using maj7 as a dominant chord?

[frogtime]

when i was watching a tutorial video of pat martino, one of way he uses was playing Abminor7 over g7 to make altered sound. but Abmin7 has the natural seventh of G7 which means F# in C tonality.

and to me, playing F# is not a problem while on a G7 chord. to me it (sharp 4) doesn't directly imply a C major7 or any chord.

what do you think? do you use major sevenths on your improvisation?

as we all know all alterations are possible in dominant chord. and if maj7 is also possible,

if there is no doubt to play, then 12 of 12 notes are correct during the dominant action?

so we can touch all possible triads in the chromatic scale, or superimpose everything by marking chord tones?

another question

i don't understand what pat martino does. he is always thinking in minor7 chords while playing. but it is not the same when i play minor7 lines. according to him there is no much difference between iim7 and v7. but to me there is yes. but he plays the guitar not me.

anyone has an idea, or anyone has a detailed knowledge about the way of him?

[ksjazzguitar]

when i was watching a tutorial video of pat martino, one of way he uses was playing Abminor7 over g7 to make altered sound. but Abmin7 has the natural seventh of G7 which means F# in C tonality.

Are you sure that he didn't mean Abm or AbmMaj7 or Abm6? Abm7 is definitely not good over a G7. That Gb is not a static dissonance - it is about the only note (and perhaps the 11) that cannot be used that way. Pat's theories can be a little out there (to me they make sense but are overly complicated) but that's out there even for him.

and to me, playing F# is not a problem while on a G7 chord. to me it (sharp 4) doesn't directly imply a C major7 or any chord.

what do you think? do you use major sevenths on your improvisation?

A Gb over a G7? Sure, as a passing tone from the G to the F.

as we all know all alterations are possible in dominant chord. and if maj7 is also possible,

I don't "know" that. I handle dissonance much more carefully than that. To me that F#/Gb is a very jarring sound over that G7 (This is dejavu - we've had this discussion before.)

True, you can get away with a lot over a dom, but a Maj7 or an 11? No, those are active dissonances that need to be resolved according to my ear (and most others apparently.) Even then, not all doms can be altered - it really depends on function.

i don't understand what pat martino does. he is always thinking in minor7 chords while playing. but it is not the same when i play minor7 lines. according to him there is no much difference between iim7 and v7. but to me there is yes. but he plays the guitar not me.

OK, I'm no Martino expert, but yes my understanding is that he might, given a Dm7-G7-CMaj7, just think D Dorian over the first 2 chords. Yes, there is not much difference between Dm7 and G7 in this case, mainly being the guide tone change from C to B. If you paint over that, then you get kind of a "sussy" sound. Now, in reality, I think that his ear ends up guiding him to the proper resolutions. Of course, there are other things he might do too.

It's funny, because Joe Pass describes the opposite approach - he would think of the whole thing as G7.

But in reality, when you look at what these guys are playing you see that their ears are leading them to treat these chords not just as reductions. I think that that sometimes advanced players give simplified explanations, either to make things easier, or just because that is what they think that they are thinking. But in reality, when examined, we find that more complex things are going on. The same thing will happen with classical composers when they later realize that a melody in one section is just an inversion of a counter-melody from another - they didn't even realize that they were doing it. Sometimes the way that our brains are accomplishing something is actually much more complicated that how we think that it is. And sometimes these amazing guys aren't the best explainers. But it is interesting to hear what they say.

Peace,
Kevin

[frogtime]

Are you sure that he didn't mean Abm or AbmMaj7 or Abm6? Abm7 is definitely not good over a G7. That Gb is not a static dissonance - it is about the only note (and perhaps the 11) that cannot be used that way. Pat's theories can be a little out there (to me they make sense but are overly complicated) but that's out there even for him.

yes im sure. maybe he uses maj7 as a passing tone or hides it i don't know. and he was using lots of these kind of chords which seems to be wrong over dominant7s.

[ksjazzguitar]

It doesn't make sense to me. AbmMaj7 is a very common way to do it. Abm6 works well too. I can't imagine why you would want to use Abm7, unless it was some kind of tension to be resolved.

It doesn't make sense to me, but maybe that's why I'm not a big Martino fan. Which explains while my career has skyrocketed while no one knows his name.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnW400]

Two major sevenths I can think of to use function as dominant 7ths,

Cma7 against D7
Ebma7 against an D7

I've also used Abma7 against a D7 but I usually wind up resolving it to D7 before moving to the next chord

F# ma7b5 and #5 work well against D7 as well and so does Bbma7#5

Thinking like this the next step could be to convert the ma7 to their relative minor 7ths (C to Am ect.) and then the major sevenths with the altered 5's to their relatives (Bbma7#5 = Gmima7 ect)

I once read that Pat M is not fond of major sevenths and usually converts them to the minor.

I guess it gets to the point where you have the root and then all the other notes and , what the relationship to that root is. (Along the same lines as the idea that there are only really two chords. V-I. All the other chords function as either the V or the I)

[bako]

All manner of chromatics, approach tones, enclosures and superimposed chords can be played against 7th chords.
If you can interpret G7 harmonically integrating various passing chords in the measure then you can imply the same idea with melody as well.
G7 F#7 G7-----G7 F#dim G7-----G7 Ab7 G7 are some simple moves that include F#/Gb

Is it possible that Pat Martino might be thinking a reduction of Abm7 Db7 Cma7 as a sub for Dm7 G7 Cma7
Gb serves as a good path to F which serves as a good path to E.
Anyway without seeing the full context of what he said it's all conjecture on my part.

[lkmuller]

Martino has said many times that he doesn't think of scales at all when he plays. He just plays what sounds good to his ear. Analyses of his playing are usually always after the fact. So when he superimposes an Abm7 over a G7 it doesn't necessarily mean he's going to play an F# in his line over that change. If you just look at the two chords together they strongly imply a Galt chord, against which you can play an Ab melodic minor.

[docbop]

First Pat Martino doesn't like Major family chords and typically plays using minor sub's. Then in this case what is a common approach to G7 Alt, play a Melodic Minor up a 1/2. Last a Ma7 note on a dominant is from the Bebop scale which is used more as a passing tone. All theses things require more study and woodshed time to understand and learn how to use. Out of context they are going to sound odd.

[ksjazzguitar]

Martino has said many times that he doesn't think of scales at all when he plays. He just plays what sounds good to his ear. ...

Yeah, a lot of old pros say that, Joe Pass as well. But they neglect to mention the 20,000 hours they spent practicing scales as they were learning.

I think that there is a danger of learners coming away with the impression that you don't really need to practice scales - you just play what you hear. Again, sometimes these pros don't offer the best explanation of what they are doing (some of the best players I've known have been the worst teachers.) And I think that people like Pat and Joe are thinking about scales, but years and years have practice have programmed them into their subconscious so they don't have to think about them consciously.

...Then in this case what is a common approach to G7 Alt, play a Melodic Minor up a 1/2....

That makes perfect sense to me, but the OP is saying that PM is saying to use an Abm7 - very different sound, and is arguably "wrong."

Last a Ma7 note on a dominant is from the Bebop scale which is used more as a passing tone....

But again, as part of the Abm7 arp, that Gb/F# would not be a passing tone. Either the OP is confused or PM is talking about something else.

Peace,
Kevin

[Jazzaluk]

I don't see Pat Martino's "minor substitution" as aiming to change the sound from major/dominant to minor. I see it as a very clever way of organizing the fretboard and accessing "outside" tones. His minor scale substitution is more tactical than harmonic, allowing him to use one reference point for navigating the the fretboard.

If you look at his fretboard maps, you can see that his "minor conversions" basically allow him to shift from one chord to another by moving a minor form by a half step. The clever part is that he can use the same improvisation muscle-memory (phrases and licks) spontaneity while achieving different sounds against the underlying harmony.

Also, the outside tones can be simply organized by borrowing from the various minor scales, (relative, MM, HM, Dorian, Phrygian.) Somewhat similar to the "modal interchange" concept.

If you play AbMinMel against G7 you can address #5, b5, b9, #9. If, during the improvisation or "activity" (as PM calls it) over G7, you temporarily switch to Ab dorian, you can address the F# (or major 7, depending on you theoretical bent). When the chord moves to C, you have a choice to move your activity up a semitone to Amin (for Cmaj), or down to Gmi Phrygian (for Cmi) .

Once you decide what "minor" substitution applies, all the outside tones can be addressed by simply shifting your "mental map" to a different minor mode.

I am not a theory purist, so I think PM's approach is amazing because it directly addresses the geometry of the guitar. To my ears, PM is uses the minor scales more as positional playing and phases in and out of the various minor modes to highlight different tones.

Like any application, it only bears fruit after some serious wood-shedding.

[ksjazzguitar]

I don't see Pat Martino's "minor substitution" as aiming to change the sound from major/dominant to minor.

Well, to me, every abstraction, by definition is getting away from the sound of the chord. Granted, to some extent that is part of the PM sound. But it is a sound that I don't care for.

I see it as a very clever way of organizing the fretboard and accessing "outside" tones.

Really? I think of a Maj7 as a Maj7 and I seem to be able to find all 12 tones. Are there more that I'm missing by not using a sub?

His minor scale substitution is more tactical than harmonic, allowing him to use one reference point for navigating the the fretboard.

I guess I'm turned off by the term "tactical" - to me this is music, not battle. I will categorically avoid anything that gets me away from thinking about the harmony. But that's just me and what I like.

If you look at his fretboard maps, you can see that his "minor conversions" basically allow him to shift from one chord to another by moving a minor form by a half step.

But I can do that without the abstraction. I thought that that was just basic guitarmanship. If we can do that with minor ideas, why can't we do that with major ideas?

The clever part is that he can use the same improvisation muscle-memory (phrases and licks) spontaneity while achieving different sounds against the underlying harmony.

But to me, that is exactly the problem. If I'm playing over a CMaj7, I don't want to be thinking Em7 or Am7 - I want to be thinking CMaj7. True, the PM approach will get some interesting sounds, but it also abstracts you from understanding the underlying harmony. I do use some of these ideas too, but (for me at least) the process is not done until I relate it to the true harmony.

If you play AbMinMel against G7 you can address #5, b5, b9, #9.

But I can get all of those by thinking in G7. Why do I need to think in another key to get those? And if I think of these notes relative to the G7, then I can also remember to resolve them correctly.


Again, the PM approach will give you a PM sound. If that is a sound that you like, then go for it. I'm just trying to show that there are also arguments against it. But of course nearly any idiosyncratic will have pros and cons. I just don't want beginners to read this and think that the PM approach is the approach. It is an approach. It is a respected approach that can achieve good results. But it also has some limitations and (like other approaches) is best balanced with some other understandings. I've met a few guys who only studied the PM approach and they all sounded one-dimensional to my ears. But the same could probably be said of anyone who studies only one approach.

Peace,
Kevin

[Jazzaluk]

Kevin

I am not qualified to defend PMs approach. These are just observations on how I think PM sees the instrument.

His approach is definitely an abstraction, as are all approaches that attempt to organize the fretboard and the twelve notes, so I don't quite get your aversion to the idea. The major difference with PM's abstraction is that he has taken into account the the geometric nature of the instrument. It really is quite an eloquent discovery even if you don't like his sound. I'm sure that someone, someday will create something very new and interesting from it.

As for the word tactical, your association with battle misses my intent. There are many tactics used to navigate the fretboard, one of which is the method you use, whatever it may be. All of them obviously can be applied to deal with outside tones. I just find it interesting that, with PM's approach, all the outside tones can be introduced through changing the nature of the minor scale. This symmetry does not exist with major or dominant scale.

Another interesting approach/abstraction that I enjoy experimenting with is "Barry Harris'" method , which you may know is based on the diminished 6th scale. It fits really nicely on the guitar and has its own clever symmetry when applied to the guitar. I actually like this approach better than PM's and have invested a lot of time in it. I think it is a better fit for finger-style jazz, which is my obsession.

Personally, I don't use PMs approach, since I have invested to much time in my own abstraction which basically borrows from three different concepts. However, I do use my understanding of PM's approach to see the symmetry of the fretboard. But I actually like abstraction, it is the basis of my creativity, as it is.

[ksjazzguitar]

These are just observations on how I think PM sees the instrument.

That's cool. I'm just making observations on what I view are weaknesses in the approach.

His approach is definitely an abstraction, as are all approaches that attempt to organize the fretboard and the twelve notes

I'm not sure how thinking of a Maj7 as a Maj7 is an abstraction. If we define it as an abstraction of the music, then certainly an abstraction of that abstraction is more of an abstraction. I know guys who take it to the fullest and are thinking in terms of subs of subs to the point that they don't even know what the original is. PM isn't that bad, but it is a step towards that. I think that the point should be to get into the harmony, not to abstract yourself from it, but that may just be me.

The major difference with PM's abstraction is that he has taken into account the the geometric nature of the instrument.

I've never been a big fan of an over-dependence on the geometry of the guitar, especially when you start to derive theory from it. Using it for practical things is fine, but if it starts to define how you think of music, then I think that you are abstracting yourself away from the music - not a good thing in my opinion.

It really is quite an eloquent discovery even if you don't like his sound.

I assume you mean "elegant." But I really never found anything in PM's theories that I heard before. He just bundled a bunch of old ideas together, combined them into multiple levels of abstraction, and then slapped on a bunch bizarre lingo to make it seem original and "scientifical."

And "even if I don't like the sound" is the main way I judge something. I don't care what the theory looks like on paper - I care how it sounds. True, that is subjective, but for me, the way it sounds is the primary way I might judge the "elegance" of the theory.

In engineering, we used to have a saying: "For every complex problem there is a simple, elegant solution ... that is also 100% incorrect." The functionality of a solution is what determines is usefulness, not it's elegance. You think that the PM approach yields good results, I am dubious.


So, we obviously have some fundamental differences in our philosophical approach to music. That's cool. And ultimately we probably agree on more than might be apparent from each of us arguing the opposite sides of this mini-debate.

Peace,
Kevin

[timscarey]

when i was watching a tutorial video of pat martino, one of way he uses was playing Abminor7 over g7 to make altered sound.

To me, that is not an "altered dominant" sound. It sounds like a cluster.

I really feel like he's talking about Ab melodic minor, as that will and does give you and "altered dominant" sound on a G7.

could you share the source? I would love to hear the example.

[cosmic gumbo]

I don't see how a chord can function as a dom7 with a maj7 in it.

[gersdal]

when i was watching a tutorial video of pat martino, one of way he uses was playing Abminor7 over g7 to make altered sound.

Could you give me the name of the dvd and approx time where Pat say that?

[Jazzaluk]

I think that the point should be to get into the harmony, not to abstract yourself from it, but that may just be me.

I think you need a pretty good understanding of harmony to apply PMs approach correctly.

I've never been a big fan of an over-dependence on the geometry of the guitar, especially when you start to derive theory from it. Using it for practical things is fine, but if it starts to define how you think of music, then I think that you are abstracting yourself away from the music - not a good thing in my opinion.

Finding new ways to view the instrument can be the source of new music.

I assume you mean "elegant." But I really never found anything in PM's theories that I heard before. He just bundled a bunch of old ideas together, combined them into multiple levels of abstraction, and then slapped on a bunch bizarre lingo to make it seem original and "scientifical."

Yes I meant elegant... I blame the spell checker.

This is a pretty severe indictment of a jazz guitar giant. His analysis, formalization and application of this approach to guitar is a life-time endeavor. I don't think it is fair to cast him as a snake-oil salesman.

And "even if I don't like the sound" is the main way I judge something. I don't care what the theory looks like on paper - I care how it sounds. True, that is subjective, but for me, the way it sounds is the primary way I might judge the "elegance" of the theory.

In engineering, we used to have a saying: "For every complex problem there is a simple, elegant solution ... that is also 100% incorrect." The functionality of a solution is what determines is usefulness, not it's elegance. You think that the PM approach yields good results, I am dubious.

As a practicing professional engineer since 1982, I understand your skepticism. However, I have also come to understand that the practical application of any theory has boundaries outside of which it will break down, and, it is very easy to discount a valid application if the problem it aims to solve is not well understood.

So, we obviously have some fundamental differences in our philosophical approach to music. That's cool. And ultimately we probably agree on more than might be apparent from each of us arguing the opposite sides of this mini-debate.

Yup ... it takes all kinds

Cheers

[frogtime]

it's in an external harddisk that i gave to a friend. but probably creative force as i remember

[ksjazzguitar]

I think you need a pretty good understanding of harmony to apply PMs approach correctly.

My point isn't that it's not complicated. My point is that it abstracts us from what we should be thinking about - the true harmony. I've heard it applied "correctly" and remain unimpressed. I've heard the same argument for astrology - "you just need to understand it." No, I understand enough to know that I find it without value.

It's ironic - before his system was "elegant." Now it requires a good understanding of harmony.

This is a pretty severe indictment of a jazz guitar giant.

Yup. I like old PM. New PM is skillful but ultimately it bores me after a while. But his theories? Where he strings together a bunch of old concepts and superimposes pseudo-scientific terminology to make it sound clever and original? Yeah, he really looses me there. He seems to confuse "complexity" and "profoundity," IMHO.

I had a few of his videos and worked through one of his books. One of my friends who studied him in school came to similar conclusions. We used to sit around and pretend to speak in Martino-speak - we laughed ourselves silly. Really - his bizarre choice of terminology almost puts me on the floor laughing sometimes. I guess I just hate guys that take themselves that seriously.

...the practical application of any theory has boundaries outside of which it will break down, and, it is very easy to discount a valid application if the problem it aims to solve is not well understood.

First of all, I don't see that PMs solving a problem. What, that it is too complicated to think of chords as themselves? I disagree. And whatever problem it purports to solve, I think I can understand it. But again, whatever we do to solve it, I would have hoped that it doesn't abstract us from the music.

Look, I'm not saying that it can't generate ideas. I just think that as a core theory it is a mistake - it leads us away from the music. I do think abstractly sometimes too, but I always relate it back to the original harmony. I've seen too many guys who live in that world of abstraction. I used to play with guy for whom everything was a sub of a sub of a sub.

The results that these approaches get (or fail to get) helps convince me that that is not a path I want to take. I have yet to hear someone who thinks that way that produces the results that I want.

But of course, it is all subjective. If you think it yields great results, then go for it. I'm not saying that it's terrible, just that I don't like the results. But go for it.

But we've gone well beyond the OP wanted. Maybe we should start a new thread: "Kevin whines endlessly about Martino."

Peace,
Kevin

[orasnon]

Isn't much of this discussion a "narcissism of minor differences"?

[lkmuller]

Isn't much of this discussion a "narcissism of minor differences"?

lol..........well put.

[M-ster]

... so I think PM's approach is amazing because it directly addresses the geometry of the guitar. To my ears, PM is uses the minor scales more as positional playing and phases in and out of the various minor modes to highlight different tones.

Definitely not interested in debating - just seconding that PM's approach is all about "the geometry of the guitar." There is information, etc., posted on his site, for those interested.

There's also an interesting YouTube vid' of him in a semi-instructional mode calling chords and his applied minors and then riffing off some examples.

Definitely a unique individual and player with his own approach.

[Jazzaluk]

Definitely not interested in debating - just seconding that PM's approach is all about "the geometry of the guitar." There is information, etc., posted on his site, for those interested.

There's also an interesting YouTube vid' of him in a semi-instructional mode calling chords and his applied minors and then riffing off some examples.

Definitely a unique individual and player with his own approach.

Thanks M-star ... I'm not really interested in debating this either. Never really intended to. I was just making some observations that were interpreted as an argument.

[JohnW400]

One thing about Pat's approach is his hexagrams from I Ching. The idea itself is great because it opens you up to thinking about possibilities that you might not have otherwise thought of.

For example , 4 note seventh chords on string 65 21. the voicings would be 1573 with an octave between the 5-7.

As far as converting to minor, if I recall correctly he uses Dorian examples in his book. ( I may be mistaken, it's been years since I saw his books)

For me I like the minor conversions for major 7ths idea, again because it opens you up to possibilities you might not have thought about using against a major 7th chord.

Say what you want about Pat, his albums Conciousness, Live and Joyous Lake were real eye openers for me when I first heard them decades ago.

[kenbennett]

The "geometry of the guitar" is a red herring in Martino's theory. The simple fact is that the geometry of the guitar is still the geometry of the guitar whether you think in abstractions (subs and so forth) or in harmonic reality (preferred by Kevin, me, and many others). The geometry of the guitar does not change, only the names of harmonic structures and the conceptual context changes. Calling a dog's tail a leg does not mean that he has 5 legs. The geometry of the dog does not change when you rename it's parts.