using maj7 as a dominant chord?

[JohnW400]

Pop? Rock? Fair enough, though the original 60s reference was about mysticism and overt spirituality.

Since this is a a jazz guitar site, I suspect I'm not alone in my "modly fig" preference for what Parker, Gillespie, Miles, Monk, Mulligan, BB, Wolf, Muddy, and just about every other modern jazz or blues player did between 1945 and 1960 over the usual sacred 60's cows. For that matter, I find what KR, MMW, Jason Moran, Esperanza Spalding, Brad M., and Greg Osby are doing today alot more interesting than Clapton/Page/Hendrix/etc... as well.

Ok, maybe that's comparing apples to oranges and it's hard to say anyone matched Coltrane or Miles' 2'd Quintet. But that's not what people mean when they talk about the '60s. Likewise, can you argue that art or literature or theater were as vital and important in the 60's as they were between 1900 and WWII, or even just the post-war era itself? My point was the world didn't start in 1960 and end in 1980.

As you mention the original idea was about spiritualism.( You strayed in your refeences so turnabout is fair play )

As I stated , overt spirituality ( I had a disclaimer there as well about not following it) and I don't think what I said was incorrect. You had a great outpouring of this kind of stuff happening. (And I don't remember saying it was better or worse. It just was)

As far as jazz it also flourished as well, no? Bitches Brew, A love Supreme, Lots of new stuff going on there as well.

Also don't remember saying the world started and ended there either. It's a point in history. However what did happen at this point in history was a big upheavel of culture, youth , awareness and ideas that changed the way we think. Right or Wrong it was a turning point for a lot of things. A boiling point for some.

I'm surprised that there is such a dislike of this time period. A lot of good came out of it. Return to it? Nope, I'm with John Ross there. Lot's of lessons learned and lots of fond memories, but time to move on.


And finally the big disclaimer, I mentioned the 60's because someone wanted to know why Pat Martino (among others ) uses lots of metaphysical jargon in his teaching approach. That's all. Nothing more. And I went out of my way to say that I was just stating information. That's all

It just also happened to be a fruitful decade for lots of other things like music, art, historically impotant occurances, ect. NOT more important or relavent. Just maybe more productive than some of the other decades.

[lkmuller]

Bottom line - irregardless of how Martino explains it, the dude can play. And he's learned how to do it twice.

[orasnon]

Sheer coincidence: I was just reading today's LA Times and came across this article. Evidently John Cage, one of the most important musical figures of the 20th century, occasionally dabbled with the I Ching when composing. Add him to the list of artists engaged in unnecessarily "profound" methodologies.

Book review: 'Begin Again: A Biography of John Cage' by Kenneth Silverman - latimes.com

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Sheer coincidence: I was just reading today's LA Times and came across this article. Evidently John Cage, one of the most important musical figures of the 20th century, occasionally dabbled with the I Ching when composing. Add him to the list of artists engaged in unnecessarily "profound" methodologies.

Book review: 'Begin Again: A Biography of John Cage' by Kenneth Silverman - latimes.com

See: Aleatoric music. Cage's life partner, choreographer Merce Cunningham tried to add randomness to dance, but the dancer kept crashing into each other and getting injured.

[ksjazzguitar]

...Cage's life partner, choreographer Merce Cunningham tried to add randomness to dance, but the dancer kept crashing into each other and getting injured.

That's funny, the same thing happens in Cage's music.

It just also happened to be a fruitful decade for lots of other things like music, art, historically impotant occurances, ect. NOT more important or relavent. Just maybe more productive than some of the other decades.

OK, I hear that you're not making a "the 60s were the greatest argument." But I still say that there were just as many important occurrence, music, art, etc in other decades. In the 1940s you had WWII, jazz and Picasso. In the 1900s, we fought wars with Spain and against the Phillipines, Einstien laid waste to 200 years of Newtonianism with Relativity (arguably the single greatest scientific revolution that changed our understand of the universe overnight), the automobile made its self known, radio was invented, the Wright brothers took their flight, the Panama canal was begun, Cubism and Fauvism reigned, movie theaters opened, etc. Pick any decade and you will find it filled with earth shattering events. We just tend to forget about them in the fog of history and/or their relevance to our lives seems more remote.

Things seem less fruitful the farther back we go, because we are more removed historically. It's like I can remember more details from today than I can from the whole week a year ago. And the events in the recent past seem more relevant because we can see the direct connection to the present and our lives. The invention of film and TV makes it even easier to keep them "vivid." And again, we are assuming because they were important because they were important to us in the US and Europe. I ask my wife (a Peruvian) what was the most pivotal decade, and she says the 1980s, because they were fighting off terrorists and fascist governments. It's all relative.


[Directing my attention away from JohnW400 and more back onto the "relevance" issue.] But I think that ultimately, we have to be careful when we start calling people "important" and "influential" when we are so close to them in time. If you'd gone back to late 18th century Vienna and asked who would be the influential musician that people would remember for all time, most would have said Salieri or Haydn - few would have said Mozart (Heck, "Salieri" doesn't even show up in the spell checker.) Similarly, Bach was not as well regarded as Buxtehude or Handel in his life, but whom do we remember and revere most? Bach was almost unknown in his lifetime and for some time after. During their lives, it was not clear who would be better remembered, Beethoven or Weber. Is there any doubt now? (How many people can sing a few Weber melodies off the tops of their heads? How many have his bust on their piano? Are there many who even know Weber who aren't classical music enthusiasts?) I could go on, but you get idea. We could also draw examples from other arts, even science and math and philosophy.

It's really easy to be blinded by the prejudices and priorities of your own era. But ultimately, the lasting relevance will be determined how the next eras view them, not us. What we see as groundbreaking may seem like a dead end in 100 years. And some artist that we don't even think of as great may lay a foundation for some artistic movement that may not bare fruit until after we're all dead.

Again, you cannot judge the "importance" or "relevance" of an artist until a lot of time has past. People have always vainly tried to judge the relevance of artists in their own time - and they usually fail. It just amazes me that we keep making that same mistake. But unfortunately, the people making the mistake will be dead before it becomes apparent. Yes, as we look back we do seem to see little pockets of creativity. But that is not because the other eras were not creative, just that their creativity seems more important to us with the elapse of time. In any decade, the musicians were always pushing boundaries and trying new things. It is only over the next hundred years where we can see if their efforts will have any lasting effect.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnW400]

OK, I hear that you're not making a "the 60s were the greatest argument." But I still say that there were just as many important occurrence, music, art, etc in other decades.

No argument here. I have a friend that back in the early 80's thought that the most productive decades of the 20th century tended to be the even numbered ones. I don't know enough about history to have an opinion about that one way or another

[Directing my attention away from JohnW400 and more back onto the "relevance" issue.]

By all means. I have no idea how a statement about spiritualism in Pat Martino's methodology and music during the 60's got so off the track.
I would really like to get back to the original posters question. I'm sure he would too

[JohnRoss]

By all means. I have no idea how a statement about spiritualism in Pat Martino's methodology and music during the 60's got so off the track.
I would really like to get back to the original posters question. I'm sure he would too

Come on, John, it wasn't just 'a' statement, you added a heap of interesting, debate-worthy stuff as well, so you've as guilty as anyone else of drifting off-topic, not that there is anything wrong with that. People have said what they wanted to say about OP's question, OP himself drifted away days ago, and now we're talking about other things, what's the problem?

[JohnW400]

John, I don't really see a heap of debate worthy stuff but that's ok as long as we all know it's a debate and nothing personal.

As far as the OP, no problem really. It's just I had a weak moment and felt sorry that we hijacked his thread

[Reg]

I use b7th on Maj7 chords all the time... I use b3rds on major chords all the time... and yes I use Maj7th on Dom.7th chords a lot also, usually on weak side or as part of an approach to target... I rarely play straight mixo on any Dom7th and usually pull from Altered which can make use of maj 7 very easily. Most would hear the maj 7th as note from some kind of sub-V of typical target chord which through MI can become almost any chord or whatever your playing can imply. Context would obviously have some influence... I can make a video if someone really doesn't get it... best Reg

[Jazzaluk]

Sounds good Reg ... but be careful, it can't be "scientifical", "mystical" and must only be based on accepted theory ... abstraction is not allowed.

[lkmuller]

I went to KS's page and listened to him play. I put on a CD and listened to Martino play. Kevin, you're kidding, right?

[ksjazzguitar]

Sounds good Reg ... but be careful, it can't be "scientifical", "mystical" and must only be based on accepted theory ... abstraction is not allowed.

Of course your mockery of my words is a flat our misrepresentation of what I said. Your exaggeration of what I said and the putting of words into myself is irresponsible. In fact, I said the opposite - abstraction has it's place.

There was no need for Reg to be "careful" since he was not saying anything challengeable - in fact much of it was points that had already been made, some by me.

Wow, my point must have been rock solid if the best you can do is put words in my mouth to create a target for your puerile mockery. I must be doing something right if you've abandoned any pretense of having an adult conversation.

Really? Things had calmed down, and you decided you and to get in another cheap shot? You weren't even making an intellectual point, you were just tying to get in one last head butt before the referee blew his whistle.

Again, I'll ignore cheap shots at my playing. You either like PM or you don't. Personally, I liked PMs playing before the amnesia, but not so much after. And that is all completely irrelevant in reference to his analysis. Some of the greatest players are terrible at explaining things, and vice versa. They are two different skills. I won't bother listing my complaints of PMs analysis and teaching as I've gone into it plenty already.

Peace,
Kevin

[Jazzaluk]

Take a chill pill man. It was a joke. But I'm guessing you will need proof.

[ksjazzguitar]

Take a chill pill man. It was a joke. But I'm guessing you will need proof.

I don't mind people poking a little fun. People have joked about the my wordiness and my "high-fallooten" language. People have laughed at the irony when I have said things like "let's not make this overly complex" or "I don't want to go into a long explanation" - and I've laughed along with them. My wife will confirm that there is plenty about me that is mockable.

But I find it a low thing to do to put words into people's mouth just to laugh at them. Especially when they've said the opposite. That's just something that has always gotten my goat. Especially in a forum where it is already difficult to keep track of what people have said and easy to misunderstand. Mistakes get made, but I can't see that as a mistake since I clearly said the opposite.

I'm not looking for an apology, just please be more careful. And if you're going to mock me, please try to do it in a funnier way - I can forgive almost anything if it makes me laugh. I don't doubt that you meant it as a joke - just found it specious and unfunny.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnW400]

I like Martino's playing in the 60s and I like it today (though the mixing on Remember is good cause for Blue Note to re-hire RVG at any price).

.

You hit the nail on the head. First thing I thought when I heard that CD. What were they thinking?

[ksjazzguitar]

...To move things back on topic, and a more positive note, I found this article to be a good mysticism free explanation of Martino's approach: ...

Cool. Nice little summary and one of the few constructive additions to the thread in a while.

And it does confirm the OPs thing that PM is suggesting an Abm (Dorian) scale over a G7. Again, that Gb over the G7 is very strange to me, unless it is a tension to be resolved either as a passing tone implying an implied V/V (as Reg suggested.) But to me, to just suggest it as one of seven notes in the a scale is not to address the care that that outside note needs, IMHO. But PM is not saying that needs to be resolved - it is the inside scale to him. It cannot be resolved to the G (until after the chord change) because it doesn't even exist in the scale. And it can't be a passing not (G->Gb->F) - one of the most common uses for a Maj7 on a dom 7 because (again) there is no G in the scale.

But that cavalier handling of dissonance is one of the things that I don't like about a lot of modern players, including modern PM. Which is why no one knows PM's name and I've sold millions of albums. But if you guys like it, then go ahead and listen to it. And I'll just keep scratching my head.

But at least we've resolved that that is what he's saying, even if we're disagreeing about it's validity or value.

Peace,
Kevin

[pingu]

Great debate guys 10/10
I think I'm with Kevin on this
I find it better to think of the harmony as named
It takes too many mental cycles to convert to minor for me

I wish I could play as fast and clean as Pat tho
His chops are awesome
and with 16 guage strings ...... yeah man !

[JohnW400]

. I've met several extremely good players who would rip out an amazing line only to scowl in frustration that they "play too much Martino". Just a half-baked thought.

Now can we get back to argueing about the 60s?

That's a good point but not just about Martino. I think a lot of times our influences come out of us a little too much. We play ''too much Martino" or whoever. I'm guilty of this with a few different players. I wind up playing licks that sound like somebody I've been listenening too a bit too much or worked on a few of their solos. I also know players guilty of the same thing. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's frustrating

[orasnon]

LOL, true dat!!... especially since I'm currently under the spell of Martino and can't seem (or perhaps more precisely, I have no desire) to break out of it.. This tendency is particularly true when improvising over modal tunes in minor, ala Impressions or Footprints. Even Bireli Lagrene unrepentingly cops Martino left and right....

[LucreDom]

Is it the same video on "minor conversion method" that I've seen where he's talking about "scale" improvisation ideas (and not chord subs)? If it is then this is one I've had a hunch on for a while and I feel it's been somewhat confirmed by a video posted in the "minor IV, I think not" thread which describes an oft used Martino lick. When Martino says he uses the "Minor 7th" , played from the 5th of any dominant chord (or from the b7 or *b9* for altered sounds), he doesn't actually mean he limits the 7th tone itself to the flatted 7th (!). He goes on in the video to say "and by that (the minor 7th) I don't mean any particular scale or mode, but patterns that I've developed over the years that sound pleasing to me". He's a jazz master that always sounds jazzy, of course he is going to play some representation of the Jazz Minor (melodic) from the 5th over a dominant chord, or from the b9 to get the altered sound. And if he's in the position on the b9, he's not going to think down to the position on the b7 to get the b7th! I think he's labeling a mixed mode approach as "minor 7th" frankly and that he actually includes all chromatic alterations at some point in his "minor 7th" idea. Dorian is sort of the reference point but he doesn't cop to that either. He says what he doesn't mean, but it's left very cryptic what he does mean, and I find that pretty shabby teaching for something he tells people to use everywhere. Could just be a language barrier however, as he might have expected I'd read all the staff examples in the booklet. I checked a couple and was basically seeing dorian (from the 5th). I do find his geometric descriptions of the octave quite interesting and worth looking into. Here is the video from Jack Zucker of his lick. It's chock full of chromatic tones any way you slice it. (and thank you again Jack)

[jzucker]

I use b7th on Maj7 chords all the time... I use b3rds on major chords all the time... and yes I use Maj7th on Dom.7th chords a lot also, usually on weak side or as part of an approach to target... I rarely play straight mixo on any Dom7th and usually pull from Altered which can make use of maj 7 very easily. Most would hear the maj 7th as note from some kind of sub-V of typical target chord which through MI can become almost any chord or whatever your playing can imply. Context would obviously have some influence... I can make a video if someone really doesn't get it... best Reg

I do also. If the dom7 is resolving up a 4th, I love to treat it as a ii v up a tritone. IOW, Over G7 I will play Abm7 Db7. The b7 of the Abm7 happens to be the Maj7 chord so I will occasionally lay on that note as I transition the line from Abmi to wherever that goes and then resolving that to the next chord (in this case C of some type)

[LucreDom]

I do also. If the dom7 is resolving up a 4th, I love to treat it as a ii v up a tritone.

So the Abm7 and Db7 both take place leading into the resolve, yes?

altered altered into the tritone sub. sounds cool to me and I don't even have a guitar here with me.

I just noticed that Ab Dorian in reference to G (admittedly, not in the scale!) is the ULTRA Extreme Super Locrian -- b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 (7)

[jzucker]

that's right the Ab dorian has the maj7 of the G7 in it but it sounds beautiful once you learn to hear it. Also, I still pref the Ab melodic minor with chromatics over a straight scale mode.

[wolflen]

its easy to loose you guys on the turns...but using a major 7 as a dominate...just saw a larry carlton vid on a blues lesson in A .. he used a GMA7 as A13sus going into D7..now the voicing was 1 3 5 7 of the G on the top 4 strings..other voicings are questionable..

to me its can you make ANY chord flow into ANY chord without it sounding forced--if the voicing allows--chord qualities change dramatically with the movement of just one note and depending on context you can be in several keys at the same time and not break any rules of "theory"...not saying this would be easy to analyze..but you could make a valid case for naming chords
with qualities that "dont agree" with theory

play well

wolf

[Jazzaluk]

This is a common sub. If you look at the notes of the GM7, they include all the natural extensions of the A7... Giving the sus, 9th 11th, and 13th. Interesting thing about this sub is that if you move it up a minor third, you get all the altered extensions of the A7. It's a Robert Conti trick that I use allot.

I think this thread is more about forcing the G# over the A7. I could be wrong.

Cheers