-
Hi
I'm pretty new to jazz guitar and I'm struggling with playing the changes (with a different mode and arp for each chord) over a fast II V I progression. Is it possible to play Dorian for both the II chord and the V chord, resolving to ionian on the I chord? (Or alternitavely using the Mixolydian mode for both the II chord and the V chord).
I couldn't find any similar threads, but if anyone knows of one or can answer my question id be massively grateful
thanks
-
01-06-2016 07:03 PM
-
Hey Dommie. Yes, anything is possible. You can mix and match all you want.
But if you're new to playing jazz, here's my personal advice... others may not agree.
Using dorian, mixolydian, and ionian to play over a ii V I is perfectly acceptable. But understand that they all come out from the same parent scale. So if you're in the key of C major (Dmin7 - G7 - CMaj7) the D dorian mode is the 2nd mode from the C scale, the G mixolydian mode is the 5th mode from the C major scale, and C ionian is the 1st.
So they all utilize the same notes. Only all the more reason why you can interchange and use them in different ways, because you're still using all the same notes. If you looked at these modes on the piano, all three of them are made up of the white keys. So you're effectively asking if you're allowed to substitute using the white keys in place of the white keys.
That said, if you're trying to outline the changes, the modes themselves aren't going to outline the changes, because they're all made of the same 7 white keys. What will outline the changes is when you utilize the chord tones of the chord you're playing over.
While it's not my favorite way to approach this, nor is it how I have my students approach this, the simplest 'theory' explanation to type out (and the most commonly used technique) is to use the 1-3-5-7 of each chord. So for the Dmin7 you get D-F-A-C, the G7 is G-B-D-F, and the CMaj7 is C-E-G-B. These all still sit inside of the modes you were asking about but they actually help create lines that outline the harmonic movement.
My recommendation would be to try improvising with these structures for a while. Go very slow and DON'T mix and match anything. The idea is to internalize the sounds and shapes of these patterns. Learning it this way and going very slowly with it will lay a foundation for you that you can grow from. If you find the modes hard and jump right into skipping over learning to feel the chords move and trying to get fancy by mixing things up, it will make it harder to grow and add in other sounds. In my opinion, it's always best to start basic and leave room to grow outwards.
Once you can play through the ii V I's comfortably at very slow tempos using the 4 note sequences above, then if you want to bring the modes back and fill in the other 3 missing notes for each chord, you can do that.
Again, this isn't my favorite approach... but I did spend a lot of time doing this stuff in the past and it is a pretty common technique for learning to play through changes.
-
Ignore either the II or V and just play II-I or V-I.
Base your modes or whatever you use on this one chord. So II dorian (V mixolydian) or V altered, or anything else you can think of.
Play as few notes as possible from the I chord - resolve strongly to 3 or 5 in particular.
-
From the studying I was doing of the old cats the faster the tempo more they would simplify the changes down to V - I's and start looking at chords more by function Tonic, Sub-dominant, Dominant.
Personally I think they knew the songs/changes like the back of their hand and mainly just focused on thier lines because chords are flying and if a note isn't quite right it will be in a millisecond or two.
-
Thanks for the replies! Really helpful stuff
-
Hi Jordan
You mentioned the 'theory' way of doing things is not your favourite approach. Just out of interest, what is your favourite?
-
I may have mispoke. Or perhaps you misunderstood.
There's nothing non-theory based about my approach to practicing or teaching. I just don't usually start with the 1-3-5-7 of each chord.
What I do is a little tough to explain via typed word, and I have spent a lot of time with the 1-3-5-7 approach and know it can be helpful... which is why I mentioned it.
I basically have two general approaches. One is to analyze the melody and find what I refer to as the 'melodic progression'. This is essentially a progression of triads that the melody seems to either imply or even sometimes flat out state. It can sometimes overlap with the harmonic progression, but often times can be very different. It is the overarching movement held within the melody. Once I figure out what that is, I then practicing improvising over the tune utilizing those triads. I don't think in terms of scales or modes at all. I'm looking to create melodies, which I find difficult to do when thinking in scales or arpeggios. So instead, I begin with the basic triads that the melody is already built on top of. Then I add in one extra note to each triad to create a 4-note structure. My old teacher who got me into thinking this way referred to these quadrads. I generally begin there when working on a new tune. It helps keep my ideas melodic and within the context of what the original composer was hearing when they wrote the tune.
As we progress within this process, we have an enormous amount of room for growth. Because we're only using 4 notes, it leaves a lot of room for adding things on... but even when we add things on, they will still be based around the melodic progression. We can utilize chromatic movement to connect between or within quadrads. We can experiment with superimposing other quadrads in places that aren't what the melody is asking for. We can add a 5th note and create pentatonic scales. It's basically starting with simplicity, with the best sounding notes (given what's happening melodically in the tune) and then allows us to build out into scales. If we want. Rather than starting with scales and trying to figure out how to find 'the right notes'.
It's similar to the 1-3-5-7 idea I mentioned earlier, which is also a 4 note structure. The differences are that the 1-3-5 of the basic chord are not always the notes that the melody is accentuating. So we might be outlining the harmony, but we might be very far from what the melody of the tune is after. Also, in the quadrad idea, we would almost never add the 7 as the 4th note, because it will make it sound like we're running arpeggios. It's difficult to play melodically when running arpeggios. If you look at most great, lyrical melodies, you're not going to find a ton of arpeggio running in them. Some, maybe. But probably not a lot. Bebop has more than non-bebop heads, but again, it's still not the bulk of the vocabulary. In my view.
The other route I take is just to play the melody of the tune I'm working on. Rather than think about scales or arpeggios or quadrads or anything... sometimes I'll just 'improvise' over a tune by sticking almost completely to the melody but phrasing it differently every time. It's almost a game of seeing how bored I can get when playing the melody. I might sit and take 10 or 20 choruses over a tune and ONLY work around the melody... but trying to create something different each time. I want to get bored with it and see what kind of new things I can do with it.
If you're trying to learn to play over a ii V I, maybe pick a tune you know and utilize a part of the melody. Take the melody that sits over one particular ii V I. So how long you can 'improvise' over a ii V I on loop by just messing with the phrasing of that melodic statement. Skip notes, add notes, add chromaticism, change the rhythm, play the first part normal then do something totally different in the middle then end with the melody again, etc. There's so much juice you can squeeze out of the melody.
-
When I began playing again after a long break I started using Bergonzi's Inside Improvisation v. 1. It really helped me play through changes.
-
As I believe was mentioned above, if you got a fast moving II - V, just think/play of one of those..
-
Think Dominant vs Tonic for everything, if you like. Many of the greats did/ do.... I , vi, iii are Tonic class chords, all the others are Dominant (the IV however can swing either way depending on context...).
It's about landing on chord tones (or tones that imply either T or D ). How you land those chord related tones is up to you, but I advise learning Bebop techniques before moving on to more modern concepts. As for the T and D class tones,
if we're in the key of C then the Dom class that sounds best to me is the rootless G9 (B half dim), so : b d f a .
Tonic is - c e g b (or a?).
This approach works for all Functional Harmony based tunes, so Standards, RC and Blues...
It still works for modern tunes, but there are other harmonic principles worth exploring when you get to them...
For V vs I check out Benson, where for ii vs I you should check out Martino.
-
Jordanklemons, I really like the idea of this approach. Could you describe a method of finding the progression of triads? If it's not too much to ask. I understand if its too much for a short text.
-
The Tonic/Dominant thing is also related to (IIRC) what Sheryl Bailey calls the family of four:
Take the mixolydian on G7 in the key of C, for example:
G A B C D E F G
Now we go up in 3rds
G B D F A C E
We can take this ladder of thirds (itself a very useful thing for playing ii-V-I's) and break it up into four note seventh chords.
G B D F = G7 (V7)
B D F A = Bm7b5 (VIIm7b5) although I usually think of this as the IIm6 (Dm6)
D F A C = Dm7 (IIm7)
F A C E = Fmaj7 (IVmaj7)
Any of these arpeggios can be used in the creation of lines over dominants. As you can see both V7 and IIm7 are included, so in a sense these two functions are interchangeable, as are the rest. In a sense, therefore, in jazz, we are bringing the Dominant (V7) and the Subdominant (IIm7, IVmaj7, VIIm7b5) functions under the same umbrella.
These are very common subs. The IVmaj7 is the classic 'b7' substitute often used by Wes, among others, for example.
(Notice we are not concerned about sounding the natural 4 over a dom7 either, whatever Mark Levine might say!)
As you go down the list, in general the sounds become less obvious and more floaty/cool.
Now, as a further kink to this, you can experiment with lowering notes in the arpeggios. In this key, A is a classic (the 6). So we could play this on a II-V-I (starting on the + of 1)
F A C E C Ab F | E
Where the E is the 3rd of the C. You can also use scale tones
F A C E D C Bb Ab | G
Where we resolve to the 5th of C. Notice the use of Bb to smooth out the melodic flow. You could also construct a new family of 4.
G B D F = G7 (V7)
B D F Ab = Bo7 (VIIm7b5)
D F Ab C = Dm7b5 (IIm7b5)
F Ab C E = Fminmaj7 (VIminmaj7)
Very common arpeggios to find on II-V-I's and V-I's in the swing and bop era....
(This is the same thing as C Harmonic Major Harmony, but notice we are not thinking about it that way.)
Try the same with E going to Eb, and then combine both.
Try raising C to C# for lydian dominant sounds, or flatten C, D, E, B and A to get the altered scale, or any combination you fancy, so long as you leave the F and the G alone. I leave this an exercise for the student
Last edited by christianm77; 01-10-2016 at 09:15 AM.
-
Ah yes, the "microcosmic" bebop line or whatever she calls it.... I don't think she does the same for the Tonic class but that technique also works for it. It's just using arps you already know for creating extensions.
-
No it doesn't work the same for the tonic class - the fourth degree clashes against a tonic major chord in a way that doesn't really matter for a dominant (bear in mind the dominant is going somewhere to start off with. It's not a stable harmony, so you have a lot of licence about what you can do with it.)
Originally Posted by princeplanet
The tonic is stable, but also fundamentally dull - the ear expects it. So you don't have to reference it too much - just a 3rd or 5th is fine. You just need to resolve to them really. Coupled with rhythm this creates a strong sense of forward motion.
The study of note choices for harmonic jazz improvisation is very much the study of dominant chords. (I believe I read that years ago, perhaps someone knows the quote?)
(Later, jazz harmony became very static, so it became necessary to develop those sounds, so people got interested in the modes and modal playing. Now the modal appraoch is used in changes based jazz so every chord is essentially a static object on its own. The sense motion can get lost (which is why jazz players study bebop to this day.)
In any case I haven't studied Sheryl Bailey's material very much. This comes to me from Barry Harris.Last edited by christianm77; 01-10-2016 at 01:19 PM.
-
It all depends on what song or what type of fast song you're playing or talking about. If I'm playing Cherokee, Rhythm changes, Donna Lee, I like to play the actual II-Vs. only sometimes do I glide over turning a II into a V or vice versa. Subbing is great for that. But doing Mr PC or Impressions it's modal time. I like to hear the harmonic movement implied in the lines.
It depends what you're going after.
-
Hey Pocket, I don't mind trying to share stuff here. And I often type out long posts. But I don't know if it's truly possible to explain that via typed word. Without knowing where you are, and without being able to some sort of back and forth where you could ask questions and we could poke and prod at a tune together, it's tough to dig into anything. Originally Posted by Mr. Pocket
I usually don't like making this offer in comments here, but I do I offer private lessons in person and via Skype, and if you're interested in learning more about this process I'd be happy to go more into detail and cover any questions you might have. Just PM me.
For now, the best thing I can say is to lay out the process I went through.
So I knew I was going to be studying with Stefon before I actually started with him. I began watching some youtube videos of masterclasses he gave to get an idea of how he liked to teach so that I could get a jump start on practicing that stuff so I didn't have to waste my time on the early, beginner stuff of his process... as I'd heard from other people who studied with him that he had a very specific and very intensive approach to working with serious students. I came upon this video...
I took the 'quadrad' idea he talked about and started applying that into my own practice time. Essentially breaking down a scale and thinking of it in 4 note chunks. The 3 notes of the tonic triad, and then one extra added note for tension. Before studying with him, I had taught myself the sound of each of those tension notes and how they behave against the triad. So without realizing what I was doing, I was training my ear to start to hear melodies as tension notes, and resolved triad notes. Something I'd already understood the concept of, but this really puts it into action and forced you to sit with these sounds and learn to actually work with them. Great melodies very rarely sound like running scales, but they almost always have this tension and release thing happening. So training my ears to hear that and my fingers to play those ideas helped connect me more into melodic phrasing and the ability to analyze a melody to find the triads it was built on, and the tension notes that were being used to create movement around it.
When I started working with him, he immediately started us off with ear training. He wrote out 6 different dominant chords (7 - 13#11(9) - 7#9 - 7b9b5 - 13b9 - 7b13#9) on a board and then tested our ears to see if anyone could identify them. He only gave us a few seconds and then moved on. Basically everyone failed miserably. He then pointed out the energy and emotion of each chord and we came up with body movements to go along with each. By the end of the session, the entire group could hear each chord immediately with about a 95+% accuracy rate.
He then showed us that each of these dominant chords were constructed by playing the same 3 notes in the left hand at the piano (1-3-b7) and some type of triad in the right hand. So we went through and discovered every possible chord we could get by constructing chords using triads in the right hand at the piano for Maj7, min7, halfdim7, dim7, and sus. We had to be able to identify them by ear immediately, and we had to be able to sit at the piano and play them immediately in any key. We would sit at the piano, and people would just shout out chords, and we had to be able to play them quickly.
He then pointed out that when you voice chords this way, with a triad in the upper register, that the notes of that triad actually create an environment where the melody notes will actually function around THAT triad, and not around the harmonic root note. So for instance, when playing a C13b9 at the piano, you would construct it with the 1-3-b7 (C-E-Bb) in the left hand, and an A major triad in the right hand (A-C#-E). So when improvising over this, the 3 most stable and resolved notes will actually be A, C#, and E... not C, E, and G. It's hard to hear these ideas at the guitar, which is maybe why this stuff doesn't get talked about as much in our communities. But when you try this at the piano where you can really hear the fully extended chord ringing out while you improvise, it's as obvious and clear and night and day.
So then we broke down the each fully extended chord, and created a quadrad specifically for that chord utilizing the triad in its upper structure (which sometimes is just the basic 1-3-5 of the chord) and figured out what the 'best' 4th note to add to it for tension would be given a whole host of factors.
The whole thing seemed very unnecessary and silly to me at first, but I love Stefon's playing so I trusted him and went along with all this, and I'm so happy I did. Essentially it, over time, creates an entirely new way of improvising and playing that is based completely and playing great melodies and making EVERY note sound incredible and perfect and emotional and connected.
So once we figured out how to develop the quadrad for each chord, THEN he had us try and analyze tunes to find the melodic progression. The melodic progression was simply the triad that you would be playing in your right hand which would contain the melody and would act as the 'upper structure' triad against the lower structure harmony. He pretty much walked us through the first couple. Then I went off and did a few on my own and showed them to him and got some feedback about what I was doing right and wrong.
So suffice to say, I don't know that it's possible to just give you a quick set or things to follow which will help you then figure out what the triads are. Sometimes the triad does get flat out stated completely (look at Blues For Alice!!!! Triads all over the place!). But more often than not you have to really use your ears to hear when a note is resolved vs when it feels like it's being used as a tension note, and you have to use your knowledge of which triads work well over which chords.
For now, I'd recommend to start by watching that video with Stefon and checking out his ideas. You can also check out a couple of the melodic progressions of tunes I've posted here on the forum. Maybe they will help. And again, you're always welcome to hit me up on PM if you want to talk.
Here are links to the tunes I've shared here.
Body and Soul
Stablemates
Hope that helps. Let me know how it goes for you!
-
Oh, and Pocket, I forgot to mention...
I wrote my thesis on utilizing this way of thinking to develop a new chordal vocabulary on the guitar. I'm waiting to pick up my paper from my advisor to see what notes he has for me on it. But once I get that back, I'm planning on making a few edits and then will probably post it here for anyone interested in checking it out. I think. It talks through a little bit of the melodic progression idea. It's mostly more about how to create different types of chord voicings once you've found the melodic progression, but you might get something out of reading it.
-
I took a few lessons recently where we dealt a lot with a triadic approach to improvising and creating hexatonic scales with two triads, but it sounds like a different concept. I really should get myself a keyboard to play around with. I'll definitely keep it in mind for the future. I'm trying to keep my head in the fundamentals as much as possible lately. I do get excited about more advanced theory, but alas, I'm not there yet.
-
Fourths against Tonic are OK (to my ears). It's all in the handling and resolution. Surely you sometimes land a fourth as part of and enclosure to the 3rd? Even if said enclosure lands the 4th on a down beat it works, right? Well against Tonic,, think of arps that use the 4th as an extension of that idea, as "elaborate" enclosures. The possibilities in Bop don't end with Barry Harris..... Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Yeah, I've heard and read and been told since I started playing music that I should learn the fundamentals and really stick with the basic stuff. And to some degree I did. Or so I thought. I was mostly self taught with a few little lessons and runs with teachers on and off here and there. But when I started my masters program and was able to start studying with some of the greatest players on the planet, I realized just how much they had the fundamentals DOWN! And were still working on them. It wasn't something that they seemed to have gotten and then said, ok, onto the next thing. It was almost like that was the only thing.
Stefon probably best exemplified that. His entire process from learning scales, to harmony, to improvising melodically, to composition, to playing in, to playing out, to playing basic stuff, to playing complex stuff... it's essentially all just triads. The only thing is that he's figured out ways of applying those triads that take it much further than many other people take it. And the other difference I see with him is that it always starts with the music, with the sound, and with the ear. He doesn't make philosophical arguments about music and theory and how it should work based on what's on the paper, and then try and find ways to apply it. He actually starts from the ground and builds everything up starting with the ear and with asking ourselves what sounds the best in any given situation. Like he was showing that audience in the video I posted above.
It's not so much that his ideas are that advanced, he's just applying basic fundamentals in interesting ways based on what the ear likes and wants to hear... and then coming up with the theory after that fact.
For instance, if you loop yourself playing a CMaj9 chord (would be CMaj7 in the left hand and a G major triad in the right at the piano... but can be played on the guitar)
87978X
Try improvising over that chord. The standard go to for improvising over this would probably be a C major scale. Maybe C pentatonic. Some people might get fancy and do C lydian. All correct too. The theory says all of those will work. Start there. Maybe record yourself improvising for a few minutes.
Now consider that the G major triad is what is sitting in the upper structure of the chord. Improvise only using that G triad. Which will sound boring and drab. But it won't sound like you're outlining the dominant chord, which is what theory says you're doing. It will sound perfectly in. Then try and add the E note into that. That's a G major triad with the 6th added... essentially it's a G pentatonic without the A note. Improvise with that for a bit. Listen to how the E note creates tension that wants to resolve back into the G triad. Mess with that for a little while. Really lay into that E note and accentuate its tension in your line. Record all of this as well.
After 5 or 10 minutes, play a line and try and resolve it to the C note. It's the root note of your chord. But your ear isn't going to find it stable. It's going to sound unstable, and it's going to want to resolve down to the B note... because while it IS the harmonic root note, it is NOT the melodic root note... it's function as the 4 (Fa) in the melody. The G triad is too strong of a sound and will take over the melodic landscape of that harmony. So the C note is no longer a resolution point. I know that may seem crazy, but try it and listen and see what you hear.
You can try the same thing with a more advanced and complex chord, the CMaj7#11#9 (B major triad over CMaj7)
X32442
Start off playing just the B major triad. Then add the E note into it, which will be the 4th of the B triad. Improvise with that for a bit. Record yourself. Really hear the suspended tension of the E note wanting to resolve down (E is the 3rd of CMaj, but melodically is going to function as a tension note in this context). Now after 5 or 10 minutes, try to resolve a line to a C note. It won't work. C is functioning as the b2, as Ra. It will desperately want to resolve back down to the B note, which is the actually root note melodically.
This all may seem advanced, but it's actually built entirely on the fundamentals. The tricky thing about it is the realization that melodically, the notes don't function the same as they do harmonically. The C note in the CMaj7#11#9 chord is the harmonic root note, but the B is the melodic root note. I know it's crazy talk, but if you try it and listen, you'll hear what I'm saying. When this realization dawned on me it knocked me on my @$$. It really threw me off my game for a couple weeks and messed with my head. But I no choice but to trust my ear and what I was hearing. So I went with it. And it's opened up a lot of cool stuff for me. Stuff that's built entirely on the fundamentals. On triads.
-
Of course - you can use 4ths on a tonic chord as a dissonance - but 4ths generally resolve by step on tonic chords in the bop language. At least the stuff I have transcribed. Originally Posted by princeplanet
This is not necessary on dominant chords.Last edited by christianm77; 01-10-2016 at 09:17 PM.
-
Perhaps you can try the microcosmic thing to the Tonic. I think it works because the ear hears and follows patterns. There are plenty of theoretical reasons why, to take another example, Blues scales shouldn't work in many contexts, but they do because they enforce a patterned order over what's gong on. Melody trumps harmony, kinda thing.... Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Wow, such interesting approaches to improvising! its not like I understand much of these advanced concepts though, I mean to be able to use it in my playing
I gave up on jazz improv a couple of years ago and improvised in other styles because improvising itself felt natural to me. It was just that I had so much knowledge that I couldn't use at all. I guess time will tell if my approach works but now I try not to think about what I'm playing except for the chords.
Chord shapes and the scales around it. I don't want to separate chord playing and single note lines, I need to practice both equally to understand the harmony and how it makes me feel. I only want to know the theory that can help me do the stuff that I do right now. Having never had a teacher I dont see any other way but the great thing is I can enjoy the process so much. I can actually improvise and enjoy it. The sky aint the limit when your creating your own stuff
I chose about 5 chord shapes for each basic diatonic chord and played the chord tones. Then I added the scale tones and tried to see how it makes me feel.
Now I'm working with half dim chords (locrian mode) and altered dominants (switching between diatonic tones/altered scale), playing the chords and adding tones to see how it makes me feel, occassionally practising the scale over the chord too
-
After watching the video I see that. What a great way of teaching! I agree, getting to know the tones in context, and learning how to be musical with them is about as fundamental as it gets. I like the subtractive idea of zeroing in to get at the emotional function. I really enjoy finding new ways of hearing my way through the fundamentals, especially when it stays true to what music is really about. It's too easy to just play something that someone tells you is correct without hearing where the individual notes are pulling you. Thanks for sharing. I will definitely work some of this concept into my routine. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
-
So right on Pocket! One of the things I love about working with Stefon was there were times where we would be listening to a note at the piano, and he wouldn't like it, and my ear would... and rather than him saying no or telling me I'm wrong explaining the theory to me, he would just be supportive and say... "awesome, I don't like it, but if your ear is into it, write it down and find the triads that work with it." Originally Posted by Mr. Pocket
He was more about the process and the open-ended possibilities that were held within it than about getting anyone to 'agree' with him or play like him.
If you never dug into any of his more advanced ideas, and only tried breaking down scales into the quadrads like he demonstrated in that video... it would change your life. It allows you to build personal relationships with all of the notes in a way where you can know what they're going to sound like before you play them. You can pretty much play anything in a completely connected where, where you want to hear it and then it's created, by following that path. I think of it like a chef seeing what happens when he puts basil on pasta... then he tries putting oregano on pasta... then he tries putting parsley on pasta...
By separating them out and getting to know each one, it develops a stronger understanding of each flavor and how it works, so that when he puts them all back together, he has more control over the outcome of each of his dishes.
Reply With Quote
Miles Okazaki w/ his band Trickster. Great...
Today, 09:52 AM in The Players