Sorry if it's not)

  12. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy blue note

    It seems that others have more technical answers for you to chew on. It seems to me that you're asking why you hear about the II V7 I so much in jazz?
    WHOA!! this was EXACTLY what I was looking for. All the heavy thoery was way over my head, but your explanation really helped me get a grasp on what this is, not from a technical theory standpoint but from a musical appreciation or non academic aural standpoint.

    Thank you so much for that generous answer!

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Photonic
    Extreme newbie question here. Be gentle with me.

    This progression is noted everywhere in course materials.

    Coming from the pop/folk/light rock world, this progression seems odd to me.

    Why is this progression used and stressed in Jazz?
    It's used and stressed in all kinds of music. For example, tons of early rock and roll and doo-wop songs, Sleepwalk, Heart and Soul, etc. are I vi ii V (i.e, have a ii VI on the way back to I). And more relevantly, most of the songs jazz players play started out as pop tunes or songs from musicals from the 30s-50s. If you listen to Sinatra or Broadway shows, ii-V-I is all over the place. Why? Well, because that's just how those folks wrote songs. It's like asking why country musicians have so many songs with I IV I V progressions. They just do, because that's the way the sound of the idiom developed. So ii-V-I is not a jazz thing particularly; it's a composing within a style of songs thing. But because jazz involves improvising (i.e., spontaneously composing) over those songs' chord progressions, jazz educational material spends a lot of time on ii-V-I.

  14. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    It's used and stressed in all kinds of music. For example, tons of early rock and roll and doo-wop songs, Sleepwalk, Heart and Soul, etc. are I vi ii V (i.e, have a ii VI on the way back to I). And more relevantly, most of the songs jazz players play started out as pop tunes or songs from musicals from the 30s-50s. If you listen to Sinatra or Broadway shows, ii-V-I is all over the place. Why? Well, because that's just how those folks wrote songs. It's like asking why country musicians have so many songs with I IV I V progressions. They just do, because that's the way the sound of the idiom developed. So ii-V-I is not a jazz thing particularly; it's a composing within a style of songs thing. But because jazz involves improvising (i.e., spontaneously composing) over those songs' chord progressions, jazz educational material spends a lot of time on ii-V-I.
    Super helpful! Thanks for taking the time; this really helped me.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Originally it's a variant of classical cadence Subdomonant - Dominant - Tonic.
    All tension-release relationships (and respectively all the vocabulary) in functional tonality is built on it.

    In jazz - as the guys mentioned above - it shows up so often as one of the improvizational tools -- a sort 'cell element' to create local movement/targeting through tension-release as a vehicle for improvization.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    it comes from the combination of specific melodic voices rooted in Renaissance polyphony.

    ii V I arises from specific counterpoint which creates in combination with a specific bassline; the upper voices of the IV6/iim7 chord is a suspension of the V I cadence. See Bach etc

    in jazz terms iim7 is a variant of V7sus4 with a different bass. I first came across this in a book on Tal Farlow but is also how Barry Harris taught it

    counterpoint (in C)
    C - B - C cantizans
    D - D - C tenorizans
    and
    F - F - E altizans (iirc)

    This is the traditional voice leading; voiceleading in jazz can work differently
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 01-20-2022 at 07:35 AM.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    it comes from the combination of specific melodic voices rooted in Renaissance polyphony.

    ii V I arises from specific counterpoint which creates in combination with a specific bassline; the upper voices of the IV6/iim7 chord is a suspension of the V I cadence. See Bach etc

    in jazz terms iim7 is a variant of V7sus4 with a different bass. I first came across this in a book on Tal Farlow but is also how Barry Harris taught it

    counterpoint (in C)
    C - B - C cantizans
    D - D - C tenorizans
    and
    F - F - E

    This is the traditional voice leading; voiceleading in jazz can work differently
    You are right ... but...

    I appreciate ho much imformation we have today (though not that much how easily in today's world tons of culture become restricted to a set of (often invented) terms that begin to circulate around casually...)

    But does this kind of origin explanation really make sense?

    Jazz ii-V-I is based on classical functional thinking and derived from the songs .... what might Renaissance polyphony have to do with that?

    Nothing - even though the consequential origin of classical cadence is really so. I think for interpretations it is more important to be able to see differences than similarities (though both important of course).
    Why are we all human? It is an important question...
    but for an artist the question more important is: Why being all human - we are still so different? To tell a story or to understand a story we must really be able to distinguish things one from another first of all...

    What is important that Bach being a product of late renaissance system initially is so different in his means that actually stands absolutely opposite to it - like face to face.

    Same thing jazz ii-V-I application in relation to classical cadence turnaround...
    first of all because in jazz ii-V-I turnaround is not a cadence (except where it is originally cadence in the tune form)... though it is based on the logics of classical cadence.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    You are right ... but...

    I appreciate ho much imformation we have today (though not that much how easily in today's world tons of culture become restricted to a set of (often invented) terms that begin to circulate around casually...)

    But does this kind of origin explanation really make sense?

    Jazz ii-V-I is based on classical functional thinking and derived from the songs .... what might Renaissance polyphony have to do with that?

    Nothing - even though the consequential origin of classical cadence is really so. I think for interpretations it is more important to be able to see differences than similarities (though both important of course).
    Why are we all human? It is an important question...
    but for an artist the question more important is: Why being all human - we are still so different? To tell a story or to understand a story we must really be able to distinguish things one from another first of all...

    What is important that Bach being a product of late renaissance system initially is so different in his means that actually stands absolutely opposite to it - like face to face.

    Same thing jazz ii-V-I application in relation to classical cadence turnaround...
    first of all because in jazz ii-V-I turnaround is not a cadence (except where it is originally cadence in the tune form)... though it is based on the logics of classical cadence.
    Prob not that useful... the important takeaway is this

    Dm7 = G7sus4 = F6

    So, Dm7 G7 C => G7sus G7 C

    Once you take away the bass. Something I learned from Barry of course.

    ----IRRELEVANT BULLSHIT------

    The relationship with Bach etc would not have been lost on him that's for sure, even if its wasted on you haha. Barry saw jazz as an continuation of classical music, something that is VERY unfashionable today. I do find it interesting and useful now to look at jazz harmony not as individual chords but collections of melody moving in counterpoint... something that does relate to that tradition of course. It also interesting how so many of those contrapuntal archetypes have ended up being inherited by the music. The more I learn the more they keep popping up, and you can see them in the structure of soloists lines and so on.

    I suppose once you find one good route through a harmonic progression, it's going to get used by everyone, regardless of what they call it. All those 'bebop licks' in Bach - the leap of a diminished seventh from 7 to b6 in the minor key, which shows up ALL THE TIME in Grant Green's lines (and every other bop influenced player) not to mention the related VI-II-V-I bop cliche which outlines Johanes Riepel's 'Hermaphrodite' Fonte schema rather exactly. Fonte (music theory) It often comes in on the B section - Night in Tunisia, Yardbird Suite, Alone Together. I actually think Parker may have been the main guy to popularise this specific pattern into jazz, he obviously really liked it... it's very bebop.

    Anyway back to ii-V-I... as a jazzer how much Sus and how much Dom you play is up to you. An extended Sus sound is typical of Black American church music of course, and by extension Boomer pop music. (May have its roots in sub-Saharan harmony where the scales lack a leading tone but that's another one.)

    When I do classical improv I'm more limited stylistically in the exact type of perfect cadence I'm making - simple, suspended or long, imperfect or perfect etc. In jazz you can put one on top of the other, or just ignore be a lot freer.

    This Gsus/G thing BTW is the exact same thing that Mark Levine/mainstream CST outlines very awkwardly as 'the 13 on ii giving away the dominant, and the 4 on V being an avoid note'; in fact these sensitive notes, F/E and B/C in the key of C are yours to use as you wish to create cadential movement - or not. The semitones of the key, in fact. Adding b6 (b9 on the V chord) or Ab/G adds a further semitone.

    That's not far from classical principles but it is a bit different from the renaissance voice leading. Furthermore we can keep the B in the C chord, for a C maj7 as that can be a colour note. This also weakens the cadential effect as you have oblique motion instead of contrary as in a normal V7-I.

    (I'm slowly making my peace with the leading tone. I'm sorry accused it of being square and German, actually I like it more in jazz now.)

    BTW ii-V-I is not a turnaround. A turnaround would be I-ii-V - finishes on the dominant.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 01-20-2022 at 08:30 PM.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Dm7 = G7sus4 = F6

    So, Dm7 G7 C => G7sus G7 C

    Once you take away the bass. Something I learned from Barry of course
    Yes I see the point of course... I think it comes out naturally, first thing you see with G7sus is that it is F with G bass... I always though of as of a blend of Dm7 and G7

    But one can also still view things separately... as Dm7 - G7- C..

    For me it is an open issue... sometimes I see it this way, some times another way..

    As for 'irrelative stuff' I have to read carefully and come back later

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Prob not that useful... the important takeaway is this



    ----IRRELEVANT BULLSHIT------

    The relationship with Bach etc would not have been lost on him that's for sure, even if its wasted on you haha. Barry saw jazz as an continuation of classical music, something that is VERY unfashionable today. I do find it interesting and useful now to look at jazz harmony not as individual chords but collections of melody moving in counterpoint... something that does relate to that tradition of course. It also interesting how so many of those contrapuntal archetypes have ended up being inherited by the music. The more I learn the more they keep popping up, and you can see them in the structure of soloists lines and so on.

    I suppose once you find one good route through a harmonic progression, it's going to get used by everyone, regardless of what they call it. All those 'bebop licks' in Bach - the leap of a diminished seventh from 7 to b6 in the minor key, which shows up ALL THE TIME in Grant Green's lines (and every other bop influenced player) not to mention the related VI-II-V-I bop cliche which outlines Johanes Riepel's 'Hermaphrodite' Fonte schema rather exactly. Fonte (music theory) It often comes in on the B section - Night in Tunisia, Yardbird Suite, Alone Together. I actually think Parker may have been the main guy to popularise this specific pattern into jazz, he obviously really liked it... it's very bebop.

    Anyway back to ii-V-I... as a jazzer how much Sus and how much Dom you play is up to you. An extended Sus sound is typical of Black American church music of course, and by extension Boomer pop music. (May have its roots in sub-Saharan harmony where the scales lack a leading tone but that's another one.)

    When I do classical improv I'm more limited stylistically in the exact type of perfect cadence I'm making - simple, suspended or long, imperfect or perfect etc. In jazz you can put one on top of the other, or just ignore be a lot freer.

    This Gsus/G thing BTW is the exact same thing that Mark Levine/mainstream CST outlines very awkwardly as 'the 13 on ii giving away the dominant, and the 4 on V being an avoid note'; in fact these sensitive notes, F/E and B/C in the key of C are yours to use as you wish to create cadential movement - or not. The semitones of the key, in fact. Adding b6 (b9 on the V chord) or Ab/G adds a further semitone.

    That's not far from classical principles but it is a bit different from the renaissance voice leading. Furthermore we can keep the B in the C chord, for a C maj7 as that can be a colour note. This also weakens the cadential effect as you have oblique motion instead of contrary as in a normal V7-I.

    (I'm slowly making my peace with the leading tone. I'm sorry accused it of being square and German, actually I like it more in jazz now.)

    BTW ii-V-I is not a turnaround. A turnaround would be I-ii-V - finishes on the dominant.
    It is such a complex and profound topic to me that I really do not know how to answer... I would not like to make statements.

    I think I can agree with everything you right here (including Bach, Gran Greene, Bird.. influences and connections, applications and all and Barry's ideas you mention).

    But I tried to figure out out what - nevertheless - makes me a bit restricted to make total agreement or approval in this case.

    I am not purist in stylistic or historical sense at all (but I am not eclectic either tbh).

    But still...

    I feel like for me particular music is connected first of all with its contents (notion often avoided in almost any discussion of music).

    So not even cultural context - which is important but this is exactly what could be meant by stylistic and historical reference - context can be (maybe paradoxally) very distracting and misleading sometimes... I am myself much into studying everything around music but I often feel how overemphasizing of context leads away from the essence of the artistic work too.

    So contents.. for me the 'lick from Bach' and the same melodic pattern in bebop usually have very different contents... which make it difficult from to conciously connect these things and separate theme out their musical context (i.e. particular piece at least, or particular composer's body of works - I would not expand further than that in this case not to shift from accent on personal to the general cultural context - the latter can be additional supporting information but not the main focus when we deal with the piece of art in my opinion).

    Yes, maybe historically it is correct and those things come one from another and it can be interesting phenomenon to explore...
    but for me it makes no sense from artistic point of view because I cannot get rid of the contents that is outweighing any formal similarity.
    This is why probably this comparisons create the feeling of collage to me.. and I hate collages)))