Do you think in terms of either I or V ?

[princeplanet]

I notice that many players mention that they don't address every single change in an obvious way, eg, for a 2 5 1 , use the same material for 2 and 5 and different material for 1. I suppose you can extend the idea so that regardless of the ongoing harmony, you either play dominant material (or it's corresponding dorian) or tonic material.

Does anyone here break things down in this way? Care to elaborate?

[VersatileJazzGuitarist]

When you first learn to improvise, you have to think hard about what scales to apply (as you are now doing). At some point, you will internalize this information. The scale theory will become unconscious and automatic, and hopefully you will then start "composing" lines and riffs as you solo.

This process takes time. In my case, it took years.

So no, I don't break things down in the way you suggest. But early in my development, I was just running scales, and over a major ii-V-I I would be working in the scale of of the destination I chord.

[docbop]

that is players who tend Key Centers versus chord-to-chord, but you can apply both approaches if your lines are strong enough and make melodic sense. Sometimes skipping a chord is a way to create tension and release, at some point you need to resolve. Also they might not be thinking whole chord, but they could be hitting one of the key chord tones in their line.

I get nervous when people over simplify a statement. Analyze a solo that used the commenters statement. Then write out the notes and see what the difference actually are. Then shed that concept in lots of other situations to get idea on work it will and won't work.

Like skipping the II and going to the V directly some will play a V sus7 where the II would be, then V7. Think about that and try playing it it will open you up to a cool half-step resolution to using in your lines.

The answers are all stored in the woodshed.

[pingu]

I notice that many players mention that they don't address every single change in an obvious way, eg, for a 2 5 1 , use the same material for 2 and 5 and different material for 1. I suppose you can extend the idea so that regardless of the ongoing harmony, you either play dominant material (or it's corresponding dorian) or tonic material.

Does anyone here break things down in this way? Care to elaborate?

Yeah I trying to do this a bit these days
EG in a song like 'Like Someone in love' A section
With lots o chords going past cos of the decending Bass line thing

I find if I try to outline every chord it can get too 'prescriptive'
and not floaty and free enough
so ........

I reharmed the A section to just one chord per bar
not necessarily for comping but to have in mind when soloing
works well

I like the reductionist idea of getting to the heart of the tunes harmony too
I'm into a K.I.S.S. thing sat the mo


PS
I wanted to do this for stella too
(too many changes going past , I mean I can get on them at a medium tempo but again it can sound like I'm 'running the changes' rather that being really free and easy with it) too and asked if anyone had the original as written changes , but was told to 'man up' and find them myself !
got any ??

[Jazzaluk]

Actually, I tend to analyse tunes, and memorize them, using the I and V chord movements. The ii chord, to me is just an extension of the V chord that facilitates a smooth transition. There are other options, as everyone is aware, of smoothly moving from through the dominant to the resolution chord (ii V I being the most common).

Once I analyse the tune this way I try to find alternate ways to treat the dominate for a smooth transition without damaging the melody. It amounts to the same result as viewing each chord in a ii V I an finding substitutions, but I find that thinking in terms of the dominant gives me a centerpiece to attach various options.

[princeplanet]

Had a convo once where a guy said that he likes to treat everything as I ! He went on to qualify by saying that he wasn't thinking of the parent scale, but of the parent "arp".. It was an interesting idea and I toyed with it for a while. If you play the 13th arp from the parent key against all the basic 7th chords from the parent key, you can do little wrong, you are hitting chord tones or extensions. Just watch those 11ths, or just raise them, or even avoid them against certain chords. I found I got beyond the "hit and miss" stage where I was favoring some ideas that sounded better than others over various chords. It reminded me a bit of noodling blues scales as a beginner where you find yourself playing the same notes, but in a different way to suit the chord of the moment.

Obviously it's all very restricting, but as temporary device I'm sure a bit of "reductionism" can be a good thing.

[Jazzaluk]

I don't see reducing the tunes structure this way as restricting. The thing that is restricting is how many ways you can treat a progression through the dominant. The ii V I is actually only one way and in that sense it is restricting.

Having said that, there are limits to how you can move through the dominant depending on the context. The melody will present its own natural limitiations (if preserving the melody is the goal). The options available when comping for a soloist will depend on the level and ears ... so I stick with the chart and some sure-shot subs so I don't mess up the soloist and give them lots of room and predictability (and to avoid the "what the hell was that" look. )

My preferred playing is finger-style solo guitar, so the bass-line and inner lines pretty much need to support the melody until it is dropped during an improv chorus when more adventurous movements may be possible. Reducing to I and V chords makes it easy to memorize tunes.

Then all I have to think about is various options to approach the Tonic (minor or major) and various approaches to the dominant. This is a way of thinking I got on to from studying Barry Harris and Roni Ben Hur.

[JonnyPac]

I've heard all kinds of arguments and views on reductionism and harmonic generalization over the last few years. I think they are valid for the most part, but not shortcuts whatsoever. You can't come out the gates and play solid sounding jazz by generalizing everything, but you can go full-circle after learning bop lines, voice leading, CST, arps, ear-training etc and use these skills to make good lines, or even superimpose alternate harmonies.

A ii V7 is easy to generalize as "dominant", "Dorian", etc. But if the V7 of the ii V7 is altered, etc, you'll find some serious problems. For example, Dm7b5 Db9#11 Cmaj7 is a common parallel min/maj ii V7(tritone ALT sub) I progression. You cannot generalize any of the three chords without a bit of tasteless dissonance, IMHO. You gotta play the changes.

I actually feel this way about most changes. If it is very diatonic and/or extremely functional, you can take more liberties and generalize. Anything else, especially "jazzy" changes, should be milked for what they are worth. Playing over a really cool progression is an opportunity to play an interesting line; not to be missed!

[Jazzaluk]

.

. For example, Dm7b5 Db9#11 Cmaj7 is a common parallel min/maj ii V7(tritone ALT sub) I progression. You cannot generalize any of the three chords without a bit of tasteless dissonance, IMHO. You gotta play the changes.

This progression to me is simply an alternate route through the dominant to the tonic.

I agree that a reductionist view such as this should not be considered a simplification, but rather a way of analysis that opens up other possibilities. I consider the V chord a memory hanger for ideas that I have learned. Same with the I or i chord. It forces me to think of motion and voice-leading instead of block chords.

Just a personal preference ... Not meant to discourage learning all the possible movements in whatever form or notation they are encountered.

[JonnyPac]

Functionally it is just V7 I, yes, but that doesn't get into the grit and color. You could also generalize it as Cm and CM, etc.

[TommyD]

On one of his instruction tapes Joe Pass said that he keeps his thinking simple; the I chord, and the VII chord with raised and lowered fifth, ninth, eleventh and thirteenth. He said he ignores the II for the most part. Then of course, he goes on to play the most complicated progression you ever heard, claiming that it's all just the I and VII chords.

[JonnyPac]

What do you mean by VII?

[pingu]

probably Henry the VII

[max chill]

I look at changes as a structure to create tension in the dom and release in the tonic.

[pingu]

Anyone care to post up a reduced harmony for Stella ?
I'd genuinely be interested ..........
and/or has anyone got the original as written changes ?

[JonnyPac]

Something like this: A7 F7 Bb7 Eb Ab7 Bb A7 Dm Bbm F A7 D7 G7 F7 Ab7 Bb A7 G7 F7 Bb... only using Maj Min and Dom. The two bars of Cm7 seem more "Dorian" than tonic minor so I called them F7 as if they were a ii V7. I would never play the tune this way... only functional reminders for the long-view.

The original is in G, not Bb so I've heard.

[pingu]

Can you put bar lines on that for me Jonny ?

[pingu]

Oh I see . one chord per bar .... sorry

I didn't really mean reduced like that
more how it was written originally
surely it didn't get about like this originally ??

[whatswisdom]

Anyone care to post up a reduced harmony for Stella ?
I'd genuinely be interested ..........
and/or has anyone got the original as written changes ?

|| E-7b5 | A7b9 | C-7 | F7 | F-7 | Bb7 | E-7b5 A7b9| D-7 | Bb-7 Eb7 |FM7 |

| E-7b5 A7 | A-7b5 | D7b9 ||

|| G+7 | -/- | C-7 | -/- | Ab7 | -/- | Ab7 | -/- | BbM7 | -/- | E-7b5 | A7b9

| D-7b5 | G7b9 | C-7b5 | F7b9 | BbM7 | -/- ||

[VersatileJazzGuitarist]

I don't have the original changes, but I've just reviewed the tune's history on Wikipedia. It first appeared in a movie in 1944 as a romantic ballad played very slow.

Then I listened (on MOG) to the first 1947 hit recordings of the tune, by Harry James and Frank Sinatra.

Conclusions:
The original version was a slow, romantic, ballad. Jazz players usually play it up tempo.
- The original version starts on a diminished chord. This would be an unhip jazz change.
- The original version has V7 chords where we almost always have ii-V7 chords. This would be extremely unhip.

What I'm trying to say is, do you really want the original changes? They don't fit with the idiom that most of us play.

[VersatileJazzGuitarist]

Whatwisdom you're missing a couple of bars in the A section. Re-check.

[Jazzaluk]

On one of his instruction tapes Joe Pass said that he keeps his thinking simple; the I chord, and the VII chord with raised and lowered fifth, ninth, eleventh and thirteenth. He said he ignores the II for the most part. Then of course, he goes on to play the most complicated progression you ever heard, claiming that it's all just the I and VII chords.

Yes... Joe Pass thought of progressions in terms of Major Minor and Dominant 7th (which I believe you are referring to as V!!). He also viewed the ii chord as part of the dominant. I have those tapes and they are definitely worth studying.

[whatswisdom]

Whatwisdom you're missing a couple of bars in the A section. Re-check.

Sorry about that...just had my Real Book 5th ed. nearby and thought I'd contribute. I'll recheck and clarify...

[whatswisdom]

Whatwisdom you're missing a couple of bars in the A section. Re-check.

|| E-7b5 | A7b9 | C-7 | F7 | F-7 | Bb7 | EbM7 | Ab7 | BbM7 | E-7b5 A7b9| D-7 |

| Bb-7 Eb7 | FM7 | E-7b5 A7 | A-7b5 | D7b9 ||

|| G+7 | -/- | C-7 | -/- | Ab7 | -/- | BbM7 | -/- | E-7b5 | A7b9 |

| D-7b5 | G7b9 | C-7b5 | F7b9 | BbM7 | -/- ||

[JonnyPac]

|| A7 | A7 | F7 | F7 | Bb7 | Bb7 | Eb | Ab7 |
| Bb |A7 | Dm | Eb7 | F |A7 | D7 |D7 |
| G7 | G7 | F7 | F7 | Ab7 | Ab7 | Bb | Bb |
|A7 | A7 | G7 | G7 | F7 | F7 | Bb | Bb ||

This is just functional reductions. Not really cool at all.