Stop Playing ii-V's

[princeplanet]

I also think that you are over generalizing if you think that the 5-1 is all you need to make tonal music click. The predominant is an equally important part of the mix in the way it sets up the dominant.

In classical music, perhaps, but the classic use of IV (and it's subs) is not a feature of most Jazz.

[pluvia]

[targuit]

Man, I love listening to Barry play and ruminate. I was playing along with the video, the lovely diminished chords and colors flying about. You learn more just hanging with that guy than in school. The only problem is we have only fewer fingers to sound the notes, though we can get there, just not all at once. Never a dull or wasted moment with Barry.

Reminds me how I rue not learning to play piano when I was a kid. I play today, but not near his level.

Jay

[ecj]

In classical music, perhaps, but the classic use of IV (and it's subs) is not a feature of most Jazz.

The ii-V-I is the quintessential use of the predominant. The predominant sets up the dominant, which resolves to the tonic. The ii is just a sub for the IV.

Again, I'll reiterate in case anyone is confusing my position: Barry Harris knows what he's talking about. Far better than I. I was just remarking that, in general, I'm kind of confused about the advice to drop the ii that comes from Harris, Pass, etc., because I don't really hear it happening that much. That being said, I have a lot of studying to do and will keep it in mind.

[henryrobinett]

I'm with you ecj. He definitely knows more than I about this stuff. As I said earlier, I do this on fast moving changes, complex changes, sometimes for variation, but the movement of the ii - V has a specific sound that I love and that is endemic to the style. To advocate eliminating it just leaves me scratching my head. And to say you don't have to NOT play the notes of the ii, just don't think about it, doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. If I play the notes of the ii I'm thinking about it, aren't I?

[Vladan]

As I understood it, they are not droping anything. It's when ii V I is in backing, the ii V part they treat as one whole. ii V is still there, but treated as either, or another.

[henryrobinett]

As I understood it, they are not droping anything. It's when ii V I is in backing, the ii V part they treat as one whole. ii V is still there, but treated as either, or another.

Well whatever. If I'm hearing the ii-V because it's being played, I'm responding to the ii-V and chances are I'm going to play ii-V, or I'm going to play a substitute. Dropping to ii in favor of the V for me is another sub. I mean it's NOT a sub, but I'm treating it as such because I'm altering my treatment of the changes.

[princeplanet]

The ii-V-I is the quintessential use of the predominant. The predominant sets up the dominant, which resolves to the tonic. The ii is just a sub for the IV.

Again, I'll reiterate in case anyone is confusing my position: Barry Harris knows what he's talking about. Far better than I. I was just remarking that, in general, I'm kind of confused about the advice to drop the ii that comes from Harris, Pass, etc., because I don't really hear it happening that much. That being said, I have a lot of studying to do and will keep it in mind.

As you wish, all that I will say is that my Dom lines usually work over ii, but not over IV.....

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

The ii-V-I is the quintessential use of the predominant. The predominant sets up the dominant, which resolves to the tonic. The ii is just a sub for the IV.

Is the ii a sub for the IV, or is the IV a sub for the ii? Or is this chicken/egg territory?

[ecj]

Is the ii a sub for the IV, or is the IV a sub for the ii? Or is this chicken/egg territory?

If you approach it by learning standard Western classical harmony, the ii is a sub for IV. The point is that whether it's the ii, IV, or whatever other sub, it's a predominant that serves an important function in music.

A lot of things "work" over other things, but that's mostly a matter of subjective taste. I've been trying to learn more about composition and the development of theory over the last year, and have benefited tremendously for approaching this stuff as a system rather than just a grab bag set of techniques. If you try to play a chord/mel version of all the standards, just the melody and harmony, I think it sounds awfully weird to drop out all of the ii's. For example, play Autumn Leaves in Em and drop out all of the two chords. It sounds weird to me, and not like anything I've actually ever heard Joe Pass play in a solo setting.

I could see it working if it's just a question of soloing over quick changes, and I'll have to dig in more on that one to see what Harris is describing in practice. Again, I have a lot to learn about the bebop language.

[princeplanet]

I always find IV (maj7) interesting in that, in my view of the Jazz landscape divided into V and I, it can be in either camp, depending on the surrounding context. If you're curious, try Autumn Leaves and play either a Tonic or Dom line over the IV chord. Just saying that IV in jazz is not strong enough to be the "3rd" group in terms of harmonic quality (Subdominant). It can be treated as though it belongs to the Tonic or Dom family.

In my classical training I always remember 3 distinct harmonic "qualities" in the music, I was either at "home" (tonic), moving away from home (subdominant), or needing to return home (Dominant).

Seems that it may be over simplifying it to some, but I honestly hear most Jazz having only the 2 strong harmonic "gears", home and away. Can someone point me to an example where this type of thinking is inadequate?

[princeplanet]

I think it sounds awfully weird to drop out all of the ii's. For example, play Autumn Leaves in Em and drop out all of the two chords. It sounds weird to me, and not like anything I've actually ever heard Joe Pass play in a solo setting.

But aren't we talking about leaving the ii chords alone, they are still played in the comp, and just improvising Dom lines over the ii (or vice versa). You get this occasional 11th (sus 4?) nice rub which resolves into the V with the stronger cadence to I. Gotta have the ii in the backing!

[docbop]

I always find IV (maj7) interesting in that, in my view of the Jazz landscape divided into V and I, it can be in either camp, depending on the surrounding context. If you're curious, try Autumn Leaves and play either a Tonic or Dom line over the IV chord. Just saying that IV in jazz is not strong enough to be the "3rd" group in terms of harmonic quality (Subdominant). It can be treated as though it belongs to the Tonic or Dom family.

In my classical training I always remember 3 distinct harmonic "qualities" in the music, I was either at "home" (tonic), moving away from home (subdominant), or needing to return home (Dominant).

Seems that it may be over simplifying it to some, but I honestly hear most Jazz having only the 2 strong harmonic "gears", home and away. Can someone point me to an example where this type of thinking is inadequate?

is Autumn Leave a bad example because the IV chord is the pivot chord for the key change so it not functioning as a true IV chord.

FYI 99% of my harmony knowledge is from Jazz schools or teachers only studied basics of traditional harmony.

[princeplanet]

is Autumn Leave a bad example because the IV chord is the pivot chord for the key change so it not functioning as a true IV chord.

FYI 99% of my harmony knowledge is from Jazz schools or teachers only studied basics of traditional harmony.

Maybe, can you think of another example of IV usage where IV functions as a "true" IV ? (not IV7)

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Just Friends? It begins with a IV. Good progression all around.

[TheGrandWazoo]

The ii-V-I is the quintessential use of the predominant. The predominant sets up the dominant, which resolves to the tonic. The ii is just a sub for the IV.

Again, I'll reiterate in case anyone is confusing my position: Barry Harris knows what he's talking about. Far better than I. I was just remarking that, in general, I'm kind of confused about the advice to drop the ii that comes from Harris, Pass, etc., because I don't really hear it happening that much. That being said, I have a lot of studying to do and will keep it in mind.

I understand his point being that in today's modern study of jazz too many people focus on ii-V7. Barry is just emphasizing not to for the sake of not boxing yourself in to only thinking ii-V. By "ignoring" the ii and focusing on his other ways of creating movement between the I and V we can open ourselves up to other possibilities. I don't believe he's trying to get rid of the ii just to look at the other possibilities of movement between the tonic and dominant.

[garyob]

I always find it hard to explain some of Barry's teachings without being in-person with instrument in hand. I want to try to clear something up about thinking V7-I instead of ii-V-I. If I was playing a short ii V in C. Maybe I start on the 9th of G7 which is A and descend A,Ab,G,Gb,F through the dm7 with F landing on the downbeat of 3(G7). I was thinking G7 but to my ears I hear dm7 because the A and F fall on downbeats. The thinking is simplified. Another example would be descending in 8th notes A,G,F,E, with D landing on the 3rd beat. I'm still thinking descending down from the 9th of G7 but I think most would agree it emphasizes the ii chord. Very simplistic examples but I hope it shows that simplifying the thinking doesn't eliminate the ii sound.

[garyob]

where does ii-V come from? according to Barry, the iim7 is a suspension of G7:

D F A C = Dm7

Barry would call the Dm7 the "Important Minor" built off of the 5th of G7.

[rintincop]

Yes:

As I understood it, they are not dropping anything. It's when ii V I is in backing, the ii V part they treat as one whole. ii V is still there, but treated as either, or another.

Remember that Barry's teaching of playing the dominant scale only is a linear application. He states that the chord player continues to play the IIm7 (the four note chord built on the fifth of the dominant to the dominant 7th).


In a workshop Barry related that he told Max Roach about this scaler approach (when Harris joined Max's group after the accident) and Roach said something to the effect "I remember Bird saying something like that". (Paraphrase due to aging brain cells).


For two bar phrases Barry has us play up the dominant to the seventh and back down.
For split bars [2 beats IIm7 - 2 beats V7] we play the dominant scale, seventh down to the tonic.


These are basic scale outlines to then base our improvisation upon.

Of course, many of the older standards started out with just V7 I and when they became jazz standards they were harmonized as ii-V7-I.

Barry would call the Dm7 the "Important Minor" built off of the 5th of G7.

Joe Pass looked at II-V's the same way, thinking V7 over both chords. He explains that in the "Jazz Lines" instructional video.

I treat everything as either being V or I. Infact, that can be taken further where V or I material can even be used against V7b9 and i in the relative minor, although I sometimes alter lines to accommodate the raised 3rd against V7b9 in minor. It's easier to improvise when things are simplified, yet the lines are more interesting which is an unexpected bonus.


I had one guy say that if you listen to an improv without the harmonic backing you should be able to clearly hear all the changes clearly spelled out. But I don't believe that, there are many great solos that just don't do that. Heck, even way back in the 60's Herbie Hancock was saying he preferred to stay away from 3rds and 7ths, calling them "butter notes".


I'm not saying I play randomly, I have 2 very distinct gears, Dominant and Tonic. For each "gear" I have dozens of devices and ideas for. If I play on the wrong one it sounds way worse than noodling randomly, so I gotta be careful. There is also, though, another gear which encompasses what I like to call the "Ambitonic", ie, material that works over both, the V and the I. Used sparsely for effect only, this includes things like pentatonic and blues scales. 13th arpeggios (particularly when embellished), certain chromatic devices involving certain approach tones etc. You get to a point where, for example, if you are targeting 6ths and 9ths, it is not by accident, but because you "hear" it.


So yeah, I used to try to land 7ths and 3rd a lot, but that sounds boring in a text book way to me now. The cool shit is elsewhere, imho....

[MarkRhodes]

Of course, many of the older standards started out with just V7 I and when they became jazz standards they were harmonized as ii-V7-I.

That's what I was thinking. Wasn't it bop players who wanted to have more chords to deal with?

[mr. beaumont]

Right...but of course, a lot of what's cool about having more chords is what it does to a relatively simple line...

Take a four bar V I cadence, and craft a line--two bars of each.

Then play the same line over ii V I (ii V first bar, then I)

Then try another chord, like ii V bII7 I

Play the same line over each...hear it?

[Jonah]

THis idea can work when comping plays original change ii-v-i and you play over v-v-i
That makes some sence...

But I would suggest a general approach to it...

improvizer in jazz always work with two harmonic layers - one is that is given in comping (even if there is no comping he still keeps in mind original change more or less), the other one that he creates in soloing - how these two relate make to me the whole idea of harmonic subs..
Subs do not substitute chord but I would say they give reference to original chord, communicate with it, and show some other side of it...


And I also consider another important point - some subs became idiomatic in some styles - that is they are subs no more, they make new original progression... we should keep it in mind if with play with reference to some style of music.

[docbop]

THis idea can work when comping plays original change ii-v-i and you play over v-v-i
That makes some sence...

But I would suggest a general approach to it...

improvizer in jazz always work with two harmonic layers - one is that is given in comping (even if there is no comping he still keeps in mind original change more or less), the other one that he creates in soloing - how these two relate make to me the whole idea of harmonic subs..
Subs do not substitute chord but I would say they give reference to original chord, communicate with it, and show some other side of it...


And I also consider another important point - some subs became idiomatic in some styles - that is they are subs no more, they make new original progression... we should keep it in mind if with play with reference to some style of music.

Did you ever heard Joe Pass live, he would be re-harmonizing and re-harmonizing to point you better have the original melody running in your head or you wouldn't know where he was at. Wasn't just Joe many of the greats would be re-harmonizing on the spot, that why you need great ears to accompany them.

[Jonah]

Did you ever heard Joe Pass live, he would be re-harmonizing and re-harmonizing to point you better have the original melody running in your head or you wouldn't know where he was at. Wasn't just Joe many of the greats would be re-harmonizing on the spot, that why you need great ears to accompany them.

I agree ...

Co-playing in jazz is both co-ears, co- feel, com-passion... lots of co's )))

And the success of this depends either on good common feel, on common approach that players have, or just on previous agreements.

I just do not get how it is related to my comment.