Proper chord resolutions

[bass2man]

On the prior thread on modes, several had mentioned proper Chord resolutions ( I think Reg had said "tri-tone"resolutions...)...I have been trying to take the next step from the tonal center approach to soloing using JB's CAGED system with some chromatics thrown in but it sounds more like playing over the chords as opposed to through the chord changes ( does that make sense?)

Been working through Bert Ligon;s "Linear HArmony" book where he uses the 7 to 3 resolution on the major 2-5-1's and a b9 to 5 resolution on the minor 2-5-1;s...

My question is are there other resolutions that are common to certain jazz progressions...like a Tri-tone sub for example? Bebop resolutions?

As always, thanks in advance....

[ksjazzguitar]

On the prior thread on modes, several had mentioned proper Chord resolutions...Bert Ligon;s "Linear HArmony" book where he uses the 7 to 3 resolution on the major 2-5-1's and a b9 to 5 resolution on the minor 2-5-1;s.....

Good start. Of course, that b9-5 resolution works well on a major ii-V-I too - Bird did it a lot. (Again, if you haven't, send me your email and I'll send you my "Confirmation" analysis so you can see a bunch.)

My question is are there other resolutions that are common to certain jazz progressions...like a Tri-tone sub for example? ...

The same rules apply, but know everything is upside-down. Of course, you know that the 3 and b7 of the original chord are now the b7 and 3 in the tritone sub, so you will resolve the 3 of the tritone sub like it was the b7. So, regardless if it is Dm7-G7-CMaj7 or Dm7-Db7-CMaj7, that F in the second chord wants to go to the E. Of course, the tritone sube introduces to new dissonances (relative to the original chord) the Db (b9 to the original) and Ab (#5 to the original.) You already know that the b9 wants to resolve to the 5 (of the next chord) and the #5 wants to resolve up to the 3 (of the next chord - but it can also act as a b13 and resolve down to the 9th - weaker but cool.) The key is to see how those tones would resolve if they were in the original chord.

I just went through and categorized every note over a Dominant chord and how it would resolve to a major chord:

• 1 becomes the 5
• b9 resolves down to 5
• 9 becomes the 13
• #9 can resolve up to 7, down to 13, but I think it is strongest pulling down to 5, especially through the b9
• 3 becomes the 7
• 11 becomes the 1
• #11 resolves up to the 9
• 5 becomes the 9
• #5 resolves up to the 3
• b13 resolves down to the 9 (we tend to think of sharp notes as resolving up and flat notes resolving down, but don't let it stop you, not everyone follows that convention and you can switch between #5 and b13 as you please.)
• 13 becomes the 3
• b7 resolves down to the 3
• 7 not really a possible chordal tone

Of course, some of this is a matter of taste. Your homework is to do the same for a V7 chord resolving to a minor.


Don't just do the math, but sit down and listen to how each of these notes pull, ingrain it into how you hear dissonance. Work them into your lines. When comping or soloing, I don't think you have to perfectly resolve every dissonance. When comping, I try to get the dissonance on top and maybe one other, sometimes you can get all. When soloing, I try to get one resolution solidly, but might resolve another later in the measure.

Peace,
Kevin

[Tom Karol]

#9 can resolve up to 7, down to 13, but I think it is strongest pulling down to 5, especially through the b9

I have a hard time not doing this one; I definitely use it too much!

[ksjazzguitar]

I have a hard time not doing this one [#9 resolving to 5 in the next chord]; I definitely use it too much!

I think that it is definitely where it "wants" to go, IMHO. I just listed the others first because they more fit the pattern. I think that the others work, but are more "delicate" in sound, not something we associate with a #9. There are also plenty of examples in transcribed solos of #9s resolving to either 5 of the next chord or 1 of the current chord (same note.)

Peace,
Kevin

[Reg]

Great advise from Kevin as to possible resolutions of chord tones etc... pretty boring when you actually play like that... how many time are you really playing slow enough to actually go through single note resolutions... OK maybe once in a while...more likely you emphasis or accent a note and eventually may resolve it, after you finish the line or phrase. A better way of practicing would be to resolve each note to all the other pitches... Take #9 , above examples resolves to 7, 13 or 5... finish the exercise and resolve it to all pitches and then actually use a short melodic line to connect the resolutions. Hey your structuring a solo... Think about it... is there a time limit of duration of resolution to keep jazz police away...I guess it would really be the classic police... do you have to actually play the resolution for it to count. There are standard classical voice leading resolutions that are very common and there are resolutions that are not so common which may take a little more skill. Understand basic chord tone resolutions, Kevin was generous enough to start you on the process... but finish.
If you are referring to thread on modal resolutions, I was making reference to Tri-tone resolution as dom. resolution or cadence. Which is the case normally, we hear in Ionian or Major. But when you play modally, you change the meanings or definitions of function.... In modal music the I chord is always tonic and each other chord built on rest of scale degrees is a chord on its own. they either have characteristic pitch or they don't
They have different cadence chords... for example and most common in D dorian II-, I- is cadence chord, and you would stay away from G7 and B-7b5 because of tri-tone which would imply C Maj. Let me know if I misunderstood... I do that a lot after late 4 hour gigs...
I'll try and post something on single note and interval resolutions with playing examples at real time...later Best Reg

[Tom Karol]

Also, "b13 resolves down to the 9."
That's another one I'm currently enamoured with.

[ksjazzguitar]

... pretty boring when you actually play like that... how many time are you really playing slow enough to actually go through single note resolutions...

As I said, you don't have to resolve every dissonance in line. Usually if you catch the most prominent or the most recent, the ear hears the others as being tacitly resolved. I don't think you need to catalog and resolve each dissonance, it's not double-entry bookkeeping. And sometimes you can even let them go, if the line is strong enough, but I think that you should resolve one of them, most of the time, IMHO. Often I like to delay the resolution, keep the ear waiting. Jimmy Raney did that a lot.

Peace,
Kevin

[bass2man]

Kevin/Reg/Tom:

Thanks so much for taking the time to explain your thoughts on this...your collective knowledge always amazes me..

Kevin, I will print out your response and start working on some of these over some BIAB chords and see which resolutions catch my ear...and hopefully eventually move on to finishing the line like Reg suggests..thanks for the practicing suggestions..

I am always trying to improve my melodic and motif development in my soloing to keep it from sounding "boring"...rhythm/timing (I played bass for 30 years so thats a little easier for me) and note choices...

Reg, appreciate your insight on modal jazz...Modal jazz is not something I really listen too as it has not caught my ear (not yet anyway)...but I always wonder what is the "essence" of a style of music that makes it sound the way it does...very interesting...

Thanks again..

[ksjazzguitar]

...Kevin, I will print out your response and start working on some of these over some BIAB chords and see which resolutions catch my ear...and hopefully eventually move on to finishing the line like Reg suggests..thanks for the practicing suggestions...

Yeah, of course, just resolving these alone does not give you good lines. You need to put them together in creative ways to make it music. But this will teach you the correct spelling and grammar. You still have to have a story to tell and tell it artfully.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

... is there a time limit of duration of resolution to keep jazz police away...I guess it would really be the classic police...

It is standard jazz voice-leading practice, not some old-fashioned notion. No there is no duration. I actually like to delay it. So do many great players. And no one gets arrested if you miss them all, it was just missed opportunity to create a sense of harmonic connection. And your straw-man exaggeration aside, as I've said, the point isn't to resolve every dissonance coming from the V7. Even if you just resolve one solidly that is usually enough. And missing some is fine too. But I hear so many solos of people who rarely resolve any, just running through the scales hoping it will resolve it for them, especially guitar players.

If you are referring to thread on modal resolutions, I was making reference to Tri-tone resolution as dom. resolution or cadence.

Forgive me. I'm sincerely confused here. I thought the whole point of modal jazz what the the mode was considered consonant so there was no real dissonance within the mode (a change from bebop where non-chord tones were considered dissonances needing resolution.) How can you have a resolution if there is no dissonance? What does tri-tone resolution have to do with modal jazz? (I was taught that one of the most important characteristics of modal jazz is the abandonment of the dominant-tonic relationship.) Is what you are calling this "modal" approach, what others refer to as the "chord/scale" approach? That might clear up some of my confusion - maybe it's just different terminology. I'm genuinely asking.

In modal music the I chord is always tonic and each other chord built on rest of scale degrees is a chord on its own. they either have characteristic pitch or they don't

How is this different that all tonal music. Isn't the I chord always tonic? Isn't each chord built on the rest of the scale degrees a "chord on its own." I don't understand what you are saying here. I'm really trying. What do you mean by "characteristic pitch"? I think I can guess, but I don't want to - my guesses about what you mean are often wrong?

They have different cadence chords... for example and most common in D dorian II-, I- is cadence chord, and you would stay away from G7 and B-7b5 because of tri-tone which would imply C Maj.

OK, that I get. That is more standard modal jazz theory. But I don't see how that relates to tritone sub or 7b9 resolution.

Peace,
Kevin

[Reg]

Hey Kevin..."OK, that I get. That is more standard modal jazz theory. But I don't see how that relates to tritone sub or 7b9 resolution." It doesn't. If you really interested, I'll go through again... Thanks Reg

[ksjazzguitar]

Sincerely, I really want to understand what you are saying.

You obviously look at things in a different way that any with which I am familiar. I'm sure there is a lot of overlap, but I am having difficulty penetrating your terminology. We may be saying the same thing but you are saying it in another language.

...If you really interested, I'll go through again...

Well ... how do I put this delicately ... you've never really explained any of the questions I've asked you about your theory. You've answered other questions that I didn't ask. You've thrown around simple terminology that any undergrad dropout would know. You've thrown around a bunch of esoteric and inscrutable terminology that a simple Google search (as well as searches through scholarly databases) showed that no one else is using. Additionally, not a single person in this forum was able to explain what you were saying, when I asked if anyone else know what a "blue note control system" was. I'm not saying inventing your own terminology is wrong, but then don't get defensive when people ask you to explain it.

If that is your idea of "going through" it, then it's really not worth bothering - it got nowhere before. I asked you (in this thread) a couple of simple questions about what you are saying - could you start by answering those? (I do it all the time when my answer turns out to be confusing to understand and people ask me questions about what I've said.) I think you said before that you went to grad school so I know at one point you must have learned how to build a cogent and reasoned explanation. But if you are incapable of that now, then I guess we'll all just have to accept that there will always be large sections of your answers that only you understand.

But I hope that you do. I really do want to understand what you are saying.

One other thing occurred to me, are you a Martino-ite? Apologies to Martino fans, but I ask because when I tried to study his theory, I ran into similar problems with his theories. They were convoluted and I found that he was inventing terminology for things that made things unnecessarily byzantine and confusing. But his theories do have some popularity - a friend of mine who went to Berklee had a whole class on him (but ultimately came to the same conclusions as me.) I just thought I'd ask.

Peace,
Kevin

[bako]

"Additionally, not a single person in this forum was able to explain what you were saying, when I asked if anyone else know what a "blue note control system" was."

A "blue note control system" in the way I hear Reg use this phrase is simply a temporary or ongoing focus on the harmonic language that is unique to the blues, including a I7 chord as a true tonic, a minor 3rd or #9 sounded against a major 3rd, etc. This focus is distinct from traditional Classical theory, awareness of modal extensions, chord tones with chromatics, triad pairs, superimposed progressions, playing off of motifs without strict adherence to the chord changes, ect. Each harmonic viewpoint leads towards certain collections of notes which is what I understand a control system to be. I suppose there could be rhythmic and other control systems as well. I don't know how and where Reg draws his lines regarding the definition but the terminology is evocative. I'm not going to worry about it's universal acceptance by academia past, present and future.

[ksjazzguitar]

A "blue note control system" in the way I hear Reg use this phrase is simply a temporary or ongoing focus on the harmonic language that is unique to the blues, ...

Perhaps (that was my guess too), but then it is bizarre (IMHO) to call it a "control system." What you describe is what most of us would simply call "using some blues licks." If that is what is meant by "blue note control system" then I have even less respect for it than before - it would be an attempt to use overly complicated language to refer to a very simple concept in a transparent attempt to make it sound more intellectual than it is. Again, I can find no use of the phrase "control system" anywhere. True, we can guess what he means by it. But wouldn't it be easier to just use the common language? But unfortunately he keeps dancing around explanations so we can't even be sure about our guesses.

It's like if I started talking about "scalar to harmonical correlatorial interdependence dynamic functional system." True, you might be able guess from context that I mean what everyone else calls "chord/scale relationship" but it begs the question: Why the different terminology? The invention of new terminology might imply that something else is meant. Or that I'm a pompous buffoon that needs to make himself feel important by inventing terminology that confuses people. Or that my knowledge on the subject isn't as good as I think or am pretending. I can't think of another reason to reinvent the wheel. Inventing overly complicated terminology for simple concepts does not help comprehension, it hinders it. If I am going to have any respect for Reg, then I must assume that he means something besides "throwing in some blues licks." If I assume that, then I must also assume that he is either a fool or painfully uninformed, and I don't want to do that.

Everyone can participate in a discussion of music theory, but we should also respect that there is 500 years of scholarship and we should stand on the shoulder of giants. I know that jazz guys sometimes get a bug up their butt that classical theory can't explain what they do, but I think that that is silly - theory adapts to attempt to explain whatever it is describing Theory is always imperfect at explaining anything. It is no less or more problematic with jazz as it is with Impressionism. Unfortunately (or fortunately) there are a lot of self-taught musicians in jazz, especially on guitar. They tend to want to think that they've figured it all out and have their own way of thinking and describing it and get defensive when people point out that there is already terminology and theoretical constructs in place to describe those things that they just haven't bothered to take the time to understand. If our goal is comprehension and transmission of knowledge, then the only time we should be inventing new terminology is if the old one is found to be inadequate. And that should be done in an open fashion, not secretively. Terminology that has no clear meaning is effectively meaningless. A common language of terminology is the fundamental and absolutely necessary building block of all communication.

Again, 30 minutes of searching has failed for find the words "control system" in relation to music theory, except for Reg. I can guess what he means, but my guess leads me to the conclusion that he's talking about something that already has common terminology. Not only has he failed to make the case for changing the terminology, he's failed to even clearly define his terms, leaving us to guess. Again, if it is already in common usage, just show me where and I will apologize for my ignorance.

But I'm still curious what he means.

Peace,
Kevin

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Everyone can participate in a discussion of music theory, but we should also respect that there is 500 years of scholarship and we should stand on the shoulder of giants.

If you're not standing on their shoulders, you're stepping on their toes.

[Reg]

I'll try and explain my blue note control system terminology... You know and understand what blue note are? You said you did...so next would be control and system, surely you have a better understanding than I. So how about a methodology for using blue notes for controlling, melodic and harmonic concepts in jazz. Since you understand melodic use of blue notes, maybe you could make a video of how it's done, and then maybe show how blue notes can also be used to influence harmonic movement, and function... I realize it's a little below you... but since I am struggling to properly explain, maybe you could help out... Thanks Reg

[ksjazzguitar]

I'm not sure how I can demonstrate your concept. Besides, my wife has the computer I make videos clogged up with her grad work for the next few weeks.

The concept of a blue note is simple. I'm familiar with both the ethnomusicological history and the practical application. I don't think any is confused by that term.

But what do you mean by "control system"? I don't really understand what you mean by that. Please explain how "blue notes can also be used to influence harmonic movement, and function." I tend to think of blue notes as being melodic dissonance.

To me, (skipping over the ethnomusicological history, which is still debated) the whole point of blue notes is the superposition of altered-chord tones over standard harmony. Normally in Western tonal music this is considered "incorrect" but is "correct" within the aesthetic of blues (and there for is an element of jazz language as well.) So, in blues, we are able to use strong melodic notes that actually contradict the harmony. Essentially, the blues scale is the superposition of a minor scale (b3) over major (or at least dominant) harmony. The b5 blue notes, simply create a strong pull to 4.

But how is this a "harmonic control system"? Does it change the harmony? If it's just creating harmonic pull, then why not just call it dissonance? Again, once you've defined it, is that terminology that is pre-existing, or something that you've invented? How does it differ from the standard concept of "throwing in some blue notes"?

Peace,
Kevin

[Reg]

Hey Kevin was introduced to me in a theory form back in early 70's at Berklee. Maybe and example would help... Take a standard I, VI, II, V. Normal changes would be Imaj7 , VI-7, II-7, V7... Key Of Bb; Modal interchange to get basic rhythm changes... Bb7, G7, C-7, F7...Now add your choice of blue note to effect the existing harmony. Say C# or #9
C13#9, G7#11, C-7b9, F7b13. it's fairly mechanical from here on.
You could add #9 to VI7 chord, which would become;
Bb13, G7#9, C-7, F7sus. You can add 2 blue notes, set up patterns, start with different Modal Interchange versions. There are a lot of options, One method of application is to have a harmonic rhythm pattern and use your blue note influenced chords in that pattern. Or when you solo follow similar pattern when you use blue notes. Maybe a different method of visualizing is to think of parallelism ... It's very simple concept, I understand... but not so simple to realize... some just play for ever and get close by ear... throw in a few random blue notes and presto your a jazz blues player. Tension /release, as you mentioned might be a possible method of application, I see as a method of organizing my T/R system, using blue notes. Obviously it's only one of many methods of structuring pitch collections for improvising, but is very effective. I get more compliments from both musicians and non-musicians when I pull it off...most don't really care how, usually simply dig feel... of which I usually say... oh, I get lucky once in a while... Best Reg

[ksjazzguitar]

...Bb7, G7, C-7, F7...Now add your choice of blue note to effect the existing harmony. Say C# or #9 ... C13#9, G7#11, C-7b9, F7b13. ...

I assume that's a typo. It should be Bb13#9, or even just Bb7#9.



OK, that explanation makes more sense. I would just call that superimposing a blue note, pretty standard stuff (I still don't understand the need for the bizarre terminology - still sounds like Martino-speak to me.) I've never tried applying blue-notes from other chords in the turn-around, but I have done similar things, just considering it a pedal point - holding a non-harmonic note from chord to chord - it can be a nice effect.

I like the musical idea, but still question the terminology for two reasons. First, it doesn't seem to be expressing anything that is not already covered by standard theory terminology (classical or jazz.) Inventing new terminology just creates unnecessary confusion. Secondly, I think that the chosen words are inaccurate. The "bluenote control system" - the bluenote isn't really controlling anything. The fundamental qualities of the chords are not changing, just the addition of a different extension - it's more of "addition," "coloring," or "flavor" rather than "control." And I'm not clear that it is a "system" of "control" - a system being a "A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole" - I don't think that adding a note or two quite meets the definition of what a "system" is.

But even if I quibble about semantics and definitions, I do agree that it is a sound musical principle that is well understood and accepted. I've just never heard it called that before, pedal point being the more common term for something like this (unless I'm missing something.) I think "blue note pedal" would have been clearer, at least to my ears.

Thanks for the explanation.

Peace,
Kevin

[Reg]

Thanks ... sorry about the typo... Bb as you said. I should proofread... It is a method of organizing use of blue notes, and can be as much of a control system or what ever we want to call it, as many other melodic and harmonic established traditions. Blue notes in jazz have a lot of pull on our ears, and if we dismiss that, control or influence, or what ever we can agree upon as terminology...we might miss a large part of understanding jazz, which might reflect in our playing... I'm out of town, today but will try and express somewhat more exact later... thanks reg

[GuyBoden]

I just went through and categorized every note over a Dominant chord and how it would resolve to a major chord:

• 1 becomes the 5
• b9 resolves down to 5
• 9 becomes the 13
• #9 can resolve up to 7, down to 13, but I think it is strongest pulling down to 5, especially through the b9
• 3 becomes the 7
• 11 becomes the 1
• #11 resolves up to the 9
• 5 becomes the 9
• #5 resolves up to the 3
• b13 resolves down to the 9 (we tend to think of sharp notes as resolving up and flat notes resolving down, but don't let it stop you, not everyone follows that convention and you can switch between #5 and b13 as you please.)
• 13 becomes the 3
• b7 resolves down to the 3
• 7 not really a possible chordal tone

Of course, some of this is a matter of taste. Your homework is to do the same for a V7 chord resolving to a minor.


Don't just do the math, but sit down and listen to how each of these notes pull, ingrain it into how you hear dissonance. Work them into your lines.

Excellent

Very good practice exercises to resolve your lines.

Obviously, we don't always use them during live improv in the moment.

What's your fav Dom->Maj (or Dom->min) note resolutions?

[StevenA]

Good start. Of course, that b9-5 resolution works well on a major ii-V-I too - Bird did it a lot. (Again, if you haven't, send me your email and I'll send you my "Confirmation" analysis so you can see a bunch.)



The same rules apply, but know everything is upside-down. Of course, you know that the 3 and b7 of the original chord are now the b7 and 3 in the tritone sub, so you will resolve the 3 of the tritone sub like it was the b7. So, regardless if it is Dm7-G7-CMaj7 or Dm7-Db7-CMaj7, that F in the second chord wants to go to the E. Of course, the tritone sube introduces to new dissonances (relative to the original chord) the Db (b9 to the original) and Ab (#5 to the original.) You already know that the b9 wants to resolve to the 5 (of the next chord) and the #5 wants to resolve up to the 3 (of the next chord - but it can also act as a b13 and resolve down to the 9th - weaker but cool.) The key is to see how those tones would resolve if they were in the original chord.

I just went through and categorized every note over a Dominant chord and how it would resolve to a major chord:

• 1 becomes the 5
• b9 resolves down to 5
• 9 becomes the 13
• #9 can resolve up to 7, down to 13, but I think it is strongest pulling down to 5, especially through the b9
• 3 becomes the 7
• 11 becomes the 1
• #11 resolves up to the 9
• 5 becomes the 9
• #5 resolves up to the 3
• b13 resolves down to the 9 (we tend to think of sharp notes as resolving up and flat notes resolving down, but don't let it stop you, not everyone follows that convention and you can switch between #5 and b13 as you please.)
• 13 becomes the 3
• b7 resolves down to the 3
• 7 not really a possible chordal tone

Of course, some of this is a matter of taste. Your homework is to do the same for a V7 chord resolving to a minor.


Don't just do the math, but sit down and listen to how each of these notes pull, ingrain it into how you hear dissonance. Work them into your lines. When comping or soloing, I don't think you have to perfectly resolve every dissonance. When comping, I try to get the dissonance on top and maybe one other, sometimes you can get all. When soloing, I try to get one resolution solidly, but might resolve another later in the measure.

Peace,
Kevin

Good list of resolutions, but I want to point out the (7) has been a viable chord tone since Jazz entered the modern era, especially when III (Bmaj) is subbing for V (G) as in:
7 goes to 5 (F#-G)
Not every player is on board, but there are many recorded examples.

[Christian Miller]

Good list of resolutions, but I want to point out the (7) has been a viable chord tone since Jazz entered the modern era, especially when III (Bmaj) is subbing for V (G) as in:
7 goes to 5 (F#-G)
Not every player is on board, but there are many recorded examples.

The examples god craves tribute


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StevenA]

The examples god craves tribute

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pat Martino, Oleo, measure 212, he ends his C7 line with a B natural resolving to Bb on the F7 chord ( I generally see that Bb as the b7 of a Cm7 sub), but not here. Also, my original post should have indicated VII (Bmaj) not III(Bmaj)

[Christian Miller]

Pat Martino, Oleo, measure 212, he ends his C7 line with a B natural resolving to Bb on the F7 chord ( I generally see that Bb as the b7 of a Cm7 sub), but not here. Also, my original post should have indicated VII (Bmaj) not III(Bmaj)

Can I see the rest of the line?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk