Lesson on Improvisation - Playing over changes.

[grahambop]

I quite enjoy Christian's rants.

[christianm77]

Christian, I love you, man--you bring so much to this forum. But I have to say this thread seems to have gotten up your dander in a way I don't follow.

Anyway, I'm sure you're right--I haven't run across that particular lick from CC, but we know how much Wes learned form him, and if you say it's in Rose Room, I'm sure your right.

EDIT: we cross posted.

I'm not really cross. Just highly amused in a slightly aggravated sort of way. It's like you've been telling people for ages that Green Eggs and Ham are simply awesome..

To be fair, the IVm over V7 is a bit better known than you'd think, but I think it's not often mentioned in mainstream jazz theory, because - I suspect - like a lot of things it doesn't fit into the CST (or at least the Mark Levine Jazz Theory Book) picture neatly. There's a few of these things.

Am I a tin hat wearer for thinking that this? Luckily it's easy enough to find what's really going on out from the records.. There's reason why people say 'the textbooks are the records.'

Anyway, outside what I understand to be the CST paradigm, this sub is well known. Aside from BH, for instance, Warne Marsh identified three basic dominant sounds, quite differently conceived from the CST ones, one of which is defined as IVmin(maj7) on a V7.

BTW Warne was big on Lester Young and Charlie Christian, as well as Parker, like all the Lennie school guys.

Reg would probably view this as modal interchange - amirite?

The lesson I have learned: don't trust to systems or textbooks - get out there, listen to music, learn the sounds you like, and if you need theory apply it only when it ties in to what you already notice.

[dingusmingus]

The lesson I have learned: don't trust to systems or textbooks - get out there, listen to music, learn the sounds you like, and if you need theory apply it only when it ties in to what you already notice.

Amen, brother!

Actually, that's exactly why I thought of that Wes lick. I transcribed that, liked the sound, and wanted to explain it. When I later saw an explanation about iv over V, it clicked.

Speaking of which, I also "learned" the hw diminished from transcribing that same Wes solo--he approaches the b9 diminished arpeggio from a half step below each, yielding the "scale." Later learning a name for it helps it stick, for me.

[Reg]

So as you can see there are many approaches to play C-7 as melodic or harmonic relationship to D7.

Christian... using harmonic relationships... that's somewhat different from your standard approach, isn't it. Anyway,

His examples are using a few different organizations...

D7 being V7 of Gmaj.7... is basic functional harmony...

F#-7b5 can be functional sub of D7... both Dominant function in Key of Gmaj.
Or could be thought of as Rootless D9

The A-7 has a few relationships... generally at the related II-7 of D7, when the II-7 V7 becomes a chord pattern, becomes and functions as one chord with one function. The fun part is now you have more pieces or chords to work with.

The Cmaj7 is again functional sun of A-7... or A-9 without root. Both generally have subdominant function. (II-7 and IVma7)

The back door bVII7 chord is usually derived from Parallel Minor, Classical Borrowing Relative and Parallel. So maybe just good old basic functional Harmony

Gma7 becomes G-7, traditionally 6th degree or natural minor. and the 4th degree chord is C-7.

And if you take the chord tones of A-7 and C-7 you end up with G Harmonic Min. ... standard V7 or D7b9b13 with natural 5th.

So when you choose to play C-7 with or as sub for D7 in typical... II-7 V7 Imaj7, (A-7, D7 Gmaj7).
Your not really implying a back door II V or C-7 to F7 going to Gmaj7.... The F# generally implies standard classical functional harmony. Still Dominant Function.

If you do use the C-7 to become the related II-7 of a V7 chord... or C-7 to F7 to Gmaj7, then your using Modal Interchanges and generally the function becomes Subdominant, subdominant Minor chords.

You can play anything you choose... but the organization of why you choose to play C-7 has implications.

And yea be careful... Generally it's a balance of learning and listening.

What's interesting is CST isn't a theory, it's just a method of relationships between notes and chords and scale is just a term for verbalizing the notes...but IV-7 fits in just fine, it just depends on what the tune is, whom your performing with and how you want to perform the chord pattern on any particular night. If you only have one understanding... might get , well...

[destinytot]

Thanks, Reg - please keep it coming!

[christianm77]

I quite enjoy Christian's rants.

I'm glad someone does, I'm not sure I do :-)

[christianm77]

Amen, brother!

Actually, that's exactly why I thought of that Wes lick. I transcribed that, liked the sound, and wanted to explain it. When I later saw an explanation about iv over V, it clicked.

Speaking of which, I also "learned" the hw diminished from transcribing that same Wes solo--he approaches the b9 diminished arpeggio from a half step below each, yielding the "scale." Later learning a name for it helps it stick, for me.

Hang on - you said that some editions of the solo 'corrected' wes's line to a C diminished?

"Obviously I must be hearing it wrong, we don't have a 4 on a dom7."

[pingu]

Apologies, I'm a newbie
Can you elaborate on this "same thing up a min 3rd" ?


Thanks

soz been away ...
I mean eg
on Amin play notes A B C A
on D7 play notes C D Eb D (ie up three frets)
then play your G stuff

probably a bit late but hey

[pingu]

Isn't that the same as playing Cmin?

yup

[christianm77]

So as you can see there are many approaches to play C-7 as melodic or harmonic relationship to D7.

Christian... using harmonic relationships... that's somewhat different from your standard approach, isn't it.

I honestly don't know. Is it? I know about 15 different ways of thinking of most chord changes, but my main interest in trying to communicate tersely.

I think Barry's way of putting this is uber-pragmatic, practical, and takes very little time to impart. There is at no point any question of why this works. It doesn't seem to be something addressed by the theory. I find this rather interesting. What I have taken away from this is that it doesn't actually matter.

Anyway everything you have said makes sense to me, but I have been studying music theory for a while - for longer than Charlie Parker had been alive when he reinvented music.

I think Groynaid (?) made the most sense when he said we can't know what's going on in another person's head. We can't know how another musician heard a Cm7 on a D7 say - only that they played it.

An example: generations of musicians have learned to analyse Mozart using functional harmony. Mozart wouldn't have understood functional harmony- this was a theory developed after his time. His tradition was based on something called Partimenti, connected to the practice of realising continuo.

So the notes A C D F# to us would be a second inversion secondary dominant in key of C, pulling us towards G7. It would seem that dear old Wolfgang wouldn't have known what you were on about if you'd said that. To him, this chord AFAWK would have been defined by its bass - he would have called this chord A 6 4 3 (with a sharp 6.) That one understanding is all he actually needed to write some of the greatest music in the world.

A +6 4 3 goes to G 7 5 3 in a descending harmonised scale. He learned (age of 5 probably) that that's always a good harmony for that bassline, and filed in aural and tactile memory along with dozens of other fomulae. No overarching theory required.

He probably didn't even have the concept of chord inversion - that D 7 5 +3 is the same chord as A +6 4 3 with a different bass. Imagine that. I doubt he would have been terribly interested either.

So, is using functional harmony to understand Mozart wrong? Well yes & no. Although this book argues that functional harmony itself was only ever an academic study developed in the 19th century for non-composers, unconnected to the actual craft and practice of composition even well into the 20th century... But that's another story.

There are similar things in jazz - Wes's block chords, BH's formulae for scale use, CST patterns on chords and so on. Rote learning. Super unfashionable, but time honoured.

Anyway, the point is we can identify the notes C Eb G and Bb used where you would normally play a D7 in a solo or composition, and think 'this is a normal thing to do in this music.'

We can then get used to the sound and use it in our playing, the same way as a child imitates language.

If you want to come up with a theory for why it works, be my guest, I have (as I say) about 15 of them. But the thing is, I no longer care. I like the sound.

[Reg]

Isn't that really up a diatonic 3rd... what ever it happens to be.

I believe the chord was A-7.... a diatonic II-7 chord in Gmaj.

A C E G... play a chord up a diatonic third would be C E G or Cmaj for Gmaj tonality. The C Eb G or Cmin triad is from borrowing from Parallel Gmin. Natural min tonality or Bbmaj.

Using a type of organization for creating sub type of relationships... using up Min 3rd, or down, or up or down maj3rds is generally from Borrowing, or Relative and Parallel relationships. Very standard traditional, pop, show etc... old based on traditional maj/min functional harmony.... when the borrowing becomes extended... generally becomes Modal Interchange. Same thing... except the tonal references change... everything isn't based on Ionian functional relationships. That's where the Modal term comes from. Modal in jazz implies different organization for how notes react to each other and which notes have the most power for creating movement... Different chords result to somewhat fill the traditional functional rolls of
Tonic, subdominant and Dominant.

Generally I always try and give the information out so you can somewhat make your own choices, as compared to just saying... here it is because this person says so. At least that's what I always try and do... without somewhat understanding what and why things are in music... it just becomes a memorization game of who know the most without actually understanding... I make plenty of mistakes... but I always try and go through the process.

I mean if playing the music is the only goal... why bother, its been done before.... and usually pretty well.

Hey Christian... my above post was not about your last post above... anyway, Glad you like what you like.... but not everyone has reached that point yet... and when a question is asked.... I would think if you don't... care ...just say this is what I like. Your already there, you understand Harmony etc...

Most on this forum don't, I still believe it's very useful for musicians to learn how things work... as many understandings as they can get... I don't believe the traditional approach of being told this is how it works... just remember, you don't need to understand why... doesn't work that well for most.

[christianm77]

soz been away ...
I mean eg
on Amin play notes A B C A
on D7 play notes C D Eb D (ie up three frets)
then play your G stuff

probably a bit late but hey

There are loads of tunes that actually have this chord progression... Loads of old swing tunes, Avalon, Sweet Sue...

Am7 Cm6 G6

Another very common one is

A7 Cm6 G6 or C#m7b5 Cm6 Bm7 etc

You can use this as a sub for A7 D7 G.

[christianm77]

Generally I always try and give the information out so you can somewhat make your own choices, as compared to just saying... here it is because this person says so. At least that's what I always try and do... without somewhat understanding what and why things are in music... it just becomes a memorization game of who know the most without actually understanding... I make plenty of mistakes... but I always try and go through the process.

What is understanding in music? I'm not sure if I understand... :-) There is no 'why' in music, really, only 'what' and 'how' as far as I can see. 'Why' is for the philosophers... I'd rather get on with it.

Choice is not always a useful thing IMO. In fact, too much choice creates stress.

When I studied music education I learned the value of carefully managing choice in lessons. I used to give my students loads of options. Now, I give them controlled amounts of choice.

Just enough so they feel they aren't being dictated to. Usually either/or is sufficient. So you don't say, what tune shall we learn? You say - shall we learn Rhythm Changes or Stella by Starlight?
etc

You don't have to be inflexible - perhaps your student really wants to learn James - but you always have a direction in mind.

The same is true of practice, self education.

- I am obsessed by something. Great!
- I have a gig on Thursday filling in for another guitarist and need to look at the music a few times before then. Great!
- I need to practice soloing over this stupid pigging progression that I always mess up. Great!

I hate sitting in a room thinking, 'what shall I do to improve my playing?' or in front of a computer thinking 'what can I do hustle some gigs?' (That's usually what I do when I end up here :-))

Don't you?

I mean if playing the music is the only goal... why bother, its been done before.... and usually pretty well.

You are having a joke, right?

[pauln]

My first impression is that the D7 could be D(#9) or D(b9), and if you accept the F# as a clue, then the "Cm7" is really an approximation to the more fitting G# Lydian Dominant.

[PMB]

There are loads of tunes that actually have this chord progression... Loads of old swing tunes, Avalon, Sweet Sue...

Am7 Cm6 G6

Another very common one is

A7 Cm6 G6 or C#m7b5 Cm6 Bm7 etc

You can use this as a sub for A7 D7 G.

The minor iv cadence was also a notable feature of doo-wop, The Everly Brothers and early Beatles but fell out of fashion
completely in popular music somewhere around the late sixties (although I'm starting to hear it again recently). That may partly explain why it's less commonly discussed in jazz educational material, most of which has been written after that period.

[AlainJazz]

Argggghhhhh!

Why is it still news to good players that they can play IVm on a V7? Have they never learned the head to Moose the Mooche, for instance? Have they never transcribed a bop or swing era solo? I can understand people not reading a post by me, but really? ;-)

So this is what I always say:

1) 4th's on dominant seventh chords don't matter.

2) Mark Levine talks out his arse

3) There are four basic seventh chord sounds that are part of a straight dominant scale/chord, for D7 in the key of G:
D7 (V7), F#m7b5 (VIIm7b5), Am7 (IIm7), Cmaj7 (IVmaj7)

(Please ensure that all blue m&m's are removed from the m&m bowl)

4) Now there are two main versions of a cadence in functional jazz (yes there are others, but let's keep it simple)
V7 - I (major!) which is D7-G in G
bVII7 -I (backdoor/minor) which is F7-G in G

5) Our backdoor cadence has this family of four
F7 (bVII7), Am7b5 (IIm7b5), Cm7 (IVm), Ebmaj7

That's the simplest version. Yes, we can add more on top of this, raise the 1 for the backdoor, tritone subs, plagal cadences, melodic minor harmony and so on, but these are the basic sounds.

I don't make this stuff up, I learned it from people like Barry Harris, but I noticed it first on the records. If you can't be bothered to read my screeds (fair enough) or get into Barry (again fair enough) I suggest analysing some of the bebop lines you already know and drawing your own conclusions. And then see if you think Mr Stranding is right.

I still have one burning question after reading this: Can I play IVm on a V7?

Ha ha, just teasing you.

[Vladan]

... writes this not as Eb, G, C (C minor) but as Eb, F#, C (Eb diminished/C diminished).

Check it out here--Bar 4, beat 4 of Wes's solo (which starts on page two)

Seems that F is double #, once in key signature, then one more time as accidental, in the bar, effectively being G.

[Vladan]

I wrote something, but deleted it (those who've seen it are lucky bastards), don't want to spoil the "extended theory" party, but have to say, I find It's completely out of context, really a far stretch, to look at notes played for the duration of only one beat over (functional) dominant chord of 251 in Blues, as being triad of another chord.

[dingusmingus]

Seems that F is double #, once in key signature, then one more time as accidental, in the bar, effectively being G.

Huh, I've never seen that, but I'm not an expert reader so you may be right.

Here are two other transcriptions that I grabbed off the web. Both are written without key signatures and both write that note as an F#.
D Natural Blues
http://www.brucesaunders.com/Resourc...20no%20tab.pdf

[christianm77]

Actually on second thoughts, Cm7 on D7 sucks.

[mr. beaumont]

Agreed. Glad you're coming around on this.

Now, Eb6 on D7, there's a sound I can get into.

[Vladan]

Huh, I've never seen that, but I'm not an expert reader so you may be right.

Here are two other transcriptions that I grabbed off the web. Both are written without key signatures and both write that note as an F#.
D Natural Blues
http://www.brucesaunders.com/Resourc...20no%20tab.pdf

I'm also not a reader, but there is # in key signature and there is # in that particular bar, that is 2x#.
However, there is a natural sign in previous bar, but I don't know how long that natural is valid. Is it till the end of the bar, or till the next accidental?

[Vladan]

Agreed. Glad you're coming around on this.

Now, Eb6 on D7, there's a sound I can get into.

Or Cm6.

[grahambop]

Actually on second thoughts, Cm7 on D7 sucks.

I wish you guys would make your mind up. I was going to try it out sometime.

[joe2758]

Jeff, did you mean Ebmin6, or were you making a point out of having the natural 11? Thanks, just trying to learn