-
Hi guys . Iam sorry if my english is bad ????
I have a question about julian lage lesson from youtube.
he talk about superimpostion . For example in II V I on C
Dm - G7 - C
in Dm7 he using C#maj9#11
where is come from? Anyone can help me to explain thats theory.
-
03-31-2018 01:20 PM
-
C# (Db) is the tritone substitute for G7. He explains it. Tension and release.
Don't take these guys too seriously.
-
it is just a way to create and resolve tension. You can see the C#maj7#11 chord as a modal interchange chord coming from C phrygian. But at the level Lage is playing, there are dozens of ways to do the tension-more tension-release thing (which is what the II-V-I basically is), as long as you can hear it and resolve it.
-
‘Blah blah blah one’
Julian Lage
-
Yes I agree with Alter.
Would be a little easier to call it Dbmaj7.
ii V I is a cadence
bIImaj7 to I is a strong cadence, borrowing the bIImaj7 from phrygian.
You can superimpose one over the other.
At least that's how I hear it!
-
In fact bIImaj is a pretty common sound.
It can be a dominant sub where the melody is on the 1st degree (think last few bars of One Note Samba for instance.)
In terms of functioning as a subdominant or predominant chord in classical theory we have the Neapolitan chord. A major as opposed to a dominant sound chord on bII is a common sound in Beethoven etc.
And it’s a common choice for a sub on I too, to add a bit more spice over a I chord. Try it....
This can be understood as a modal interchange from Ionian to Phrygian.
In terms of playing cadences you can really play any scale or arpeggio into a target key centre/chord provided
1) it has enough notes different from the target chord and
2) you phrase into it right and resolve rhythmically.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Other nice ones in C that are not ii V:
Fm7 or Fm6 to C
Bmaj7 to C
B7 to C
B7b9 to C - so also Cdim7, Ebdim7, Gbdim7, or Adim7 to C
Abm to C, or Abminmaj7 or Abm6 to C (really just superimposing extension of G7alt)
-
I like
B7 C
Bmaj7 C
F# C
F#m C
I use those when showing students that literally anything they can think of will work
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
I did an arrangement of Falling Grace where I replaced Am7 D7 G with Am C G. Obviously that makes it more 'folk' you could say, but that was the sound I wanted. Sometimes there are really cool options in there, but possibly going in a different aesthetic direction than what we usually think of with subs and superimpositions.
-
Old school cadences (ie Django and Fats Waller etc)
Fm C
F#o7 C
B7 C
G+ C
Bebop simplified things in some ways
-
Originally Posted by DadanMizwarMaulana
-
Originally Posted by whiskey02
I mean if you "think" of V7alt as "cadence" or "movement back to I," then sure you can think of any movement that goes back to I as V7alt. I mean, Cdim7 to Cmaj7 is really not, in my mind V7alt to I, although you could theoretically find a way to analyze it as that.
I like what Jens Larsen has said a few times here and elsewhere that at a certain stage we're trying to justify everything as V to I or ii V to I but there's more to harmonic motion than that.
And yes, you could analyze Dbmaj7 as something like a G7sus4b5b9 but while it's not too much of a logical stretch in this case, why continue the practice when it's going to fall apart with some of the other examples up there?
-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
I could refer to the theory of efficient cadences I've mentioned elsewhere on the forum (to seemingly zero interest, so I won't bore you all with it any further). But, actually, it doesn't really matter.
Intellectual discussions of 'how would you justify this line theoretically?' are a lot less use to me than 'what empirically is this line and what is its context?' - and then exploring that further. Perhaps you might choose to look at things as a modal interchange, perhaps as a chord sub, but the main thing is that if you like the sound, you work it into your own music.
I'm firmly in the camp of people who think theory should provide interesting options, not a complete analytical theory of how jazz actually works. You can learn things from this Lage line - perhaps just as simple as try playing bIImaj7#11 --> I in as many situations as possible.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
That’s what i’m talkin bout
-
While I appreciate and respect your comments and the theory behind them Jake & Christian, it still strikes me as a bit of semantics that we’re playing with here. If you think “ biimaj7 “ and I think ” 12 chromatic tones, mix diatonic and altered and start on any one of them”, well I may well end up playing a biimaj, bV7, whatever, while not thinking about it. Of course I’m not really thinking “12 chromatic.........” I’m just dealing with dom chords the way I deal with dom chords. I might be thinking maj,min, dim triad or 7th chord starting wherever I lay my finger to begin.
Blah blah blah One is a great quote. Another quote from Julian and I think related is (sic) “being pragmatic goes a long way as a guitar player”.
-
Let me just see if I can start real simple and get more advanced in a way that makes sense:
- C#maj, but let's actually call it Dbmaj7 is a half-step up from C, simple slide-step tension and relief
- Dbmaj9#11 w/o the root is the same as Fm9 (F, Ab, C, Eb, G). Fm - C (iv-I) is a typical cadence
- The Fm11/Dbmaj13 has the notes Ab and Bb which are the b9 and and #9 of G7alt creating a nice altered tension moving to C
I hope this is a logical way to sum up the theoretical reasons why it works.
-
Originally Posted by supermaxx
-
Originally Posted by whiskey02
And even if so, we've still got the same question, questions like "why can Cdim7 lead to Cmaj7?" and you CAN say that Cdim7 is some variation on G7alt, but again, why would you? And you still have to parse out how Cdim7 to Cmaj7 is different than Dbmaj7 to Cmaj7. Putting it all under the umbrella of "dominant" or "altered dominant" seems like A. stretching the definition to a point where it isn't practical or pragmatic and B. kind of missing the boat on the significance of a bunch of other harmonic movements.
There's also a whole lot to be said about organizational approaches. I remember a decade ago there was some thread on a forum talking about favorite approaches to altered dominant chords, and at the time my reaction to the thread was "why bother with all this complex stuff? You can just throw in a b9 or #9 or b5 and there you have your altered sound." While I was technically right about the second part, I'm of the opinion that we can present more advanced and nuanced harmonic ideas with more conviction when we have some organization (sorry to steal some reg terminology) to what we're doing. And I think it's good to make the distinction between rearrangements of notes of the altered scale or diminished scale vs substituting (or composing with) different harmony to get back to I.
-
"why can Cdim7 lead to Cmaj7?"
C > C // Eb > E // Gb > G // A > B
common root
2 half steps
1 whole step
That could be explanation enough.
or not:
Co = B7b9 // D7b9 // F7b9 // Ab7b9
F7b9 subdominant and it's tritone sub B7b9 present common root resolutions IV > I and VII > I
-
Re: Julian Lage, original post ...
It is variation on harmonized scale, stacking 3rds, ...
He is going from b5 of dominant to the root of dominant, by alternating major and minor 3rds.
Dominant is G7
b5 of G7 is Db, from there ...
major 3rd to F> minor 3rd to Ab> major 3rd to C> minor 3rd to Eb, major 3rd to G
G is 1 of G7Last edited by Vladan; 04-03-2018 at 08:06 AM.
-
Originally Posted by bako
-
Jake,
Just so you know, I don't have a problem or disagree with anything you've stated in the thread.
"But is everything that leads to a I a "dominant"? Certainly not.
"Can any motion to the I be justified as an 'altered dominant'?" If something sounds good, I don't feel any need to justify it theoretically, especially while I'm playing it.
"And even if so, we've still got the same question, questions like "why can Cdim7 lead to Cmaj7?" and you CAN say that Cdim7 is some variation on G7alt, but again, why would you? And you still have to parse out how Cdim7 to Cmaj7 is different than Dbmaj7 to Cmaj7. Putting it all under the umbrella of "dominant" or "altered dominant" seems like A. stretching the definition to a point where it isn't practical or pragmatic and B. kind of missing the boat on the significance of a bunch of other harmonic movements".
I don't think I did a good job of explaining myself; I'm not often thinking alt dom but rather what notes do I have available under the enormous umbrella of alt dom. For that matter, when I do think alt dom, I think of "altered" tones & triads as just a springboard for available half step resolutions to wherever I'm going.
Perhaps it's just a difference of thinking "what I'm going to do" vs "what I can do" - you end up playing some of the same structures, just thinking about it differently.
-
It's true, but it's not V7 to I!
The other two dominants derived from Co :
D7b9 secondary dominant of V7 and Ab7b9 tri-tone sub of secondary dominant, leading to but not G7/Db7 itself.
a springboard for available half step resolutions to wherever I'm going.
Pathways from here to there.
-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
II7 is sub for IIm7,
IIm7 is "upper structure", of V11
So, actually Idim7 to IM7 is kind of V7 to I.
-
Originally Posted by Vladan
It's like how in a lot of rock and blues music you get bIII triad to the I. Do we want to say that that motion is an upper structure of V7 alt, having root, #5, and #9 of the V chord and no 3rd? Of course we COULD say that, but to me it's incidental and not really a good way to analyze a Fleetwood Mac song
Ibanez pm200?
Today, 09:46 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos