Improvising over Dm9 - Bb9#11 - G/A-A+7 progression?

[BreckerFan]

The aforementioned Philly gospel prodigies didn't get the memo that D min blues is the only thing you're allowed to play.

[Christian Miller]

The aforementioned Philly gospel prodigies didn't get the memo that D min blues is the only thing you're allowed to play.

More than me jobs worth.

It’s funny that you hear gospel chops raging on a neo soul progression and I hear middle of the road cheesy smooth jazz which probably says more about my cultural reference points sadly. (Your version sounds a lot more fun.)

Of course, if I wanted to learn to play like a Philly gospel prodigy, I would start by listening to what they play, trying to copy it, failing and then doing something easier instead.

In the vastly more likely event that someone calls me to play on a smooth jazz track for instance on a library music session*, I’m gonna bust out the Dm blues octaves. Maybe a touch of changes in there. Bit of tasteful, polished and appropriate mediocrity. I expect this is what Amos had in mind.

What say you Amos?

*although I imagine AI done killed that sector. It’s still more likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joe2758]

Quote: "I think you guys just scared the OP even more away from this tune.

I think that would actually be for the best

[Christian Miller]

I think that would actually be for the best

He needs to go to Philly, clearly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mick-7]

It's not a tune, it's just a 4 bar progression that you folks have debated about for more than 100 posts, in what other forum would you see that?

[joe2758]

It's not a tune, it's just a 4 bar progression that you folks have debated about for more than 100 posts, in what other forum would you see that?

i'm going to convert it to negative harmony and approach the new progression by micro tones

[BreckerFan]

I'm not out here making rules for what you can and can't play over some YouTube chords. I said what I hear, and what I would play. There is no obligation to do anything I say; you can play it, or you can not play it, and no one will die or even get hurt either way. You also could play D minor blues, or analyze some Bach, or go to Philly. The world is your oyster.

But nevertheless, I await patiently to be told that I am wrong, and I apologize in advance.

[brent.h]

Holy crap I can hear it in D minor now. I think I might just have had an aural Spinning Dancer moment.

[Christian Miller]

I'm not out here making rules for what you can and can't play over some YouTube chords. I said what I hear, and what I would play. There is no obligation to do anything I say; you can play it, or you can not play it, and no one will die or even get hurt either way. You also could play D minor blues, or analyze some Bach, or go to Philly. The world is your oyster.

But nevertheless, I await patiently to be told that I am wrong, and I apologize in advance.

Oh crikey, it’s like that is it? Lol…

Ok, once again- it’s not really a right or wrong thing.

You seemed quite adamant that the thing is centred around A and that the Dm minor interpretation was incorrect for reasons and I tried to make the point that there’s nothing here that would considered alien to the Dm tonality. So it’s ambiguous. And it’s actually rather important imo it can be heard both ways.

Because if the way mainstream western music theory works we would tend to classify the progression as Dm. AFAIK that’s what would pass you in a standard functional harmony class, but what you say is also definitely true. I also would tonicise that G/A - which I also hear as a sus - when soloing in a jazz context. The Bb7#11 as you and Brett point out strongly pulls that way.

The thing is that ambiguity is not that strange for minor keys, and to me it is itself quite an interesting thing. Keys - the whole conception of keys is kind of weird. Keys often have that duality between I and V even in the most mainstream functional harmony

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

This is some of the things I was talking about before. The first chorus is Dm blues, the rest isn't. I haven't dressed up.

[BreckerFan]

I think theoretical analysis should serve a practical purpose. An analysis ideally should capture the sound of the chords.

The important context for something like this is that it's just a chord loop. It isn't going anywhere, it's just statically repeating, and there's no melody. Given that there's no resolution of any kind that clearly establishes it in Dm, and that the A is clearly being tonicized, especially when the second bar chord is explicitly written as E7, I think the sound I'm hearing is best captured by iv V Isus I7. As there is precedent for I bVI V, there is also precedent for something like iv V Isus I7, namely the II7 V Isus I7 in Spain. If you prefer to think about it as, or if the classical academics would say it is, a tonicized V, sure. I'm not sure what information is present that definitively says it "is" one or the other; maybe the fact that the last chord is altered suggests the latter. But it's a chord loop, not a full on piece of music, and the analysis is just for being able to solo over it. If you play D min blues you can sound good. If you play iv V I ideas, you can also sound good, it's not "too jazz". I find iv V I to better capture the sound for how I would want to play over it. But the ambiguity in this kind of thing is the style of it.

[Joe Passé]

This is some of the things I was talking about before. The first chorus is Dm blues, the rest isn't. I haven't dressed up.

That's nice. I like the bossa nova backing, maybe I'll try that too.

[ragman1]

bossa nova backing

Smooth jazz often sounds more straight than swung in the usual sense so it suits a latin/bossa feel. It's probably easier, too, and therefore popular.

[rpjazzguitar]

When I listen to it, my ear gravitates to Dm as the resolution.

But, if somebody else hears it differently, or better yet, can hear it two, or more, ways, good for them. I'd be interested in hearing the solo, figuring I could expand my ear a little bit.

But, left to my own devices, that A7+ sounds like it resolves to Dm.

The third chord, the one before the A7+, seems like its iim or maybe just a suspension of the D heading to C#. They seem like variations on the same theme to my ear.

The second chord feels like the second half of a Dm to Fm move, which is a very common chord movement and often leads to the ii V we have here in the last two bars.

[ragman1]

One thing is the Dm9 sounds very like an FM7 so the Am pent suits it really well.

[Mick-7]

Holy crap I can hear it in D minor now. I think I might just have had an aural Spinning Dancer moment.

Vertigo and a wah-wah pedal will do that to you....

[wolflen]

When I listen to it, my ear gravitates to Dm as the resolution.

But, if somebody else hears it differently, or better yet, can hear it two, or more, ways, good for them. I'd be interested in hearing the solo, figuring I could expand my ear a little bit.

Well..I cant post my playing but..

I have been working on Blue in Green so..

The G/A chord I modified to Dmi6 lower the G note to F and move up in two more inversions of Dmi6 BADF -7th fret and root position 10th fret D BFA --one beat each

then Play the opening five notes of Blue in Green (12th fret) E D C Bb A and end with a G13/F 8th fret..has a Dmi6/9 (arpeggio feel)

Works for me..

[Christian Miller]

I think theoretical analysis should serve a practical purpose. An analysis ideally should capture the sound of the chords.

The important context for something like this is that it's just a chord loop. It isn't going anywhere, it's just statically repeating, and there's no melody. Given that there's no resolution of any kind that clearly establishes it in Dm, and that the A is clearly being tonicized, especially when the second bar chord is explicitly written as E7, I think the sound I'm hearing is best captured by iv V Isus I7. As there is precedent for I bVI V, there is also precedent for something like iv V Isus I7, namely the II7 V Isus I7 in Spain. If you prefer to think about it as, or if the classical academics would say it is, a tonicized V, sure.

Classical Academics? Cheeky rhetorical flourish haha. I would call this - undergraduate music theory.

I'm not sure what information is present that definitively says it "is" one or the other; maybe the fact that the last chord is altered suggests the latter. But it's a chord loop, not a full on piece of music, and the analysis is just for being able to solo over it. If you play D min blues you can sound good. If you play iv V I ideas, you can also sound good, it's not "too jazz". I find iv V I to better capture the sound for how I would want to play over it. But the ambiguity in this kind of thing is the style of it.

Look, that's all fine, and I hear that too as I said to Brett, who was the first person to bring it up on the thread. I can hear all of that, and I play that sort of stuff on it too, when I'm going full jazz.

The main difference we have is that I also hear the Dm thing. It's a bit like those rabbit/duck pictures.

There's a separate practical musicianship/theory issue which is that I think most people would describe this as a chord progression in D minor, probably mostly because the chords are all chords we frequently find in Dm and people don't normally give "sus" as a key. That's convention more than anything. It has as you say, no impact on one's ability to play killer jazz guitar (like wot you can.)

The difference between a tonicisation and a modulation is impossible to pin down exaclty - people differ, and this is excepted as you say in a short looping progression.

[Christian Miller]

Or you are going to hate me for saying it - but that move to Bsus going to B in Spain - very Baroque. And very much something they did in B minor.

For extra hate - I've just thought of the ultimate classical example of this thing that will be familiar to guitarists ...

The Bach prelude in Dm right?

What happens at the end?

Further more we finish on Dm/A Do/A A Dm E7 A

Such a great ending. Thing is still in Dm.

[BreckerFan]

Well right, I'm not bringing up Spain to say that the key is B dominant or whatever. I'm saying that specific isolated chord progression is resolving to the I7. Now when you take into account the wider context of the song, sure B minor, no arguments.

The difference here, and what I've been trying to say, is *there is no wider context*. It's not a concierto, it's not a jazz standard, it's not even a pop song. It's just four looping chords. If I saw this chord progression in a standard I would use my undergraduate theory knowledge to say D min, case closed. In this case however, you have D-7 and E7/Bb7#11 setting up two bars of tonicized A7. The A7 feels like where it's leading. There's no context to say "actually this is just a temporary tonicized dominant." The tonality just hangs there. Now if I listen to it with the intention of hearing D min, I can hear D min. But because the A7 feels like where the progression is leading to, when I first listened to it I heard iv V I.

So I'm not sure what the laws of theory are, classical, undergraduate, or otherwise, that necessitate that the technically correct analysis is that it's in the key of Dmin. Sure any sort of functional harmony analysis would look at A7#5 and say it's clearly resolving to Dmin. But it doesn't actually resolve to D min. It's not really functional harmony. These kinds of quasi modal chord loops are all over the place in hip hop and neo soul (God's Plan by Drake comes to mind lol). It's not so much about setting up or resolving to anything as creating a vibe.

Anyway, I'm going to see Rosenwinkel at the Vanguard in a couple hours. I think we can all agree that will be more enjoyable than bickering on the Internet about music theory. Have a good weekend.

[joe2758]

traces of lute wah pedal can be found as early as the 17th century

[Christian Miller]

Well right, I'm not bringing up Spain to say that the key is B dominant or whatever. I'm saying that specific isolated chord progression is resolving to the I7. Now when you take into account the wider context of the song, sure B minor, no arguments.

The difference here, and what I've been trying to say, is *there is no wider context*. It's not a concierto, it's not a jazz standard, it's not even a pop song. It's just four looping chords. If I saw this chord progression in a standard I would use my undergraduate theory knowledge to say D min, case closed. In this case however, you have D-7 and E7/Bb7#11 setting up two bars of tonicized A7. The A7 feels like where it's leading. There's no context to say "actually this is just a temporary tonicized dominant." The tonality just hangs there. Now if I listen to it with the intention of hearing D min, I can hear D min. But because the A7 feels like where the progression is leading to, when I first listened to it I heard iv V I.

I feel that's what I've been trying (and clearly failing) to communicate for several posts now - that the duck can also be a rabbit. I can see both of them. But it seems that so can you, which I didn't understand from your posts.

Is this the musical equivalent of that bloody dress 10 years ago or when ever it was?

So I'm not sure what the laws of theory are, classical, undergraduate, or otherwise, that necessitate that the technically correct analysis is that it's in the key of Dmin. Sure any sort of functional harmony analysis would look at A7#5 and say it's clearly resolving to Dmin. But it doesn't actually resolve to D min. It's not really functional harmony. These kinds of quasi modal chord loops are all over the place in hip hop and neo soul (God's Plan by Drake comes to mind lol). It's not so much about setting up or resolving to anything as creating a vibe.

I mean I have listened to hip hop records, believe it or not, I do understand this... OTOH looping progressions have been around a long time too.

If I have any general point to make, it's to acknowledge that music theory is not immutable. The idea of key is as I say quite a modern idea, and quite hard to define in a lot of ways. I feel what you have been saying shows that this is the case really clearly. The modern theory is largely a product of 19th century German academia, responding to the concerns and cultural biases of those musicians. (It also has less to do with classical music than one might think.)

Anyway, I'm going to see Rosenwinkel at the Vanguard in a couple hours. I think we can all agree that will be more enjoyable than bickering on the Internet about music theory. Have a good weekend.

Well, it wasn't my intention to bicker. It seems to be the way of the internet to make posts appear more oppositional sometimes than they actually are.

I think there's a thread here about the subjectivity of musical perceptions. That's not unimportant to me - at least.

Enjoy the gig!

[Christian Miller]

Holy crap I can hear it in D minor now. I think I might just have had an aural Spinning Dancer moment.

Well there you go then.

[starjasmine]

I can NOT believe that I'm still posting to this thread :-/ but I hear the whole thing as Dm to A7.

• The various flavors of A7 (including A sus) are still A7, just some different colors or voice movement.
• E7 is V/V and Bb7 is its TT sub.

So I hear the whole shebang as tonic to various colors of dominant and back to tonic. Full stop.

BTW I don't hear the keys following this chart slavishly. I put in all of 20 seconds to analyze what is happening in the very last bar of the first time through: the keys play Am instead of just hanging statically on Asus. So there's your "modal interchange." :-) i.e. v in place of V.

Theory is a way to explain what the listener hears. What the listener hears is subjective.

[Jimmy Mack]

Thank you.