-
ok, the title is intentionally misleading click bait. allow me to explain.
i attended (and still occasionally do) Barry Harris' improvisation workshops for a while. Barry has a "system" but he never explains it in any kind of logical order. you have to piece it together bit by bit attending these sessions, somewhat like the "blind men feeling the elephant"
one of the things he talked about was getting rid of the "ii" in the "ii-V."
| Dm7 | G7 | Cmaj7 | becomes...
| G7 | G7 | Cmaj7 |
or even more accurately...
| Cadence to Cmaj | Cadence to Cmaj | Cmaj7 |
where does ii-V come from? according to Barry, the iim7 is a suspension of G7:
D F A C = Dm7
goes to...
D F A B = G9
"If you're always thinking 'ii-V' then there are things you will never play," Barry told us. like most intelligent things about music, it took me some time to fully appreciate it.
what are the benefits of thinking this way?
- it simplifies tunes. if a tune consists of a bunch of ii-Vs, you've just eliminated half the chords you need to think about while improvising. less thinking leads to better and more relaxed improvisation.
- at the same time, it gives you much more choices. i'm willing to bet that we all know a lot more substitutions for dom7 chords than we do for min7 chords. now you can use them. would you intuitively think to use Ddim7 over the first part of a ii-V going to Cmajor7? i certainly wouldn't. but it works, and so do the countless other subs you could use.
- and at the same time, it doesn't mean you have to relearn all your ii-V licks. you can still play the iim7 over a V7, it just becomes one choice out of many
- it is entirely compatible with every way of approaching improvisation. do you like John Stowell's melodic minor subs? Sheryl Bailey's bebop flow? Pat Martino's minor-ization? it all works with it (Pat's way of thinking is, if anything, the same thing only backwards)
give it a shot
-
09-28-2013 03:29 PM
-
Thanks for bringing up Pat, right away. It's good to have lots of tools in the tool kit, so I sometimes "think"
ii-V7, somtimes just V7, sometimes just ii (Pat Martino-style) and sometimes just bII7 (tritone sub). It's all good until it sounds bad.
-
re Ddim in V-I in C, currently, I work on a new tune (actually, reharmonizing a
bubblegum hit that inventivly goes C-G-C-G-.C-G-..., but in the end I'll claim it was my original), ad I can tell you, Ddim is about the most prominent chord there, going to flavours of G, E,C,...
-
Joe Pass looked at II-V's the same way, thinking V7 over both chords. He explains that in the "Jazz Lines" instructional video. You're spot on about Martino. He might think II-II-I, which gives a V7sus sound(in theory. The actual lines can take it elsewhere when passing tones come into the question as they will color the V7), but then again he may sub other minors too. He can think IIm7-bVIm7-Imaj7 which is the tritone sub approached from the preceding II-chord. In short you tritone sub the II-V and think about the II only. The minor third sub for dom7ths is also common (Bb7 for G7 for instance) in which case Pat might think of Fm7 in that case if he favors that sub.
Sheryl Baileys approach is a composite approach of diatonic arpeggio substitutions and bebop scales. Very effective, and it addresses II-V's as one unit. Her "family of four" catalogs the different chord types as they relate to each other as diatonic subs. I studied with her for some time and I learned a lot. Really opened up the guitar for me in new ways and reinforced existing knowledge.
-
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....
-
It seems like this sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. Playing Ask Me Now, I just need to hear the ii-V movement. I want to hear the resolution to the 3rd of the V.
Last edited by henryrobinett; 09-29-2013 at 02:29 PM. Reason: Typo: The song was Monk's "ASK ME NOW"
-
I think I know what you might mean, but surely it depends on the style or context of the player's approach. For example, if you're into quartal lines, or even triad pairs, you set up different expectations for the ear which will accept a wider range of resolutions. But if you start landing "butter" notes for each change, it makes it harder to move away from that without sounding "wrong", or at the very least, less right. I admire guys like Benson who kinda take the attitude that he can play any note, any where, any time, any how and somehow make it all fit.
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
Of course easier said than done, and probably requires years of being able to land chord tones before really stepping out
-
I used to play much more like that - what seems kind of vague to me now. A kind of modal approach to running changes. I'm surprised to hear Barry Harris said that. I know for some thing's it's perfect. Fast changes, playing through changes, etc. But I play with this great pianist who, when he plays, everything just sounds so right. And yet he can stretch and play like McCoy, play out, play like Herbie, but bring it in and play bop like nobody's business. We did a year, or a season of doing bop. We have a band that does concerts of specific artists, or in this case periods. We did a couple of concerts of Bird, another one or two each of Bird with Strings, Bud Powell, Dizzy, Monk, Rollins, 1958, Blue Note, Clifford Brown - and man! I realized, this was several years ago, how much I was skating through that stuff. I didn't sound like a bopper. I wasn't playing each chord and hitting each change like I was supposed to if I was playing that stuff properly.
So I concentrated on ii-Vs again and articulating better. I still play open and modal and smeary, and vague (lol), but now I can also play better hitting each chord tone when I want and need to. ii-Vs to me are one of the keys to that sound.
-
I've just gotten into the Martino approach, and it's great. I've looked around and I've not been able to find a simple chart of minor subs he would use for every chord. I have the book linear expressions.
If I were to start one, I guess it would look like this:
Cmaj7 - A aolean
Dmin7 - D dorian
Emin7
Fmaj7 - D dorian
G7 - D dorian
Amin7 - A aolean
Bm7b5 -D dorian
The altered dominants are a little strange, because the minor substitutions he suggests often give you the Major seven of the dominant chord, but here's what I understand his suggestion to be:
G7 alt - F dorian/aolean, D dorian, Ab dorian, Bb aolean
Anyway, if anybody has anything like a comprehensive list, I'd love to see it.
-
The Martino approach just never made good sense to me.
-
Great topic, Henry. I've attended Barry's workshops and I would recommend to anyone thinking of doing the same to work with his workshop DVD's. Knowing his fundamentals of bebop before going to a workshop will greatly enhance your experience. You never know what the topic will be at any one workshop.
I wanted to touch upon your comment that the ii chord is an extension of the V7. When you work on the fundamentals, the ii chord along with the IV chord and others all become a part of the V7. You can still outline the ii-V but the thinking becomes simplified. I don't know if I'm making it clearer or muddying the waters.
Gary
-
I use some of Mr Harris' concepts. Chromatically approaching a scale half step and enclosing it. I know what you're saying I think. I always opt for simplifying thinking.
-
Twelve tones and someone has to teach you different modes just so you can hear the right notes versus the wrong ones? Unbelievable...what ever happened to using your ears?
Don't mind me...I just don't understand substituting theory for the real deal.
-
I am not a jazz musician, I almost always superimpose II-V's.
For standards, I think melodic minor for II, altered for V, and chromatic lydian for I major. For minor II-V, locrian #2 for II mi7b5, diminished for V, and dorian b5 or melodic minor for I mi.
For II-V in fusion and modern tunes, I'll play triad pair ideas for II, prometheus scale and various chromatic pattern ideas (from Slonimsky, Scriabin), and augmented scale if it is resolving to I. For minor II-V, I either play diminished scale from half step up from the root of the V chord for II and move half step down to return to the root of the V on V, or just play symmetrical diminished ideas for both II and V on the root of V.
But it depends on how long the II-V is...I cannot shove all that in for just a one bar of II-V at a fast tempo.
-
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.
-
does this approach sound just as good for long II-Vs as it does for short ones?
-
So, play C major (Ioninan) against all the chords in C major. Revolutionary! Originally Posted by johnclassick
ps- welcome to the forum, not having a go at you, just at Martino's "concept"??
-
I have studied a lot of Martino solos and learned some by heart. I don't believe he uses his "concept" all the time......no matter what the videos say. Originally Posted by johnclassick
If you study the solo in "Along Came Betty" or "Sunny" you will clearly see that when the altered dominants appear then Pat will stick closely to arpeggios and chord tones with the odd chromatic passing tone. He outlines the chords very clearly. If you look at the licks over those chords you can clearly see the chords shapes.
When he is playing the modal type tunes (Impressions etc) he goes crazy with the minor conversion concept.
I've noticed that on a lot of later YouTube clips that he doesn't seem to play songs with fast moving changes like he used to. Even when he plays Sunny he doesn't really cut the changes, opting for a more modal approach. But on the live album he was hitting the changes with pin point accuracy and playing some completely non minor licks over the altered dominants.
He also uses the Altered or Bebop scale in Along Came Betty as well as the half step whole step scale (starting on the F of the Bb7 chord).
My point is that there is no ONE method. It's comfortable to think there is. But he and most other great players treat the altered dominants in a number of different ways.Last edited by Philco; 09-30-2013 at 10:30 AM.
-
I agree. In addition, his licks haven't changed much over the years, so that I think the minor conversion thing (not to mention his star diagrams) are ideas that he advocates and developed after the fact without necessarily having much to do with his own playing, which is at a level way beyond elementary concepts like converting to minor. Originally Posted by Philco
One more thing, whatever he advocates about converting to minor can't possibly be about *scales*, for the reason princeplanet points out. If anything, it's about using minor arpeggios, or minor pentatonic blues licks, or minor *melodies* (which could include all kinds of chromatics) over non-minor chords (specifically a maj7 up a minor 3rd or down a major 3rd or up a half step, or a dominant up a 4th). I think of this as just a way to point out that one easy way to expand your soloing skills is to use what you already know in new ways. Back in the day we called this "chord substitution".
-
There's nothing wrong with trying different approaches, but I have to say that it seems weird to completely neglect the "ii". There's a reason people write with the ii-V structure, and it's because the pre-dominant has a particular sound that is pleasing to the ear. We've been using it since (at least) the 17th century in a serious way, and I just like it. V7 to Imaj7 is just, to me, not as good of a resolution. I think it's bluesier, so there are some idiomatic phrases that imply that resolution that sound good, but I really like hearing the falling half steps (b7 of ii to 3 of V), and if you just stick to the V7 you lose that.
I don't know that much about Harris' approach, and he's clearly a master so I'll defer, but sometimes jazzers seem to come up with stuff that "works" to get through changes easily but doesn't reflect the harmonic underpinnings of the music in the same way that a Bach piece would.
-
Interesting how some here are inferring that to not outline the ii - V (ie 7th to 3rd) means sounding non bop. But I bet a good player could come across sounding as bop as hell without nailing a single 7th to 3rd over a 2-5 during a whole gig of standards. It's a taste/style thing, no? There's "skating" out of ineptitude, and then there's skating for effect. Martino skates for effect, when he chooses to do so. If I skate over everything cos I don't know how to outline changes, I'll be found out by even elementary players (but probably not the general public...). But if I nail every "general" 5-1 cadence, I'm clearly not modal skating.
The 5-1 is THE cadence in western music. Schenkerian analysis taught me that. Tonal music = Tension / Release.
Bach or Parker, it's what makes tonal music click. Nail that in tonal Jazz , even in Bop, and you can get the gig right alongside the guy who also likes to outline all the sub cadences. In fact, a band featuring differing soloists in this regard makes for a more interesting band, right?
-
I don't think I agree with this. The "taste/style thing" that you refer to is outlining the changes appropriately, IMO. I don't think you could play through Billie's Bounce only using triad-based arpeggios (no 7ths) and sound like a bopper. You could probably sound good, but I don't think you'd sound like a bebop player. Originally Posted by 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.
All that being said, if anyone knows what it takes to be a convincing bebop player, it's Barry Harris. I was more reflecting on the general dropping of the ii, not whether or not that's what the beboppers did. I'm sure Harris knows that far better than I.
-
the thing is you can still use the ii if you want to. it just becomes one of many choices. Originally Posted by ecj
| G7 | Cmaj7 |
can easily be substituted with:
| Dm7 G7 | Cmaj7 |
but it can also be substituted with:
| Fmaj7 G7 | Cmaj7 |
or
| Bm7b5 Abmin(maj7) | Cmaj7 |
or
| Bb7 Db7 | Cmaj7 |
or
| Ddim7 Bdim(maj7) | Cmaj7 |
and on and on...
it's not that you never play "ii-V" ever again.
here's Barry playing with one of his proteges, the severely underrated Charles McPherson. i think it's safe to say that they're making the changes:
-
Exactly my thoughts. Originally Posted by pkirk
The minor conversion concept is a nice way to sell an idea but if you really want to understand Pat's sound then you have a lot more work to do.
Pat had already digested the bebop language and all its devises during his younger gigging years (think endless gigs with legendary jazz musicians).
I must admit I love his playing back then......well the earlier recordings.
It was later that he started developing these minor concepts. But the core bop language was already there and he draws on it all the time........but he never broaches the subject in his videos.
Now that would be an interesting video to watch.
Sorry to derail the thread.
-
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.
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale